This week's topic led me to have this discussion with one of my friends. Please be warned that this is uncensored internet chat, so it may be construed as offensive by some.
Kliph85 (10:07:29 AM): god i have to write a behavioral journal and 1 i dont want to do it and 2 i dont care about the stupid shit we're learning about emotion
Got Your Crack (10:07:35 AM): aww
Kliph85 (10:08:06 AM): pretty much all of these experiments are super biased
Kliph85 (10:08:16 AM): and the theories and conclusions are biased as well
Kliph85 (10:08:28 AM): it's just embarassing
Got Your Crack (10:09:31 AM): how so
Kliph85 (10:10:53 AM): i mean it devalues neuroscience as a whole by producing shitty theories based on shitty experiments
Got Your Crack (10:11:05 AM): yeah
Kliph85 (10:11:26 AM): it makes it look more like crackpot science because people try to explain EVERYTHING with neuroscience
Kliph85 (10:13:13 AM): the whole notion of ritualized behavior irks me
Kliph85 (10:13:19 AM): it's too subjective
Got Your Crack (10:13:29 AM): i mean i dont know
Kliph85 (10:13:49 AM): like i think you can talk about ritualized changes in blood pressure and quantifiable stuff but you go on shaky ground when you talk about ritualized behavior
Got Your Crack (10:13:52 AM): it hink it's hard to make a good "experiement" about emotion and etc is tought o quantify
Got Your Crack (10:14:04 AM): in animals or humans
Got Your Crack (10:14:49 AM): ?
Kliph85 (10:15:33 AM): both
Got Your Crack (10:15:39 AM): i dont know
Kliph85 (10:15:54 AM): i think we're very quick to write our behavior off as not ritualized but we're just as quick to write animal behavior off as highly ritualized
Got Your Crack (10:15:57 AM): in animals i think you can pretty easily catalogue changes in behavior and ritualized behavior
Kliph85 (10:15:59 AM): i dont think we're that different
Got Your Crack (10:16:11 AM): um
Got Your Crack (10:16:21 AM): human behavior is just as ritualized
Kliph85 (10:16:52 AM): i dont know why i assume that people think its different
Kliph85 (10:16:59 AM): i think that that is the feeling in my class but it may not be
Kliph85 (10:17:05 AM): could just be my paranoia acting up
Got Your Crack (10:17:09 AM): maybe YOU think it is =D
Kliph85 (10:17:59 AM): maybe
Kliph85 (10:19:26 AM): actually i think its the case that neither is ritualized
Got Your Crack (10:19:37 AM): oh okay
Kliph85 (10:19:42 AM): but maybe im in a free will mood today
Got Your Crack (10:19:45 AM): and how do you back that up
Kliph85 (10:20:50 AM): our ability to observe behaviors isnt perfect by a long shot in humans and animals, in order to do it well we would essentially have to reproduce every aspect of every thing going on in the organism to satisfy my requirements of quantification
Kliph85 (10:21:32 AM): so given the state of the art, i think that research into this area is kind of pointless Got Your Crack (10:21:58 AM): you're too philosphical
Kliph85 (10:22:01 AM): esp. when observable behavior is your only criterion
Got Your Crack (10:22:07 AM): you're thinking on an infinite scled reproduction
Got Your Crack (10:22:16 AM): where as ritualized doesnt necessrily mean EXACT
Got Your Crack (10:22:25 AM): a ritual isnt EXACTLY the same EVERY SINGLE TIME
Kliph85 (10:22:30 AM): then its not a ritual
Got Your Crack (10:22:36 AM): that's not true
Got Your Crack (10:22:53 AM): then nothing called a ritual exists
Got Your Crack (10:23:03 AM): because if you want to be all assy and philosphical about it
Got Your Crack (10:23:10 AM): you cant go back in time
Got Your Crack (10:23:16 AM): therefore it cant be reproduced
Kliph85 (10:23:49 AM): right im arguing semantics but given that that's the level that most lay people understand this stuff it's important
Got Your Crack (10:24:01 AM): i dont agree
Kliph85 (10:24:13 AM): so calling it observable changes in behavior rather than emotion and trending in behavioral cascades instead of ritual is important
Got Your Crack (10:25:17 AM): I think many of human and animal behaviors are ritualized
Got Your Crack (10:25:30 AM): i think the variation is dependent to the size of your cortex
Kliph85 (10:25:38 AM): that's probably true
Got Your Crack (10:26:00 AM): ours is giant compared tot he cortex of a fish
Got Your Crack (10:26:08 AM): it masks the "ritualistic"
Kliph85 (10:26:08 AM): zebra fish
Got Your Crack (10:26:09 AM): aspect
Kliph85 (10:26:25 AM): but my argument is that the mouse feels the same way about his behavior
Kliph85 (10:26:32 AM): or fish or whatever
Got Your Crack (10:26:32 AM): well yes
Got Your Crack (10:26:55 AM): doesnt mean it isnt driven by biological ritualistic forces
Kliph85 (10:27:07 AM): yeah
Got Your Crack (10:27:14 AM): just means your cortex does the most evolutionarily beneficia thing
Got Your Crack (10:27:22 AM): to give you this sense of "you" in humans
Got Your Crack (10:27:28 AM): and whatever the equivilent is in a mouse
Got Your Crack (10:27:32 AM): or a zebra fish
Kliph85 (10:28:04 AM): yeah
Kliph85 (10:28:22 AM): so would you argue that subjective feelings are quantifiable?
Got Your Crack (10:28:29 AM): no
Kliph85 (10:28:30 AM): like the you-sense
Got Your Crack (10:28:54 AM): subjective feelings are a aproduct of a cortex
Kliph85 (10:28:58 AM): yeah
Got Your Crack (10:29:00 AM): but the underlying mechanisms
Got Your Crack (10:29:01 AM): drives
Got Your Crack (10:29:03 AM): rituals
Kliph85 (10:29:06 AM): they're a side-effect not a main effect
Got Your Crack (10:29:11 AM): yes
Got Your Crack (10:29:13 AM): BUT
Got Your Crack (10:29:30 AM): subjective feelings in humans are so improtant to the species survival
Got Your Crack (10:29:36 AM): that there is TONS of interwiring
Got Your Crack (10:29:43 AM): and the thing goes backwards
Kliph85 (10:29:57 AM): if the subjective feelings arise from interwiring, shouldnt they be quantifiable somehow?
Got Your Crack (10:29:57 AM): like control of heart rate and blood pressure some monks have
Got Your Crack (10:30:10 AM): i think theoretically maybe yes
Got Your Crack (10:30:16 AM): but realistically hell no
Got Your Crack (10:30:25 AM): because of the complexity
Got Your Crack (10:30:33 AM): because you have things like synergism
Kliph85 (10:30:36 AM): yeah
Got Your Crack (10:31:00 AM): and there's no way, at least at this point in science, where we can understand the mechanisms with even drug synergisms
Kliph85 (10:31:07 AM): i keep thinking about how there's really no originating point for most brain signals because they all depend on the state of the system and modify it
Got Your Crack (10:31:10 AM): that we can do that with something as obscure as emotion