From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 11:41:33 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Well, one cannot surmise what's going on just from behavior.
Why then do seem to feel comfortable making such judgments about human
behavior?
In any case, to keep the positivists and behaviorists happy, we can say
"The alligator's behavior was consistent with the emotion of anger,
which supports the hypothesis that alligators experience anger."
> To me, it all hinges on whether reptiles have limbic systems.
I see that I've used the term "limbic system" loosely in reference to
alligators. Thanks for pointing that out. I was referring to the "the
primitive reptilian brain" that controls primitive functions including
aggression. A little checking shows that I should be using the term
"archipallium" in addition to or in place of limbic system when
referencing lower animals.
Actually the nature of reptiles is only a side issue, and hardly an
important one at that. I'm thinking now that I should never have
mentioned them since I am hardly an expert on reptiles.
The greater discussion here concerns the question of how *humans*
experience pleasure and reward. This is a subject I have studied in some
detail.
I am a friend and associate of Dr. Kenneth Blum, Ph.D. Dr. Blum has
spent more than 30 years investigating the nature of the human reward
system. This subject of neurological reward has been the basis of his
entire professional career. Probably there is no person on earth more
qualified in this area. I am extremely well acquainted with his work.
Rafal believes the cortex is necessary for the experience of reward,
whereas I believe rewards that involve cortical activation represent
only a subset of the many types of rewards one can experience.
> I would say that there is an *explanation* for every action,
> but hardly a motive.
Can you give me an example of human action for which there was no
motivation?
> But we *cannot* say that the *reason* he commits the act of
> terrorism is to obtain this little satisfaction.
I believe we can.
> He would
> obtain vastly more satisfaction by getting seriously drunk
> forty or fifty times during the course of the following year.
Not so in his opinion. The suicide bomber decided that exploding himself
to kill others was more satisfying than getting drunk, else he would
have chosen to get drunk.
> At one level, we should say that his beliefs (memes) took
> control and caused him to kill himself.
I would say that his "memes" regarding terrorist activity activated his
reward circuitry and drove him to commit terrorist acts at the expense
of his own life.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:30 MST