Dopamine, Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, and the idea of good.

[tar]

This idea has little chemical/biochemical brain research behind it, and is more of a guess, and the patterns I see might be a result of confirmation bais, but consider this.

 

Guess 1. There should be a mechanism that would cause an organism to "want to" survive and pass its pattern on to the next generation. Something that would reward the organism for "getting it right".

 

Guess 2. Since smoking cigarettes, makes you feel good, for no particular reason, because Dopamine is released in your brain by the nicotine receptors, the release of dopamine for particular reasons may be associated with "getting it right" from a survival perspective. That is, feeling good about surviving, might be the reason that we do so much surviving.

 

Guess 3. Not exclusively true, but many things that we label as good are also things that make us "feel good" and thus the release of dopamine, into our brains, as a result of certain actions and occurances, might make us feel good, because historically, or evolutionarily speaking, doing certain things, and putting yourself in certain situations that worked and promoted the survival of the species, would be more likely to occur if there was a reason to do these things. As this speculation goes, the more things you did right, the more you felt good, or were rewarded for doing the thing, the more likely it would be that you would do the thing. Thus reward chemicals for doing the right thing would be selected for. (Thus, fulfilling a need in Maslov's hierarch of needs, would, by the speculation, release dopamine, into the brain, and the human (or human precursor) would "feel good" because they did a good thing.)

 

Guess 4. If survival of the species and dopamine release are related in the manner speculated here, there would also be a reason to feel good when others of the species felt good, and thus ways to tell if dopamine was being released in others might develop (smiles, giggles, laughter, song) and seeing someone else happy might cause dopamine to be released in a mirror nueron type of way.

 

Guess 5. If the majority of the people on the planet believe in a set of moral laws, that specify what is good as opposed to what is bad, it would not be unreasonable to look for a physical mechanism that would aid a person in this distinction. A chemical reward for good behavior, would provide such a mechanism...and we do have dopamine which provides this very thing...feeling good.

 

 

Regards, TAR

[physica]

Guess 2. Since smoking cigarettes, makes you feel good, for no particular reason, because Dopamine is released in your brain by the nicotine receptors, the release of dopamine for particular reasons may be associated with "getting it right" from a survival perspective. That is, feeling good about surviving, might be the reason that we do so much surviving.

Your forgetting natural selection here. Those Who didn't have survival attributes didn't survive so they couldn't pass on their genes.

 

 

Guess 1. There should be a mechanism that would cause an organism to "want to" survive and pass its pattern on to the next generation. Something that would reward the organism for "getting it right".

yes it's called natural selection

 

 

As this speculation goes, the more things you did right, the more you felt good, or were rewarded for doing the thing, the more likely it would be that you would do the thing.

This is a terrible speculation. The species that didn't have survival attributes didn't pass on their genes because they didn't survive, they may have also enjoyed their activities.

 

Guess 5. If the majority of the people on the planet believe in a set of moral laws, that specify what is good as opposed to what is bad, it would not be unreasonable to look for a physical mechanism that would aid a person in this distinction. A chemical reward for good behavior, would provide such a mechanism...and we do have dopamine which provides this very thing...feeling good.

This is drastically over simplistic. Lets just look at one section, addiction, different groups have different tolerances, different habits and different choices of stimulant. As for getting the majority to agree on moral laws you're forgetting religion. Whilst people are being killed on a daily basis in the name of religion i doubt we'll manage to get them to agree on a set of moral laws.

 

[to other readers tar has put me on silent so he won't be able to read this post, if you feel that any of my points are valid feel free to echo them so he can see them. Many thanks]

[tar]

Thread,

 

this thread is dead

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by physica. View it anyway?

 

Is the only reply. And I have a rule that I do not post in threads that I have not read. Since the only post other than the OP is by physica who has never once had anything constructive or interesting to say to me, I conclude, this thread is dead.

 

Regards, TAR

If, however, by some odd chance, Physica's post has any interesting or constructive aspects to it, if somebody would like to quote them, and comment on them, I will see that. But I will not be clicking the View it anyway button. (Emotional comment deleted.)

So, this thread is dead.

Edited May 29, 2015 by tar

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Tar

 

Keep personal comments out of our forum please. If you feel there is no need to carry on participating in a thread then just stop - please do not bother to announce this.

 

Thread,

 

this thread is dead

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by physica. View it anyway?

 

Is the only reply. And I have a rule that I do not post in threads that I have not read. Since the only post other than the OP is by physica who has never once had anything constructive or interesting to say to me, I conclude, this thread is dead.

 

Regards, TAR

If, however, by some odd chance, Physica's post has any interesting or constructive aspects to it, if somebody would like to quote them, and comment on them, I will see that. But I will not be clicking the View it anyway button. I hate the guy.

So, this thread is dead.

 

Do not respond to this moderation.

 

Everyone - discuss the OP or don't; but we can all do without commentary on other members so no more comments please

 

[tar]

Your forgetting natural selection here. Those Who didn't have survival attributes didn't survive so they couldn't pass on their genes.

 

 

yes it's called natural selection

 

 

This is a terrible speculation. The species that didn't have survival attributes didn't pass on their genes because they didn't survive, they may have also enjoyed their activities.

 

This is drastically over simplistic. Lets just look at one section, addiction, different groups have different tolerances, different habits and different choices of stimulant. As for getting the majority to agree on moral laws you're forgetting religion. Whilst people are being killed on a daily basis in the name of religion i doubt we'll manage to get them to agree on a set of moral laws.

 

[to other readers tar has put me on silent so he won't be able to read this post, if you feel that any of my points are valid feel free to echo them so he can see them. Many thanks]

The speculation is based on the idea that doing things related to survival successfully, results in a chemical reward in the brain. Only individuals successfully completing acts necessary for survival will survive. These individuals, that survived either survived by chance, or survived by doing something to aid their survival. Of the group that did something to aid their survival, there would have to be a reason, other than chance, that they would do this thing. The speculation goes, that this additional reason is that they "wanted" to do the thing. They had a reason to repeat an act that resulted in the survival of their parents and them and their tribe, and this reason was not chance. It would have to be something that could be passed on to the next generation as a complex that had a particular purpose. A reward chemical for eating, would increase the organisms desire to eat. A reward chemical for remembering where the blueberries grew, would increase the organisms ability to find the blueberries. A reward chemical released whenever actions and thoughts resulted in "good outcomes" as pertains to survival, would be extant in individuals of the species that survived. Individuals without the ability to find and enjoy their food, would possibly die of starvation. The speculation is that the ability to experience pleasure, is passed on, as a survival trait.

 

Regards, TAR

My wife was touring a vast and diverse garden, well kept and prolific, and my wife was surprised, after carefully tending her own garden plants, when the guide, who was also a caretaker, roughly "planted" a plant, by kicking out a hole, dropping the plant in sideways, kicking some dirt over its roots and stepping on the root area to pack the soil down. When my wife looked at him in terror, he said "The plant wants to survive. It will do fine."

[Endy0816]

I just wasn't sure the topic covered new ground.

 

In the brain, dopamine functions as a neurotransmitter—a chemical released by nerve cells to send signals to other nerve cells. The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity. Other brain dopamine systems are involved in motor control and in controlling the release of several other important hormones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine

 

Altruistic behavior, sex and prayer, are three examples that spring most readily to mind.

[tar]

the advent of language in humans gave us the ability to pass along survival strategies outside the genes, but we had to have reason to survive before language, or we would not have been around to develop language

 

The desire to survive could well be required, inorder to.

[physica]

The speculation is based on the idea that doing things related to survival successfully, results in a chemical reward in the brain. Only individuals successfully completing acts necessary for survival will survive. These individuals, that survived either survived by chance, or survived by doing something to aid their survival. Of the group that did something to aid their survival, there would have to be a reason, other than chance, that they would do this thing. The speculation goes, that this additional reason is that they "wanted" to do the thing. They had a reason to repeat an act that resulted in the survival of their parents and them and their tribe, and this reason was not chance. It would have to be something that could be passed on to the next generation as a complex that had a particular purpose. A reward chemical for eating, would increase the organisms desire to eat. A reward chemical for remembering where the blueberries grew, would increase the organisms ability to find the blueberries. A reward chemical released whenever actions and thoughts resulted in "good outcomes" as pertains to survival, would be extant in individuals of the species that survived. Individuals without the ability to find and enjoy their food, would possibly die of starvation. The speculation is that the ability to experience pleasure, is passed on, as a survival trait.

This is just waffle it doesn’t concrete any points. What’s the main point you’re trying to drive forward here? I’m guessing that you’re saying that good outcomes are rewarded chemically? If you are then this is over simplistic. Drugs thrive on exploiting chemical reward and obesity is a nasty side effect of your one-sided example. However, you did make the point about smoking in your first post so again you need to clarify your position. Right now all I’m getting is waffle and inconsistency. Therefore I’d be lying if I said I understand you. Judging by the lack of replies I think others are on the same page.

 

My wife was touring a vast and diverse garden, well kept and prolific, and my wife was surprised, after carefully tending her own garden plants, when the guide, who was also a caretaker, roughly "planted" a plant, by kicking out a hole, dropping the plant in sideways, kicking some dirt over its roots and stepping on the root area to pack the soil down. When my wife looked at him in terror, he said "The plant wants to survive. It will do fine."

This is completely irrelevant, makes no point and offers no support if you were making a point

 

the advent of language in humans gave us the ability to pass along survival strategies outside the genes, but we had to have reason to survive before language, or we would not have been around to develop language

 

The desire to survive could well be required, inorder to.

From here I'm guessing that you're saying that the chemical rewards were the result of our survival. What I'm saying is that chemical rewards also promote habbits that work against survival however, they are less likely to survive as a result. I get the impression I'm not disagreeing with you here. You're not being very clear on what your actualy point is.

Edited May 29, 2015 by physica

[tar]

Endy0816,

 

Thanks for the link. I did not know all those things about dopamine.

 

This in particular was sort of counter-indicative to my guess.

 

Kent Berridge and other researchers have argued for a distinction between reward, which is defined in terms of motivation, and pleasure, which is defined in terms of emotional expression. A simpler way of describing this is as a distinction between "seeking" and "liking". "Seeking" occurs when an animal, given access to some stimulus such as food, executes some type of active behavior in order to acquire it. "Liking" occurs when an animal shows expressions of happiness or satisfaction while consuming something. There is considerable evidence that the dopamine system is part of the brain system that mediates seeking but not part of the system that mediates liking. Drugs that increase the effects of dopamine (most notably stimulants such as methamphetamine or cocaine) produce corresponding increases in seeking behaviors, but do not greatly alter expressions of pleasure. Conversely, opiate drugs such as heroin or morphine produce increases in expressions of pleasure but do not greatly alter seeking behaviors. Animals in which the VTA dopamine system has been rendered inactive do not seek food, and will starve to death if left to themselves, but if food is placed in their mouths they will consume it and show facial expressions indicative of pleasure.^[24]

 

Regards TAR

Except, not completely counter indicated, as there is the two types of dopamine and one acts to increase action and one to inhibit activity. Together they do result in an organism taking survival actions.

[physica]

Except, not completely counter indicated, as there is the two types of dopamine and one acts to increase action and one to inhibit activity. Together they do result in an organism taking survival actions.

again please refine your main premise, it's really wooly.

[tar]

Physica,

 

You are right, its wooly, but its one guess based on another.

 

The basic premise or guess, is that survival of the fittest is not enough. There needs to be a reason to survive, or a pattern would have no particular reason to continue in the first place.

 

More of a survival of that which has a reason to exist.

 

The way I was taught evolution, it was sort of a random chance mutation thing, and if the complex resulted in a survivable pattern it survived, and if the mutation had no survival value, it was not selected for. What I want to add, if it is not already understood this way, is that "wanting to survive" could be thought of, as a selected for trait.

 

Regards, TAR

or survival of that which fits

[Endy0816]

Fittest in evolutionary terms is used only in the reproductive sense(more offspring = better).

 

The DNA doping the brain to try and get a reward seeking individual to do what best ensures continuance of the DNA(or that of kin), falls right in there.

 

Most organisms though are hardwired. Their patterns continue because that is what is encoded in the pattern itself. It is only when choice became a factor that evolution had to find a solution.

[tar]

Endy0816,

 

But "hardwired" is not exactly what any organism is. Most every organism makes decisions. Moves toward the light, moves toward the prey, learns the shape of its home, etc. There needs to be a mechanism, an arrangement by which learning would be done over not learning. There is, in a general sense a thing that live things have, that dead things don't. A desire to survive. This needs to be explained in some manner, a little stronger than chance. Chance might work for non-living things, but there is some intention, or as you say, there is a "try" that living things do, that perhaps a rock, rolling down the hill, does not do.

 

Yet we have about 7 billion examples of lumps of carbon compounds, excercising their wills. There must be a way that minerals growing crystals morphed into a complex that "wanted" to repeat itself, that wanted to repeat the pattern, and make it exactly NOT random, but intentionally done. Something about the bacteria that became the mitochondria that was mentioned in your link indicates an intentional effort to survive. Something a little stronger than a hardwired crystal growth.

 

Besides, there has to be a reasonable staged evolution, that includes the mechanisms that provide for intentional behavior early on in the evolutionary story. I think chemicals that set up a situation, where a repeating pattern is "preferrred" over random chaos, are excellent candidates to provide this "desire", this will to live. Something to explain when and where and how and why intention emerged.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 30, 2015 by tar