the science of cognative psycology and analytical psycology

[Supaiku]

For context I'm writing an arguementative essay for Composition I at my local community college.

 

Title: Taoism is like the best philosophy in the universe.

 

Outline:

Part I The Best Philosophy in the Universe

A Philosophy

I defined

II exemplified

III concluded

B What does a human want and need, your philosophy aside?

I your philosophy ‘aside’; objectivity

II how

C Well then, I present the best philosophy in the universe; that’s ‘what’ not ‘how’.

I conclusion

Part II Taoism

A Taoism

I what

II how

III background

B Taoism and Psychology

I self image

1 archetypes; Carl Jung

2 psycho-cybernetics;

II focus

1 psycho-cybernetics

2 meditation

theme: functions of the perspective

C Taoism and science

I Taoism and the brain

1 habitual thinking

2 conceptual blending

3 happiness

i perspective

ii self image

theme: truth of the perspective

D Taoism and philosophy

I your philosophy aside

1 the trouble of human understanding

2 a caveat

3 a form of lay science

II truth

1 elusiveness of truth

2 the mind’s function

3 Taoism and truth

III nature and the material world

1 the philosophy of science

i on philosophy

ii on truth

2 the philosophy of the Tao

i on science

ii on truth

Part III Similarities between Taoism and the Best Philosophy in the Universe

**PENDING**

 

 

 

Right - so how does this relates to neurosciences?

Well if you can't tell maybe I'm in trouble but I'm moving to make the case that Taoism plays to the function of the human brain, among other things.

So if you can't guess I'm wondering how scientifically accepteable/ed psycho cybernetics (self help for: "how to make your self image make you happy and successful"), analytical (ie. Jungian) psycology and cogceptual blending (as 'the way we think') are.

 

I'm also wondering if I could get some easy info (either summarys or links to easy stuff) about the chemicals invoulved in happieness and what triggers them. I'm hoping that happieness can chemically be found in a positive self image and how you look at what happens in your mental world (the realms of psycho cybernetics and analytical psychology) are strongly tied to the chemical relases - and that of course combined with the chemical your actions can more directly trigger. I don't want to mislead anyone (esp myself).

 

And of course the conceptual blending part - I hope to use this to seperate the mental world from real world to affirm the the taoist truth that value judgments don't matter as well as say that Taoism is on the right track in realizing the illusivness (due of course to our inadequate thought and experience) of truth and the Tao, which I will show to by roughly sysnonymous with material existence. I hope this all makes sense I just read alot of random books and put it all together so it all might be a little naive or misundestood.

 

Particular sections that I feel I may need help on are:

I Taoism and the brain

1 habitual thinking

2 conceptual blending

3 happiness

1 the trouble of human understanding

2 a caveat

3 a form of lay science

II truth

1 elusiveness of truth

2 the mind’s function

 

 

You think I should ask similar but more broad/apporpriate questions in the philosophy and psycology sections?

[sunspot]

One way to explain most orientations of philosophy is connected to the two hemispheres of the brain. The left hemisphere is more rational and 2-D or based on cause and effect. The right hemisphere is 3-D or spatial. The conscious mind is primarily in the left hemisphere while the unconscious is in the right hemisphere. The unconscious mind can absorb higher data density and stores it within 3-D memory. 3-D memory can be seen as spatially integrated data. This memory is too fast to be conscious within humans. Within the creative rational imagination, what we get is a 2-D rational plane from the 3-D memory. Being flat or 2-D it can not fully express the integrated nature of 3-D. Philosophers, appear to be able to generate many 2-D planes from particular 3-D memory and can begin to approximate the volume.

[Supaiku]

Alright that's a little to complex for me.

 

What's the academic science's opinions/reasearch on Analytical psycology and Cognative psycology.

 

and

 

What's the scientific basis for chemically induced emotions? Or links to somewhat easy to synthesise information on it.

[aj47]

Emotions are basically due to the different neurotrasmitters being released in the brain that allows impulses to pass synapses. Chemicals that induce emotions work in a number of ways.

 

For example, depression is linked to low levels of seratonin in the brain which is responisible for the feeling of happyness.

Anti depressents work mainly by either inhibating the enzyme that breaks down seratonin (monoamine oxidase inhibitors) or preventing the seratonin from being reabsorbed (SSRI's) overall as there is more seratoin people feel happyier.

 

Other drugs work in different ways e.g. MDMA which acts on the serotonin transporter and releases large stores of seratonin aswell as noradrenaline, dopamine etc so users get a feelig of euphoria.

 

Agonist drugs mimick the neurotrasmitter and as they are a similar shape, can fit into the receptors allowing the same effect. While drugs like opiates e.g. heroin act as antagonists and block receptor sites which is why they are used as painkillers.

 

Although this I don't think neurotrasmitters are the only thing that effects emotions, certain areas ofthe brain are also responsble e.g. the pre frontal cortex but i'm not sure how.

[ashennell]

Right - so how does this relates to neurosciences?

 

Honestly? I think that the neurosciences takes a qiuck look and then runs away in the other direction.

 

The left hemisphere is more rational and 2-D or based on cause and effect. The right hemisphere is 3-D or spatial. The conscious mind is primarily in the left hemisphere while the unconscious is in the right hemisphere. The unconscious mind can absorb higher data density and stores it within 3-D memory. 3-D memory can be seen as spatially integrated data. This memory is too fast to be conscious within humans. Within the creative rational imagination, what we get is a 2-D rational plane from the 3-D memory. Being flat or 2-D it can not fully express the integrated nature of 3-D. Philosophers, appear to be able to generate many 2-D planes from particular 3-D memory and can begin to approximate the volume.

 

I'm not sure if there is any solid science behind any of these statements- not any I'm aware of anyway. I would be interested to be pointed to something I could read to support this view - something based on actual data. I believe that lateralisation in the brain is complex and certainly does not occur the absolute sense depicted above. Allthough I'm not denying that there is lateralisation to some extent. I would think that the lateralisation of language comprehension and production is the most extreme example and may be the driving force behind other hemispheric differences. Hemispatial neglect can occur on either side with equal effect so this would suggest that any hemispheric bias on consciousness is limited.

 

Emotions are basically due to the different neurotrasmitters being released in the brain that allows impulses to pass synapses.

 

While this is true, it is also true for everything else that the brain does as well.

 

Parts of the brain that are known to be involved in emotion include the amygdala, the anterior cingulate and orbitofrontal cortical areas, the hypothalamus, and the hippocampus. These areas are linked together as the limbic system. Ventral parts of the striatum, in particular the nucleus accumbens, are also involved in emotional / motivated behaviour.

 

The link between any particular neurotransmitter and a particular emotion is tenuous at best. Serotonin, for example, is linked to regulation of feeding behaviour and agression. The activity of serotonergic neurons of the raphe nuclei is closely correlated with the arousal state of the animal in question. The firing rate is highest during active wakefulness, lower during slow wave sleep and abolished in REM sleep. The activity is also increased during repetitive movements or habits. SO the point is - that serotonin= happiness is a serious over simplification. This is equally true for any other nuerotransmitter system.

 

I think that happiness is probably a term applied to a number of different actual mental states. Is happiness just being content with your life or is it an intantaneous feeling induced by your immediate surroundings. Happiness can be linked to relaxation, the absence of stressors, humour, love, good intellectual discussion, etc,etc. I'm not so sure that it is the same thing in each of these instances. What I am trying to say is that I don't think that happiness is just a single variable that can be high or low - it is more complex than that.