Intellectual Conversation?

[Eternal Edge]

Possibly a bit controversial here but I was in a thinking mood and I wrote down some of my thoughts. I wanna see what you guys think because stimulating peoples brains is never really a bad thing.

Let's not turn this into a flame war or anything please, just discussion, have hubris and be tolerant of others opinions pl0x <3

The heart is a fragile thing. But is it really the heart? A ligocal person tells you that emotions are only due to chemical imbalances within your brain, but you know what, I don't believe it. The heart feels too. If it didn't then tell me, why did people come up with the idea of a heart feeling in the first place? It must have to do with the fact that someone out there felt something with their heart. Someone couldn't have just decided 'I'm going to use the heart to express my emotions'. It's highly unlikely. So why must people argue that it's something wrong with your mind when you feel the pain of a lost one or can't get over certain feelings. It's not psychiatric. You feel the pain. It hurts, you would do anything to get rid of it.

Now at this point people turn to comforts, ranging from chocolate to alcohol; from friends to one night stands; from cutting to suicide. The reality of it is that your mind would tell you, if emotions were completely only mind based, that some of these are bad ideas. That you shouldn't do them. Why doesn't it then I ask? Because your heart can be overwhelming. It can destroy any logic you have in your mind. It can eradicate your opinion, proven by the example of how emotional people get when you bash something they like. So then how can some people overcome these feelings? By having a strong set of beliefs. If you're able to hold on to your beliefs it can save your life. I know for a fact that my beliefs have stopped me from doing very stupid things in my past.

So where do you get your beliefs then? My theory on this is that your mind and heart work together, because beliefs are something that people hold in high regard. Everything ranging from religious to personal beliefs are important. Now one side may say that religion corrupts and detroys values, well so does lack of religion, for some people. Either side is toxic when they are overcommited. Religious persuccution has proven this for religion and intollerance has proven this for the non-religious side. Now if you think about it, this is the same problem. Both sides thinking that they are more correct than the other. Why can't we just be happy in our own beliefs? Why do we have to think that we are better than any other person because of our beliefs? Even if you say 'Oh I accept people for their beliefs' you can be percieved as slef absorbed because others will see you as some sort of chauvanist. It's self destructive within our community.

[Amethyst]

Difference itself is destructive; religion just happens to be an easier target after people have determined it for themselves, and thereby naturally think that they are right. It's discrimination with inherent egocentricism- so there's really no other way that it possibly could be.

[Maelstrom]

It wasn't always the heart. People used to romanticize the Liver the way we romanticize the heart now. The 'heart' is metaphorical. It is quite central within the body, and the body cannot live without it (though the same could be said of many, many other parts) if it fails. It is strong, but fragile at the same time- just as your feelings are. It may or may not be a coincidence that it is also caged by its natural defenses.

Emotions are not chemical imbalances, but chemical reactions, natural reactions to whatever force is applied to your system. Everyone is build different, is raised different. How can you so quickly deny that there could not be a psychological problem? Just because the stimulus is psychology doesn't mean there is no biological basis behind it. But yes, the solution is not to obsess, to linger. Time moves on, and you have to move with it.

My theory is that instinct, ingrained by evolution, combined with knowledge and understanding (or lack thereof) shape your beliefs. I would write more, but my comp time is limited.

[Amethyst]

It wasn't always the heart. People used to romanticize the Liver the way we romanticize the heart now.

Whaaaaat? I've never heard this, what's the story there?

[Zen]

Maybe the heart got romanticized because it beats differently in different emotional settings?

But then again, physiology usually defines the limits of your thinking and emotion, so... hmm.

[Maelstrom]

I forget where and when people used to attribute things to the liver. I dunno if it was medieval europe or the greeks. It's been a while. I think it was medieval europe where they used to think there was a fire inside you or something. People have done and thought some weird things throughout history.

Edit: http://www.stanford....dderspleen.html

Just something I googled up. Doesn't say which was romanticized and by whom, but it illustrates early theories and ideas about some of the aforementioned organs.

oh, and here, have another: http://www.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/heartpages/heart.html

[Zen]

But in all honesty, I do believe that there is something beyond mere biochemistry in emotions. You could take all the building blocks of neurones and also the necessary chemicals, and shake them up in a flask, but what comes of it? Probably nothing.

It is also probably beyond our mathematical ability to quantify emotions. Since science itself is basically a study of what can be quantified, I'd say that emotions are possibly beyond human comprehension when you get down to their most complex level. This is probably a combinatorics problem, come to think of it... emotions can also be derived from other emotions and memories, so the near-infinite number of possible interactions would probably defy all computations.

While they may start as being dependent on physiological and biochemical factors - hence allowing for the effects of antidepressants and other drugs - eventually it could be possible for emotions to gain a sort of independence from mere chemistry.

So... having a 'heart'? I do believe the closest to understanding that lies within the world of video games. Just look at the premise of Kingdom Hearts - and I'm not joking when I say that.

[Maelstrom]

Well you can't take some of the pieces out and expect it to work the way it does when it remains a part of an entirely integrated system. It's like taking the gears from an old clock and expecting them to grind and turn on their own.

An independence from mere chemistry? I think not. Chemistry is what happens when memories are made, stored, and accessed. It is an imprint of stimuli, and thus you react similarly when it is accessed, if not quite to the same degree.

When you look at the problem of the physical and metaphysical... how do I say this? One thing cannot act upon another without the latter impacting the former. It's hard to explain, and it involves the definitions of the physical and the metaphysical and their defining properties, but that's the core of the debate about reality. How can the metaphysical be tied/anchored by the physical if the metaphysical does not have the properties of the physical? There has to be some sort of contact point, some spot where they interact in specific, predefined ways to affect one another. When one atom runs into another, the first one loses kinetic energy and moves slowly or in a different direction. The other gains the kinetic energy and its movement changes. What something is, is defined by its properties, and what something's properties are is defined by how it interacts with things that are NOT it. But they have to share properties such as taking up space, weight, etc to interact.

If emotions are beyond matter, how does matter affect emotions? What are emotions but (physical) responses? How do emotions affect matter?

Ok, I just found what I was trying to say. How does the tangible touch the intangible? By definition, it cannot. So by the measures of the tangible, the intangible might as well not exist because it can never, ever affect it. And vice versa.

Emotions are not independent of chemicals because it must be tangible in some way (share some properties) to affect the tangible.

[Zen]

Hmm, perhaps I should have worded my post better - my point was that emotions probably aren't solely due to chemical interactions. That they are actually due to complex interactions between multiple systems in ways complex beyond human understanding.

How is it possible for a person to react emotionally to something they've never seen/experienced before? One could argue that it's due to the power of mental association, but that has already stepped into the realm of neural connections. Sure, nerve impulses require neurotransmitters to be conducted, but how does the process of association take place? What guides it? You could say that memories and past experiences guide the process of association, but then there's the question of that notorious 'gut instinct' and intuitive guessing.

You could very easily send someone into a fit of depression by pumping them full of depressants, or vice-versa with antidepressants. But those are just stimuli that cause one particular emotion to surface. Naturally-occurring emotions are possibly much more complex, since they can link to one another in some ways.

So I guess my question is whether a being requires a highly complex systemic interaction for emotions to be felt. Not so much about it being tangible/intangible, but more to how it could start at a chemical level, and advance to other systems that take it beyond the possible scope of chemical reactions. Sort of like how corpses can't be reanimated - while a body definitely deteriorates after death, why can't they be resurrected if adequate restorative work is done on them? If life and emotions are mere matters of chemistry, surely resurrection would be possible if we could undo stuff like damage to the brain due to hypoxia after death?

But then again, you could argue that all matter is chemical in nature, and that only anti-matter would not involve chemicals to an extent. So your tangible/intangible argument would hold true in saying that emotions cannot be chemically independent.

[Maelstrom]

Of course. There's a whole cascade of chemical reactions for each individual emotion. And yes, it travels across various systems. EVERYTHING is integrated. Some things are just more independent/isolated than others.

Everything is a chemical reaction, once you realize everything is a chemical. A chemical reaction happens to make your muscles move. A chemical reaction happens to emit light. A chemical reaction happens when light strikes your skin, your eyes, etc, etc.

"Gut instinct" is still your brain filing in the gaps of knowledge (referencing past knowledge) in order to make sense of the situation. There's actually a lot your eyes don't see and your brain responds by compensating and filling in the gaps with patterns it already recognizes. That's how a lot optical illusions work. You can undo the damage, but then it would have to be a perfect replica of the part sometime in the past. Think of yourself, your body, as a giant battery. You can recharge it, but eventually it will still lose its charge. Energy is lost from elements and molecules and not every part of the battery is revitalized when you run a current back through it. You have to break it down and revitalize every tiny piece and rebuild it.

And if you understand evolution, you understand how automatic responses have developed and occur independent of conscious thought. You do not consciously control your stomach's digestion. But your stomach will still make you feel hungry. It will change your chemical balance, and thus it will change how you feel. Positive feedback, negative feedback... your body is full of so many systems and mechanisms that it is incredible to think about. But you don't have to think about them. They happen on their own.

People have been revived after being declared clinically dead. But in general, a body is dead for a good reason. You would have to fix everything (or at least the minimum fix necessary) that contributes to that reason. One system fails, they all start to go. It doesn't work to simply fix the original because the other systems are already interrupted. They required it to simply keep running. Reactions have already occurred that requires far more fixing than filling the original hole. The more time goes by, the more that is steadily affected. That is why the sooner you go to the hospital to get help, the likelier you are to survive because they can stop/reverse the process before it reaches that critical point.

And I would have research the concept of anti-matter far more thoroughly before I could say anything about it. There's far more to it than is given in brief explanations dummied down for the media.

Anyways, my comp time is up again. For now.