(no subject)
i feel like an overly excited puppy dog.
there isnt a reason either.
it just happens to me.
i want to go to the library.
drive,
its so nice out.
i would like to be on the ave right now.
maybe i'll go.
i'll try to go.
(i got accepted to every college so far, waiting on cooper).
(um. everyone should read this below).
its kind of long, but it has a lot of interesting information.
For a while now, I have been paying close attention to the chemistry of my body. This seems like a strange statement, but when suddenly the feeling of “love” seems to overwhelm every moment of your waking state, you begin to wonder why, especially when there is no one to associate those feelings with. It just lingers, butterflies in your stomach, overwhelming energy, lack of focus. Driving home from work, it hit me again- no reason. I immediately called a friend, and explained my theory. I proposed that because you can be “clinically depressed” by lacking a certain chemical, maybe I could be clinically “in love” because of too much of a chemical. I was right. Nearly a month later, among the magazine shelves in Border’s Bookstore, my eyes scanned February’s issue of National Geographic; on the cover, it read “So what, really, is this thing called love” (Slater).
I was ecstatic to see that I was not crazy, that this is a real situation. This article opened me up to do extensive research, not only on how out the brain processes “love”, but how those idea’s compare to existentialism (choice), and religion- other component’s (among others) that make human character.
The attitude I perceive from society is, “everything has been done; what is there to do next?” And maybe, they are right; I have not the capacity to predict what this coming generation will bring. However, what has not been done, to my knowledge, is a merge of logical, yet one-sided arguments from the past, to form a constellation of ideas that somehow revolve around each other into a working solar system. This is precisely what I will attempt to do, forming an argument that is neither social nor political, science nor history, but a combination of all those aspects into a category I call, human existence.
As you can imagine, it was frustrating to find that the magic in love is merely chemical. Humans turn love into this idealistic, mysterious force that brings two people together. We watch movies, we write books, plays, poems; we sing, we dance, we paint, dress ourselves in make-up and nice clothing- all in the name of love. Before I can explain why, I need to ask: what is “love” in terms of chemical make-up?
According to Helen Fisher, love is a combination of dopamine and/or norepinephrine. When we fall in “love”, these chemicals flood the brain, especially in the area known as the caudate nucleus, the “reward system of the brain” (Fisher, 69). When these chemicals light up, something happens- butterflies, air, and energy. Fisher explains that these chemicals allow lover’s to talk into late hours of the night, and still wake up in the morning with a bounce. Though this all seems beautiful, something else very important happens. Our serotonin level drops.
Put it this way: people with OCD lack serotonin. To ease their obsessive behavior, they are given doses of this chemical. This poses a problem for people in love. They become obsessive, often leading to unrestricted day dreaming. They simply can’t get their mind off that significant other, spending up to 90% of the day with “the one” on their mind.
Another thing to pay attention to in this situation is addiction. Oddly enough, dopamine and/or norepinephrine are addictive. “…when neuroscientists…compared the brain scans of their love-stricken subjects with those of men and women who injected cocaine or opioids, they found that many of the same brain regions became active…” (Fisher, 183). The more you get it, the more you want it, the more you need it. This explains why divorce rates are so high. You build a tolerance, fall out of love, only to go through withdrawal and find a new love- and then repeat the process. But is this really out of the ordinary?
According to an article I stumbled upon by Pat McChristie, humans are not naturally monogamous creatures. I found this bit of information humorous, considering for so long, divorce and, “falling out of love”, was considered a sin.
We are so much more animalistic than we think. Ever watched the way two squirrel couples interact? They chase one another, play, groom, nuzzle, cuddle, and make love to one another. Just long enough to bear off spring.
We do just about the same thing. Funny thing’s happen when we fall in love. Have you ever noticed that males fall in love quicker? This is only generally speaking; not every male is the same, and while on the topic, not every woman is the same either. But the tests have been done, and here are the results: “…men tended to show more activity than women in the brain regions associated with visual processing…[and] penile erection” (Fisher, 110). Women, on the other hand, “tended to show more activity in the body of the caudate nucleus and the septum- brain regions associated with motivation and attention” (Fisher, 113). This leads me to conclude that women spend more time considering her potential mate, while men become attached based on visual response. Of course, these are the primitive perspectives of human character, and not even close to the full spectrum of what one needs in a relationship.
Love is almost represented as something fundamental to existence. We get hungry; we get thirsty; we fall in love. Given the right chemicals, we are able to feel “love” and act upon it, just like hunger or thirst.
After all this talk about love being not much different than hunger, I’m curious to understand how much and what we have control over.
For a while I was a firm believer in existentialism. Existentialism, by definition, is:
A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
(The American Heritage Dictionary).
My argument was, as soon as we are conscious enough to make our own decisions, when our pre-frontal cortex is mature enough to think logically, we are in complete control over ourselves. However, this, among other evidence, has lead me to accept that we are not in complete control.
What we do have control over is where we maneuver ourselves, given that we have both of our legs, a sane mind, and are not limited by heavy traffic or a jail cell. We chose whether to be inside or outside, in the classroom or in the bathroom. The latter two seem to be obligation; they bear heavier consequences than the others, making them decisions without much contemplation. But they are not obligations, and indeed there is a choice. It is safe to say that most of our actions are based on consequence.
When speaking of “decisions without much contemplation”, I can’t help but to bring up the idea of instinct. Do we have a choice over our instincts? I do not believe we have a choice over having instincts (whether that be love, or to move out of the way of an oncoming car); but what does separate us from animals is that we can recognize these instincts and chose whether to follow them or not.
Take driving, for example. I don’t know about anyone else, but while driving, I tune into my instincts, and follow them, even when they seem like a illogical choice. Believe it or not- and I have been practicing this “game” for a year or so now- but every time I recognize an instinct, and go against it, I end up in a situation I do not want to be in. But when I felt the urge to be in one lane instead of the other, even when there was no apparent difference between the two, I ended up getting to my destination faster than expected.
Contrary to popular opinion, the concept of existentialism is an extremely exciting prospect. Complete choice! But is there really such thing as mind over matter?
I take “mind over matter” as a strong possibility, but not in every circumstance.
Declining the idea of mind over matter is our bodies relentless will to live. Notice how one is unable to (if one wanted to) commit suicide without a tool? It is physically impossible to drown one self when one is capable of swimming; our bodies rush to the surface of the water without our permission.
Dr. Ramachandran, in Phantoms in the Brain, also makes some strong points. In a study on patients who have recently had a stroke and are now paralyzed, he came upon some interesting cases. A small percentage of people who become paralyzed go through a stage of denial- to the point where they will be looking at their arm, not able to move it, and still say it is perfectly capable of moving. The patient will make up an excuse as to why it won’t move, such as “I’m too tired to move it”, or “this is my brother’s arm, not mine.” It will not matter how much the patient will believe his/her arm is functional, the arm will not move.
In fact, it takes matter to alter the mind. Dr. Ramachandran performed an experiment where he put cold water in the left ear, causing these patients to enter a state of honesty. While in this state, the patient completely admitted to having a paralyzed arm. But, as soon as the effect wore off, the patient was back to believing he/she could move his/her arm, and denied ever admitting that he/she could not (Ramachandran/Blakeslee, 146).
But I do think we can trick the brain; that we can transcend hereditary genes such as addiction (as I have), take control of “love” now that we know what it is, and eliminate pain where the brain thinks there is pain.
It’s similar to the placebo effect. Trust that the medicine you’re given is working, and it will work. Eric Sabo wrote an article for ABC News that studies the idea of mind over matter, using a similar concept as a placebo. Only, the patients were not given medicine. In fact, the simply looked at the MRI scan of their brain while they felt pain, and visualized, literally, the pain to go away. Oddly enough, when they did this, the red that indicated pain disappeared; and when the patients focused on having pain, the red emerged again.
So sometimes we are capable of using mind over matter, and sometimes we are not. What about love? Can we manipulate ourselves to love even if we naturally do not?
I believe so. Though I have no scientific proof of this, I can share with you experiments I performed on myself. Tell yourself anything long enough and you’ll believe it, even if you know somewhere it isn’t true (I wonder if the cold water in the ear effect could conjure up the truth). For I while, I would make a point to consistently tell myself “I am in love with _______,” just to see how I would react. Soon I began to actually feel “love.” And when I didn’t want to feel love any more? I simply focused on the negative traits of that person, blowing them up well out of proportion. Soon I was out of “love.”
What if I were an atheist who decided to suddenly make an attempt to believe in God? Could I do it? If I can convince myself that I love someone when I don’t, why not?
Dr. Ramachandran gives me hope that this is possible. He argues that our perception of God is found in the emotional structure of the limbic system, as opposed to the rational structure of the limbic system (Ramachandran, 179). Ever heard of a patient who felt God’s presence during a stroke? This is because when the patient endured the stroke, this specific part of the brain became extremely active. Suddenly, the patient believes in God, when he/she had never done so before. Logically, if I can convince myself to love, a die-hard advocate of atheism could convince his/her self to believe in God. Unfortunately, no recorded experiments have been done on this.
What is so curious, to me, is that our brains are so highly evolved for survival, yet the old religious structure of the brain remains, a part that is not needed to function in any way. Those who are not capable of tapping in the God section are not in any way more limited than a believer.
I can still argue that I believe in existentialism. I can also argue that falling in love is a natural part of being human, and not a choice. I can also say that God exists because the part of the brain that sections out religion is there, but why that part exists remains a mystery, and probably will always remain a mystery.
Maybe all of these ideas do not make any sense together; after all, Sartre wasn’t a believer in God, and I know for a fact most people prefer to remain ignorant of the facts of love. Not many people find any of these topics worth debating, so long as they live a happy life.
I beg to differ. If we can learn to tap into our brains- just like those who consciously asked the pain to go away- the possibilities of what we can do are endless. While we stay mindless of our surroundings, we are less prone to evolve and change. Staying still is one of my biggest fears. I am determined to put the pieces together; I plan to incorporate how society and experience (both present and past) plays a role in who we are, and how we came to be.
there isnt a reason either.
it just happens to me.
i want to go to the library.
drive,
its so nice out.
i would like to be on the ave right now.
maybe i'll go.
i'll try to go.
(i got accepted to every college so far, waiting on cooper).
(um. everyone should read this below).
its kind of long, but it has a lot of interesting information.
For a while now, I have been paying close attention to the chemistry of my body. This seems like a strange statement, but when suddenly the feeling of “love” seems to overwhelm every moment of your waking state, you begin to wonder why, especially when there is no one to associate those feelings with. It just lingers, butterflies in your stomach, overwhelming energy, lack of focus. Driving home from work, it hit me again- no reason. I immediately called a friend, and explained my theory. I proposed that because you can be “clinically depressed” by lacking a certain chemical, maybe I could be clinically “in love” because of too much of a chemical. I was right. Nearly a month later, among the magazine shelves in Border’s Bookstore, my eyes scanned February’s issue of National Geographic; on the cover, it read “So what, really, is this thing called love” (Slater).
I was ecstatic to see that I was not crazy, that this is a real situation. This article opened me up to do extensive research, not only on how out the brain processes “love”, but how those idea’s compare to existentialism (choice), and religion- other component’s (among others) that make human character.
The attitude I perceive from society is, “everything has been done; what is there to do next?” And maybe, they are right; I have not the capacity to predict what this coming generation will bring. However, what has not been done, to my knowledge, is a merge of logical, yet one-sided arguments from the past, to form a constellation of ideas that somehow revolve around each other into a working solar system. This is precisely what I will attempt to do, forming an argument that is neither social nor political, science nor history, but a combination of all those aspects into a category I call, human existence.
As you can imagine, it was frustrating to find that the magic in love is merely chemical. Humans turn love into this idealistic, mysterious force that brings two people together. We watch movies, we write books, plays, poems; we sing, we dance, we paint, dress ourselves in make-up and nice clothing- all in the name of love. Before I can explain why, I need to ask: what is “love” in terms of chemical make-up?
According to Helen Fisher, love is a combination of dopamine and/or norepinephrine. When we fall in “love”, these chemicals flood the brain, especially in the area known as the caudate nucleus, the “reward system of the brain” (Fisher, 69). When these chemicals light up, something happens- butterflies, air, and energy. Fisher explains that these chemicals allow lover’s to talk into late hours of the night, and still wake up in the morning with a bounce. Though this all seems beautiful, something else very important happens. Our serotonin level drops.
Put it this way: people with OCD lack serotonin. To ease their obsessive behavior, they are given doses of this chemical. This poses a problem for people in love. They become obsessive, often leading to unrestricted day dreaming. They simply can’t get their mind off that significant other, spending up to 90% of the day with “the one” on their mind.
Another thing to pay attention to in this situation is addiction. Oddly enough, dopamine and/or norepinephrine are addictive. “…when neuroscientists…compared the brain scans of their love-stricken subjects with those of men and women who injected cocaine or opioids, they found that many of the same brain regions became active…” (Fisher, 183). The more you get it, the more you want it, the more you need it. This explains why divorce rates are so high. You build a tolerance, fall out of love, only to go through withdrawal and find a new love- and then repeat the process. But is this really out of the ordinary?
According to an article I stumbled upon by Pat McChristie, humans are not naturally monogamous creatures. I found this bit of information humorous, considering for so long, divorce and, “falling out of love”, was considered a sin.
We are so much more animalistic than we think. Ever watched the way two squirrel couples interact? They chase one another, play, groom, nuzzle, cuddle, and make love to one another. Just long enough to bear off spring.
We do just about the same thing. Funny thing’s happen when we fall in love. Have you ever noticed that males fall in love quicker? This is only generally speaking; not every male is the same, and while on the topic, not every woman is the same either. But the tests have been done, and here are the results: “…men tended to show more activity than women in the brain regions associated with visual processing…[and] penile erection” (Fisher, 110). Women, on the other hand, “tended to show more activity in the body of the caudate nucleus and the septum- brain regions associated with motivation and attention” (Fisher, 113). This leads me to conclude that women spend more time considering her potential mate, while men become attached based on visual response. Of course, these are the primitive perspectives of human character, and not even close to the full spectrum of what one needs in a relationship.
Love is almost represented as something fundamental to existence. We get hungry; we get thirsty; we fall in love. Given the right chemicals, we are able to feel “love” and act upon it, just like hunger or thirst.
After all this talk about love being not much different than hunger, I’m curious to understand how much and what we have control over.
For a while I was a firm believer in existentialism. Existentialism, by definition, is:
A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
(The American Heritage Dictionary).
My argument was, as soon as we are conscious enough to make our own decisions, when our pre-frontal cortex is mature enough to think logically, we are in complete control over ourselves. However, this, among other evidence, has lead me to accept that we are not in complete control.
What we do have control over is where we maneuver ourselves, given that we have both of our legs, a sane mind, and are not limited by heavy traffic or a jail cell. We chose whether to be inside or outside, in the classroom or in the bathroom. The latter two seem to be obligation; they bear heavier consequences than the others, making them decisions without much contemplation. But they are not obligations, and indeed there is a choice. It is safe to say that most of our actions are based on consequence.
When speaking of “decisions without much contemplation”, I can’t help but to bring up the idea of instinct. Do we have a choice over our instincts? I do not believe we have a choice over having instincts (whether that be love, or to move out of the way of an oncoming car); but what does separate us from animals is that we can recognize these instincts and chose whether to follow them or not.
Take driving, for example. I don’t know about anyone else, but while driving, I tune into my instincts, and follow them, even when they seem like a illogical choice. Believe it or not- and I have been practicing this “game” for a year or so now- but every time I recognize an instinct, and go against it, I end up in a situation I do not want to be in. But when I felt the urge to be in one lane instead of the other, even when there was no apparent difference between the two, I ended up getting to my destination faster than expected.
Contrary to popular opinion, the concept of existentialism is an extremely exciting prospect. Complete choice! But is there really such thing as mind over matter?
I take “mind over matter” as a strong possibility, but not in every circumstance.
Declining the idea of mind over matter is our bodies relentless will to live. Notice how one is unable to (if one wanted to) commit suicide without a tool? It is physically impossible to drown one self when one is capable of swimming; our bodies rush to the surface of the water without our permission.
Dr. Ramachandran, in Phantoms in the Brain, also makes some strong points. In a study on patients who have recently had a stroke and are now paralyzed, he came upon some interesting cases. A small percentage of people who become paralyzed go through a stage of denial- to the point where they will be looking at their arm, not able to move it, and still say it is perfectly capable of moving. The patient will make up an excuse as to why it won’t move, such as “I’m too tired to move it”, or “this is my brother’s arm, not mine.” It will not matter how much the patient will believe his/her arm is functional, the arm will not move.
In fact, it takes matter to alter the mind. Dr. Ramachandran performed an experiment where he put cold water in the left ear, causing these patients to enter a state of honesty. While in this state, the patient completely admitted to having a paralyzed arm. But, as soon as the effect wore off, the patient was back to believing he/she could move his/her arm, and denied ever admitting that he/she could not (Ramachandran/Blakeslee, 146).
But I do think we can trick the brain; that we can transcend hereditary genes such as addiction (as I have), take control of “love” now that we know what it is, and eliminate pain where the brain thinks there is pain.
It’s similar to the placebo effect. Trust that the medicine you’re given is working, and it will work. Eric Sabo wrote an article for ABC News that studies the idea of mind over matter, using a similar concept as a placebo. Only, the patients were not given medicine. In fact, the simply looked at the MRI scan of their brain while they felt pain, and visualized, literally, the pain to go away. Oddly enough, when they did this, the red that indicated pain disappeared; and when the patients focused on having pain, the red emerged again.
So sometimes we are capable of using mind over matter, and sometimes we are not. What about love? Can we manipulate ourselves to love even if we naturally do not?
I believe so. Though I have no scientific proof of this, I can share with you experiments I performed on myself. Tell yourself anything long enough and you’ll believe it, even if you know somewhere it isn’t true (I wonder if the cold water in the ear effect could conjure up the truth). For I while, I would make a point to consistently tell myself “I am in love with _______,” just to see how I would react. Soon I began to actually feel “love.” And when I didn’t want to feel love any more? I simply focused on the negative traits of that person, blowing them up well out of proportion. Soon I was out of “love.”
What if I were an atheist who decided to suddenly make an attempt to believe in God? Could I do it? If I can convince myself that I love someone when I don’t, why not?
Dr. Ramachandran gives me hope that this is possible. He argues that our perception of God is found in the emotional structure of the limbic system, as opposed to the rational structure of the limbic system (Ramachandran, 179). Ever heard of a patient who felt God’s presence during a stroke? This is because when the patient endured the stroke, this specific part of the brain became extremely active. Suddenly, the patient believes in God, when he/she had never done so before. Logically, if I can convince myself to love, a die-hard advocate of atheism could convince his/her self to believe in God. Unfortunately, no recorded experiments have been done on this.
What is so curious, to me, is that our brains are so highly evolved for survival, yet the old religious structure of the brain remains, a part that is not needed to function in any way. Those who are not capable of tapping in the God section are not in any way more limited than a believer.
I can still argue that I believe in existentialism. I can also argue that falling in love is a natural part of being human, and not a choice. I can also say that God exists because the part of the brain that sections out religion is there, but why that part exists remains a mystery, and probably will always remain a mystery.
Maybe all of these ideas do not make any sense together; after all, Sartre wasn’t a believer in God, and I know for a fact most people prefer to remain ignorant of the facts of love. Not many people find any of these topics worth debating, so long as they live a happy life.
I beg to differ. If we can learn to tap into our brains- just like those who consciously asked the pain to go away- the possibilities of what we can do are endless. While we stay mindless of our surroundings, we are less prone to evolve and change. Staying still is one of my biggest fears. I am determined to put the pieces together; I plan to incorporate how society and experience (both present and past) plays a role in who we are, and how we came to be.