My exploration of consciousness has led me down yet another unexpected path. Per recommendation, I began researching the James-Lange Theory of Emotions. I found an amazing lecture by Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford where he explains, “Here’s how you feel an emotion. It is not the case that your brain decides it’s feeling an emotion based on sensory information (coming in memory or whatever), the brain decides it’s feeling an emotion and tells the body let’s speed up the heart, let’s breathe faster, let’s sweat, whatever it is… that’s not how emotion works. Here’s how emotion works, stimulus comes into your brain and before you consciously process it, your body is already responding with heart rate, with blood pressure, with pupillary contractions, whatever. How do you figure out what emotion you are feeling? You are getting information back from the periphery telling you what’s going on down there. In other words, how do you figure out you’re excited? Whoa! if I’m suddenly breathing real fast and my heart’s beating fast, it must be because I feel excited.” (Sapolsky).
As he continues, the only thing I can focus on is the correlation between the biological response of the body and our feelings or emotions. He is showing there is at some level a connection between mind and body (the seemingly reoccurring root of all things consciousness related I am discovering), which leads us back to Descartes yet again. He was first to identify the mind-body problem and it seems it has yet to be solved. Is the mind separate from the body? And if so, how do they influence each other?
The James-Lange Theory as we just read, proposes the body’s biological responses are what triggers how we feel in a certain situation. So instead of, I see a bear, I feel scared, therefore my heart rate increases and I start to shake, what actually happens is my perception of the bear causes my heart rate to increase and me to shake thus causing our bodies to recognize these biological responses as fear so my brain tells me to feel fear. I am somewhat embarrassed to say I had never thought of the order in which my body feels feelings or emotions. Does the biological response led to the psychological one or the other way around? Although this is all very intriguing, I was still drawn to the overlaying point, the mind and body influence each other in some way and it seems in order to recognize this, it takes consciousness.
Continuing my dig into the biological/ psychological relationship that exists, I found another lecture by Dr. Sapolsky. This one was on depression. (As I’ve stated in other papers, I am but a novice in this field and am not sure if it is frowned upon, but I like to include my personal experiences and insight at times into my writings, if for no other reason than to show my passion behind what I am researching. I have recently come to the conclusion my true drive behind wanting to study Philosophy of Consciousness is based in a deep desire for self discovery. I want to know why I am the way I am. Why I think the way I think. Why I feel the way I feel. And this all stems from having depression and anxiety. So when I discovered Dr. Sapolsky’s lecture on the subject, explaining the relationship biological and psychological need to have with one another in order for us to feel what we feel, how we feel it, when we feel it, I had to watch it.)
Dr. Sapolsky starts off by explaining the psychological definitions of depression, focusing on Major Depression and its layers (Anheadonia, Greif, Guilt, Self-injury, Psychomotor retardation, Vegetative symptoms- sleep, appetite, stress hormones). He goes on to discuss the biological workings of brain chemistry (Neurons talk to each other over a synapse by sending and receiving neurotransmitters, the three major neurotransmitters found to be related to depression are norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin). Over the course of the hour or so lecture, Dr. Sapolsky shows the correlation between the biology of depression and the psychology of depression and how they interact and influence each other, (i.e. the Cortex and it’s ability to convince the rest of the brain to ‘go along’ with things, hormones and their effect on our moods and how we behave, stress and how the biological responses to stress can permanently change the psychological response to stressors.) It was incredibly enthralling and I recommend anyone who can spare an hour to watch the lecture. But I’m still left wondering where consciousness fits in. We are aware of both the biological and the psychological, (meaning I physically can feel- Biological, we can have thoughts make us feel- Psychological) so this seems to suggest our consciousness can tap into either one. Or perhaps is consciousness the way these two systems communicate? In order to maintain our existence, or in other words in order for us to stay alive in the form we are in, there has to be a way for the biological and the psychological parts to talk to and influence each other. We have to eat, we have to sleep, we have to not be eaten by a lion. Consciousness could be the necessary piece to keep everything working together and on the same page.
"the mind and body influence each other" - Right, but if we think of this as an INTERNAL process of the organism, rather than the unfolding of a dualistic cause-and-effect, James-Lange suddenly makes great sense (doesn't it?)... or at least becomes more plausible. Mind and body are inseparably related, as are mind and brain, and our thoughts and feelings are rightly seen in their inescapable bodily context.
ReplyDelete"I like to include my personal experiences and insight at times into my writings" - as you should! Some epistemologists don't, and end up "solving" conceptual problems but leaving themselves existentially adrift. What's the use of that?!
"is consciousness the way these two systems communicate?" - This seems the right track to follow, to me. But don't overlook the epiphenomenal possibility too: consciousness might be mere effluvia, a by-product of organic activity that does not originating work of its own. That sounds deflating, until we realize that consciousness is effluvia, then effluvia is a lot more important than we assumed it might be. I'm still holding out for consc'ness as more than a by-product, myself. But, as the cliche goes, it is what it is.
Glad you found Sapolsky, an important A"ND entertaining lecturer and author. His latest book: "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst"
CORRECTIONS:
Delete"does NO originating work..."
"IF consciousness is effluvia..."