"Emotion"

[MulderMan]

Can emotion be explained scientifically? I havent done alot of research into this area of psychology, but have found that it is usually only philosophied by society with no real scientific definition and explanation. It might sound stupid but i dont really go for the whole bad explanation of "feelings" as an explanation. A link will do if you dont fancy explaining it...

 

Thanks

[LucidDreamer]

One of the main problems with explaining emotions scientifically is that it requires knowledge that we don't have. In order to fully understand how emotions work, we would have to understand how the brain works. However, there is still a great deal that we do know, so here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_neuroscience

http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/emotion/

http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/psyc12-214/lectures/week10notes.htm

[Mart]

Science does have a problem with emotion because it's subjective. But useful inferences can be made by crafty post-Behaviourist psychologists.

Looked at from a survival POV emotion serves to distinguish positive, neutral and negative states of the body that may need action. Heroin users have reported that "the pain's still there but it don't hurt".

[Sisyphus]

Can it be explained scientifically? I don't see why not. Has it been? Not really. (It is very important not to confuse those two questions...) Science needs a better understanding of how the brain works as a whole before anyone can really the question, "what causes emotion," in terms of direct efficient causes. The physical inner workings of the brain has been one of the great puzzles of science since Descartes, and continues to be one. Even if we know a lot more now about how to affect emotion physically (chemicals, electrical stimulation, surgery, etc.), the reasons why such things result in what is experienced as emotion is still quite hazy. I imagine it's difficult to do research on, since it requires messing around with a living, conscious person's brain. And, of course, a human brain is a fiendishly complicated machine, and every one is different, which makes laying down even the basic mechanical principles very difficult, let alone how a particular person experiences a particular emotion.

[Bio-Hazard]

Eh, I'm going to think it is about the same process as word association that we build up our brain to. I hate you. You suck. Ownage!11

 

Except when the actual activities happen, we have more of a physiological response.

 

Perhaps the feeling we have is just a signal to the brain so that we know our body is ready for GO TIME! so we can do what we have to do. Kiss the girl, beat up that guy, save the world.. etc.

 

To me this is the iffiest topic around neuroscience and A.I. If emotion is truly just a physiological reaction interpreted then we could most likely program it into AI.

 

I'm going to consider that we modify our own brains and change their connections so that certain psychophysical stimulation allows us to react differently to things. For example, someone is completely socially deprived does not really show emotion.

 

The interesting thing here is how humans have the ability to smile, yet sometimes completely socially deprived people will not understand something as funny and will not laugh. So the simplest psychophysical stimulation would have to be tickeling them.

 

James-Lange Theory

However, I think that the extremes of genetically inherited things such as seeing a bear is a little too far. My idea of something is food will make you happy or relived, thus reducing stress on your body and the mind complaining about food hunger.

 

But then you have the Cannon-bard theory

 

This makes me think that it's utter crap. Emotions before reactions.. hmm.. You have to learn to fear before you can fear. Children keep hitting people left and right until they notice the bigger people can smack them down.

 

So.. let me make a hypothesis here..

 

Our culture and language that we obtain by being an active member of society has an effect on micro-interaction mixed with psychophysical stimulation that eventually alters our way of thinking and our physiological responses to the things we encounter in everyday life.

 

A lot of emotions such as hate and paranoia can't be obtained and understood well without actually encountering these things socially.

 

This topic even bothers me. In my opinion, if I were to be pseudoscientific a bit here.. The thing that seems to be a problem here would be how we can actually consciously feel warmth and pain. Feelings that are natural and yet we can't resist. Yet, I don't think of us as living human beings, we are just chemical compositions.. but there's a paradox here. Something is living and controlling all the living. This is when I start saying that chemical structures have a mind of their own, which can be seen through quantum mechanics.

 

We can't actually explain everything in QM, yet we know it happens. It seems as though electrons themselves have their own behavior, they are lazy. I'm going to assume that chemical structures and other super small particles have a mind of their own which work all together, (which a grey goo nanobot type thing would do) and create an outcome that gives the notice to some supreme leader of them all..

[Bio-Hazard]

There is also another theory here which I would choose over both of the previous theories given and think I should also post: Two-Factor theory

[[Tycho?]]

I would bet it can be explained scientifically, but this is difficult since nobody really knows how the brain actually works. We have little bits and pieces, unconnected ideas. But more advanced stuff like consciousness, awareness, problem solving and emotions... nobody knows the mechanisms behind these phenomenon, its all guesswork so far.

[starbug1]

From my observing, I know emotion to be only "senses stimulated." Sight stimulus, soung stimulus... Also, social interaction and thinking trigger emotion. Without sense, (social) interaction or thought, emotion has no meaning. That's to narrow it down a bit.

 

For more information on the explanation and experimentation with the science and meaning of emotion see: Isaac Asimov. Asimov's fiction and non-fiction are heavily influenced in this field, moreso when robots are involved, and he is probably the best man to consult when you want to find deep insight that isn't too difficult to grasp.

 

Loosely touched is this in "I, Robot," His books about the human brain. Any other robot stories. He's got plenty published.

[stevo247]

The word “emotion” itself, indicates movement. The most basic inner perception of movement or emotion, is either towards the center (anxiety or pain) or towards the periphery (pleasure). A contractive movement towards the center in anxiety or pain, corresponds with the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. An expansive movement towards the periphery (pleasure) corresponds with the stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system. So what is moving when someone goes “Boo!” and you retreat to the center lickety-split? Or when you are gently caressed by your lover? What’s moving? Plasma? Bioelectricity? Feels like a current.

 

The philosopher Benedict de Spinoza stated that “beyond these three (pleasure, pain and desire) I recognize no other primary emotion; I will show as I proceed, that all other emotions arise from these three.” He defined desire as “appetite with consciousness thereof.” He defined appetite as “nothing else but man’s essence, from the nature of which necessarily follow all those results which tend to its’ preservation: and which man has thus been determined to perform.”

[ecoli]

The word “emotion” itself, indicates movement. The most basic inner perception of movement or emotion, is either towards the center (anxiety or pain) or towards the periphery (pleasure).

 

is that legitimate etymology thing, or did someone just make that up?

[Glider]

It's made up. The etymology is Latin: emovare = 'disturb'.

 

Can emotion be explained scientifically?

Yes, although not yet completely, but an explanation of emotion would be too long for a post, or even a thread.

 

A pretty good and quite recent book you might like to check out is:

 

Rolls, E. T. (2005). Emotion Explained. Oxford University Press.

[stevo247]

is that legitimate etymology thing, or did someone just make that up?

 

Emotion:

1579, "a (physical) moving, stirring, agitation," from M.Fr. emotion, from O.Fr. emouvoir "stir up," from L. emovere "move out, remove, agitate," from ex- "out" + movere "to move" (see move). Sense of "strong feeling" is first recorded 1660; extended to "any feeling" 1808.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=emotion

[Glider]

Emotion: 1579, "a (physical) moving, stirring, agitation," from M.Fr. emotion, from O.Fr. emouvoir "stir up," from L. emovere "move out, remove, agitate," from ex- "out" + movere "to move" (see move). Sense of "strong feeling" is first recorded 1660; extended to "any feeling" 1808.[/url]

That's not the made up bit.

 

The most basic inner perception of movement or emotion, is either towards the center (anxiety or pain) or towards the periphery (pleasure).

This is.

[stevo247]

Originally Posted by stevo247

Emotion: 1579, "a (physical) moving, stirring, agitation," from M.Fr. emotion, from O.Fr. emouvoir "stir up," from L. emovere "move out, remove, agitate," from ex- "out" + movere "to move" (see move). Sense of "strong feeling" is first recorded 1660; extended to "any feeling" 1808.[/url]

 

That's not the made up bit.

 

 

The most basic inner perception of movement or emotion, is either towards the center (anxiety or pain) or towards the periphery (pleasure).

 

This is.

 

I think that the idea of protoplasm movement being expressive of an emotion, is recognized in most body oriented psychotherapies such as Fritz Perls’ Gestalt Therapy, Alexander Lowens’ Bioenergetics etc. Most of these body oriented psychotherapies owe a great deal of credit to Wilhelm Reich, though much of his work has been diluted, omitted or misconstrued.

 

Reich had been part of Sigmund Freuds inner circle. Reich was particularly attracted to Freuds hypothesis of the existence of a biological sexual energy in the body which he called libido. Reich directed his own work towards an experimental verification of the libido theory.

 

Reichs’ book “Character Analysis” in the 1930’s was presented within the framework of Freudian psychoanalysis. It charted the development of depth psychology into the biophysical realm, revealing the functional relationship between character attitude and chronic muscular tension.

 

The concept of “character armor” relates to the “ego” becoming rigid when it is continually subjected to conflicts between need and a fear inducing outer world.

 

The corresponding physical expression is one of “holding back” (muscular armor). Pulled back shoulders, suppressed breathing, stiff chin, thrust out chest, retracted immobile pelvis, etc. etc.

 

Therapy involved the dissolution of the armoring and restoring the motility of the body plasma.

 

“The vegetative nervous system is a uniform plexus, running through all the organs of the body, right down to the smallest parts. It is a uniform network of plasma. From the middle position of vegetative equalibrium, it is able to move in the direction toward the world (i.e. to stretch), or to retreat into itself (i.e. to contract). It can also swing from one direction to the other or remain fixed in either of the extreme states. Muscular armor implies a biopathic state of equalibrium whose function it is to avoid the anxiety of contraction as well as the pleasure of expansion and orgastic convulsion”.

 

The antithesis between these two basic functions (toward the world, and away from the world) was further represented in the antithetical innervation of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system. “The parasympathetic is essentially the system of peripheral excitatation and central relaxation, of sexual expansion, of the direction ‘toward the world’. The sympathetic is essentially the system of peripheral relaxation and central excitation, of anxious contraction, or in psychological terms, the direction ‘away from the world, into the self’. Expansion and contraction are the basic functions which govern the total innervation of the organism.” Unicellular organisms like ameoba also demonstrate the functional unity of expansion and contraction.

 

In an anxiety state, body fluids (blood and other liquids) flow away from the periphery towards the heart and diaphram region. In a state of sexual excitation, the opposite takes place. There is increased turgor of the peripheral tissues; the skin and mucous membranes become engorged with blood; and secretions of the salivary and genital glands increase.

 

Reichs’ book “The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety” was the logical continuation of “Character Analysis”.

 

 

“Experimental investigations of skin potentials during pleasure and anxiety confimed the assumption that there are two opposite directions of bioenergy flow during excitation:: toward the periphery and toward the center.”

 

“The positive results of these experiments prove the correctness of the assumption that the leap from mechanical tumescence to electrical charge is a specifically sexual-biological process. The functional identity and antithesis of the bodily processes and the pleasure-unpleasure sensation is proved. The quantity of surface potential and the intensity of the erogenous or vegetative sensations are functionally identical.”

 

“Anxiety as a psychic affect is not an ‘expression’ or a ‘consequence’ or even an ‘accompanying phenomenon’ of the sympathetic retreat into oneself; it is the direct inner perception of the process and is functionally identical to it. Likewise, sexual pleasure in the broadest and narrowest sense, namely, any sensation ranging from the simplest state of relaxed well-being to the sensual tension of excitation, is the inner perception of the parasympathetic function of expansion, which goes together with the increase in surface tension in the mechanical and electrophysiological sense. It is the inner perception of melting, merging with the world, emerging completely from oneself, and it is functionally identical to it.”

 

 

 

I do not consider myself an expert on Reichs’ work. Copies of his original writings can be obtained here:

 

http://www.wilhelmreichmuseum.org/bookstore_recommend.html

[Paralith]

I don't know about this center/periphery/protoplasm business, but emotions can be understood in an evolutionary context as motivators. Things that make you happy are things you try to do more often, so often behaviors that correlate with reproductive success make us happy. Things that make you feel bad or guilty are things you try to do less, so these behaviors often hurt reproductive success. In that sense emotions "move" you towards certain behaviors and away from others.

[Glider]

I don't know about this center/periphery/protoplasm business, but emotions can be understood in an evolutionary context as motivators. Things that make you happy are things you try to do more often, so often behaviors that correlate with reproductive success make us happy. Things that make you feel bad or guilty are things you try to do less, so these behaviors often hurt reproductive success. In that sense emotions "move" you towards certain behaviors and away from others.

Yes, that's how Psychologists think of emotion, as affective-motivational states (different from mood). They form the basis of motivated behaviours (feeding, reproduction, etc.) and learning through operant conditioning.

 

 

The vegetative nervous system is a uniform plexus, running through all the organs of the body, right down to the smallest parts. It is a uniform network of plasma. From the middle position of vegetative equalibrium, it is able to move in the direction toward the world (i.e. to stretch), or to retreat into itself (i.e. to contract). It can also swing from one direction to the other or remain fixed in either of the extreme states.

I've never heard of this, nor seen any evidence for it.

[alanrocks]

now im just spit balling here but if we look at emotion as a biological function then it becomes clear

 

to put it simply emotions are just chemical compounds within the brain that are activated by neurological pulses that then case neurological pulses in parts of the brain not normaly accessed

 

with enough mental concentration one can activate these voluntarily (such as making yourself cry)