At what point does simple brain chemistry end?

[snazzy_sn]

I think I might have found a more meaningful answer than what I was seeking simply by writing this, but feedback would be appreciated.

At what point does simple brain chemistry end and become emotion, intellect, spirituality, etc. or are these concepts simply the result of various combined complex layers of various neurotransmitters?

Could it be the other way around? Could our brain chemistry be seperate from these kinds of concepts and simply allow for various interpretations of deeper, more meaningful aspects of the psyche? If this were the case how would we be able to prove these concepts were real as opposed to a kind of delusional, lofty insanity resulting from an inability to fully grasp the chemical complexities of our highly developed brains?

In my journey to find some sort of meaning to existence I always get stuck here. It seems like what I'm trying to find in a logical spirituality can be traced back to emotion and almost all emotion can be explained through science.

In writing this post I just had to ask myself, perhaps my attempts at logic are preventing me from comprehending that the progression from brain chemistry to higher awareness may not be supernatural, but something vastly more beautiful and amazing. Perhaps this is my problem? Breaking down higher concepts into nothing through excessive logic and objectivity?

Does this make sense or is this just mental masturbation.

 

[Psyduck]

In my journey to find some sort of meaning to existence I always get stuck here. It seems like what I'm trying to find in a logical spirituality can be traced back to emotion and almost all emotion can be explained through science.

Wait. Science just provides a 1-1 correspondence between emotions (love, fear, hate, joy, etc.) and some brain-states. But how does that explain what they are, how to deal with them, and why we have them? Sorry for being an apriori anti-reductionist, but I really don't see how discovering a 1-1 correspondence anyhow can help us "in being living beings having emotions."

 

[nAON]

Well, I agree with you. But just because something can be explained by physical laws doesn't make it any less chaotic, or mysterious, or meaningful.

 

[Divine Moments]

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-2

 

[atara]

Does this make sense or is this just mental masturbation.

What could an "answer" to your "question" possibly signify? Is it possible to imagine a sort of data, an experiment, a discovery or theory, through which this seeming conflict could ever be resolved? Consider e.g. the remarks on the epistemic nature of the self in the Tractatus:

http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t563en.html

and of course Wittgenstein's general critique of this sort of inquiry:

http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t65en.html

Your problem is that there is no physically measurable thing that can be called "a mind" but rather that it is a sort of idea which appears in a discussion (Can you make a "pile" of minds?). We talk about our perceptions before we do things which correspond to them, and another person's sense of empathy viz. the realization of an mental state is a guide to their understanding of what we are feeling. But at no point does an experiment actually measure the "metaphysical subject", but rather the action that seems to correspond to it; whether that action is consciously controlled (an exclamation), subconsciously controlled (heart rate), or apparently uncontrolled (blood flow in the brain) does not actually change the nature of the limitation that exists in the inquiry: that the object (can I call it an object?) we inquire about is never itself tested. Even if a theory were to emerge which could completely predict my actions, it would be of little use to me in understanding the nature of me. This is not to deride the scientific validity of the experiment: the theories constructed in this manner are indeed potentially correct, assuming the rules of science have been followed in their construction (many times psychologists don't understand the rules and break them) but they do not help us to understand life from a phenomenological perspective.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Atara, I'm with you. Me being me behind these eyes right here right now, my first-person "suchness", doesn't reduce to anything simpler.

Psychologists study behavior, not mind. Another's behavior is observable and measurable. Another's mind is not -- you experience only your mind, and you ultimately take it on faith that others have sentient minds just like yours.

 

[Lost Ego]

I think I might have found a more meaningful answer than what I was seeking simply by writing this, but feedback would be appreciated.

At what point does simple brain chemistry end and become emotion, intellect, spirituality, etc. or are these concepts simply the result of various combined complex layers of various neurotransmitters?

Could it be the other way around? Could our brain chemistry be seperate from these kinds of concepts and simply allow for various interpretations of deeper, more meaningful aspects of the psyche? If this were the case how would we be able to prove these concepts were real as opposed to a kind of delusional, lofty insanity resulting from an inability to fully grasp the chemical complexities of our highly developed brains?

In my journey to find some sort of meaning to existence I always get stuck here. It seems like what I'm trying to find in a logical spirituality can be traced back to emotion and almost all emotion can be explained through science.

In writing this post I just had to ask myself, perhaps my attempts at logic are preventing me from comprehending that the progression from brain chemistry to higher awareness may not be supernatural, but something vastly more beautiful and amazing. Perhaps this is my problem? Breaking down higher concepts into nothing through excessive logic and objectivity?

Does this make sense or is this just mental masturbation.

I too am trying to find a link between neuroscience and consciousness. I believe the basis of sentience is thought, and not so much emotion. I'm not sure where to start on this concept but maybe in trying to explain how i believe it works will help me understand a little better. I think by altering our consciousness we can better understand how it functions and i think neuro-psycho-pharmacology will be the path to finding the true answer. If the answer to consciousness or spirituality does lie in the brain(namely neurotransmitters) then i believe i can find the answer by altering how my neurons function by studying what happens when i release more seratonin or block my sodium channels and how this affects my brain waves. What happens when i smoke weed and change the frequency of my brain waves, how does this affect my state of consciousness? I could go on and on about this...

Basically, our thought processes/line of thought are(is) linear(not sure if this is the proper word), and so is the firing and connection of neurons - obviously there is a connection. My theory is that we create a new neurotransmitter(NT) for different memories and our brain categorizes them together and when we recall memories, that NT is released. We have different NT's for different emotions. I believe the frequency at which our neurons fire determines how focused we are. From what i've learned there is a portion of our brain dedicated to just about everything our mind is capable of... I lost my train of thought so i'll just end it here. Biopsychology is one of my 10 dream careers - to determine what we're talking about via science, that is my dream (or one of them, rather)