logic vs feeling

angelica wrote:

Cool.

You don't stop by MYspace anymore, though!

noted.

i'll be by your myspace in minutes

Not to mention leaving senseless messages....

[....

angelica wrote:

The difference between you and I is that you are willing to trust what you project on someone else. Approximate is not the same as the same. Approximate is great as a guess, but to act like it's the truth is something different. I'm guessing when you've been alive for another 20 years or so, you'll have learned by life experience why objectifying others is not good for you. Maybe you'll figure out that in the gap between your approximation of what others feel and the reality, there's a lot of room to distort, stigmatize and bias your own awareness. Crippled awareness is crippled awareness.

It's accurate (somewhat) to say that the brain "gives rise" to consciousness. It makes it sound like transcending, but it's not. Consciousness is kind of embedded in the brain. Existing within it.

A person has a thought; where did it come from? The brain. The brain is objective. Brain -> Thought, Object -> Subject.

As an example. If you watch Christof Koch's lectures. He as much says so. He's an expert on the visual cognitive system. He explains this as the process; Photon simutuli -> Retina -> Visual Cortex -> V1, V2/Pareital Lobe -> Frontal Lobe. A person has a Retinal deficit; they can't see, but can visual objects subjectively. A person has damage to the visual cortex; can't see, but can visualize subjectively. A person has damage to specific neurons in V1, V2; can't see, can't visualize subjectively. Some people can't perceive motion, the rest of the visual system works, but they can't visualize it. It's called the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Prof. Koch is careful to directly link V1 and V2 to conscious awareness, but stongly implies it anyway.

Let's claim that the frontal lobe is where "logic" occurs and the pareital lobe plays no part in this hypothesis. If V1 and V2 are where conscious visual awareness occurs and the logic occurs afterwards. What does that mean? Our subjective opinions are subject to logic? No. Because we don't make opinions about sight with sight. We use a logic. If there is no logic in what "gives rise" to our awareness, then what is there? When we have a memory, neurons fire electrical signals down their axons or dendrites to make chemical synapses with another neuron causing them to fire. This happens all the time. It's very logical. Two associated memories through, a commonality will fire together, when one of them is being recalled. Synaptic plasticity, Hebbian theory. More logic that controls our memory <-> emotion connection.

Some field theories make an attempt to explain the Subjective <-> Objective interaction, but they fall short. Conscious Electromagnetic Information (CEMI) field theory, says that the electrical synapses in the brain cause an electromagnetic field, I don't dispute that at all. CEMI field theory claims that this field has the ability to interact with junctions before they close. This falls short in a few ways. The EM field doesn't last very long and is extremely low voltage insufficient to stimulate the junction. The other way, I think it falls short is that stimulating the junction a second time will only produce the same effect it did the first time. The EM field, K+ and NA+ are just natural cause and effect of the universe. If we could just constantly reuse energy we would never have to eat to resupply it. The used energy dissolves into tiny electrons. The same way we use energy when we walk or run. They probably travel through our cranium and escape into the universe to become hydrogen or something.

So, I don't really see how anything subjective could be entirely beyond explanation. We are talking about consciousness. It's a difficult thing. There is only one logical explanation for where it comes from and everything about it is logical. Love is clearly explained through several chemical interactions and olfactory receptions over time. I'm not mathematician but you can imagine when you add seratonin, vasopressin, testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin, oestregen, norepinephrine and dopamine together, one tiny variation in any level can produce a different feeling. However, it's all very logical, it will be simulated on a computer if not being done already.

You will find this underlying order or logic with any emotion or subjective thought. It's the nature of the universe... or just my twisted opinion..

soulsinging wrote:

would you two cut this love affair out of the bbs? i swear, there's enough oxytocin in this thread for even ahnimus to feel a little affectionate.

Actually I was just forming an analysis of their interaction. A connection was established to revisit good feelings. One is drinking, raising dopamine levels, which in turn affects the desire to interact socially. So they established a connection and discussed experiences which correlate with their relationship. One commented on the others absence of attention to their preferred activity in order to initiate a lengthier interaction and to engage in other desired activity, therefor more chemically stimulating.

Edit:

Then you interacted socially as well, in order to feed your desire for stimulation. You formulated a comment that would establish a connection by a common topic. With innuendo depicting me as a emotionless person to establish further commonality in the popular view of the topic. Thus making you popular, though you probably share that opinion anyway.

angelica wrote:

That's Ahnimus getting affectionate, folks.

hahaha

Ahnimus wrote:

I do it the same way you do it. I go visit my buddy John, crack open some beers, shoot the shit about nothing and laugh our asses off. It's great.

I've already attempted to explain how that works.

I don't drink, so you don't exactly do it the way I do. I also don't have a "buddy John", so our subjective experiences differ apparently.

angelica wrote:

I don't drink, so you don't exactly do it the way I do. I also don't have a "buddy John", so our subjective experiences differ apparently.

By placeholders, hardly anything that would constitute a major variation in experience. I also know what it's like to be sober with a drunk friend.

Ahnimus wrote:

By placeholders, hardly anything that would constitute a major variation in experience. I also know what it's like to be sober with a drunk friend.

You definitely don't know what it's like to be me, Ahnimus! You can't possibly understand the variables in my interactions with sweet adeline.