Emotions or chemicals?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ganondorf

New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
0
I feel in the mood for a new debate, anyone agree? ;) well then disagree me if you want to. *assumes teacher's role* Today's topic shall be emotion.

Some things I want to discuss are the difference between free willed thoughts and chemical reactions, base instinct programmed into us and intelligent descions, and as the title says the difference between emotions from our heart (or some would say spirit, I would) vs. what is physically happening in our bodies.

Let's start off slow and take it one point at a time let's go with Emotions vs. what is happening in our bodies. Are emotions just a chemical reaction to what is happening in or around our body or are they a more complex thought, Are emotions actually something we feel from our heart and soul and are they different from chemical reactions.

Use scientific and personal explanations like the observation method if you wish to.
 
An interesting question. It's a chicken and egg riddle. Are our thoughts driven by the chemicals in the brain or are the chemicals in the brain being driven by our thoughts.

Personally I think it's the latter. Thought is far more refined than the chemical reactions occuring the brain. While two different thoughts can show up as the same in an EKG reading they are not alike. So I think it's more likely our thought is not based solely in chemicals and electrical impulses though they are the driving force of those chemicals and electrical impulses.
 
Very nice response, I like the idea that our thoughts are driving the chemical reactions it's a good "thought". It's something I could accept anyone else?
 
It's interesting but the mind is a very complex matter it can't be explained merely as chemical reactions or electrical impulse. If it is then what are personalities? And why do two identical twins have different prefferances and different things that they say fear or don't fear.
 
Personally I think that it is just certain neurons firing in a certain way producing a certain chemical thus creating the feeling of fear, or happiness, or anger, or whatever. It's just neurons firing. Not much else. As for why identical twins have different personalities, it's the same reason identical twins have different fingerprints: Some things such as fingerprints and personalities are based not on DNA, but instead on the embryos experience in the womb. So if say, the Mom was afraid of heights and she climbed the Statue Of Liberty ,while pregnant, and fear inducing chemicals were released from her brain, then some of those fear inducing chemicals would seep into the embryo and when it's born and grown up it will produce more fear inducing chemicals if it's at altitude. Because one twin might get more of the chemical than the other, one twin will be more afraid than the other. At least thats how I understand it.
 
But DNA are chemicals and the Chemicals move according to DNA correct? So what is causing emotions?
 
DNA just tells your brain to put some bone over there, some muscle around the bone, some blood vessels over there, and a heart right there. DNA doesn't have much to do with emotions. The Mother (as in my previous example) produces said fear chemical, and the chemical impacts the embryo's brain in such a way that the brain will react by producing more of the fear chemical when encountered with similar stimuli. It makes sense if you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint: Back 500,000,000,000 years ago the parents couldn't teach the children that Elephant=Fear, simply because if an actual elephant attacked the parents would be too busy running for their lives to tell the kids what to do. So evolution made it so the kids came out being afraid of elephants, and in the process, created fear.
 
Emotions are pretty much purely a matter of chemicals and bioelectric currents.

Now, thoughts and decision process...that's another question.
 
Well hold on now, can you explain why I don't fear something, in fact the chemical argument doesn't seem to explain why after eating a ceratin food I don't like will become likeable to me after a while. Or why the girls at my youth group are mean to me because I don't back down when everyone hates me, chemicals don't seem like a reasonable explanation.

But Thoughts and decision process like reasoning and debating are more complicated, we can move on if you want.
 
Ganondorf said:
I feel in the mood for a new debate, anyone agree? ;) well then disagree me if you want to. *assumes teacher's role* Today's topic shall be emotion.

Some things I want to discuss are the difference between free willed thoughts and chemical reactions, base instinct programmed into us and intelligent descions, and as the title says the difference between emotions from our heart (or some would say spirit, I would) vs. what is physically happening in our bodies.

Let's start off slow and take it one point at a time let's go with Emotions vs. what is happening in our bodies. Are emotions just a chemical reaction to what is happening in or around our body or are they a more complex thought, Are emotions actually something we feel from our heart and soul and are they different from chemical reactions.

Use scientific and personal explanations like the observation method if you wish to.
Click to expand...
I cannot argue that these things exist, but they can be overcome. anything beyond that is hypothetical, there could be certain stages where mind over matter is more effective, perhaps at birth, or early childhood, there could be plenty of reasons but its hard to track any of this because its unobservable.
 
Ganondorf said:
Well hold on now, can you explain why I don't fear something, in fact the chemical argument doesn't seem to explain why after eating a ceratin food I don't like will become likeable to me after a while. Or why the girls at my youth group are mean to me because I don't back down when everyone hates me, chemicals don't seem like a reasonable explanation.

But Thoughts and decision process like reasoning and debating are more complicated, we can move on if you want.
Click to expand...

You are also adaptable. Watson was able to make a young boy phobic of white furry animals and could have de-conditioned him, but he never did. Your genes gave you a strong dislike of certain food ingredients. The reason that you later found them agreeable is that, since you didn't die of some allergic reaction, the expected response did not occur from the stimulus, and your response (fear) was reduced, leading you to be able to eat that food. Aggression (not backing down from a fight) is both genetic and learned behavior. In fact, every emotion is. No one has shot you yet for not backing down, so you do not have the necessary stimulus required to alter your behavior.
 
But what about people that have been shot or emotionally treated like crap *indicates self* heartbreak and other things are basically the equivilant of a serious consequence but they don't seem to phase people like me, or people like soldiers.

If emotions are completely chemical and genetic how is it that we can mentally control our selves: hero, soldier, or just plain standin up for what's right against everyone else.

And if these emotions are genetic then are you saying it's in some one's genes to want to go out and kill people or steal for fun? Then in that case what good are laws?
 
Ganondorf said:
If emotions are completely chemical and genetic how is it that we can mentally control our selves: hero, soldier, or just plain standin up for what's right against everyone else.

And if these emotions are genetic then are you saying it's in some one's genes to want to go out and kill people or steal for fun? Then in that case what good are laws?
Click to expand...

But now you're debating philosophy.

Article on free will.
Christianity and free will. (because it was high on the search results, and New Advent stuff is usually interesting)
Wiki on free will. Includes a piece on moral responsibility. Also discusses the various sciences (including genetics and neuroscience) and how they apply to free will.

Free will has not been proven on a physical/chemical level. It falls purely into the area of philosophy (does it exist) and the psychological (why do we make the decisions we make).
 
I think you are defeating your own purpose because you are showing me the physical result of free will right now, and the result of choosing the sites you did and you are letting your concern get in by making a notation about the Christian site.

You can't see free will but you can see the results. And before you reply I just wanted to say that you are making a choice and coming up with an answer by your own thoughts and reasoning and free will that you said can't be seen.
 
Ganondorf said:
I think you are defeating your own purpose because you are showing me the physical result of free will right now, and the result of choosing the sites you did and you are letting your concern get in by making a notation about the Christian site.
Click to expand...

How am I defeating my own purpose? I was merely explaining that free will is a philosophical matter.

And I included the New Advent site because, as I clearly said, their articles are usually good reads.

You can't see free will but you can see the results. And before you reply I just wanted to say that you are making a choice and coming up with an answer by your own thoughts and reasoning and free will that you said can't be seen.
Click to expand...

When the fuck did I make ANY point?
 
You didn't but I was just providing an example of how free will and thought are real, I thought we were moving on. They were just examples don't get offended that's not my aim I'm just adding to the discussion, let me relook over my post and I'll revise it if I see anything that was really irrelevant I'm sorry.

Hmm... maybe I spoke out of turn I'm sorry, I was just attempting to show you that it is provable to show that free will and thoughts are more then chemicals and they do exist.
 
Do you have any valid tests to test for free will? Since you claim that free will is independent of chemical reality, there should be some valid experiment that can assess that. If you don't have one, then I fear you will never be able to prove it physically, because A)it IS a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and B)you can only detect physical phenomena in science.

Discovering free will is like using a microphone to try to detect light ... I don't think you'll find a valid experimental design that can prove your point.
 
-_- you can't see free will directly but you can see the results of it, in order for you to say my test of free will is invalid you must have somekind of idea in mind for a test that is valid for free will.

And who says that I'm using science? I'm using logic coupled with observation, along with other's observation.

So I don't think I'm violating any major law in my logic, if I am then tell me.
 
Ganondorf said:
-_- you can't see free will directly but you can see the results of it, in order for you to say my test of free will is invalid you must have somekind of idea in mind for a test that is valid for free will.
Click to expand...

Free will a philosophical issue. Philosophical issues canNOT be empirically proven. Hence why it falls under philosophy and not a field of science.

Many, but not all, arguments for or against free will make an assumption about the truth or falsehood of determinism. The scientific method holds out the promise of being able to turn such assumptions into fact. However, such facts would still need to be combined with philosophical considerations in order to amount to an argument for or against free will.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom