• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.

tar

Senior Members
  • Content count

    3998
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

tar last won the day on September 8 2016

tar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

208 Beacon of Hope

About tar

  • Rank
    Baryon
  • Birthday 12/11/53

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ
  • Interests
    The computer game "Civilization", trying to figure out the stock market, philosophy of life, and scientific unanswered questions.
  • College Major/Degree
    BS in Business
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Married, two daughters, two dogs, a house and unlucky me, no job.
  • Occupation
    Looking for work in Technical Support/QA in Printing/Scanning/Imaging
  1. But good to note that we all, have or do have a number of ways to enjoy life, and get our dopamine. It seems to be quite natural a thing. Although I gave up drinking while in the Army in Germany 36 or 37 years ago, I did consume my lifetime quota of alcohol beforehand.
  2. a doozy of a hangover, or a doozy of a response? (my dad taught me to drink a glass of water for every drink of alcohol. Cuts down on the dehydration which is a major factor in the headache and blah feeling the morning after a good drinking.)
  3. dimreepr, I started this topic to discuss consciousness and instinct from the dopamine perspective, as to not derail or hijack Ten Oz's thread. But crucial to me is to gain understanding of our common addiction to dopamine, and to praise it for its value in terms of our enjoyment of life, our desire to fix things, to improve things, to create things, to complete things, to please others, etc. in terms of how we like to do these things, enjoy these things and aim to do them again, hence survive, but to be conscious as well of the downsides of dopamine, where we can overeat certain quickly metabolized wheat starches and watch too much TV and gain our dopamine rushes in dangerous. destructive and unsavory, expensive (unlawful) and harmful ways, to the detriment of our own selves and those around us. Regards, TAR
  4. Ed Earl, I agree people are nuanced and complex. And nobody can tell somebody else what should or is going to make them happy, feel right, feel alive and OK. But in my readings and discussions, with professional in the field of addiction, through my association to both a town alliance and a county prevention organization, I know that dopamine plays a role, both in human happiness and motivation and purpose, and in addiction. The common element goes directly to the OP. No matter how you were brought up, educated, socialized and no matter who it is you wish to please in your actions and thoughts and plans, you are operating in order to obtain dopamine, and this fact is completely outside human planning. That is it is built in, innate, instinctual stuff, that exists in Ed Earl, and Ten Oz and TAR and anybody and everybody else, and possibly to certain degrees in animals, and maybe even plants. So through consciousness and thought and agreement and institutions we can decide which ways of surviving, of feeling right, of feeling victorious are preferable to others, but nobody can shake the need to survive, to want that feeling of dopamine existing in your synapses. It is built in. Regards, TAR
  5. Evginia, I like your approach. We have many ways to obtain dopamine, free and easy, or at least inexpensive, and readily available, legal, helpful to others or unobtrusive to others, ways. So good approach. However, I am mixed on providing dopamine, and blockers and reuptake inhibitors and such in a mechanical, chemical approach. I don't think our consciousness is clever enough to out think our own subconscious, much less someone else's. Consider the oxycodone problem came about because the medical profession wanted to lessen human pain and suffering. We technically have the way to provide dopamine in a safe manner. Except providing it too much makes it an unwise method. Better not to fool with mother nature, and just feel bad when you are hurt. and feel good when you have healed. In moderation of course. Fentanyl was made for people in severe pain dying of cancer, to make their last moments of life bearable. It might be highly inappropriate to apply this satisfaction mid stream, since you have not actually reached the other shore, there is no useful reason to feel that way ahead of time. I learned that addicts in withdrawal feel like they are dying, feel like they are not surviving, feel that the only option, to stay alive is to get their drug of choice. They will steal money from their mom's purse to buy another hit. Not good to be able to buy happiness like this, to buy the feeling that you are alive. Better to have good, clean fun. And MUCH better to actually engage in behaviors that help yourself and your family and your team and your company and your friends and your school and your church and your neighborhood and your county and your state and your country and your species survive. Then the dopamine you get, for pleasing yourself and your loved ones is real and actually works toward survival, as its supposed to. Regards, TAR Karl Marx I think it was, called religion the opiate of the masses. Perhaps today opioids are the opiate of the masses. Wrong I think to make others dependent on you for their survival/happiness, unless of course they are your loved ones. Perhaps it was wrong to provide our inner cities with crack instead of jobs. Two ways to provide happiness, or the feeling of, but one way slavery and the other is freedom.
  6. Evginia, I like your approach. We have many ways to obtain dopamine, free and easy, or at least inexpensive, and readily available, legal, helpful to others or unobtrusive to others, ways. So good approach. However, I am mixed on providing dopamine, and blockers and reuptake inhibitors and such in a mechanical, chemical approach. I don't think our consciousness is clever enough to out think our own subconscious, much less someone else's. Consider the oxycodone problem came about because the medical profession wanted to lessen human pain and suffering. We technically have the way to provide dopamine in a safe manner. Except providing it too much makes it an unwise method. Better not to fool with mother nature, and just feel bad when you are hurt. and feel good when you have healed. In moderation of course. Fentanyl was made for people in severe pain dying of cancer, to make their last moments of live bearable. It might be highly inappropriate to apply this satisfaction mid stream, since you have not actually reached the other shore, there is no useful reason to feel that way ahead of time. I learned that addicts in withdrawal feel like they are dying, feel like they are not surviving, feel that the only option, to stay alive is to get their drug of choice. They will steal money from their mom's purse to buy another hit. Not good to be able to buy happiness like this, to buy the feeling that you are alive. Better to have good, clean fun. And MUCH better to actually engage in behaviors that help yourself and your family and your team and your company and your friends and your school and your church and your neighborhood and your county and your state and your country and your species survive. Then the dopamine you get, for pleasing yourself and your loved ones is real and actually works toward survival, as its supposed to. Regards, TAR
  7. Ed Earl, I agree people are nuanced and complex. And nobody can tell somebody else what should or is going to make them happy, feel right, feel alive and OK. But in my readings and discussions, with professional in the field of addiction, through my association to both a town alliance and a county prevention organization, I know that dopamine plays a role, both in human happiness and motivation and purpose, and in addiction. The common element goes directly to the OP. No matter how you were brought up, educated, socialized and no matter who it is you wish to please in your actions and thoughts and plans, you are operating in order to obtain dopamine, and this fact is completely outside human planning. That is it is built in, innate, instinctual stuff, that exists in Ed Earl, and Ten Oz and TAR and anybody and everybody else, and possibly to certain degrees in animals, and maybe even plants. So through consciousness and thought and agreement and institutions we can decide which ways of surviving, of feeling right, of feeling victorious are preferable to others, but nobody can shake the need to survive, to want that feeling of dopamine existing in your synapses. It is built in. Regards, TAR
  8. DrP, The UK does not have the opioid epidemic prevalent in the U.S. due to the over prescription of Oxy. You totally misread my feelings about addiction. I in no way feel superior to my wife, because she still smokes and I do not. The draw of the dopamine exists in us all. That is my only point, I was not making any discriminatory statement. If somebody has only one thing that makes them happy, they probably have a problem. To me it is better to be home, making dinner for the family then to be lying in the street with a needle in your arm. The first is workable, sustainable dopamine, the latter is expensive, destructive, illegal obtaining of the exact same dopamine. The point is not that I live in the suburbs and others do not, the point is that certain life choices yield sustainable happiness and survival and others work against that goal. But my only point, is that it is the same dopamine. And whether a doctor prescribes it, or you get it winning a game of solitaire on the computer, you are satisfying a survival need, a drive that evolution has built into us. So concentrate on what gives you dopamine, that will also give me dopamine. Why concentrate on how virtuous you are, compared to me? Gives you dopamine, but portrays me as a heel, which I am not. Regards. TAR
  9. But we absolutely should not think our conscious mind can master our Id. The ego is a go between, a moderator between the Id and the Superego. The master of ones own condition, able to put the body/brain/heart group in the best position for survival and happiness...but as the opioid epidemic shows us, we are very subject to the emotions, to misreading the pleasure, and life and victory we feel while high as actual victory. An addict, high on his drug of choice can "feel" on top of the world, victorious, and alive, while lying penniless, friendless and loveless in his own filth in the gutter.
  10. Gee, Your last sentence seems to be the best way to look at this. It is not a matter of showing we are better than reality or that we must be manufacturing reality, but it is, in my opinion required that we accept we are in and of reality. And as you said, part of a continuum following the "spark", that put layer upon layer of workable "life" into the next generation of a particular species, and it all, by definition had to "fit" reality, as it evolved. And the rational mind part of humans, the science and the math, and the technological advances and the Turing machines, laws and religions, came only recently on this planet...in the last 10,000 years or so, and can rightly be thought of as consciousness, outside that that a Zebra is capable of. And still, even with the advantages that the structure of the human brain brings humans, over Zebras, and the value of the institutions that humans have built using our natural brains and emotions, we still are, more than 90 percent Zebra, probably. and the various pheromones and hormones and neurotransmitters and body parts and brain parts found in a human are also there in a Zebra. The differences are slight, but important, and still we have the 90 percent of "instincts" that the Zebra has. Yet we probably have our first 90 percent of consciousness in common with the Zebra, as well. Regards, TAR
  11. Gee, In the case of your idea about consciousness, that it is based on feeling or emotion, I totally agree and this is consistent with my thought that one can functionally interchange the idea of (feeling) "good" (or alive, or feeling right or victorious) with the flow of dopamine in the human brain. Regards, TAR
  12. in other words, I think everything that occurs requires a reason or cause or mechanism, and neurotransmitters (or a chemical functionally similar) are that mechanism in the case of sentience
  13. personally I think sentience can be understood through looking at the reasons for and activity of neurotransmitters...things that make us aware of the need to respond to a situation in a manner useful for maintaining the "self" whether that self be a single celled organism or a complex organism with a brain stem
  14. Gee, Might be good, in using various definitions of consciousness to separate sentience out as a word similar to and associated with consciousness but meaning the things we are talking about as innate, that might well be common attributes we have with plants and animals, but where it is not required that other aspects of human consciousness, like introspection and language be carried through into the "minds" of the plant in question. From wiki article on sentience. Philosophy and sentience[edit] In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[2] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly collectively describes sentience plus other characteristics of the mind. Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that non-human animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science.[3] Regards, TAR
  15. and left in the lurch would be anyone, religious or scientific, that thinks their consciousness is going anywhere, without their body/brain/heart group