posted March 15, 2005 08:17 PM         

I always thought of it how I felt I experienced it; thinking then getting the emotion, (having no other info to go off of).

You're saying that the brain creates/sets off emotion first by neurons, then sends it to the body, and then it is comprehended as thought.

The thoughts handle intesity of the emotions. So just like my example, but a little different?:

quote:

---

How you think about it may incite anger or fear. Or it may not bother you at all

---

It only amplifies it or diminishes it, but doesn't create it. How you think about a situation, changes how you feel the already existing message of an emotion in your body, in other words?

Interesting. Very.

posted March 15, 2005 09:24 PM         

The first part where I said thank you was to you then I seperated it with a line. I should have been more clear. Sorry for the confusion. The response was to him thinking I was frustrated. Wanted to clear that up.

posted March 15, 2005 10:02 PM         

quote:

---

26T I admire your passion and dedication, but we don't always have to have a "quote":debate. Sometimes we can just have a conversation.

---

Never saw that one either!

K, I'm going to delete my posts to you maklhouf. This has just gotten weird and way out of hand.

BTW maklhouf the only reasons I quoted her posts was to show her where I was coming from in my responses to what she said. I dont always have quote debates. You had to have noticed that by now.

posted March 15, 2005 11:23 PM         

quote:

---

Fairy Star, ehh that last post I made was to maklhouf.

---

I apologize for my mistake 26T. I jumped the gun.

I also had some more thoughts and questions about what Phil said.

It's why I am thinking a cause of the brain to fire a neuron could be action. (not sure if it could be though, have no idea really)

You know how it is possible to make yourself feel a little more upbeat just by consciously making a smile on your face. I use the technique lots of times and it always makes me feel better, even if I feel at my lowest. How would something like this fit into the brain/neuron factor?

Was this conscious action the reason the brain fired the neuron, or is it different?

I also learned that if you feel tense, you should fake a yawn and you will become relaxed all over. I also use this technique and it works. Is the calm feeling all over your body the direct result of the action you took? (By direct result I mean the reason the brain fired the neuron to make your body feel that way) Or is there more to it?

Maybe I am missing something. I know I am definitely missing something in fact.

I had another thought. Since the feeling already exists in the body and your thought determine how intensly you feel them, would it be possible then, for a person to be angry, happy, sad, or any other emotion without actually taking notice. If a person's thoughts were directed strongly elsewhere, would it prevent a person from even taking notice? Is that possible, to unknowingly stamp out all feeling and notice nothing?

I could be as happy as a child at Christmas right now without even knowing it?

Or, if the conscious mind takes no notice, if that is possible, it would still be felt in the body? Like frustration and tightness in the chest, but not actually "feeling" it in the head, so to speak. Or perhaps thought modifying emotions must occur in order for feeling in the body to be felt. If the emotion was not noticed, there would be no feeling in the body.

I think this may be a good example taken from the AP (I'm paraphrasing, but I can't find the URL for anything).

"A soldier saw a dead baby on the road and thought nothing of it, having more important things to focus on. Then, when he had time to think about it, and remember the incident, he felt horrible."

The emotion was intensified when he had time to think and he now feels horrible, right? But, was he sad all along and just didn't notice? At what point was the neuron fired? Was it when the child was originally seen and lay dormant until thought was given it, or was it when he thought about the child. I'm leaning away from thought because it has been said that it does not create emotion. I suppose it must be the neuron was fired when the child was first seen. Not sure though.

posted March 16, 2005 07:09 PM         

Here it is.

You know how it is possible to make yourself feel a little more upbeat just by consciously making a smile on your face. I use the technique lots of times and it always makes me feel better, even if I feel at my lowest. How would something like this fit into the brain/neuron factor?

Was this conscious action the reason the brain fired the neuron, or is it different?

I also learned that if you feel tense, you should fake a yawn and you will become relaxed all over. I also use this technique and it works. Is the calm feeling all over your body the direct result of the action you took? (By direct result I mean the reason the brain fired the neuron to make your body feel that way) Or is there more to it?

Maybe I am missing something. I know I am definitely missing something in fact.

I had another thought. Since the feeling already exists in the body and your thought determine how intensly you feel them, would it be possible then, for a person to be angry, happy, sad, or any other emotion without actually taking notice. If a person's thoughts were directed strongly elsewhere, would it prevent a person from even taking notice? Is that possible, to unknowingly stamp out all feeling and notice nothing?

I could be as happy as a child at Christmas right now without even knowing it?

Or, if the conscious mind takes no notice, if that is possible, it would still be felt in the body? Like frustration and tightness in the chest, but not actually "feeling" it in the head, so to speak. Or perhaps thought modifying emotions must occur in order for feeling in the body to be felt. If the emotion was not noticed, there would be no feeling in the body.

I think this may be a good example taken from the AP (I'm paraphrasing, but I can't find the URL for anything).

"A soldier saw a dead baby on the road and thought nothing of it, having more important things to focus on. Then, when he had time to think about it, and remember the incident, he felt horrible."

The emotion was intensified when he had time to think and he now feels horrible, right? But, was he sad all along and just didn't notice? At what point was the neuron fired? Was it when the child was originally seen and lay dormant until thought was given it, or was it when he thought about the child. I'm leaning away from thought because it has been said that it does not create emotion. I suppose it must be the neuron was fired when the child was first seen. Not sure though.

posted March 18, 2005 02:16 AM         

...

......

posted March 18, 2005 11:19 AM         

quote:

---

My, my. Ever think about quantum psychology?
I'm exausted just reading all of the possibilities! It's really frustrating when people don't give you a direct answer, isn't it?

---

Not really, Philbird.

posted March 18, 2005 11:29 AM         

quote:

---

LOL! Is that your reenactment of the thread through use of smilies Sun?

---

lol!!!

posted March 18, 2005 02:28 PM         

Thanks, I guess if that's the case, I just have to think even harder on it.

But you know, confirmation from someone else is nice sometimes.

posted March 19, 2005 02:29 AM         

FairyStar, Philbird is right. You ask alot of thought provoking questions. I wish I could come up with some of my own answers but honestly, as of late, my mind has been really preoccupied with other things and I can't concentrate on subjects that involve too much contemplation atm (ADD anyone? ). My brain's been a little frazzled lately.....as you could probably tell from this thread. eh hehe. Not that you *need* an answer from *me* anyway, I know, I'm just saying that I would rather give no answer than a half @zzed one. Dont know why, but I wanted to tell you that.