Why MUST they "feel" something? Why introduce an anthropomorphic concept to a single-celled organism?
Your definition of feel is a thorn in your side. You are using the definition of emotions in humans as the definition for feelings in cells. They are not the same thing. You exaggerate the meaning of subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. It is not a light switch that is on or off, but a sliding scale of intensity. It is more like comparing a light bulb to a computer. The only person introducing anthropomorphic concepts is yourself. The primitive feelings in a cell give rise to the complex consciousness of humans. If they didn’t “feel” something then human’s, as a whole, would not have a complex consciousness. Human’s are nothing but a compilation of cells. Consciousness is not the end result of this compilation, but a complex consciousness is the end result of this compilation.
To "feel" is a description of a human subjective experience. It is a term in common use that actually only describes each individual's perceptual experience.
Incorrect, feelings are also known as a state of consciousness. A human subjective experience is not mandatory. Your definition of feelings does not reflect the entire scientific communities definition of feelings. Anything with a consciousness can feel. The definition of consciousness is not set in stone, yet you believe that it is. You cherry pick more than I and it is apparent by your compelling urge to only accept empirical evidence, on consciousness and emotions, in relation to human subjective experience. Do animal’s not feel? “There is absolutely no way that you can be sure that your experience is the same as someone else's, common usage does not open any door to telepathic integration.” – A defense that no longer pays the bills unfortunately… Inflation is a *****. We may not be absolutely sure that one’s experience is the same as other peoples' experience, but if other peoples' experience follows what is defined as an experience than we can scientifically accept that an experience has occurred.
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor,
Occam’s single blade isn’t going to cut it anymore and we are sick of the rash it leaves behind. Occam needs to upgrade to a Mach 5. Selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions may generally work, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, especially in areas of science as complicated as consciousness. This is why you are so turned off by areas of science like the study of consciousness and emotions because it doesn’t follow the ridged rules of what you define as science at the moment. You are going to lose this war and your catapults will be meaningless when the tanks come rolling in. By using Lloyd Morgan you are supporting my position and fighting my battles for me, thanks. "In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale." – Lloyd Morgan. Let us take our good friend’s advice and not assume that consciousness is a result of the whole and instead let us assume that consciousness is the result of the smallest piece, especially when that piece appears to show adequate qualifications.
Your use of a fuzzy, unmeasured, undefined, term certainly offers explanation beyond necessity.
You act like the case is closed and we have answered the questions of consciousness and emotions. We have not solved the problems at hand and that is because your explanation does not reach the necessity required.
Again, you fall into Anthropomorphism. Why aggressive? Do you mean active or do you mean it in the human sense? Do they formulate strategies to overcome their "enemies" or do they simply function at a low level of behavioral organization?
So you and other readers can more efficiently understand what is being discussed. It should be obvious that it is not meant in the human sense. Your defense in word play is a smoke and mirrors strategy that will get you nowhere with me and I will give you 0 credit if you continue to retreat from the discussion or distract from its focus. I am not applying for a Ph.D and if we approach the conversation in this manner then this will end up being a conversation that will take years longer than it needs to be. I am here to get the data and not to keep you occupied on your Sunday afternoon. Single cells do not formulate strategies to overcome their “enemies” because this would require a complex consciousness and this is something single cells do not possess. Do light bulbs perform quantum calculations? Of course they do not. I have no problem clarifying something that is too vague or properly explaining something that is seriously tangled, but your appeal to the obvious, in an effort to pinch points in a debate, is a waste of my time. Bringing down a conversation to these levels will only ostracize you from your peers and it is an obvious attempt to hold others in contempt.
And, again. Why use such a human subjective experience term, which opens the door to all kinds of over-generalization and speculation when a simple description of events should suffice?
You jump back and forth in this debate and actually argue for my position a lot of the time. You must be accustomed to discussions with people who do not know better. It does not suffice. The current explanations do not paint the entire picture and may not accurately paint that picture. Please explain to us how the simple description of events suffices when it doesn’t even suffice for yourself? You act like everything is fine when in reality you are at war with the study of consciousness and emotion because you believe that any explanation will never suffice based on the rigorous requirements of science.
How are you defining "feel"? What evidence do you have that a single-celled organism has the same experience?
Already explained above.
Let's step back for a moment and look at interpersonal experience. Can you provide a universally acceptable and complete definition of the subjective experience of Love? It's a commonly used word describing an "emotion". When you are "in love" is your subjective experience the same or different from someone else who states that they are "in love".
Ohh yes I can, but you and the scientific community could not, up until this point, because you are using outdated “equipment”. Allow me to use examples from the book.
“A cell’s drive to maintain the electrical/emotional balance of its emotional electricity is what we have come to call motivation. Motivation is a sense that all living cells with DNA possess and this sense exists to maintain the emotional balance of emotional electricity. Emotional electricity becomes emotionally unbalanced by receiving a positive or negative charge. When the emotional electricity in a living cell with DNA receives a positive charge then the cell will experience HEE or Happy Emotional Electricity or experienced happiness and when the emotional electricity in a cell receives a negative charge then the cell will experience SEE or Sad Emotional Electricity or experienced sadness. Charges range in value and these values are based on intensity and duration. Both HEE and SEE are types of feelings. Individual cells experience feelings and groups of cells in animals give rise to what we have come to label as complex emotions. Countless cells need to be involved to create complex emotions in humans (like love). If a normal person cuts their leg, they will experience pain and their pain in this instance will generally be comprised of a varied value of 100% SEE. However, if a masochist cuts their leg it may cause what we define as pain, but for them, pain is comprised of a varied value of 60% SEE and 40% HEE. Masochists experience some pleasure when they cause themselves to experience what we define as pain. It is inaccurate to assume that a standard amount of HEE or SEE is inherent in any emotion or action for every person.”
The scientific community had problems up to this point because they cannot define emotions using a simple on or off definition. However, if values of intensity and duration are used coupled with motivation, love can be defined. Love does not have a definite value of HEE or SEE, the value is varied on a case-by-case basis. Once we are capable of quantifying emotional electricity then we can more accurately define emotions based on values of HEE and SEE.
Can you even believe their statement just because they said it. Is it even remotely possible that the words are uttered without any real "emotional" state? Or should everyone let you make some Delphic decision as to the validity of all protestations of Love?
This is another problems that you face as a result of using outdated knowledge. This is why an upgrade to this new reasoning is requested for review.
Whether its stress or whatever depends primarily on how you are using the term stress. If its a short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat or its spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage payment seem to me to be worlds apart.
Short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat is a more accurate example than spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage. You keep trying to compare the consciousness of the whole with the consciousness of smallest piece, stop with your anthropomorphic attempt to confuse the conversation. This is like comparing the actions of Goldman Sachs as a whole with the actions of a single employee inside Goldman Sachs. The CEO of GS is like the original cell of a human. Analysts in GS are like normal cells in the body. The CEO doesn’t manage the analysts directly, that is what a chain of command is for.
OK as long as you are using "choice" to mean acceptance or rejection of substance enfolded by the protoplasm. The problem that I see in your position is that you let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. That all depends on which definition of "choice" you use. If you are using it to describe some sort of rational, self-initiated, cognitive process you are drift again into Anthropomorphism. If by choice, you simple mean a simple go/no go behavioral pattern then I can accept the statement.
You let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. You do not do this purposely, but you do not understand what is begin discussed in the book and instead you are basing your arguments (inaccurately) on what you believe is being discussed.
What is "strange" about their behavior? Why would it be "strange" for reaction patterns to change when the chemical environment changes? How would you react if ethanol was put in your "medium"?
Haha, thanks for the layup. Think about what you are saying.
More of the same. How are you defining "Feel" in this statement? And what kind of responses are seem with differing stiffness of their substrate?
More of the same. This type of question has already been answered two times and it’s a waste of time to keep answering the same question. Please save us both some time and reread my responses to this question of “feel.”
William James died in 1910, never having had the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today. You appeal to an Authority who simply has no relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially, understood.
Ohh no you did not… can you believe this guy? Even without the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today, I can appeal to an authority who has relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially understood. Some of his information is accurate, even though he did not have access to what is currently available to us. You are not saying he is wrong by presenting empirical support, you are assuming he is wrong because of when he died.
That denies years of research on neural summation resulting in either further neural stimulation or the inhibition of impulse. It is an incredibly inaccurate statement.
Please explain how this is inaccurate. I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.
How does this law relate to the neurophysiology?
Haha, read the book and stop being lazy. I am not and cannot copy and paste 30 pages on this forum.
When a single quanta of light is absorbed by a molecule of Rhodopsin, the molecule of Rhodopsin goes through a shape change called a Cis-Trans transformation. I'm not an Organic Chemist, but my understanding is that the Cis-Trans transformation results in a small change in electrical potential. If a sufficient number of such transformations occur, each resulting from a single quantum absorption, then the summed potential changes are sufficient to reach the next neural structure in line - the bipolar cells.
The Rod cells becomes electrically unbalanced and they pass this electrical unbalance up the chain of command until another cell(s) can correct the electrical imbalance. It is also possible that the reactions they display are the process they take to become electrically balanced. When we burn ourselves with fire and experience pain we move away from the fire and this causes a reduction in the pain and eventually an experience of pleasure.
Bipolars receive input from,
Receiving input information causes the bipolars to become electrically unbalanced or balanced and this causes the bipolar to experience feelings. You may think of feelings as simple reactions and most cells are programmed to have these simple defined reactions, but this could be comparable to starving a kid for an entire day and then putting his/her favorite meal in front of them. They are going to eat the meal, assuming they are functioning properly. Functioning properly for them is comparable to normal living cells with DNA functioning properly.
In the case of Rods, usually hundreds of cells. The sufficient number of absorptions has been empirically determine to be on the order of around 7-10 events to ultimately produce a signal within the Central Nervous System. That describes the concept of summation of signals.
This describes the concept of several cells becoming emotionally unbalanced and rebalanced either immediately, when the body sleeps, or at some other time. The difference is that if signals are based on electricity and conservation of electrical charge applies to this electricity, then all of these signals must eventually be electrically balanced. It is also important to note that these reactions are based on the Law of Emotional Balance and without the Law of Emotional Balance these cells couldn’t have consistent programmed reactions. Without these consistent programmed reactions there could not be complex organisms like humans. The reactions are a byproduct of becoming electrically balanced, we will soon see that these reactions are always based on becoming electrically balanced.
On the other hand, signals arising from one Rod may inhibit the passage of signals from another Rod, illustrating the process of Lateral Inhibition or they may result in adaptation where steady states that would produce stimulation fail to occur because of the duration of unchanging supra-threshold stimulation. The bipolar cell receives essentially a "mixed-message" and does nothing. The "charges" from the two disputing Rods are not conserved (in the sense of having further influence) they are functionally lost, not conserved.
The mixed-message in this instance electrically balances the bipolar cell so it does not need to react to electrically balance itself. The body is not perfect and begins to break down once it loses the ability to automatically electrically balance the cells. Cells will always die electrically balanced, but cells may die earlier than possible if the body can’t efficiently keep them electrically balanced.