greenblue wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Emotions are emotions, not chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are physical responses to feelings. Without consciousness, a sense of self, or the soul, there is no guiding principle behind which chemical reactions have a guide. Otherwise, emotions are unguided and chaotic. For example, without the human will, "falling in love" simply doesn't happen. Now, I think feelings of attraction can't be avoided unless a person outright avoids people. But the response to attraction is entirely under human control. Hence, we are not victims subject to the whims of attraction or the random releases of chemicals. Further, not all responses are common to all human beings. The same thing that inspires rage in one person evokes indifference in another. We choose beforehand how we will respond to stimuli and act accordingly. The "chemical reactions" are servants to the will, not the other way around.
No, we are "servants" to our chemical reactions actually, everything we feel, think and dream are products of neurochemical reactions as that is how we function, the "soul" is an abstract concept of that. You seem to be rejecting biology and neuroscience with ad hoc explanations. Bethie mentioned
Oxytocin, which I repeat it here and supports that view, not only that, but it is evident that the "will" is not separated from our physical reactions, as you seem to suggest, I mean, mental disorders or conditions (however you want to call them) are clear evidence of that. Heck! can you say that your "will" is entirely independent from autism? Can your "will" not be affected by brain damage if caused by an accident or any other way?
The "fall in love" thing is sexual attraction anyway, so separating "lust" from "love" is meaningless within a biological context.
You're completely ignoring the fact I've already explained that. Under NORMAL circumstances, neuro-chemical processes are fairly uniform from person to person. As far as I'm aware, even in cases such as AS, the cases show a number of commonalities even though the science of it has yet to progress to a full understanding of it. It's getting there, of course, but as with many things it takes time. What is undeniable is the odd "wiring" is an advantage to the human race as a whole in that the "odd wiring" allows for an alternative perception of reality that results in novel new approaches to solving old problems and forward-thinking in solving new ones.
The danger is getting STUCK on what is "accepted," which really isn't all that "accepted." And that is something I see as a problem in your thinking. You have failed to provide evidence in support of the human will being entirely subject to those neuro-chemical processes.
In my case, I'm affected negatively in social situations. Understanding WHY I fail to appropriately interact socially has allowed me to accept that there is nothing really "wrong" with me, but rather I'm simply "different." And except when I and my family have come under attack from bullies who use that as a weapon against us, we get along just fine. Solution? Greater social isolation. Unlike so-called "normal people," I don't have a problem with not getting out very much.
However, what I do in helping support my family requires human interaction. So I may not completely understand the social interworking among "normal" people, but I CAN engage in a pattern of learned behavior that allows me to "fake it" enough to get by. Strangely enough I seem to attract one or two troubled kids every year, and maybe that's part of the reason. And I'll go further to say that Aspies/Auties DO often have the ability to pick up on certain kinds of behavior, even if the behavior is not sincere or genuine (or perhaps "natural" is a better word) as compared with NTs, and use that to effectively communicate with others. So no, evidence points rather to the fact that we can take charge in spite of "faulty" or "different" wiring. Further, even people who can be clinically determined to be "delusional" have the ability to become aware of their delusions and work out ways of dealing with those. They can accomplish this by ignoring their delusions and favoring what they KNOW is real or they can take medications that correct the problem. I'm not schizophrenic, but I'm constantly depressed. There's no good reason why I SHOULD be depressed all the time, but that depression and anxiety will always be a problem. I don't bother getting meds for it. I recognize it for what it is, make a pot of coffee, and just get on with my day. I know people who have similar depression and anxiety and can't even get out of bed every morning. Once again, I'm not subject to my brain or neuro-chemical quirks. I can make the decision to act either because of my problems or in spite of them.
Oxytocin is a horrible example to support the point otherwise. It might be responsible for a few natural urges, and it's role in breastfeeding won't be disputed here. But it IS resistible. When my daughter was born under unusual circumstances, my wife observed that for a few days she wanted to hold her but wasn't allowed to for medical reasons. After that time passed, the girl was in the hospital for 3 weeks during which there wasn't much we could do. When we finally DID bring her home, it felt less like she'd been born and more like we'd just adopted her. If oxytocin is such an irresistible force, this could not have happened.
And finally, you're under the false assumption that the biological context is the ONLY context. You're also under the false assumption that biology is something I reject. I don't reject biology. I reject the thinking that "biology" is everything. It clearly isn't everything, nor is it even the ROLE of biology to be everything. Any biologist can tell you that. A heart doctor doesn't do surgery on the liver, nor does a brain surgeon perform a kidney transplant! There are any number of different ways of understanding the same thing, and simple biology cannot explain a wide array of emotions and variance of response to those emotions. Even further, neither biology nor chemistry can weigh or measure an emotion! All you have there are a few sparks between neurons, but those sparks don't explain any underlying cause. All the observer can do is compare the transmission of neural signals with external stimuli. The observer cannot examine the thought processes in evaluating stimuli, forming a plan of response, and acting on it. These things are non-reflexive and thus foreign to the observer ONLY concerned with neural activity. There is no measurement or definition of chemical rationality or biological rationality. According to biology, we are all just another species of mammal. So biology is not the place to discuss the human will. The closest science (or the closest thing to science if you don't accept it as science) to it is psychology. Otherwise, all you have is theology or philosophy. Biology simply can't cut it when explaining why it is people believe in God! That's not a fault of biology for the same reason you don't visit an auto mechanic to fix an ingrown toenail. If all that our thoughts can be are sparks between neurons, we shouldn't even be able to perceive anything remotely like God/gods or experience anything at all that cannot be explained in any other way than spiritual. Yet another example: Near-death experience. The documented goings-on during a period of time in which brain waves have ceased cannot be if there is absolutely NO brain activity at all. You can SAY that those are hallucinations, but that requires an active brain, not an inactive one. Your hypothesis can't account for that and other things. If the human will is capable of triumphing over mere biology, then there must be some other explanation. The existence of the human will or the human soul has to be more than an ad hoc assumption given the evidence.
10 Oct 2010, 11:29 pm
