Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Fanman · March 17, 2018, 3:14pm

Serendipper,

That is the million dollar question. I suppose that when we’re down, we choose the guiding principle that offers the best potential view of our future selves?

phyllo · March 17, 2018, 3:48pm

Human beings already know what’s good them, but they become distracted and confused. Once they realize their error, then they can choose the good guiding principles. That’s a common concept in all but the nihilistic philosophies/religions.

Fanman · March 17, 2018, 3:51pm

Pris,

Good luck tweaking this .

Serendipper · March 17, 2018, 4:51pm

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVsJT9Uc_M[/youtube]

The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad because you never know what will be the consequences of the misfortune or you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.

Serendipper · March 17, 2018, 5:01pm

What does it mean to be down? Yes I think when people are down they choose religion as a convenient way to feel uplifted (superior). Churches prey on praying people.

phyllo · March 17, 2018, 5:05pm

That’s why the Stoics say that the things over which you have no control are neither good or bad … they are indifferent. The things over which you have control are either good or bad - your thoughts and your actions.

Serendipper · March 17, 2018, 5:39pm

The Taoist are opposite and claim that your nature is infinitely more wise than your consciousness. The Zen school is often called the sudden school because it discourages thinking about solutions in lieu of spontaneity; in other words, do something quickly even if it’s “wrong”.

phyllo · March 17, 2018, 5:51pm

“Your nature” is to think. That’s what distinguishes humans from other animals.

Throwing your brain into the garbage seems to be a bad idea.

Serendipper · March 17, 2018, 7:47pm

Yeah, I thought of that. I’m not sure how the Taoists rationalize that. Apparently, I am the illusion and therefore any conscious thoughts I have aren’t real, but the illusion also exists in reality, so I’m not sure of the differentiation.

Animals think.

I don’t think the idea is to throw the brain in the trash but to let the unconscious part take more control than the conscious. Don’t think, but feel.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d5o8d1kitM[/youtube]

phyllo · March 17, 2018, 11:37pm

Maybe animals feel but don’t think. :-"

Serendipper · March 17, 2018, 11:40pm

Haha yeah I can see that, but I see them stop and appear to be pondering what to do next so they’re not always spontaneous. And animals evolved into humans right? So where is the line drawn between the thinkers and instincters?

Fanman · March 18, 2018, 1:09am

Serendipper,

By “down”, I mean at a point where self destructive behaviours have led to a person hitting rock bottom, where their life is in tatters and they’re not able to function effectively. I think that at this stage people are very vulnerable, because if they cannot lift themselves out of the bad situation, any course of action or guiding principle offering redemption will seem like a way out to them. So I agree that churches can prey on praying people, but if they can offer a route out of trouble a person could take a calculated risk. If religion does help them, then the person who’s helped (should they become religious) may conclude that it is God who has helped them; not seeing how much they did to help themselves.

Fanman · March 18, 2018, 1:18am

phyllo,

I agree, but some people aren’t able to abate self-destructive behaviours, even though they’re aware that such behaviours are extremely detrimental to their well-being. Good guiding principles are practicably a form of “a saviour”, but not everyone has the self-awareness necessary to recognise when they need them.

Prismatic567 · March 18, 2018, 1:44am

This is pure rhetoric.
For thousands of years humans have been experimenting with and studying animals [inside and outside] as a model to understand human beings.
First it was physical and then it progress to the mental.

I am sure you understand scientists are not that stupid to transfer what they learned of animals directly to humans. So there is no need to raise the above rhetorical question.
To confirm whether the same conclusion affect humans scientists will have to carry out various testings and verification before they arrive at a conclusion for humans.

In the research for the identification of anxiety cells, whether the mice are aware of their impending demise or not, is not critical. Note it is known only certain animals are self-aware and it is certainly humans are self-aware of mortality. It is unlikely for those animals who are self-aware [elephants, apes, dolphins, and others] of the mortality.

Prismatic567 · March 18, 2018, 2:07am

Fanman:

Pris,

I have given links between anxiety and religion

Which I am under no obligation to agree with.

Scientists has traced anxiety cells in mice.

That is the claim, but I remain sceptical. Because certain cells react to certain “anxiety” causing stimuli in mice, does not as a certainty mean that they are “anxiety cells". If you want to buy that it is your discretion, but don’t expect others to jump in the boat with you.

Therefore they can eventually trace anxiety cells in humans note the Human Connectome Project [HCP].

Again, from 4 to 5 is an epic leap.

Therefore in future with advances in the HCP, humans will be able to link anxiety cells to religions [3]

Yet another epic leap. That you think these points demonstrate anything substantive is an error of judgement or logic IMV. These points are at best speculative.

I stated it is not a big leap because the Eastern religions [since thousands of years ago] are already linking religions with anxiety albeit not on the level of the specific anxiety cells but in trial and error [black box] methods involving the brain/mind.

I don’t doubt that there are many effective methods of reducing anxiety, but I’m not willing to speculate about the possibility of there being “anxiety cells” that can be modulated, because scientists claim to have found anxiety cells in mice. If such a breakthrough is made in the study of human physiology and is well supported, then I will begin to speculate.

The above and many others actuality with the HCP and other advances in knowledge give me an optimism of high probability.

That is entirely your choice. Note, there is no negative reflection on others if they choose not to think as you are. There are differing degrees of what people find acceptable and reasonable.

As you can see, what is missing on part is the extra knowledge and practices necessary to answer the questions you posed.
There are still loads of missing [quite necessary] knowledge I have not posted due to time constraints. Note I don’t want to waste too much time digging unless necessary.

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here.

Nah, what I meant is your counter argument lack substance.
As above, there are additional knowledge which you are lacking, thus effecting the substance of your counter argument or rejection.

I think that my refutations of your argument are valid, you don’t. We will have to agree to disagree.

Rejected my opinions??
I have intellectual integrity and I strive to counter arguments as accurate as possible.
So far there you have not produced any justified refutations.
Note in the above case re anxiety, mice, religions, you are ignorant of so many other necessary knowledge to link them as a whole.
I have never said my arguments are ‘perfect’ NEVER! - the default is I am waiting for sound arguments of substance to counter my views.

Think of me what you will. The fact is, you stated that your argument/syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is perfect.

Are you serious? There is a reason that I don’t link anxiety, mice and religion as a whole. I don’t see the correlation and certainly not causation at this stage.

Can’t you see the answers in the last statement above.
Emotions are intrinsic and inherent is ALL humans and animals.
Where did this come from if not from the DNA [nature]?
Otherwise you think it is from Nurture?

I don’t agree that existential angst is “DNA ordained” rightly or wrongly. I think that the cause of existential angst is the knowledge that we will one day cease to exist.

I believe the above is new knowledge to you? [any thanks from you? ] It must be else you would not have queried me with the above question.

Not really no, it doesn’t state anything that I wasn’t generally aware of. I don’t think that your excerpt supports your argument that existential angst is “DNA ordained” and I don’t see why you think it does either?

Re 1 - all emotions [anxiety is one] are driven by neurons. Thus there must be anxiety neurons [brain cells]. The anxiety emotions are to facilitate survival, thus existential, and procreation - also existential.

I disagree. Can you support your argumentation here?

Re 2. I have already given links and reference. If not sure, just google.

Hold on a minute. The claim is that scientists found anxiety cells in mice, how does it follow therefrom that anxiety cells led to the creation of religion? Not in terms of your opinion, but factually.

I believe your above resistance to my views is you prefer not to exercise your intelligence.

Here is one view from Quora;

What I have been doing is to use existing knowledge to form a very probable hypothesis [note I am saying mine is a proven theory].

I have NOT claimed mine is a proven theory.
I have given you my hypothesis re my points 1-6 above.

Prismatic567 · March 18, 2018, 2:18am

You have to apply the Principle of Charity here.

In 1, note ‘perfect’ in ’ ’ [astrophe] which meant absolutely perfect. Thus I don’t claim absolute perfection.

But in 2 I differentiated ‘absolutely perfect’ from ‘relatively perfect.’

I can say I have a perfect [relative] score [100/100 or 100%] in an objective test I took but that is not an absolute perfection. Such is confusing and seemingly contradicting in layman terms, but not philosophically. You find it confusing?

Fanman · March 18, 2018, 2:36am

Pris,

That’s funny. There is no “resistance”, I disagree with you, because I think that you are wrong. When I think that you’re right, I agree. This phenomena, is called “choice”.

What is a proven theory?

I never stated that you did.

Whereby I’ve highlighted what I see as the issues.

Fanman · March 18, 2018, 2:42am

Pris,

No, I’m not confused about this. You emphatically claimed that you’ve never said that your arguments are perfect, but you did claim your argument/syllogism is perfect. What is there to possibly be confused about? I know what perfection means. You seem to be the one struggling with the term.

Prismatic567 · March 18, 2018, 2:48am

Can’t you see the answer is implied in your own statement.

How ALL humans will know the certainty of mortality if not for their DNA therein that automatically enable them the faculty of self-awareness [after 18 months ++]?
ALL humans are programmed within their DNA to be self-aware whether they like it or not, want it or not.
The existential angst will manifest in the later years, i.e. late teens.
Nature has created this existential dilemma but nature has also provide an easy solution [optimal and temporary], i.e. religions. The most effective and immediate solution to deal with the existential angst [anxieties] is religion. This is why >90% of humans are religious naturally.

But being double-edged it is also very obvious religiosity manifest their share of terrible evils and pose a serious threat to humanity - to the extreme of the extermination of the species.

Soon it will be easier for Islam extremists who has nothing to loose to get access to cheap nukes.

That is the problem with your thinking, you don’t imbue into your thinking with the drive for deeper exploration. You have a very hardcore resistant to certain useful knowledge and are always scratching the obvious on the surface ONLY.

Fanman · March 18, 2018, 10:37am

Pris,

I’m not convinced. These premises aren’t as simple and straight-forward as you’re attempting to reduce them to. Hence, I don’t believe that it is correct to condense the complex relationship between DNA and how it influences our psychology into a few lines. So I’m not going to draw any definite conclusions.

You’re entitled to your views, but I disagree with your assessment.