Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Dopamine and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT) are neurotransmitters with important, conserved roles in the vertebrate nervous system. Dopamine is important in neuronal circuitry that controls reward and in brain regions that regulate movement (1). Assigning a specific functional role to 5-HT has proven more difficult because electrophysiological recordings of 5-HT neurons reveal unchanged firing in response to most stimuli (2). Competing roles have been suggested for dopamine and 5-HT in reward circuitry, with dopamine signals predicting positive stimuli and 5-HT signals predicting negative consequences (3, 4). Biochemically, their regulation is quite similar, with similar proteins regulating synthesis, storage, release, uptake, and metabolism. To compare functional dopamine and 5-HT regulation in the brain, methods have been developed to monitor dynamic changes in their concentrations in the extracellular space.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11510.full
In the spiritual or disciplinary activities Jan listed above both chemicals are no doubt involved. However the reward circuitry for dopamine is much more extensive and inclusive. In fact as the study cited above suggests there may even be antagonistic components to the complex interrelationship between the two.
Those epiphanous spiritual activities involving nominally reinforced and acute euphoric states of mind are the result of dopamine activity, whereas serotonin, which seems to have more of a regulatory function, is probably more highly involved in meditative disciplines, such as breath counting being the foremost fundamental example that comes to mind.( this point is my own and not a result of the cited study)
BTW dopamine is not only produced in the brain ( frontal lobe regions) but is also manufactured in the eye/retina and its production there is facilitated by exposure to full spectrum sunlight; and intimately involved in chronobiological, circadian functions. Exposure to blue light from artificial lighting, phones,and computer screens adversely effects and inhibits both melatonin and dopamine production in the eye.
Competing roles have been suggested for dopamine and 5-HT in reward circuitry, with dopamine signals predicting positive stimuli and 5-HT signals predicting negative consequences
This "competing" relationship might be the neurochemical basis for such charismatic examples, often seen in feral Pentecostal meetings, for instance, in which uncontrolled and extreme jubilant euphoria is often immediately followed ,or accompanied by , the most lugubrious weeping and confessions of personal sins and exaggerated reproachments .
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I believe that there are other states involving other brain chemicals.
For sure.
While interesting, most of the CBC discussion was outside my understanding. I was fascinated by the suggestion of ways in which the adult identity and sense of self might undergo substantial change.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
As necessary as chemistry and circuitry are to experience, even religious ecstasy, those chemicals and that circuitry are not (as in not) the experience. Neither are they the reflective observation and realization of that experience and they're certainly not the recollection through memory of that experience.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
As necessary as chemistry and circuitry are to experience, even religious ecstasy, those chemicals and that circuitry are not (as in not) the experience.
But they are your certainty of the above?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
But they are your certainty of the above?
No. Chemistry and structure are just that: dopamine does not experience, dopamine may affect experience it is even necessary to some experience but in and of itself it is not experience, unless you hold to the notions of panpsychism.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"that circuitry are not (as in not) the experience" -Paul
and what courses and studies and degrees do you have in biological engineering, neurosystems engineering, etc., Paul?
lol
That circuitry is the basis of brain as a perception generator. No brain circuitry, no brain perception (yes, incl perception of flashes of light from retinal excitation by a finger in the dark, notwithstanding Largo's silly dismissiveness). Now we might argue I suppose whether the basis is 99% or 100% - esp taking into acct interaction with the system's environs - but it is the basis.
That this apparently conflicts with your worldview is your problem.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
That this apparently conflicts with your worldview is your problem.
So you're proposing that chemicals in and of themselves are thoughts? Good luck with that. Likewise you propose the brain itself is thoughts? Preposterous. Intuition alone declares otherwise.
The structure of the brain is just that. It produces thoughts but those thoughts enjoy both a close relationship to, and a separateness from, the structure that produced them. A brain may have no thoughts if it suffers trauma yet it can remain an intact structure both as structure and chemically.
Education? Training? You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Preposterous...
You severely underestimate the roles of emergence and functionality in your posts and presumably your thoughts.
Is (a) the electrical resonance phenomenon (in an LC circuit) or (b) tornado phenomenon (in atmospherics) a single individual component? or else output of a single individual component.
Beta: Take some systems engineering courses that over months to years emphasize and illustrate (the magic of) emergence and (the power, competence and wonder of) functionality and then.. post up.
The circumstantial evidence for brain as a complex, exquisite perception system (giving rise to all the terms used in this thread- subjective experience, qualia, consciousness, mind, etc) is simply overwhelming.
Of course if you did have a lifetime of experience in bio-engineering labs - esp those dealing with nervous and control systems particularly w regard to perception - then the stances you have taken in this thread would bring with them a great deal more credence.
It produces thoughts but those thoughts enjoy both a close relationship to, and a separateness from, the structure that produced them. -Paul
You tell me, does the high circulating current in an LC (inductance capacitance) circuit at its resonance frequency "enjoy both a close relationship to, and a separateness from, the structure that produces" it?
"Preposterous. Intuition alone declares otherwise." -Paul
Your naivete (otherwise narrow-mindedness) in systems, emergence and functionality is showing, imo.
...
Here, take a thumbnail tour of systems re an electrical resonance circuit...
http://www.play-hookey.com/ac_theory/randr/ac_lc_parallel.html
The question to ask about this circuit, then, is, "Where does the extra current in both L and C come from, and where does it go?"
It's only Electrical Systems 101. Enjoy.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
You tell me, does the high circulating current in an LC (inductance capacitance) circuit at its resonance frequency "enjoy both a close relationship to, and a separateness from, the structure that produces" it?
Yes. The current is not the structure that carries it. Pretty simple idea. The structure may manipulate the current but that current remains a separate entity.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Yes. The current is not the structure that carries it. Pretty simple idea. The structure may manipulate the current but that current remains a separate entity
(1) And of course the circuit is the basis (100%) for the current and the amazing, astonishing "high circulating" phenom. Wow.
(2a) "The current is not the structure..."
(2b) "The perception is not the structure..." (neuroscience models, hfcs)
Hmm.
(1) No LC circuitry, no resonance (no resonance current).
(2) No brain circuitry, no perception.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 6, 2016 - 06:20pm PT
|
Paul, Fruity is using a certain angle to try and explain consciousness, abetting you to get down with the science that bolsters that angle, THEN you will get it.
What you get, of course, is his angle, which Fruity universalizes as THE angle. But note that what Fruity is talking about is limited to WHAT is perceived, and is trying to posit perception itself in strictly functional terms. Basically behaviorialsm as ordained by neuroscience, with a side order of electrical engineering and attitude. Because this is yet another attempt to conflate 1st and 3rd person perspectives, the work arounds require robust woo.
This whole house of cards falls down once you start contrasting machine registration/processing with human sentience, which folks from Fruity's camp posit as either emergent functions of neuro substrates, or in the case of Uncle Dennett's Folly, as illusory: "We only think we are conscious."
The machine model or gross functionalism, again, unravels when you start plowing deeply into AI, of all things. The best that Fruity's model can conjure up is what Chalmers calls a psychological zombie, capable of amazing feats of processing and stimulus responses, but altogether dead inside - save for the steam rising off those processors.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
[dopamine]in and of itself it is not experience
I don't mean to tell you what experience is. I would say, tentatively, that what you experience is generated by the chemicals and circuits you refer to. The way in which this happens is a subject of study. It is not necessary or important for you to make a study of the details of brain function.
Saying that such-and-such is not the experience itself is only a truism.
You set up a straw man when you imply that a student of the nervous system would say that dopamine is experience. Dopamine is one piece in a large puzzle.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I would say, tentatively, that what you experience is generated by the chemicals and circuits you refer to. The way in which this happens is a subject of study.
In the same way light is produced by a light bulb through a structure and electricity to produce light. The light is not the bulb and mind/experience is not the brain.
The straw man is yours.
(2) No brain circuitry, no perception.
This is not the issue. No filament in the light bulb and no light, but the filament and the bulb are not the light.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
In the same way light is produced by a light bulb through a structure and electricity to produce light. The light is not the bulb and mind/experience is not the brain.
Not only an authority on brain function, but knows how light works, too.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Not only an authority on brain function, but knows how light works, too. Yeah, all that and no education... remarkable eh?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 6, 2016 - 08:04pm PT
|
tru·ism
[ˈtro͞oˌizəm]
NOUN
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting:
--
Actually, saying that mechanical functioning (dopamine or fill-in-the-blank) and 1st person experience are virtually the same, or are so closely and causally linked to basically amount to the same thing, is almost the party line here. So in a sense it IS new and interesting, because it does not merely parrot fundamentalist physicalism.
What's amazing here is that even staunch materialistic neuroscientists no longer posit consciousness as a site-specific phenomenon, but now talk about global activity, citing various connectivity and complexity theories to foist a kind of brute mechanicalism onto unwitting folk like Fruity.
Again, when this mechanicalism is played out in the AI scenario - and mechanical sentience is axiomatic to physicalism - the impossibilities pop up like Jack in the Boxes.
We'll see if anyone can figure out how and why.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Karl Popper: The reason we think is so that we can let our thoughts die instead of us."
The reason we think is because we can’t help ourselves. Blame evolution. This is where it’s brought most of us to.
Jan: If you call on her [Kali], she will be a powerful advocate to help you cast out those unlovely parts of yourself.
She is a part of all of us. Visualization and tantra and depth psychology and shamanism all mean to tap or at least observe those “complexes” in us. Every god that you see is you, in that particular personality or being. You are all of those things, some in prominence and some in the unconscious or in the shadows. Some of them look or appear to be evil or malevolent or wrathful. They really aren't. All that you can be is called on, now and then.
Be like the animals. Be yourself, that which you cannot help but be.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
brain-pops
Not a frozen snack, but an uninvited thought/word/phrase from the unconscious.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
John, you have been dissing a mechanistic description of the mind for years.
What you have not done is thoroughly explain your alternative viewpoint, or another viewpoint. We know what Werner thinks. He believes that we have a magical soul, which survives the death of the brain. A majority of the planet shares his belief. If it is indeed "magic," then it can't be examined. From there it leaves the realm of investigation.
We've certainly heard Werner shout about materialists several hundred times now. He also doesn't explain his position.
It would simplify this conversation, and set a marker for discussion.
I would say: "The mind is located in the brain, and its function is altered by hormones from certain organs." I have absolutely no idea where the mind might lie if not there. Huge sciences are built on this premise.
If it doesn't lie in the brain, then where does the mind exist?
A simple question. PLEASE answer it. Thoughtfully.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!