>>Therefore I have begun with a different hypothesis:
>>"Emotions are most important, then the "logical" signals.
That depends on the sector & "emotion-programs"
>>This seems to confirm the evolutionary approach, since
>>even plants seem to have feelings (fear,.. etc).
Pretty different from us, though.
Not as "centralized", not "myelin-spreading".
Some is more area restricted.
Depends on the plant, too. There are some weird plants in the oceans
and jungles, and though I did not try I am sure that they would not
react the same like maybe a certain tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>WHOAAA! Rein it in. Don't pollute the waters of discourse any further.
>At the very least, offer a USABLE definition of "emotion" before
>asserting that plants "seem" to have emotions. Either you have a
>private definition or you belong with the "brain surfer"--in soome oher
>world (certainly not in a neuroscience discussion group).
It is all one world. For you it are several, that is why you are so
many years behind many of the others and have zero interest in some of
the greatest data of Earth about the human mind becoming available
through easier travelling.
It is intersting to watch how many branches are heading out/in
international, and which ones cling to that they are THE only ones of
Earth of interest.
If you would understand emotions you would know that they can not be
defined with English words.
I think I mentioned a possible definition at some point, and even that
one was still limited.
Because there are not just the main sectors with their subprograms and
connections, but when certain hormones, drugs, endorphines, ... are
there in higher amounts, it changes a lot again.
If you want to simplify it imagine hundreds of ways to alter thousands
of programs, most with several connections to other programs, that
might be altered in a different way ...
Then you have a SIMPLIFIED idea of the numbers of names you'd need.
And for all I know there is no one having enough access power to even
get the programs of many areas. So say someone is even able to follow
a program of one sector triggering stuff off in two other areas, then
the programs triggered there might trigger stuff beyond that that he
cannot reach anymore.
So be might be able to get the starting lines of the "cascade" but not
the rest.
So then, how do you want to define just the human ones?
>Either you have a private definition or you belong with the "brain surfer"
Why would he BELONG like some object to some group depending on what
he says?
And why to the brain surfers?
Read the bit about "logical singals" and emotions.
He is not a brainsurfer.
That is obvious by his spelling and by what he says and his questions.
>--in soome oher world (certainly not in a neuroscience discussion group).
That world tends to be called Earth or Sol III Terra by some.
And, as you nicely indicate, as for you there are many worlds and not
one, most brainsurfers would not go to a neuro group to read about
torturing cats and cutting around in brains,
as the brutal ones and the ones that live disconnected from Earth are
not favoured by quite some of them.
And also if you know a lot inside, then you know all the more what
crimes many of the neuros are committing, and if you read the proud
way when talking about torturing others for many it makes them sick,
some maybe even literally.
And looking at the terms and way people are with each other and the
topics and the aims of many here it is also obvious why most of the
other branches would not come.
When a branch is far enough to realize it is part of a tree with other
branches and that to really understand, the aim is to understand more
about the tree and other branches on it as well, then usually those
open-minded will join with those open-minded.
But many of the fairly open-minded regard it a swaste of life time to
be with narrow-minded people.
Apart from that neuro is simple cause you can read it, it is not like
the secret mind data that you might have to track down have across the
planet into some nasty-illnesses--crammed-jungle or some valley at the
a... of the world.
So there is less need to communicate with people than with the folks
where knowledge is transferred magically.
>>Based upon this we need to understand this process much
>>better and how it helps in constructing memory
Different systems.
>>and how hormones and emotions influence each other exactly.
Exactly? Have fun trying to find out in the thousands and maybe
millions of years to come...
>Confusion of levels of discourse. Whether you mean "emotions" as a
>subjective experiences or as particular physiological patterns of
>response, one refers to chemicals which influence the response, and/or
>are part of that pattern; the other is the whole event.
Let me guess, the subjective experience is not to do with physiologcal
patterns of response...
And the latter is not to do with the first...
>>(Since we are still looking for the "love" parfume,
I thought they had deodorant with pheromones by now?
...But as sometimes an ugly head is attached to the pheromeoned
maybe also not beautiful body, that alone might not do... ;-)
>pheromones... may play a role as cues for some kinds of emotions
MAY?!
Man, I guess you never stuck your nose into the hair of a woman having
ovulation... Or are as perceptive as a brick.
>... "emotions" or a key to their understanding.
For that you need be able to dock off the entire rest, and then dock
in "singly".
Most humans can't do that.
That is pretty rare.
>it seems that we have not found the exact process behind emotions).
I do not think anyone alive now can.
> Therefore I was first looking
>>for some more actual
>>>Actual? as contrasted with---?
>Maybe he means what is not published yet?
>and representive
>>Representative? meaning what? sampled randomly from some universe of
>data?
Sounds so.
But often if you go into a group you get certain drifts fast.
Basically if several of the ones that are said to know a lot or be
very wise agree on a thing and if they mention it no one contradicts,
that might mean it is representative data.
Maybe that is meant???
> data (and not those
>>from magazines).
>>>Again, the distinction between "magazines" and "journals" is crucial.
>Scientific data are available ONLY in journals; that's where we report
>the outcomes of our experiments/observations. That's what the authors
>and editors of "magazines" and BOOKS work with.
Ah, so it is scientific in one sort of printed thingie, but not in the
next.
Sounds "representatively logical".
