Mysteries of the Mind

[Ancient Goddess]

For a lack of a better title, I'm going to borrow one from the article I was previously reading about the mechanics of the mind, found here (It's a looooong article, so whether you read the entire thing or not is up to you...).

Anyway, it goes on to state about how we make snap judgements, preferences over similar products (I believe the author used Coke and Pepsi as an example), and song stuck in our heads are products of neurons firing in particular parts of our brains. This is apparently a new study, and a Malcolm Gladwell has created a best-seller about it.

An excerpt of the article:

"Most of us can appreciate the fact that we make up our minds about things based on thinking that takes place somewhere just out of our reach. But today, scientists are finding neural correlates to those processes, parts of the brain that we never gave their due, communicating with other parts, triggering neurotransmitters, and driving our actions."

I suppose this theory makes sense in a way. The brain is used for creating thoughts and tactics anyway, obviously there is some scientific mechanry involved...however, I know that a lot of religious people may oppose this, since it's practically saying that due to a cluster of synapsis and neurons, that is how a human being makes a choice or a preference...and people of faith usually tend to believe (in general) that they chose their faith by experiences and preference...not due to a series of biological elements within their brains. Actually...the article summed it up as:

" The realization that our actions may not be the pristine results of our high-level reasoning can shake our faith in the strength of such cherished values as free will, a capacity to choose, and a sense of responsibility over those choices."

Anyway...what are your thoughts on this theory? Do you think it has relevance or is it entirely wrong?

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

I`m not sure if I understand completely because it doesn`t seem like anything new to me. Infact, it sounds like text book psychology at best (or text book biology or plain common sense). I value your judgement so I know that that probably isn`t the case, in which case, I don`t understand what you`re saying. I scrolled thought the link quickly, but didn`t read much.

"Most of us can appreciate the fact that we make up our minds about things based on thinking that takes place somewhere just out of our reach. But today, scientists are finding neural correlates to those processes, parts of the brain that we never gave their due, communicating with other parts, triggering neurotransmitters, and driving our actions."

Anywho... I agree with what I think I understand. I can see how religious folk would disagree, but to me, this makes perfect sense and has been making sense for probably over 75 years.

I feel very stupid right now because I don`t understand how the information is fresh or in any other way outside of the normal (scientific for me) way of thinking.

[Ancient Goddess]

Hehe...yeah, I said the same thing, Kage...but that was before I read a little further into this article. The article, while horribly presented, attempts to explain this 'new' study about the mechanics of the brain.

Let me see if I can explain this article so you don't have to read through its attrocious wording (seriously...the author had to have used his/her thesaurus heavily). By which, I'll use the homosexuality thread in this section as a related example:

If I remember correctly, you once said that it was possible that homosexuals are born with their sexual preference within their chromosomes....well, this theory is similar. Although it doesn't involve chromosomes, it involves the brain. What these people are saying is that the preferences are built within our brains...inside of our neurons and such so our likes and dislikes are not exactly drawn from the events we experience (say someone had tasted chocolate and didn't like it...what these people are saying is that this person didn't draw this conclusion just by tasting the food, but it was already wired into his/her brain and could be determined without the tasting experience and by looking at a cluster of neurons instead).

Or...as the article states:

" Fueled by powerful neuroimaging technology, questions about how we make snap decisions, why we feel uncomfortable without any obvious causes, what motivates us, and what satisfies us are being answered not through lying on a couch and exploring individual childhood miseries but by looking at neurons firing in particular parts of our brains."

It is very much related to psychology...or at least modern day psycology. It's another study based off of Sigmund Freud's belief that much of 'what we do is determined by mysterious memories and emotional forces'.

If you skim through the linked article and read the subsections about Mental Health, Consuming Thoughts, and whatnot, you'll see how these scientists are applying the science to everyday thoughts and beliefs. Mostly, this study focuses on our unconsious thoughts and goes a little further in depth about biology and human's automatic responses.

I think you got some of the idea of this concept when you commented on the religion and faith aspect. There are a number of the religious who will believe in faith way before they take a look into science. These are the people I would imagine would fail to agree with the scientific facts. Who won't believe that their belief in religion was already precoded into their minds, and instead, was built off of life experiences and whatnot.

Regardless, I see the science factor, and I also can see why people may or may not believe in this concept. I would say it would be because of personal preferrence, but...well, if this article is true, then it was already determined. ;D

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

I only just figured out what you`re saying. That`s interesting shit. BASICLY, we`re not a completely clean slate at birth. I would love to refute this, but it seems irrefutable. What I`d like to see is their proof, and with good reason IMO.

This reminds me of the philosophical argument of fate vs. free will in a way.

I wonder, how could one know they have a distaste for chocolate without experiencing it? Even with a team of researchers pinning electrodes to ones head? That seems absurd to me. And what about aquired tastes?

[godsrighthand]

Being a lazy bastard I am going to shoot off my mouth without google diving.

This is still a variation of the old genetic prevalence card. VS Nurture

Examples:

A) Children of alcoholics are more likely to become alcoholics.

B) Children raised in homes with domestic violence are more likely to be in abusive relationships as adults.

These two examples are hotly contested is it genetic or environment?

C) Obese kids are genetically linked now to a fat gene, does this take them out of the nurture category?

A healthy majority of these parents are obese themselves true, but not all of them.
The real concrete proof is a DNA ID. And a target experiment in manipulation of this gene.

Show me the results in the lab conditions of a duplicated experimental study, then I will believe them. Until then it is rather nice theory like much of todays astrophysics.

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

On an unrelated note...

Being a lazy bastard I am going to shoot off my mouth without google diving.

I think it`s safe to say that most of what you read here is the property of the typist who wrote it, and to think and suggest otherwise is a huge insult to intellectual abilities of everybody who enjoys posting here in Deep Thoughts.

As moderator of Deep Thoughts, I feel as if what I`ve just said is inappropriate for this thread, but I simply couldn`t allow my ego to take such an underestimation of intelligence without backlash.

[Ancient Goddess]

Pimpmaster said:

I only just figured out what you`re saying. That`s interesting shit. BASICLY, we`re not a completely clean slate at birth. I would love to refute this, but it seems irrefutable. What I`d like to see is their proof, and with good reason IMO.

This reminds me of the philosophical argument of fate vs. free will in a way.

I wonder, how could one know they have a distaste for chocolate without experiencing it? Even with a team of researchers pinning electrodes to ones head? That seems absurd to me. And what about aquired tastes?

Yeah..I absolutely agree with you. I don't know how they'd try to prove acquired tastes...

Well, this is just a theory so far...I haven't seen anything they have that offers the public concrete proof or anything near it. It's interesting though, what ideas people can come up with...if they do prove it, it'd be pretty fascinating. I'm already a biology/genetics-buff, so I'd enjoy finding out more about this if they come out with some actual figures and concrete evidence.

[Makku]

Speaking of--
I was listening to a radio show.

And the host said "We always have to be mindful that we don't write the books, they are written for us."

I call the guy up, and I said-- "No. You're wrong. We write the books. We're the authors, the publishers, and the stores who try to force the book onto an uninterested public. The world is a workbook, on which you do your sums. It is not real, but reality can be expressed there. You're also free to write lies, burn, or tear the pages. You are wrong."

He went to commercial.