The Black Vault

Hello,
I've been away for a couple of days, but I seen some things in the last few pages I'd like to comment on. I hope none of the following will be taken out of context, I just had so much I wanted to reply to, I'm trying to make a short post of it all.

Some stuff from humphreys.........

humphreys wrote:" It is not a part of physical reality, is a creation of the brain, and does not exist without a brain to create it."

My answer: Nothing exists without a brain, not even science. Take away your brain and your dead, you no longer experience.

humphreys wrote: "We should be emotional robots ONLY when it comes to deciphering truth. If a perfectly logical robot could be created, without any emotions or bias, he would be far superior to us humans at determining the truth."

My answer: Without a human element involved there would be no need to decipher truth. Robots run on programs not ethics.

humphreys wrote: "The kind of illness that react best to placebos are "mind illnesses" that did not need treatment to be healed anyway."

My answer: I think we both know that isn't true, so I don't know why you said it. The results of tests are out there for anyone to read on the effect of emotions and health. The mind/body connection covers all disease, even cancer and heart disease. And if by "mind illnesses" you meant psychological disease, then you have insulted millions of people who suffer from mental disorders, and are being helped by medications and various types of therapy and treatments.


Some stuff from Tairra............

Tairra wrote:" My definition of real is:
Real=existent in reality.
For the purposes of this argument the definition has shifted a bit to mean physical things I guess.. "

My answer: You can't argue with someone who makes up there own definition of reality.

Tairra wrote: "Well it's clear to me that emotions have a tendency of dictating what we do, but that doesn't mean that they are physically real. "and...
"Our brain is very very powerful when it comes to our own bodies, but that's not emotion manipulating matter, that's emotion dictating what happens in our bodies."

My answer: You are contradicting yourself and in the same sentence even! Ps: Our bodys are matter!

Tairra wrote: "So light influences our emotions, yes. That is not manipulating matter."

My answer: If our emotions { chemical reactions} are being manipulated through our eyes which are matter, by the light which is matter, then its all about manipulation of matter!

Tairra wrote: "You cannot move rocks with your mind"

My answer: You can't move rocks without your mind.



Fortwynt wrote: Well my point is, where is the line drawn? If emotions are "neuropeptides attaching to receptors and stimulating an electrical change on neurons", what causes this peptide to begin movement? why?

My anwser: I'd say outside events cause reactions by our mind/body. If I had to guess why we react to certain stimuli, I would say its an individual reaction based on each persons personal history and experiences. Fear is a base emotion for many others, like anger, and hate. If an emotion is taken apart piece by piece we often find fear behind most negative emotions. Love is the opposite of fear.
All action is preceded by thought, I think there are different sources for thoughts, our five senses of course, but I believe there are also sources which can't be seen or measured by human instruments, metaphysical, or spiritual in nature. The brain is an organ which resides in our skulls, but the mind is an organ which lives in our entire body and some say beyond. Its a interesting question that I don't believe anyone has answered yet.
I suppose a lot has to do with survival, but then there are thoughts that have nothing to do with survival. Like composing music or philosophy, good question!

Take care, and have a good night,

Item7

MonarchSmile wrote:

fortwynt wrote:Well my point is, where is the line drawn? If emotions are "neuropeptides attaching to receptors and stimulating an electrical change on neurons", what causes this peptide to begin movement? why?

If I want to grab my bottle of Dr. Pepper, first there is the thought, then by thought alone I activate the precise muscular function to reach out and grasp the drink with my hand...but where does this thought come from, where does this "actually" begin?

Not sure I can explain adequately what I mean.

nope, your Dr.P sensor actually started that thought

(you should not be riding a bicycle while guzzling a Dr.P)

then hand and eye kick in with robot arm(thou shall not spill or dribble or breath Dr.P)



burp

Damn i need me one of them robot arms, fo sho!

fortwynt wrote:Did not say it was "just" a receiver...or did i? If I did, that is not what I meant.

Let's look at it this way....with the right balance of technology, i could probably attach a number of electrodes to a dead cat (i think they've actually done this already) and cause it to behave in precisely the same fashion as a living cat...with enough time and study, i could probably fool anyone that this was even a dead cat (of course one would have to keep the flies away)....but even if i could hit a button, send an impulse, and cause the cat to do the same exact activity, does this mean it is the same as what happens when the cat is living?

no.

Um, I don't think they have done this, and I don't think this is possible at all.

What makes you think you could??

Item7 wrote:Hello,
Sorry about the last post humphreys, some of it was directed to Tairra, and I think you read that part and thought I got it from your post. I was in a hurry when I wrote it. My bad
The following is not directed to you or anyone in particular, its just my ideas on the subject of emotions being real or not, and whether or not they "count" in this reality.

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." In a sense it is what is real. The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, where existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). Emotions are part of reality, therefore they are real. Something doesn't have to be "out there" in order to be real or in order to count! { like in the examples given by humphreys}
Notice something real may not be measurable or even comprehensible. However emotions can be measured, they are as real as the effects they have on the body.

Probably the most common test that shows the effects of motions is the "Lie detector test" When a person takes a polygraph test, four to six sensors are attached to him. A polygraph is a machine in which the multiple ("poly") signals from the sensors are recorded on a single strip of moving paper ("graph"). The sensors usually record:
The person's breathing rate
The person's pulse
The person's blood pressure
The person's perspiration
Item7

Sorry, I stopped reading here. These are not measurements of emotions, they are bodily responses, and they are physical. Neither of those things are emotions, they are responses to emotional feelings, caused by the brain.

humphreys,

Whatever. One of my courses in college was forensics. I know what I'm talking about. A polygraph measures responses that are caused by emotions! Its the one of the ways to measure emotions, to see if someone is lying or not.

Emotions only show up in their effects on the body, much like overeating shows its effects by a person becoming overweight, or lifting weights shows up as the effect of having stronger muscles. These effects prove the existence of an influence of something on a body.

Your saying that because you can not see something, its not real. You can't see the wind either, but by its effects, a person knows its real.

I don't care if you read my posts or not, it just shows your inability to handle the fact that you are wrong. Only an adult can admit defeat, obviously I have mistaken you for one. {hope this is short enough for your limited attention span}


Item7

Item7 wrote:Whatever. One of my courses in college was forensics. I know what I'm talking about. A polygraph measures responses that are caused by emotions! Its the one of the ways to measure emotions, to see if someone is lying or not.

They may or may not be caused by emotions, or both emotions and the bodily responses might be caused by the brain, with the feeling of emotion itself merely a by-product. It doesn't really matter which, you still are not measuring emotions, at the very best you are measuring the body's response to emotions.

That is not the same thing as measuring (or observing, as you originally suggested we could do) emotions.

Item7 wrote:Emotions only show up in their effects on the body, much like overeating shows its effects by a person becoming overweight, or lifting weights shows up as the effect of having stronger muscles.

Not the same thing. We casn observe eating and its affects, we can observe lifting and its affects, but we cannot observe emotions. Again at the VERY best we can observe the body's response to emotions.

Item7 wrote:These effects prove the existence of an influence of something on a body.

No they do not, they prove the existence of a correlation between emotion and bodily response. This does not prove that the emotion caused the bodily response, it could be that both are caused by the brain itself - the conscious feeling, and the physical reaction.

If the brain doesn't cause the feeling of emotion, then what does? It is likely the brain is the cause, as we can cause a consistent emotional response via brain stimulation.

Item7 wrote:Your saying that because you can not see something, its not real. You can't see the wind either, but by its effects, a person knows its real.

I am saying if it is not observable in any way, then it is not real in the way that a car is real. Emotions share an imaginary existence like dreams, and thoughts. They are not real in the way a car is real, but they are not complete fiction in the way a Unicorn is complete fiction. They "exist" in the mind, or in consciousness, as by products of the brain's activity.

To say they are "not real" does not tell the whole story, as clearly we all experience them, so they have a kind of existence, but not in the way real physical things do.

Item7 wrote:I don't care if you read my posts or not, it just shows your inability to handle the fact that you are wrong. Only an adult can admit defeat, obviously I have mistaken you for one. {hope this is short enough for your limited attention span}

Item7

I read your post up until the point it was completely wrong, there was no point in continuing past that point until the errors were addressed.

Sorry if that offends you. *shrug*

By the way Item, I'm not questioning your knowledge of polygraphs at all. I'm sure you know more about their inner workings than I do, having taken a forensics course.

That doesn't mean diddly squat though, and it won't help you here. I don't need a degree in forensic science to know that you can't directly observe or measure an emotion, you can only, in theory, observe a bodily response correlated with an emotion, and that is not proof of anything. It certainly is not evidence for the existence of emotions outside the human brain.

The question here is, does the brain, under polygraph question, send message to the body to:

a) stress, quicken heartbeat, sweat, and
b) create the emotional feeling of fear

Or, does the body:

a) feel fear, in response to question, which
b) sends a message to the brain, which
c) sends messages back to the body to quicken heartbeat, etc

The first case is far more likely, as we have no mechanism in place for the body to feel the effects of fear without the brain's instructions. In fact, we have no evidence that such a thing as emotion exists outside, and seperate from the brain and its processing anyway.

Again, in either case, we can only see the effects of emotions or feel them ourselves, we cannot observe or measure them.

My point is this, Emotions are real, measurable, and affect our lives at all times.

Just thought I'd pop in to comment one more time.

Yes, real, measurable, and entirely imaginary (in your head). Just like dreams. Just like hallucinations.

humphreys,

So the flight or fight response is not real according to your opinion. Whats more real, the tiger waiting to eat you...or the idea of a tiger going to eat you? According to you its the idea of the tiger. But your wrong if there's really a Tiger.

People show emotions. They cry, laugh, yell, ect. But according to you, they are only showing "reactions to an idea".

If you are right, then nothing is real, everything is an idea, and its all a big dream. Too bad we can get ate by that idea!

If something is entirely in your head, then it would be only a thought. This isn't a dream, and if you think it is, then stick your hand in a open flame...don't worry about the skin burning off or the pain... because according to you and Tairra, any reaction is only a hallucination.

Item7

No. You're either incapable of comprehending what I've wrote or your purposefully misconstruing it.

So which is it?