Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:40 am

Note the primary theme of this thread is theism not Science.

Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain
"If we can learn enough, we can develop the tools to turn on and off the key players that regulate anxiety in people," Gordon says.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... -the-brain


In this thread
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697
I postulated the 'idea of God' is due to psychological factors which is mainly the existential crisis that generate subliminal anxieties, despairs, angst, and other mental brain pains.

The above research enable the potential for researchers to link the anxieties and other negative mental brain pains to other specific neurons in the brain generating the following possible thesis;

    "If we can learn enough, we can develop the tools to turn on and off the key players that regulate anxiety [in relation to the idea of God and the existential crisis] in people,"

When we can turn off the specific neurons then there is no need for the idea of God, i.e. theism to deal with this related anxieties are other associated mental brain pains.

When there is such an alternative for theism, then there will be no more theistic based evils like this;
Image
and the whole range of other theistic based evils.

Note the above is merely a speculated thesis for the future.
Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge [such as the above and others] and technology, I am optimistic my thesis can be realized and actualized in the future.

Agree?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:11 pm

To me the faith in humans' (read: corporations' and governments') ability to apply such technology in healthy ways is disturbing. We already overmedicate anxiety, rather than, for example, seeing we can change society to reduce anxiety. Here we are products of millions of years of evolution, thinking we can just take stuff out of a very complex ecosystem -the brain/mind-and have some sense of the consquences. Notice too that emotions and feelings that are not pleasant are called negative, when in fact the unpleasance has evolved to motivate, make the person shift gears and serves other functions. This does not mean that problems cannot arise. They do. But the technoreligious hubris is already causing incredibly damage as we remove feedback about how well relationships, work life, society actually fit us. When I was a kid in school the comparison between the USSR and the US was sometimes made, by teachers that is, that the former had a people for the government (at their disposal, to serve the whole) and the latter had a government to serve the people. The idea being that the latter is much better, which I agree with. It certainly would be in any case. Now via technology - right now primarily through psychotropics - we modify people to fit society. Now the technoreligious happily predict more effective modifications to reduce human reactions to their lives and enrvironments. Here in this thread, in the specific, to modify people's beliefs by modifying their brains. Not even the slightest concern is presented about how this will be used.

In the end then enact just the same kinds of creepy controlling behavior and control that the monotheists used to enact.

And of course he has not demonstrated one of his assumptions, that anxiety is the source of theism. Even in the scientific community this is not the only thesis, nor the most popular.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:To me the faith in humans' (read: corporations' and governments') ability to apply such technology in healthy ways is disturbing.

In the end then enact just the same kinds of creepy controlling behavior and control that the monotheists used to enact.
I noted you are stuck with the past and in this present phase with the Frankenstein Effect, i.e. worry to the extent the scientists recommendations will result in producing medical monsters or zombies.

I agree in the past and present governments and corporations had implemented various measures that do not take into account the bigger picture and ending with disasters. Whilst there are still those who want to implement things that do not take into account the wider consequences, I believe the masses are quite aware of the past disasters and thus are very wary.

If the hypothesis I speculated and proposed is proven feasible and to be implemented in the future [not now] it will based a fool proof approaches and voluntary where those who volunteer are very informed of all the necessary knowledge, the results and their consequences.

By the time of implementation in the future, humanity's average IQ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect], EQ, moral quotient, spiritual quotient, personal knowledge database, various relevant skills would [as a necessity] increase many folds.

The turning on and off of neurons is not as frightening [you probably has imagined] as physically digging into the brain of individuals and planting switches between the neurons.
Knowing the specific processes, the strategy to turn on and off anxieties via the neurons could be as simple as conditioning the mind as in exercises to improving one's memory and other mental skills.


And of course he has not demonstrated one of his assumptions, that anxiety is the source of theism. Even in the scientific community this is not the only thesis, nor the most popular.
Note I have discussed the main psychological factor leading to theism is the anxiety related to what will happen after death [an existential threat]. Such a point is emphasized and highlighted in all the Abrahamic religions as a threat as to why believers must believed in God so as to be assured of an eternal life in heaven [some with virgins] and to avoid HELL.
There are social and other factors why a person is a theist, but they are all secondary factors to the primary existential factor.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:04 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I noted you are stuck with the past and in this present phase with the Frankenstein Effect, i.e. worry to the extent the scientists recommendations will result in producing medical monsters or zombies.
It is quite current, for example, with the pharmaceutical approach to emotions, viewing emotional reactions as pathological and not looking for the causes of widespread reactions to modern life. This is current and worse than it was 'in the past'. Even members of the scientific community are starting to call this industry on its unjustified confidence and not demonstrated ontology. Fukishima was not long ago and while they do not mention it much, the problems are still spreading from that an not solved. Monsanto controls its own oversight via revolving door with government.

See, the problem right now, and not in the past, is that technology gets more and more global. In 1900, the biggest technological fuck up was very local. Today, big fuck ups can be global and are easily regional.

I agree in the past and present governments and corporations had implemented various measures that do not take into account the bigger picture and ending with disasters. Whilst there are still those who want to implement things that do not take into account the wider consequences, I believe the masses are quite aware of the past disasters and thus are very wary.
They are hardly wary. Just look at the way they let their children use mobiles and surfing devices, despite the fact that we KNOW these things reduce empathy.

If the hypothesis I speculated and proposed is proven feasible and to be implemented in the future [not now] it will based a fool proof approaches and voluntary where those who volunteer are very informed of all the necessary knowledge, the results and their consequences.
So, you are just speculating wildly. Fine. I can't argue against something that does not exist that you promise will be foolproof. I do think the idea is problematic.

The turning on and off of neurons is not as frightening [you probably has imagined] as physically digging into the brain of individuals and planting switches between the neurons.
Knowing the specific processes, the strategy to turn on and off anxieties via the neurons could be as simple as conditioning the mind as in exercises to improving one's memory and other mental skills.
Or we could see if lifestyle, societal strutures, social constraints, workplace environment and culture, approved addictions (like digital devices) are causing the problems, instead of pathologizing individual RESPONSES.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:04 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I noted you are stuck with the past and in this present phase with the Frankenstein Effect, i.e. worry to the extent the scientists recommendations will result in producing medical monsters or zombies.
It is quite current, for example, with the pharmaceutical approach to emotions, viewing emotional reactions as pathological and not looking for the causes of widespread reactions to modern life. This is current and worse than it was 'in the past'. Even members of the scientific community are starting to call this industry on its unjustified confidence and not demonstrated ontology. Fukishima was not long ago and while they do not mention it much, the problems are still spreading from that an not solved. Monsanto controls its own oversight via revolving door with government.
All knowledge and technologies has a double-edge and has been abused in the past by many.
My point is such exploitation and abuse at present are not as easy for abusers or the ignorant as the past.

See, the problem right now, and not in the past, is that technology gets more and more global. In 1900, the biggest technological fuck up was very local. Today, big fuck ups can be global and are easily regional.
True but the increased in awareness is also more global. More countries are now more aware of say global warming and even

The first climate change refugees from Vanuatu still under threat
https://en.ird.fr/the-media-centre/scie ... der-threat


Even an Island existing somewhere in Pacific Ocean is able to voice their concern and attracting attention for the whole World. In the past that Island could have simply disappear and no one would give a damn.


I agree in the past and present governments and corporations had implemented various measures that do not take into account the bigger picture and ending with disasters. Whilst there are still those who want to implement things that do not take into account the wider consequences, I believe the masses are quite aware of the past disasters and thus are very wary.
They are hardly wary. Just look at the way they let their children use mobiles and surfing devices, despite the fact that we KNOW these things reduce empathy.
Why not?
Research are continually done and results published for consideration.
Usually the results and finding take time to be implemented and accepted by the masses.

Note the problem of sugar and calories in drinks which research [long ago] has shown these are very detrimental to health especially children.
But note the recent results;

[b]Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales Decline For 12th Consecutive
Diet sodas sold by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo posted steep volume declines in 2016, dragging down demand for the total carbonated soft drink category as consumers buy more bottled waters and other healthier beverages.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/coca-cola ... oda-water/[/b]

Habits die hard! But many other positive changes are taking effect very slowly & gradually in time after years of complains and recommendations by experts.

If the hypothesis I speculated and proposed is proven feasible and to be implemented in the future [not now] it will based a fool proof approaches and voluntary where those who volunteer are very informed of all the necessary knowledge, the results and their consequences.
So, you are just speculating wildly. Fine. I can't argue against something that does not exist that you promise will be foolproof. I do think the idea is problematic.
That is rhetoric and deceptive.
I did not state nor imply 'speculating widely'.

'Speculated' in this sense is forecasting and extrapolating based on existing trends and empirical possibilities.

The turning on and off of neurons is not as frightening [you probably has imagined] as physically digging into the brain of individuals and planting switches between the neurons.
Knowing the specific processes, the strategy to turn on and off anxieties via the neurons could be as simple as conditioning the mind as in exercises to improving one's memory and other mental skills.
Or we could see if lifestyle, societal strutures, social constraints, workplace environment and culture, approved addictions (like digital devices) are causing the problems, instead of pathologizing individual RESPONSES.
You are always defensive and thinking of the worse.

Note it could be as simple as this instead of brain surgery to tweak the neurons;

Rocket video game may help schizophrenic patients control their condition
An international team of researchers has used a "computerized rocket game" to help patients with schizophrenia visualize and reduce the level of activity in a region of the brain associated with auditory hallucinations. The condition is known to affect more than 21 million people across the globe.
https://newatlas.com/schizophrenia-audi ... ame/53372/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:32 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:All knowledge and technologies has a double-edge and has been abused in the past by many.
My point is such exploitation and abuse at present are not as easy for abusers or the ignorant as the past.
I mentioned what I consider to be current,ongoing abuses, so this response is not relevent.

True but the increased in awareness is also more global. More countries are now more aware of say global warming and even

The first climate change refugees from Vanuatu still under threat
https://en.ird.fr/the-media-centre/scie ... der-threat


Even an Island existing somewhere in Pacific Ocean is able to voice their concern and attracting attention for the whole World. In the past that Island could have simply disappear and no one would give a damn.
There is very low awareness of the dangers of gm products, and nearly none about nanotechnology, robots and AI. Yes, the first and last appear in newspapers, there is no public debate and there is no effective government oversight. Industry controls oversight. Yes, there is awareness of global warming. I do not see industry changing much at all.


Why not?
Asked regarding cellphone use and other digital media use by c hildren. For the same reasons that tobacco took so many decades to actually be cut back on: industry lies, industry has powerful direct and indirect ways to control media. Humans are addicted. The programmers used the most recent knowledge of cognitive addiction to get people addicted. So the users are addicted but no one mentions this. The health and emotional effects are kept out of media or appear only when matched by bought industry advocates.

Research are continually done and results published for consideration.
Usually the results and finding take time to be implemented and accepted by the masses.
Research is often sponsored by industry and better marketed with their money. Other research is marginalized.

Note the problem of sugar and calories in drinks which research [long ago] has shown these are very detrimental to health especially children.
But note the recent results;

[b]Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales Decline For 12th Consecutive
Diet sodas sold by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo posted steep volume declines in 2016, dragging down demand for the total carbonated soft drink category as consumers buy more bottled waters and other healthier beverages.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/coca-cola ... oda-water/[/b]

Habits die hard! But many other positive changes are taking effect very slowly & gradually in time after years of complains and recommendations by experts.
I am not making the argument that all technology is bad, far from it. My point was and is that technology is rarely evaluated in holistic ways. This doesn't matter with many products, but it does with some and many of these can have global detrimental effects.

Precisely like your fantasy treatment for anxiety. It is conceived as if we are modular creatures and as if the direct effects - in the emotions of the patients - are the only ones. What side effects? What feedback are we cutting off?

What concerns me about your thinking is that you seem utterly unaware that there might be a wealth of side effects of cutting anxiety out of humans. We evolved this reaction for good reasons. It may very well be telling us that society has problems. It's like cutting out our eyes rather than making the environment less ugly. It's like giving drugs to more than half of the population because they are stressed and anxious, instead of using this information to develop society. We do this now and it is not good. What it does is make us fit a fucked up society rather than fixing society to fit us.

That is rhetoric and deceptive.
I did not state nor imply 'speculating widely'.
You were speculating wildly. You said it was some future fool proof treatment.

I don't know if it is language issues or something else but I find you do not quite respond to much of what I write, do not seem to understand many things, repeat the very types of assertions you have already made as if they need no back up. It's frustrating and, as I've said before, comes off as bad faith arguing. I don't know if it is or not or how much, but I am again going to try to ignore you.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:00 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Even an Island existing somewhere in Pacific Ocean is able to voice their concern and attracting attention for the whole World. In the past that Island could have simply disappear and no one would give a damn.
There is very low awareness of the dangers of gm products, and nearly none about nanotechnology, robots and AI. Yes, the first and last appear in newspapers, there is no public debate and there is no effective government oversight. Industry controls oversight. Yes, there is awareness of global warming. I do not see industry changing much at all.
My thesis is ALL humans has the potential to commit evil acts of a range of degrees and a percentile are born with an active evil tendency.
Exploitation for profit [corruption, petty crimes, casual lies, etc.] are low-degree evil acts and lots of people are doing that without being aware they are committing evil acts [low degrees].
As such it is natural that there is a wide range of evil acts [GM, medicines, drugs, technology, etc.] being committed by various peoples. Problem is such acts are so normal that the majority do not sense them as critical evil acts like terrorism, wars, mass rapes, and the likes.

BUT note, within ALL humans there is also a potential for morality that will drive humans to address and deal with evil acts. Note the research of morality [Nature] on babies who are not yet influenced by the 'Nurture' factors.

The Moral Life of Babies
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/


The limitation is this inherent moral drive is a very later evolution relative to the up to 4 billion program of 'evil' humans has inherited from past ancestors.

This is why the moral impulse on average is slow to catch up with the range of evil acts by humans. But the trend is the dynamic moral impulse will prevail over the stagnant 'evil' impulses within the brain/mind of humans.

What is critical is for humanity to expedite the process by increasing the force of the impulse of the inherent moral drive.

Hope you get this point re my optimism that good will prevail over evil, it is a matter of time and this is evident by positive trends that is ongoing over the history of mankind [peoplekind??].


Why not?
Asked regarding cellphone use and other digital media use by c hildren. For the same reasons that tobacco took so many decades to actually be cut back on: industry lies, industry has powerful direct and indirect ways to control media. Humans are addicted. The programmers used the most recent knowledge of cognitive addiction to get people addicted. So the users are addicted but no one mentions this. The health and emotional effects are kept out of media or appear only when matched by bought industry advocates.
Note my explanation above why I am optimistic good will prevail over evil in time.

Research are continually done and results published for consideration.
Usually the results and finding take time to be implemented and accepted by the masses.
Research is often sponsored by industry and better marketed with their money. Other research is marginalized.
Note my explanation above. It is instinctive and natural for the majority to exploit and abuse for various reason but eventually good will prevail over evil, albeit slowly.

Note the problem of sugar and calories in drinks which research [long ago] has shown these are very detrimental to health especially children.
But note the recent results;

    Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales Decline For 12th Consecutive
    Diet sodas sold by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo posted steep volume declines in 2016, dragging down demand for the total carbonated soft drink category as consumers buy more bottled waters and other healthier beverages.
    http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/coca-cola ... oda-water/[/b]

Habits die hard! But many other positive changes are taking effect very slowly & gradually in time after years of complains and recommendations by experts.
I am not making the argument that all technology is bad, far from it. My point was and is that technology is rarely evaluated in holistic ways. This doesn't matter with many products, but it does with some and many of these can have global detrimental effects.
I agree technology is often not evaluated in holistic ways. The reason is because the 'evil' impulse is more dominant than the moral impulse and holistic impulse at present.
The thrust of most of my posting here is to improve and expedite the moral impulse and holistic impulse.

Precisely like your fantasy treatment for anxiety. It is conceived as if we are modular creatures and as if the direct effects - in the emotions of the patients - are the only ones. What side effects? What feedback are we cutting off?

What concerns me about your thinking is that you seem utterly unaware that there might be a wealth of side effects of cutting anxiety out of humans. We evolved this reaction for good reasons. It may very well be telling us that society has problems. It's like cutting out our eyes rather than making the environment less ugly. It's like giving drugs to more than half of the population because they are stressed and anxious, instead of using this information to develop society. We do this now and it is not good. What it does is make us fit a fucked up society rather than fixing society to fit us.
Nope, you missed my point.
There is no way we can get rid of anxieties and other emotions [primary or secondary] within humans.
Note I quoted Aristotle's on being wise with 'anger'
viewtopic.php?p=2693727#p2693727
which is applicable to any other emotions.
So my point is humans must develop skills to manage, regulate and modulate their emotions, i.e. including anxiety as a secondary emotion, thus promoting equanimity.

That is rhetoric and deceptive.
I did not state nor imply 'speculating widely'.
You were speculating wildly. You said it was some future fool proof treatment.[/quote]I am speculating rationally and wisely but not widely [irrationally and the impossible].
It is wiser to ensure solution are fool proof, i.e. no side effects and other dangers.

I don't know if it is language issues or something else but I find you do not quite respond to much of what I write, do not seem to understand many things, repeat the very types of assertions you have already made as if they need no back up. It's frustrating and, as I've said before, comes off as bad faith arguing. I don't know if it is or not or how much, but I am again going to try to ignore you.
English is not my mother-tongue but the problem is most likely with grammar but not context.

Discussion in a forum like this is very limited thus frustrating especially when the topic gets to the more refined levels. As such there is a need to volley to a fro many times. Note my discussion with Iambiguous where he repeated many many times the same thing and I have to do the same.
My only complain with such discussions is only when the other side starts to attack ad hominen and with all sort of off topic condemnation. As long as the mood is amiable, I will go along as long as I am interested for various reasons.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users