Chemistry of Thought

[Greg Boyles]

The conclusion i came to after a bit of reading on wiki is we have a kind of 'veto', but that's about it.

it's still free will though, it just works the other way round.

 

I suspect the option of vetoing an instinctual behavioural pattern is sill in effect a instinctual behavourial pattern in many cases. Consider the generic flight or fight response. We can choose to kill an atacker or we can choose to run away. We may rationalise a choice to run away as not giving in to violence, but at the end of the day it is still a choosing self preservation which is entirely instinctual.

 

That is what I mean by by behavioural patterns being quantised within the realms on instinctual behavioural patterns.

 

We always weigh up our options, some times rationally and sometimes not, as to what course action will least likely lead to our death or most likely to lead to our social success.

 

 

Our behavioral patterns are an example of ermergent complexity built by our frontal lobes upon the instincts of our primitive mid brains etc.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[randomc]

ok, so scotch free will. But the plasticity of the brain allows control over behaviour over the long term, right? That's the essence of cognitive behavioural therapy and stuff like that; and it seems to work, so then surely it's neccesary to view the way thought relates to the chemical state of the brain differently, depending on the segment of time in which you look at it. And over a long time segment we have a greater degree of control over our behaviour. Maybe this is an additional emergent property? Anyway, i just can't stand the idea i'm not in control, that's what peeling my onion, i'm not particularly fussy about metaphysical free will.

[Greg Boyles]

Anyway, i just can't stand the idea i'm not in control

 

Why?

 

Acknowledging this fact about our idividual humanity does not diminish you as an individual or us as species.

 

 

In fact it acknowledging this may allow us to avoid the worst extremes of human behaviour through engineering social conditions specifically to minimise them.

 

And in your case reflection on this aspect of your humanity may encourage you to make decisions based more upon rationality and less upon instinct and emotion.

 

We can never be free of primitive instincts and emotion but we certainly can minimise their impact on our decision making.

[randomc]

OK, that's a bit insulting - i don't really see where i've made a decision that isn't rational. your view is that if i so much as entertain an idea that turns out to be irritational then i'm a monkey? i mean, how do you figure stuff out - do you just accept stuff on the basis of authority or do you prefer to think it through?

[granadina]

We can never be free of primitive instincts and emotion but we certainly can minimise their impact on our decision making.

 

By acknowledging their due place in our everyday behaviour ?

 

Your description of instinctual behavioural patterns seems quite relevant -

 

'Free will' is some what of an illusion. A great deal of what we presume that we choose to do is really a manifestation of instinctual behaviour, or at least directed and influenced by it.

 

Anyway, i just can't stand the idea i'm not in control

 

Nobody can .

I guess there is a certain amount of energy expended in maintaining an acceptable stance when you function .

In contrast , while you are alone you enjoy considerable liberty and can dispense with the idea of being in control .

 

Edited October 24, 2011 by granadina

[Greg Boyles]

OK, that's a bit insulting - i don't really see where i've made a decision that isn't rational. your view is that if i so much as entertain an idea that turns out to be irritational then i'm a monkey? i mean, how do you figure stuff out - do you just accept stuff on the basis of authority or do you prefer to think it through?

 

A classic case is his climate change issue. The position of the vast majority of people, particularly the science uneducated, is based on emotion rather than rational thinking.

 

 

There have been pschological studies, that I was quite recently listening about, that details that the position of climate change deniers and vaccine critics alike are very often further entrenched by the presentation of evidence that clearly refutes their respective positions on these issue.

 

 

 

So insulting or not, less of our collective behaviour and attitudes are driven by rationality than you would prefer to believe.

 

It is not about insulting my fellow humans, it is about accepting the reality of our humanity and dealing with it.

 

Anyway, I feel that acknowledging this about myself give more more control over my reactions not less. It is likely to give me pause for thought knowing that, in some circumstances, I may be prone to an emotional rather than a rational response.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[PhDwannabe]

This entire thread is founded on a gigantic and apparently unrecognized false dilemma between determinism and free will. Serious thinkers in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and consciousness studies no longer regard these "options" as necessarily mutually exclusive, and have not for a generation. There are serious arguments to be made that the two are compatible. Go read some philosophy. Better yet, go take a couple of classes in it, rather than allowing yourself the indulgent arrogance of autodidacticism on matters that are likely well-beyond all of us.

[randomc]

I didn't see it as autodidiacticism so much as harmless pootling.

 

If the 'options' aren't neccesarily mutually exclusive, then the dillema may or may not be false, right?

It would appear to depend on how you define things, which is something i brought up some thirty posts ago, but nobody took it up - what do you want me to do?

[Appolinaria]

I once read about the theory of a chemical found in the brain responsible for thought.

 

For example, this book talks about the possibility of phosphorus. ( This book is old, and I'm pretty sure it says there's no way of testing this idea... it might be completely untrue and ridiculous but I have no idea on these matters )

 

But it's still interesting!

 

If not phosphorus, what if there's a chemical in the brain responsible for our consciousness? And the higher levels of it, the more intelligent? Wouldn't that be intriguing.....

[PhDwannabe]

I once read about the theory of a chemical found in the brain responsible for thought.

 

For example, this book talks about the possibility of phosphorus. ( This book is old, and I'm pretty sure it says there's no way of testing this idea... it might be completely untrue and ridiculous but I have no idea on these matters )

 

But it's still interesting!

 

If not phosphorus, what if there's a chemical in the brain responsible for our consciousness? And the higher levels of it, the more intelligent? Wouldn't that be intriguing.....

 

William James was no slouch--I have a professor fond of saying that, in a century of experimental social and behavioral science, we really haven't killed a single one of his major hypotheses. If you read the passage, though, he's not really raising the possibility, he's trashing an idea he regards as so silly--phosphorus is a "though chemical"--that he simply refers to it as an error. And why would you say there's no way of testing it. James describes, in the passage which you just linked us to, exactly how one might test it! At any rate, it's a bit insane to imagine a single chemical "responsible for consciousness." Consciousness is the activity of the brain, an epiphenomenon of its various doings. All of its chemicals are "responsible for consciousness." It's like imagining that there's a chemical responsible for the throwing motion of my arm. Everything that comprises the structure of my arm is responsible.

 

And why on earth would more of such a chemical, if things were so simplistic that something like it actually existed, result in higher intelligence? Consciousness is not intelligence. More consciousness is not higher intelligence. Those two things are decidedly not the same thing, at all.

[Appolinaria]

William James was no slouch--I have a professor fond of saying that, in a century of experimental social and behavioral science, we really haven't killed a single one of his major hypotheses. If you read the passage, though, he's not really raising the possibility, he's trashing an idea he regards as so silly--phosphorus is a "though chemical"--that he simply refers to it as an error. And why would you say there's no way of testing it. James describes, in the passage which you just linked us to, exactly how one might test it! At any rate, it's a bit insane to imagine a single chemical "responsible for consciousness." Consciousness is the activity of the brain, an epiphenomenon of its various doings. All of its chemicals are "responsible for consciousness." It's like imagining that there's a chemical responsible for the throwing motion of my arm. Everything that comprises the structure of my arm is responsible.

 

And why on earth would more of such a chemical, if things were so simplistic that something like it actually existed, result in higher intelligence? Consciousness is not intelligence. More consciousness is not higher intelligence. Those two things are decidedly not the same thing, at all.

 

yes but he says theres no way to directly test it and relate it to the brain because other organs release phosphorus.

 

if i imply phosphorus relates to thought, wouldnt an increased amount in urine maybe mean increased amount of thought?

 

maybe i used the wrong word. maybe not intelligence. but a chemical responsible for increased thought, more complex thought, that could lead to higher intelligence possibly

[Psycho]

yes but he says theres no way to directly test it and relate it to the brain because other organs release phosphorus.

 

if i imply phosphorus relates to thought, wouldnt an increased amount in urine maybe mean increased amount of thought?

 

maybe i used the wrong word. maybe not intelligence. but a chemical responsible for increased thought, more complex thought, that could lead to higher intelligence possibly

Eh, for one no one has "phosphorus" in there body, they have phosphate, secondly if it were the case the amount of phosphate in the urine would decrease with thought as it would be in use unless you are implying nuclear fusion occurs in the brain, thirdly phosphate is used in hundreds of cascades throughout the body and isn't specifically related to thought it is just how many proteins send signals to each other.

 

There is of course a chemical cascades that lead to what we call thought and conciousness but they are so diverse and complex in number and branching that we don't understand or haven't isolated them yet. Primarily before we can workout how thoughts occur a far greater understanding of brain physiology is needed.

[Appolinaria]

Eh, for one no one has "phosphorus" in there body, they have phosphate, secondly if it were the case the amount of phosphate in the urine would decrease with thought as it would be in use unless you are implying nuclear fusion occurs in the brain, thirdly phosphate is used in hundreds of cascades throughout the body and isn't specifically related to thought it is just how many proteins send signals to each other.

 

There is of course a chemical cascades that lead to what we call thought and conciousness but they are so diverse and complex in number and branching that we don't understand or haven't isolated them yet. Primarily before we can workout how thoughts occur a far greater understanding of brain physiology is needed.

 

in the context of my source, he uses the term phosphorus.

 

if this were the case, regardless if it increases or decreases, it would still be affected by thought.

 

i did state that i wasnt sure if phosphorus is directly related to the brain, i just said i found the concept intriguing.

 

since we dont understand the chemicals yet, i am not wrong by mentioning phosphorus or phosphate...

 

i am just interested in what chemicals relate to thought.

[kitkat]

People with severe anxiety disorder is a case where your thoughts act to release more flee and flight response chemicals. This disorder acts as a form of brain terroism since the person inflicted with it must try to take control of their thoughts of imaginary catastrophic events that its reaction pumps more chemicals in the system becoming toxic temporarily to the body. The part that you consider "you" in consciousness is being held hostage by this disorder while this terroist creates havoc in your system.

 

Free will, I believe is the mechanism for thinking of new ideas that work to evolve us that improves our survival. If we had no free will, we would be programmed instinctive animals where repetition to stimuli would remain constant with little room for evolution to take place. Chemistry of thought involves many chemicals which provides many combinations to react to much more stimuli in the environment therefore allowing us to obtain a bigger picture which we can make a plan based on this information. Of course, this is just my opinion on it and obviously there is more to it then what is mentioned.

[PhDwannabe]

People with severe anxiety disorder is a case where your thoughts act to release more flee and flight response chemicals.

This is not really an account of the neurophysiology of anxiety that really adds anything to a discussion. We don't explain anything about anxiety by just saying that there are catecholamines involved.

 

This disorder acts as a form of brain terroism

This is not really a helpful analogy.

 

The part that you consider "you" in consciousness is being held hostage by this disorder while this terroist creates havoc in your system.

And this, finally, this is a homoncular view of consciousness and cognition which has more or less been pretty easily disproven at least since the early critics of Descartes.