Martello, Thanks, I do believe some applies. But that might be my problem. I tend to believe part of everything and not 100% of anything. Does that make me wishy washy? I can't seem to bite into any one philosophy, always open for something new, better, more concrete. And when all that fails, I go back to PMS or MLC I'm trying to work on goals, baby steps. Trying to figure out what exactly it is I am looking for. I am not unhappy, not happy. But I am content 99% of the time, is that a bad thing?
Love at first sight is easy to understand; it's when two people have been looking at each other for a lifetime that it becomes a miracle. (Amy Bloom)
LIH 99% contentment sounds like something some people would give their eye teeth for and others would be driven to tears by the boredom of contentment. Given that the conflicts raise your libido are you really the 99% contentment type or maybe it's just a part. I don't know it's a thought.
Hm. The amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus...the prefrontal cortex, the sensory cortex, the brain stem... those are labeled areas of the brain. Brain mapping includes all of it.
If thought preceded emotion, they would expect certain areas of the brain to light up, and then a person would say, "I feel sad." And it can happen that way, for memory can spark emotion.
It doesn't all happen that way, however. That's what has them stumped. Hormones are being examined as a possible source, for it is known that a chemical mixtures in the body can affect mood.
It is also known that body chemicals are not the only source of emotion. It is how they are transmitted through the body... and at what intensity they may be felt... and you can quickly see how body chemicals and brain function are a two way street.
But there is something about emotions that remain independent of brain/body function. It continues to point to what many of us call intuition. Intuition is what seems to give us our sense of 'free will.' This has been observed in science, but there is nothing that we know of, so far, that can measure it, trace it, prove it. It doesn't mean scientists don't see it or recognize it. They very much want to explore it. They just don't know how, yet.
You'd have to run this theory by other scientists for their possible opposing POVs, but here is a web site you might find interesting regarding Flux Theory.
ETA:
And this next site... holes can blown through it, but it is an interesting discussion: The Meaning of Life, Part II. The 3rd chapter is an interesting... take on things.
And because there really is no way to prove or disprove any of this... it remains a matter of philosophy.
Corri
P.S. LIH, I am apologize for the utter thread hijack.
Sorry for the brevity I will read the links. I believe that Dennett's model of the mind includes the body and organs as part of a system. Think distributed computation. One of the problems is the insistence by many people that the brain must equal the mind.
Goto run.
LIH sorry for the thread jack it relates is a round about way.
I wasn't so much referencing brain mapping as referencing the tenents of cognitive psychology. "Emotion" as in chemicals, neurotransmitters etc... is one thing and it is clear that these physical changes have something to do with the resulting label "I feel sad, happy or whatever" but in practice it is the thoughts that we assign to an event or statement that tend to precede whatever the resulting "emotion" becomes. E.g. Recent studies are indicating that "venting" actually increases negative emotion instead of decreasing it as popular belief would say. Giving rise to the thoughts of "this isn't fair, so and so is an idiot" seems to also cause the emotions of anger, frustration etc.... to rise.
But I can 'feel' an intensity of something before I have the thought to describe it.... especially if I am doing something I have never experienced before. My brain will eventually settle on a description of it, and if I ever 'feel' the sensation again, I will likely describe it the same way... conversely, I can re-experience a sensation from thought...
