Update On The Law Of Emotional Balance

[thebigideas]

Ohh, your effort is increasing... but now you seem to be doing a little scooping from the bottom of the barrel. Exploiting gaps in language and science appears central to your retired function, but it will prove to do you minimal favor in this age of exponential innovation. It appears that you are starting to abandoned a macro defense and you have retreated to a combination of rank pulling, cherry picking, and a micro defense... I thrive on this sustenance. You are here to debate, but I am here to probe for information and it appears that certain wells runneth dry. You approach the situation like I am applying for a Ph.D and you are the people's champ trying to defend science's holy name. But the sun will eventually set on your old empire. You are troy with a massive defense, but the Trojan horse has already made it inside and there are only so many fortified towers left in the city.

 

Why MUST they "feel" something? Why introduce an anthropomorphic concept to a single-celled organism?

 

Your definition of feel is a thorn in your side. You are using the definition of emotions in humans as the definition for feelings in cells. They are not the same thing. You exaggerate the meaning of subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. It is not a light switch that is on or off, but a sliding scale of intensity. It is more like comparing a light bulb to a computer. The only person introducing anthropomorphic concepts is yourself. The primitive feelings in a cell give rise to the complex consciousness of humans. If they didn’t “feel” something then human’s, as a whole, would not have a complex consciousness. Human’s are nothing but a compilation of cells. Consciousness is not the end result of this compilation, but a complex consciousness is the end result of this compilation.

 

To "feel" is a description of a human subjective experience. It is a term in common use that actually only describes each individual's perceptual experience.

 

Incorrect, feelings are also known as a state of consciousness. A human subjective experience is not mandatory. Your definition of feelings does not reflect the entire scientific communities definition of feelings. Anything with a consciousness can feel. The definition of consciousness is not set in stone, yet you believe that it is. You cherry pick more than I and it is apparent by your compelling urge to only accept empirical evidence, on consciousness and emotions, in relation to human subjective experience. Do animal’s not feel? “There is absolutely no way that you can be sure that your experience is the same as someone else's, common usage does not open any door to telepathic integration.” – A defense that no longer pays the bills unfortunately… Inflation is a *****. We may not be absolutely sure that one’s experience is the same as other peoples' experience, but if other peoples' experience follows what is defined as an experience than we can scientifically accept that an experience has occurred.

 

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor,

 

Occam’s single blade isn’t going to cut it anymore and we are sick of the rash it leaves behind. Occam needs to upgrade to a Mach 5. Selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions may generally work, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, especially in areas of science as complicated as consciousness. This is why you are so turned off by areas of science like the study of consciousness and emotions because it doesn’t follow the ridged rules of what you define as science at the moment. You are going to lose this war and your catapults will be meaningless when the tanks come rolling in. By using Lloyd Morgan you are supporting my position and fighting my battles for me, thanks. "In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale." – Lloyd Morgan. Let us take our good friend’s advice and not assume that consciousness is a result of the whole and instead let us assume that consciousness is the result of the smallest piece, especially when that piece appears to show adequate qualifications.

 

Your use of a fuzzy, unmeasured, undefined, term certainly offers explanation beyond necessity.

 

You act like the case is closed and we have answered the questions of consciousness and emotions. We have not solved the problems at hand and that is because your explanation does not reach the necessity required.

 

Again, you fall into Anthropomorphism. Why aggressive? Do you mean active or do you mean it in the human sense? Do they formulate strategies to overcome their "enemies" or do they simply function at a low level of behavioral organization?

 

So you and other readers can more efficiently understand what is being discussed. It should be obvious that it is not meant in the human sense. Your defense in word play is a smoke and mirrors strategy that will get you nowhere with me and I will give you 0 credit if you continue to retreat from the discussion or distract from its focus. I am not applying for a Ph.D and if we approach the conversation in this manner then this will end up being a conversation that will take years longer than it needs to be. I am here to get the data and not to keep you occupied on your Sunday afternoon. Single cells do not formulate strategies to overcome their “enemies” because this would require a complex consciousness and this is something single cells do not possess. Do light bulbs perform quantum calculations? Of course they do not. I have no problem clarifying something that is too vague or properly explaining something that is seriously tangled, but your appeal to the obvious, in an effort to pinch points in a debate, is a waste of my time. Bringing down a conversation to these levels will only ostracize you from your peers and it is an obvious attempt to hold others in contempt.

 

And, again. Why use such a human subjective experience term, which opens the door to all kinds of over-generalization and speculation when a simple description of events should suffice?

 

You jump back and forth in this debate and actually argue for my position a lot of the time. You must be accustomed to discussions with people who do not know better. It does not suffice. The current explanations do not paint the entire picture and may not accurately paint that picture. Please explain to us how the simple description of events suffices when it doesn’t even suffice for yourself? You act like everything is fine when in reality you are at war with the study of consciousness and emotion because you believe that any explanation will never suffice based on the rigorous requirements of science.

 

How are you defining "feel"? What evidence do you have that a single-celled organism has the same experience?

 

Already explained above.

 

Let's step back for a moment and look at interpersonal experience. Can you provide a universally acceptable and complete definition of the subjective experience of Love? It's a commonly used word describing an "emotion". When you are "in love" is your subjective experience the same or different from someone else who states that they are "in love".

 

Ohh yes I can, but you and the scientific community could not, up until this point, because you are using outdated “equipment”. Allow me to use examples from the book.

 

“A cell’s drive to maintain the electrical/emotional balance of its emotional electricity is what we have come to call motivation. Motivation is a sense that all living cells with DNA possess and this sense exists to maintain the emotional balance of emotional electricity. Emotional electricity becomes emotionally unbalanced by receiving a positive or negative charge. When the emotional electricity in a living cell with DNA receives a positive charge then the cell will experience HEE or Happy Emotional Electricity or experienced happiness and when the emotional electricity in a cell receives a negative charge then the cell will experience SEE or Sad Emotional Electricity or experienced sadness. Charges range in value and these values are based on intensity and duration. Both HEE and SEE are types of feelings. Individual cells experience feelings and groups of cells in animals give rise to what we have come to label as complex emotions. Countless cells need to be involved to create complex emotions in humans (like love). If a normal person cuts their leg, they will experience pain and their pain in this instance will generally be comprised of a varied value of 100% SEE. However, if a masochist cuts their leg it may cause what we define as pain, but for them, pain is comprised of a varied value of 60% SEE and 40% HEE. Masochists experience some pleasure when they cause themselves to experience what we define as pain. It is inaccurate to assume that a standard amount of HEE or SEE is inherent in any emotion or action for every person.”

 

The scientific community had problems up to this point because they cannot define emotions using a simple on or off definition. However, if values of intensity and duration are used coupled with motivation, love can be defined. Love does not have a definite value of HEE or SEE, the value is varied on a case-by-case basis. Once we are capable of quantifying emotional electricity then we can more accurately define emotions based on values of HEE and SEE.

 

Can you even believe their statement just because they said it. Is it even remotely possible that the words are uttered without any real "emotional" state? Or should everyone let you make some Delphic decision as to the validity of all protestations of Love?

 

This is another problems that you face as a result of using outdated knowledge. This is why an upgrade to this new reasoning is requested for review.

 

Whether its stress or whatever depends primarily on how you are using the term stress. If its a short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat or its spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage payment seem to me to be worlds apart.

 

Short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat is a more accurate example than spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage. You keep trying to compare the consciousness of the whole with the consciousness of smallest piece, stop with your anthropomorphic attempt to confuse the conversation. This is like comparing the actions of Goldman Sachs as a whole with the actions of a single employee inside Goldman Sachs. The CEO of GS is like the original cell of a human. Analysts in GS are like normal cells in the body. The CEO doesn’t manage the analysts directly, that is what a chain of command is for.

 

OK as long as you are using "choice" to mean acceptance or rejection of substance enfolded by the protoplasm. The problem that I see in your position is that you let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. That all depends on which definition of "choice" you use. If you are using it to describe some sort of rational, self-initiated, cognitive process you are drift again into Anthropomorphism. If by choice, you simple mean a simple go/no go behavioral pattern then I can accept the statement.

 

You let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. You do not do this purposely, but you do not understand what is begin discussed in the book and instead you are basing your arguments (inaccurately) on what you believe is being discussed.

 

What is "strange" about their behavior? Why would it be "strange" for reaction patterns to change when the chemical environment changes? How would you react if ethanol was put in your "medium"?

 

Haha, thanks for the layup. Think about what you are saying.

 

More of the same. How are you defining "Feel" in this statement? And what kind of responses are seem with differing stiffness of their substrate?

 

More of the same. This type of question has already been answered two times and it’s a waste of time to keep answering the same question. Please save us both some time and reread my responses to this question of “feel.”

 

William James died in 1910, never having had the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today. You appeal to an Authority who simply has no relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially, understood.

 

Ohh no you did not… can you believe this guy? Even without the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today, I can appeal to an authority who has relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially understood. Some of his information is accurate, even though he did not have access to what is currently available to us. You are not saying he is wrong by presenting empirical support, you are assuming he is wrong because of when he died.

 

That denies years of research on neural summation resulting in either further neural stimulation or the inhibition of impulse. It is an incredibly inaccurate statement.

 

Please explain how this is inaccurate. I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

 

How does this law relate to the neurophysiology?

 

Haha, read the book and stop being lazy. I am not and cannot copy and paste 30 pages on this forum.

 

When a single quanta of light is absorbed by a molecule of Rhodopsin, the molecule of Rhodopsin goes through a shape change called a Cis-Trans transformation. I'm not an Organic Chemist, but my understanding is that the Cis-Trans transformation results in a small change in electrical potential. If a sufficient number of such transformations occur, each resulting from a single quantum absorption, then the summed potential changes are sufficient to reach the next neural structure in line - the bipolar cells.

 

The Rod cells becomes electrically unbalanced and they pass this electrical unbalance up the chain of command until another cell(s) can correct the electrical imbalance. It is also possible that the reactions they display are the process they take to become electrically balanced. When we burn ourselves with fire and experience pain we move away from the fire and this causes a reduction in the pain and eventually an experience of pleasure.

 

Bipolars receive input from,

 

Receiving input information causes the bipolars to become electrically unbalanced or balanced and this causes the bipolar to experience feelings. You may think of feelings as simple reactions and most cells are programmed to have these simple defined reactions, but this could be comparable to starving a kid for an entire day and then putting his/her favorite meal in front of them. They are going to eat the meal, assuming they are functioning properly. Functioning properly for them is comparable to normal living cells with DNA functioning properly.

 

In the case of Rods, usually hundreds of cells. The sufficient number of absorptions has been empirically determine to be on the order of around 7-10 events to ultimately produce a signal within the Central Nervous System. That describes the concept of summation of signals.

 

This describes the concept of several cells becoming emotionally unbalanced and rebalanced either immediately, when the body sleeps, or at some other time. The difference is that if signals are based on electricity and conservation of electrical charge applies to this electricity, then all of these signals must eventually be electrically balanced. It is also important to note that these reactions are based on the Law of Emotional Balance and without the Law of Emotional Balance these cells couldn’t have consistent programmed reactions. Without these consistent programmed reactions there could not be complex organisms like humans. The reactions are a byproduct of becoming electrically balanced, we will soon see that these reactions are always based on becoming electrically balanced.

 

On the other hand, signals arising from one Rod may inhibit the passage of signals from another Rod, illustrating the process of Lateral Inhibition or they may result in adaptation where steady states that would produce stimulation fail to occur because of the duration of unchanging supra-threshold stimulation. The bipolar cell receives essentially a "mixed-message" and does nothing. The "charges" from the two disputing Rods are not conserved (in the sense of having further influence) they are functionally lost, not conserved.

 

The mixed-message in this instance electrically balances the bipolar cell so it does not need to react to electrically balance itself. The body is not perfect and begins to break down once it loses the ability to automatically electrically balance the cells. Cells will always die electrically balanced, but cells may die earlier than possible if the body can’t efficiently keep them electrically balanced.

[thebigideas]

But the ACTUAL measurements completely deny your assertion.

 

What measurements deny my assertion? I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

 

Ionic transport across the semi-permeable membranes of neuronic structures says nothing about any speculations about anthropomorphic subjective experience at the unicellular level.

 

Cheery pick much? It says that the cell strives to maintain its electrical balance and the cell recognizes when it is electrically unbalanced and will open its sodium pores in an attempt to maintain its own electrical balance. The cell responds to electrical imbalance and the response is based on a necessity to become electrically balanced.

 

Certainly, but you haven't demonstrated any tendency to follow the evidence.

 

I have not demonstrated “any” tendency to follow the evidence? This is what we call selective reasoning. You can’t be expected to be taken seriously when you make idiotic comments like this.

 

Your assertions are simple not in correspondence with any current understanding of the subject matter of neurophysiology.

 

Old age does play tricks on us, but your selective reasoning does not reflect you in a positive light. You make these absolute statements repeatedly and it makes me wonder how much of your reasoning I can take seriously. Please tone down these absolute statements. These statements are inaccurate and damage your credibility.

 

How can you measure change in a state if you can't measure the current status of the state?

 

Do you know the difference between the experience of pain from having a hair pulled off your arm and the experience of pain from having your arm set on fire? You may not know the perfectly quantified difference, but you have a reasonable idea of the difference because you can subjectively measure the difference. This answers your question and I can stop here, but let us take it further to save us both some time. Before electricity could be measured, imagine how many thousands of scientists thought that it was impossible to measure electricity. The sun set on their empire. Did the inability to measure electricity stop the pursuit of the paradigm shift? Of course it was all worth it after the fact, but inevitably your close minded and pessimistic point of view will lose out. I am not saying for us to be open minded to every idea proposed by the masses, but the evidence does point to feelings, emotions, and consciousness being the byproduct of electricity and electric charge. If consciousness, feelings, and emotions are electricity then we will one day measure this state. And on that day the sun will set on your empire.

 

Another neat trick. How do you recognize change when you don't know the starting point.

 

Answer your own question. Can you recognize a change in your own emotional state without knowing the starting point? How did you do that? Scientists have a very good idea of the emotional states of people based on how the brain fires. This is only the beginning.

 

Funny, I've actually measured such changes. Have you? I don't consider them in the context of this discussion because they add nothing to the argument. They exist. So what?

 

Ahh it is beginning to make sense. You are basing your argument on these measurements that you took. How often do you find yourself in the lab these days Mr. James. They play a direct role in the context of this discussion because part of the discussion is on the electrical balance of cells and how changes in the electrical balance of cells can cause responses that serve to get them back to an electrically balanced state.

 

The theoretical explanation of the relationship among pertinent variables is inaccurate

 

Care to explain? I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

 

We differ once again. I see no fallacy if an argument is based on misinformation about my area of expertise and I point out the substantive errors.

 

I did my due diligence on this one and traced back all your comments. Took me a little time, but I wanted to verify something very important. You have not pointed out the substantive errors. Maybe you pointed out the substantive errors in your brain, but alas, some mixed signals may have canceled out the responses needed to transfer it to this message board. You believe that you are clever and can mask your leg work, but I am 100% entrenched in this conversation and your smoke and mirrors will never work on me and I will try my best to bring things to light so they do not work on others. The only thing that results from using this strategy is for me to downgrade your reputation faster than S&P downgraded Bear Sterns.

 

You are simply mis-applying the data of neurophysiology in an attempt to buttress your point of view. Your understanding of neurophysiology is based on small snippets of information extrapoloated beyond a reasonable justification.

 

So predictable a book can be written about it. Unfortunately for you, the chickens have come home to roost and a lifetime of depending on a smoke and mirror strategy has landed you in a pitfall. By stating in the previous response that you have pointed out substantive errors, you believe that you have defended your position and you point to the substantive errors that never made it to the message board. You are not pointing to any data of neurophysiology or substantive errors when you speak, but you believe that you are. All that results is me appealing to you to present the required data to defend your position and you playing smoke and mirrors. Now, I give credit where credit is due and you did ask for me to apply the ideas presented in the book to the causal events occurring in the eye under certain conditions, but this does not support your position. The reality is that you are not actually supporting your position, you are just playing debate games. It is childish, unproductive, and a waste of my time so please contribute data to support your position. I defined your terms, established my position, presented my data, and all I see if smoke and mirrors. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

 

Anyone with competence in neurophysiology would agree with my assessment.

 

Anyone with competence in neurophysiology who agrees with your assessment would be a lazy moron, to put it nicely. They may agree with your position, but your assessment needs some serious refining. You throw out assumptions, display laziness, appeal to data that has not been presented, and you display contempt for those who argue against you. You want my psychiatric assessment? You do this as a coping mechanisms so you can live your life in emotional balance :P

 

I am not optimistic that they will ever bridge the huge gap between functions and individually perceive perceptual states - but I wish them well with the endeavor.

 

Not being optimistic and being strongly pessimistic are two different things.

 

Having chaired a department of Psychology for 28 years I'm hardly the one to suggest that its a waste of time. :P

 

Appeal to authority much?

 

I used to describe this to students as a phenomenon resulting from the day-to-day successes of Science to directly affect human life. The successes have placed Science is a sort of ascendency over methods (Logic and Theology) that may be fulfilling to some, just don't have the current "pizzaz" of cell phones, vaccines, and nuclear energy.

 

We need to find your students as fast as possible and evaluate them to make sure that you have not caused them any permanent damage. I support the necessity to show students right from wrong, but your methods have displayed inaccuracy and laziness. I also believe that you possess a great deal of knowledge, I never denied this. But you assume with a vengeance and your methodology is in error.

 

That difference in perceived prestige has led many non-Science investigators to attempt to wrap themselves in a cloak of scientism, attempting to explain Logical arguments or Faith-based beliefs have having some objective evidentiary status confirmed by the data of science. It's patently silly to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a Deity by evidence from Quantum Physics. And it's equally silly for someone in one of the science disciplines to attempt to dispel a personal belief about religion based on the inability to find any physical location for Hell. I see your argument as one that attempts to wear that cloak of science, unfortunately the cloak is too small and has huge holes so it really doesn't work. Your examples of empirical testing of non-measurable speculations falls short of any theorizing. In terms of Science you have no "theory". The term means something far different than your usage suggests within the field of Science.

 

Another example of smoke and mirrors. You have not explained anything. You are simply appealing to authority and not presenting any data to back up your claims.

 

Perhaps I can speak to what "most" Psychologists would say with a touch more authority than you? <_<

 

Maybe if you actually presented something of substance or some data to defend your position I could respect what you are saying. Your entire defense appears to have come down to an appeal to authority.

 

As far as war, I am clearly an empiricist.

 

You are clearly a selective reasoning, cherry picking empiricist.

 

I strongly believe that Science is only about observed data. I believe that a FACT in Science is based on the "public" observation of multiple observers, where the metrics of the observation are known or defined in advance, where the observations are such that they can be repeated and that the events being studied derive from a clear Operational Definition.

 

Maybe you should go back to staying true to your beliefs on science and not presenting a position based on assumptions.

 

To the extent that alleged variables such as Emotion or Consciousness do not meet those criteria - I suppose you could say I'm at war. I'd rather say that they are just irrelevant to Science until they meet the fundamental criteria for study.

 

Emotions and consciousness are irrelevant to science until they meet the fundamental criteria of study? This statement is so moronic that I am shocked. Do you expect to be taken seriously? Scientists like you believe they are protecting the integrity of science, but all they are doing is holding it back from reaching its potential. I am all for requiring due diligence, but never to the point of selective reasoning and being closed minded to reality.

[Turtle]

:D :D :D

 

I didn't expand on my comments to my students above

, but I do have sort of an issue (minor) with folks adopting the trappings of science because it is seen by many as an effective change-agent for human existence - and then demanding that Science change to the metaphysics that appear to have been less "effective" in providing change. <_<

 

What's effective, of course, is a matter of personal judgement and reflects personal values.

 

 

 

during my professional teaching career, effective matters of personal judgement were often matters of life & death. while this may not be the case here, i have carried over an immediacy to action from the git-go of my notice of trappings adoption by students.<_< a stitch in time saves nine. :D :D :D

[Ken]

Ohh, your effort is increasing... but now you seem to be doing a little scooping from the bottom of the barrel. Exploiting gaps in language and science appears central to your retired function, but it will prove to do you minimal favor in this age of exponential innovation. It appears that you are starting to abandoned a macro defense and you have retreated to a combination of rank pulling, cherry picking, and a micro defense... I thrive on this sustenance. You are here to debate, but I am here to probe for information and it appears that certain wells runneth dry. You approach the situation like I am applying for a Ph.D and you are the people's champ trying to defend science's holy name. But the sun will eventually set on your old empire. You are troy with a massive defense, but the Trojan horse has already made it inside and there are only so many fortified towers left in the city.

 

 

 

Your definition of feel is a thorn in your side. You are using the definition of emotions in humans as the definition for feelings in cells. They are not the same thing. You exaggerate the meaning of subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. It is not a light switch that is on or off, but a sliding scale of intensity. It is more like comparing a light bulb to a computer. The only person introducing anthropomorphic concepts is yourself. The primitive feelings in a cell give rise to the complex consciousness of humans. If they didn’t “feel” something then human’s, as a whole, would not have a complex consciousness. Human’s are nothing but a compilation of cells. Consciousness is not the end result of this compilation, but a complex consciousness is the end result of this compilation.

 

 

 

Incorrect, feelings are also known as a state of consciousness. A human subjective experience is not mandatory. Your definition of feelings does not reflect the entire scientific communities definition of feelings. Anything with a consciousness can feel. The definition of consciousness is not set in stone, yet you believe that it is. You cherry pick more than I and it is apparent by your compelling urge to only accept empirical evidence, on consciousness and emotions, in relation to human subjective experience. Do animal’s not feel? “There is absolutely no way that you can be sure that your experience is the same as someone else's, common usage does not open any door to telepathic integration.” – A defense that no longer pays the bills unfortunately… Inflation is a *****. We may not be absolutely sure that one’s experience is the same as other peoples' experience, but if other peoples' experience follows what is defined as an experience than we can scientifically accept that an experience has occurred.

 

 

 

Occam’s single blade isn’t going to cut it anymore and we are sick of the rash it leaves behind. Occam needs to upgrade to a Mach 5. Selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions may generally work, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, especially in areas of science as complicated as consciousness. This is why you are so turned off by areas of science like the study of consciousness and emotions because it doesn’t follow the ridged rules of what you define as science at the moment. You are going to lose this war and your catapults will be meaningless when the tanks come rolling in. By using Lloyd Morgan you are supporting my position and fighting my battles for me, thanks. "In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale." – Lloyd Morgan. Let us take our good friend’s advice and not assume that consciousness is a result of the whole and instead let us assume that consciousness is the result of the smallest piece, especially when that piece appears to show adequate qualifications.

 

 

 

You act like the case is closed and we have answered the questions of consciousness and emotions. We have not solved the problems at hand and that is because your explanation does not reach the necessity required.

 

 

 

So you and other readers can more efficiently understand what is being discussed. It should be obvious that it is not meant in the human sense. Your defense in word play is a smoke and mirrors strategy that will get you nowhere with me and I will give you 0 credit if you continue to retreat from the discussion or distract from its focus. I am not applying for a Ph.D and if we approach the conversation in this manner then this will end up being a conversation that will take years longer than it needs to be. I am here to get the data and not to keep you occupied on your Sunday afternoon. Single cells do not formulate strategies to overcome their “enemies” because this would require a complex consciousness and this is something single cells do not possess. Do light bulbs perform quantum calculations? Of course they do not. I have no problem clarifying something that is too vague or properly explaining something that is seriously tangled, but your appeal to the obvious, in an effort to pinch points in a debate, is a waste of my time. Bringing down a conversation to these levels will only ostracize you from your peers and it is an obvious attempt to hold others in contempt.

 

 

 

You jump back and forth in this debate and actually argue for my position a lot of the time. You must be accustomed to discussions with people who do not know better. It does not suffice. The current explanations do not paint the entire picture and may not accurately paint that picture. Please explain to us how the simple description of events suffices when it doesn’t even suffice for yourself? You act like everything is fine when in reality you are at war with the study of consciousness and emotion because you believe that any explanation will never suffice based on the rigorous requirements of science.

 

 

 

Already explained above.

 

 

 

Ohh yes I can, but you and the scientific community could not, up until this point, because you are using outdated “equipment”. Allow me to use examples from the book.

 

“A cell’s drive to maintain the electrical/emotional balance of its emotional electricity is what we have come to call motivation. Motivation is a sense that all living cells with DNA possess and this sense exists to maintain the emotional balance of emotional electricity. Emotional electricity becomes emotionally unbalanced by receiving a positive or negative charge. When the emotional electricity in a living cell with DNA receives a positive charge then the cell will experience HEE or Happy Emotional Electricity or experienced happiness and when the emotional electricity in a cell receives a negative charge then the cell will experience SEE or Sad Emotional Electricity or experienced sadness. Charges range in value and these values are based on intensity and duration. Both HEE and SEE are types of feelings. Individual cells experience feelings and groups of cells in animals give rise to what we have come to label as complex emotions. Countless cells need to be involved to create complex emotions in humans (like love). If a normal person cuts their leg, they will experience pain and their pain in this instance will generally be comprised of a varied value of 100% SEE. However, if a masochist cuts their leg it may cause what we define as pain, but for them, pain is comprised of a varied value of 60% SEE and 40% HEE. Masochists experience some pleasure when they cause themselves to experience what we define as pain. It is inaccurate to assume that a standard amount of HEE or SEE is inherent in any emotion or action for every person.”

 

The scientific community had problems up to this point because they cannot define emotions using a simple on or off definition. However, if values of intensity and duration are used coupled with motivation, love can be defined. Love does not have a definite value of HEE or SEE, the value is varied on a case-by-case basis. Once we are capable of quantifying emotional electricity then we can more accurately define emotions based on values of HEE and SEE.

 

 

 

This is another problems that you face as a result of using outdated knowledge. This is why an upgrade to this new reasoning is requested for review.

 

 

 

Short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat is a more accurate example than spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage. You keep trying to compare the consciousness of the whole with the consciousness of smallest piece, stop with your anthropomorphic attempt to confuse the conversation. This is like comparing the actions of Goldman Sachs as a whole with the actions of a single employee inside Goldman Sachs. The CEO of GS is like the original cell of a human. Analysts in GS are like normal cells in the body. The CEO doesn’t manage the analysts directly, that is what a chain of command is for.

 

 

 

You let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. You do not do this purposely, but you do not understand what is begin discussed in the book and instead you are basing your arguments (inaccurately) on what you believe is being discussed.

 

 

 

Haha, thanks for the layup. Think about what you are saying.

 

 

 

More of the same. This type of question has already been answered two times and it’s a waste of time to keep answering the same question. Please save us both some time and reread my responses to this question of “feel.”

 

 

 

Ohh no you did not… can you believe this guy? Even without the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today, I can appeal to an authority who has relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially understood. Some of his information is accurate, even though he did not have access to what is currently available to us. You are not saying he is wrong by presenting empirical support, you are assuming he is wrong because of when he died.

 

 

 

Please explain how this is inaccurate. I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

 

 

 

Haha, read the book and stop being lazy. I am not and cannot copy and paste 30 pages on this forum.

 

 

 

The Rod cells becomes electrically unbalanced and they pass this electrical unbalance up the chain of command until another cell(s) can correct the electrical imbalance. It is also possible that the reactions they display are the process they take to become electrically balanced. When we burn ourselves with fire and experience pain we move away from the fire and this causes a reduction in the pain and eventually an experience of pleasure.

 

 

 

Receiving input information causes the bipolars to become electrically unbalanced or balanced and this causes the bipolar to experience feelings. You may think of feelings as simple reactions and most cells are programmed to have these simple defined reactions, but this could be comparable to starving a kid for an entire day and then putting his/her favorite meal in front of them. They are going to eat the meal, assuming they are functioning properly. Functioning properly for them is comparable to normal living cells with DNA functioning properly.

 

 

 

This describes the concept of several cells becoming emotionally unbalanced and rebalanced either immediately, when the body sleeps, or at some other time. The difference is that if signals are based on electricity and conservation of electrical charge applies to this electricity, then all of these signals must eventually be electrically balanced. It is also important to note that these reactions are based on the Law of Emotional Balance and without the Law of Emotional Balance these cells couldn’t have consistent programmed reactions. Without these consistent programmed reactions there could not be complex organisms like humans. The reactions are a byproduct of becoming electrically balanced, we will soon see that these reactions are always based on becoming electrically balanced.

 

 

 

The mixed-message in this instance electrically balances the bipolar cell so it does not need to react to electrically balance itself. The body is not perfect and begins to break down once it loses the ability to automatically electrically balance the cells. Cells will always die electrically balanced, but cells may die earlier than possible if the body can’t efficiently keep them electrically balanced.

 

 

That is a fascinating reply.

 

You have accepted a series of "laws" that sound to me, and I suspect others, to be simply restatements of some of the properties of Magic.

 

From: http://www.emeraldgypsy.com/z_herb_magic.html

 

An herb, in the practice of spell-casting and magic, can be the single item which pushes magic to its purpose, if the practitioner is in tune with the herb, leaf, plant or fruit he/she is using.

 

Each herb has a different molecular vibration. This is not magic, but science.

 

Molecules which make up a thing, vibrate to maintain the bond with surrounding molecules. When that vibration slows dramatically and ceases, the thing dies. However, the energy (soul, spirit, essence, chi) that inhabited that thing leaves its residue behind and the item maintains the signature of its former inhabitant, but not its frequency. The frequency is the rate at which the living active molecules general vibrate. The frequency of a plant with its roots firmly and healthfully imbedded in the earth has a higher frequency of vibration than that of the dried herbs in the cupboard. In each case though, we can sense or “read” the signature regardless of frequency, just as we know that the dried basil in the cupboard is the same basil cut from the garden a few months ago.

 

It is the signature of the herb which lends its power to magic work.

 

I'd describe these "laws" as "comfort-food" thoughts. The notion of some drive to maintain what you call electrical balance is a good example. Its more comforting to simply accept some gobbledygook about electrical "balance" than to actually look at what goes on within neural cells.

 

You appear unaware of the electrochemical nature of neural transmission. A Neuron's normal state is not "electrical-balance". If it could be squeezed into your terminology it would be described as the normal electrical imbalance. The normal state of a neuron is an electrical potential across the semi-permeable membranes of it's surface.

 

You certainly have a right to your own opinions, you don't have a right to your own facts. Especially when those facts are in total variance with actual measurements.

 

As far as language, I would argue that providing a new meaning to existing terms every time you wish to justify an odd interpretation does nothing to further your argument or move us to communication.

 

You choose to redefine "feeling" as just a new label for reaction ignoring the implicit connotation of awareness and human reaction that are a part of the standard usage of the word, while rejecting a less ambiguous and more fundamentally accurate term such as reaction or behavior pattern which avoids any confusion with human subjectivity. It's your choice but don't complain when others reject your new definitions in favor of the predominant usage.

 

Finally, as a process of inquiry, I am troubled by your approach as it seems precisely backward from the way that science has progressed, and continues to progress. You accept "laws" of this and that and then proceed to attempt explanation based your judgement of the truth of these laws.

 

The entire mechanism of Science is to look at the observations of nature and attempt to derive some unifying concepts (theories) that not only provide some explanation of the observed but also serve to predict what may occur in the to-be observed. Theories that have been the source of good predictions are sometimes elevated to the status of Law - not as some legal or truthfulness imperative but simply because they have good predictive power AS FAR AS THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED.

 

Assuming that someone's "law" is the one, true, explanation and then working back from the explanation to color the data seems to me to be a pointless exercise. And an exercise that clearly distinguishes the dilettantes from those who understand, at least, that which has been observed.

 

You don't have to be a Ph.D. candidate to take the time to educate yourself about the fundamental principles of neurophysiology. I'd suggest its effort better spent than just dreaming up explanations that are cut and fit to someone else's pronouncements of laws that no one else sees as lawful.

 

And by the way, you seem rather confused about the meaning of Lloyd Morgan's Canon. :D

 

I think we really have exhausted the novelty of our differing thoughts.

 

I don't think that a new approach to science that simply emulates the processes of other forms of inquiry, which have often had no real impact beyond intellectual stimulation, would serve us well.

 

I see no Universal Ethical laws pronounced and accepted by one and all. I see no religious doctrine emerging that unifies all sects into a single understanding of a Deity. On the other hand, Science (and the technology which it stimulates) provide us with incredible devices (my Droid phone for instance), cure many of the sick, prevent many of the illnesses we are afflicted with, allow us to travel at speeds and convenience that were impossible to even imagine 200 years ago, and on and on...

 

For an approach that you believe to be outmoded, and inefficient, and irrelevant I think its done rather well.

 

There are far fewer Mother Thereses in the world than fertilizer companies - and which do you suppose feed more people? You and I can enjoy the debate of our views but not much changes in either of us. :P

[Ken]

I just re-read your last brilliant riposte. :rolleyes:

 

And I must confess that you made one good point. I was responding to your comments and the quoted statements from OfGrandeur and failed to read the "book". That was an error on my part and I have corrected it.

 

First, several points that I consider significant in evaluating the book.

 

The "book" is offered anonymously. That leaves the reader with unanswered questions about the author's competence to forge new ground, or to understand the cited sources.

 

Second, the unnamed author claims that over a hundred academicians have corresponded with him, but there is no record of either their fields of expertise nor the substance of their comments.

 

Third, the quotations offered in the summary (which seem to entail all of your claims) are yanked out of context or based on such early speculation that they fail to meet any reasonable criterion of relevance.

 

That third point has been a continuing disagreement between us. You have asked for references to my statements and I failed to provide them since they are based on such common knowledge within the field of neurophysiology that I assumed that anyone with undergraduate exposure to the topics would accept them.

 

In your case that assumption was faulty. So, I correct it here and provide you with a short but representative list of introductory texts and a few more substantive articles to give you an opportunity to learn some fundamentals. Most are available at Amazon, and all are available at any good university library.

 

A sample reading list in the Science of Neurophysiology

 

Journal of Neurophysiology

 

The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education (JUNE), Fall 2003, 2(1): A16-A22

JUNE is a publication of Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN) www.funjournal.org

 

An Online Lab Manual for Neurophysiology

Richard F. Olivo

Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063

http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/OlivoA16.pdf

(Note: Scroll down to the table of contents of the lab manual to see the range of topics taught in a lab-based course)

 

Foundations of Cellular Neurophysiology

Daniel Johnston and Samuel Miao-Sin Wu

Cloth / November 1994

 

Textbook of Clinical Neurology (Goetz, Textbook of Clinical Neurology) by Christopher G. Goetz MD (Sep 12, 2007

 

A Textbook of Clinical Neurophysiology (A Wiley medical publication) by A.M. Halliday and etc. (Feb 18, 1987)

 

Concepts in Neurophysiology by William Kay Stephenson (May 1980)

 

Textbook of Human Neuroanatomy by Inderbir Singh (Apr 30, 2007)

 

A Textbook of Neuroanatomy: With Atlas and Dissection Guide by William T. Mosenthal (Mar 15, 1995)

 

Foundations of Cellular Neurophysiology (Bradford Books) by Daniel Johnston and Samuel Miao-Sin Wu (Nov 2, 1994)

 

Neurophysiology by Roger H. S. Carpenter (Aug 15, 2002)

 

American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Fourth Edition (American Psychiatric Press Textbook/ Neuropsychiatry) by Stuart C. Yudofsky and Robert E. Hales (Mar 15, 2002)

 

Crawdad: A Cd-Rom Lab Manual for Neurophysiology : Student Version by Robert A. Wyttenbach, Bruce R., Ph.D. Johnson, and Ronald R. Hoy (Sep 1999)

 

Neurophysiology by P. P. Newman (Nov 30, 1980)

 

Neurophysiology: A Primer by Charles F. Stevens (May 1966)

 

Textbook of Physiology: Excitable Cells and Neurophysiology (Textbook Physiology) by Harry, M.D. Patton and Albert F., Ph.D. Fuchs (Mar 1989)

 

Color Atlas of Neuroscience: Neuroanatomy and Neurophysiology (Thieme Flexibook) by Ben Greenstein and Adam Greenstein (Jan 1, 2000)

 

 

If you choose to reject the knowledge base of the discipline of neurophysiology and substitute in its place unsupported claims from an anonymous source then there really is no point in further discussion.

 

Enjoy your holidays, :santa:

[thebigideas]

“My opinions about single cell cognition and computational ability are partially stated in my 2007 article http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

Cognition and decision-making are widely recognized in many types of cells, not just neurons. For example, the August 10, 2010, issue of Nature Immunology was devoted to "decision-making in the immune system." You might also look into decision-making in programmed cell death (apoptosis). Cell differentiation would be impossible if all cell divisions were equal. There is a large and growing literature on asymmetric cell divisions and the role they play in differentiation and tissue development. Even bacteria have asymmetric cell divisions when they form specialized cells, such as spores and nitrogen-fixing heterocysts."

James A. Shapiro, University of Chicago

Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics

 

“I would point out that the notion that each neuron has a degree of consciousness was proposed by Freud in his "Project for a scientific psychology". This is one in a long line of proposals as to how individual neurons contribute to personal experience: the ideas in this work are in that tradition.”

Thomas G. Bever, University of Arizona

Professor of Psychology

[JMJones0424]

You failed to answer my question in your previous thread, but I think it still applies. If one can not quantify emotion, how can you presume that there is ever a "balance"? To propose a "Law of Emotional Balance", one must therefore be able to show how emotions are measured, and how indeed there is a balance, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

 

To say that individual cells appear to have cognition because they react to their environment is, I think, to ignore what cognition is. Does my thermostat feel happy when it gets cold enough for the mercury switch to induce a current through it and turn on the heater, thereby warming its environment? Is an atom sad when its electron shell is only partially full?

 

I would point out that using Freud as an appeal to authority in the field of psychology is as ineffective as using Lamarck in evolutionary biology. This is not to say that he was incorrect, just that it hardly supports your argument.

[HydrogenBond]

Emotion is a phenomena that is best observed from within. You can observe the effects of emotion from the outside, but not the cause. As an example, watching someone feel happy is not the same as being happy. If you watch someone else being happy, you will only see the effects. The person who is feeling happy is aware of the cause, that creates of all the effects that you will see. If you try to infer cause from only effects, it seems very arbitrary and subjective, since you will start to project. But if you experience the cause directly, one is objective. Even a brain scan is still just an effect.

 

The problem that science appears to face in these matters, is it is used to using primarily the eyes or ears to make observation. This limits one to external observation. With emotion one needs to use another sensory system, that is somewhat analogous to the sense of touch. For example, feelings in the heart use sensory feedback. You don't use eyes or ears. You can put me in a dark room with no sound and I can still use the sensory system that will be needed to gather data.

 

An analogy is trying to explain to a skeptical blind man, the moon goes through light/shape phases from new to full. Since he is not using the needed sense, to prove this visual based observation to himself, he will forever be skeptical that you are making this up, or it must be subjective. Science is sort of blind, since it tries to impose the wrong sensory systems. It is like the blind man expecting to hear something, as proof of the moon phases. If the moon doesn't sing to him from the outside, it is all pseudo-science to him. He only needs the right tools for the job.

 

If you look at the body language of emotion, sadness can slump one over. Since the effect is whole body, so is the cause. If you want to observe the cause, like any good scientist, you need the correct tools. Just close the eyes and block the ears, and practice using the right tools. Those who use the wrong tools, will never understand, since you don't observe stars with the tongue. You use the correct observational tools.

.