Țhe ɳeuronal deɱon

[Amorphos]

Țhe ɳeuronal deɱon

Neurons get bored
They want ever more diverse and intense ways to be exited
Then you get ‘those’ thoughts
Just when you’re reaching orgasm
Suggestion
Visuals
Ideas
Keep pushing for more
Intellect increases it

But there are no real demons.

Treat your brain like a bitch, a whore, or a pet [if you treat them like pets]

I need a new kind of brain


If humans were made genetically immortal, they’d end up evil if they cannot find detachment. But would neurons ever allow a retreat from pleasure seeking. If un-stimulated wont they wither and die? Would we fade into statues.

What do such ideas say about the human condition?

_

[statiktech]

Antithsenes, as an example, took pleasure in explicitly avoiding pleasure. In other words, I think our neural reward systems are also adaptive to our lifestyles, rather than strictly vice-versa. So, instead of constant indulgence, we can redirect neural pathways through habituation thus keeping the reward system stimulated by different things. I suspect this is how many drug addicts learn to enjoy sobriety again after grueling withdrawal syndromes. Deprivation doesn't necessarily kill the reward system, but acts as a catalyst for reform.

In short, I think we all get to the point in our pleasure seeking where we need to occasionally pump the breaks, so to speak, in order to avoid deviancy or decadence -- and, of course, to remember why we enjoy things for what they are, rather than our ideas of what they could be [...if that makes sense].

[Amorphos]

Yea it makes sense, I am thinking of the literal stimulation which neurons apparently require. Its not my field but some of Dennets papers draw on this [that ‘neurons get bored’, require stimulation to be maintained], I agree though, that one may replace one stimuli with another.

Part of my questioning draws on what happens after that, it appears that one can only keep doing the same thing for so long, before something else is required. Does ‘adaptive’ mean ‘requires more’? surely there is no purpetual status quo to be found.

Philosophy for me fulfils that, so I guess if one has something which is ever changing, then its ok ~ given that even that doesn’t eventually become stale.

My visualisation concerned; what is the human condition; if we had some kind of replacement brain which wasn’t ever seeking stimulation, desire, goals, an un-teleological mind. Perhaps we can see something of the spirit in that metaphor?

[Moreno]

Iwould guess he meant that neurons get bored as in use it or lose it. That the pathways we use are the pathways that function easily. I dont think he would have been talking about what sound like addiction type processes in the OP. When we need more and more stimulation, we are probably not dealing with ourselves in a full way. We are trying to get a broad range of life out of one 'thing'. That leads to increasing dose needs - taking dosage as a metaphor, it could be any kind of activity not necessarily a substance.

I am not sure what we get out of thinking of neurons a bit like Christians think of at least half of human nature.

[Amorphos]

Moreno

I think you are right in what you say - up to a point, though Dennet has spoken about the way neurons get used to things e.g. the same coffee, even if it’s the best in town you need a change after a while.
I mean how long does it take to get bored of your wallpaper or of sex with the same person? Especially after a long marriage, its almost impossible to not want change.
As such I think there are both long and short term effects, at least in our experience ~ I had assumed that to be mostly neuronal.

I am not sure what we get out of thinking of neurons a bit like Christians think of at least half of human nature.

It removes the demons and shows us a process that we can understand and work with. Instead of thinking ‘its me’ or ‘its demons’, we can just think; its neurons, they want to be stimulated, it is not ‘my’ desire and I don’t have to go down the road of constantly trying to satisfy what I am not the author of.

I think there are a myriad of ways in which that’s quite an important distinction ~ if its true or somewhat true.

_

[lizbethrose]

When neurons get 'bored' and the pathways taken become too well traveled, it's like setting your mind into drive/speed control. When that happens--when things become 'automatic,'--it can have an affect on your memory. This is especially true as a person gets older. But there are ways to keep your neurons 'happy' (and your memory.) Let's say you're taking your morning shower--lower or raise the water temp about 3 degrees; if you normally start with you toes and work up to your head, change direction; if you normally put your scrubber in your right hand, use your left--and vice-versa. Handedness is a particularly difficult path to break, because it comes so naturally to us. But try to change it for a week to ten days--if you're right handed, use your left hand and vice-versa.

Neurons do need stimulation and challenge--although saying that seems to somehow personify them, and they shouldn't be--personified--they're brainless. Perhaps it might be better to say a brain needs stimulation.

[Ierrellus]

Many decades ago Donald Hebb noted that when a neural route is repeated often enough it becomes the "preferred" route. This is the neuroscience behind Dennett's assertions. Stuck in this rut, a person becomes addicted or obsessive. That the routes can be changed is called neuroplasticity. See Doidge* on this important concept.
* "The Brain That Changes Itself".
IMHO, there is enough neuroplasticity in most brains to overcome addiction provided the person's immediate environment does not reinforce it. It is an environmental plus that neurons (to use an inappropriate word) "crave" more. Without those drives there would be no creativity.

[Amorphos]

Liz

Thanks for your informed reply. I wouldn’t personify neurons, I just use a language which does because its how we think and understand things.
I am informed that eating a much varied diet does a similar trick, in contrast Hitler always ate the same breakfast.
Variety is the spice of life, though there comes a point where one may wander into extremes, at which point its probably better to paint or write poetry.

For me being informed is a liberation, so I am just trying to understand how the brain works to that end.

Ierrellus

Many decades ago Donald Hebb noted that when a neural route is repeated often enough it becomes the "preferred" route. This is the neuroscience behind Dennett's assertions. Stuck in this rut, a person becomes addicted or obsessive. That the routes can be changed is called neuroplasticity. See Doidge* on this important concept.
* "The Brain That Changes Itself".
IMHO, there is enough neuroplasticity in most brains to overcome addiction provided the person's immediate environment does not reinforce it. It is an environmental plus that neurons (to use an inappropriate word) "crave" more. Without those drives there would be no creativity.

Interesting, thanks!
I had conceived it in the opposite fashion, thinking the need created the craving. I suppose the ‘preferred route’ is what maintains habit, so assumedly we reach many plateaux’s of habit throughout our lives, arrived at through desire and other teleological factors?

_

[lizbethrose]

Quetz,

I think we create our rutted, neuronal pathways because they're the pathways we took from childhood--they're natural because they're the easiest. It has absolutely nothing to do with need or craving. If you're right handed, you're right handed. If you're right handed but left eyed, you're going to have depth perception problems. If you take drugs, you're going to alter the way your mind works--but are you necessarily changing any neuronal pathways? idk. I don't do drugs.

If taking drugs leads to the creation of new neural routes, to where do those routes lead? Do they lead to a pleasure center, which can include the pleasure of temporary, undirected, mind 'expansion,' or do they lead to temporary relief of either physical or mental pain. I really don't know what you're talking about here.

If you're talking about taking drugs, wouldn't it be healthier to go back to the things that gave you pleasure, that you may have forgotten--and resurrect those pathways?

[Ierrellus]

Q,
The difference between craving and drives is semantic only. Yes, the plateaus of habit can be expanded. Whether or not we can assign teleology to these events is a matter of opinion.
Looking back on fortunate neuronal routes, one is tempted to assign purpose to them. Maybe there is enough room in simple fortuity to account for all neuronal activities.

[Amorphos]

Liz

I am not talking about drugs, I had considered it a general theme concerning how brains work. We have desires even where they are ‘normal’, sex, material possessions, coffee, food, drink etc. my concern was that we get bored of things, it appears to drive people to extremes. see also below...

Ierrellus

The difference between craving and drives is semantic only. Yes, the plateaus of habit can be expanded. Whether or not we can assign teleology to these events is a matter of opinion

.

Does it make and break purpose, goals and hence our desires. Are we the author of these things? I feel we are to a degree, but we are dealing with the brain which seems to be constantly trying to trip the spirit up - so to say.

Looking back on fortunate neuronal routes, one is tempted to assign purpose to them. Maybe there is enough room in simple fortuity to account for all neuronal activities.

that’s very profound. Fortune is also a demand though, we can look back upon it [those routes you speak of] and forwards to what it may bring.

Surely there is a continual drive here? …that’s what I think I am getting at.

[lizbethrose]

Quetz--I thought I was talking about how the brain works! As a result of your reply, however, I went back and reread the thread. I still think you were talking about the way the brain works and I still think I was answering properly.

There's a thing in one of Dennet's lectures about an insect--or bug--with only one purpose in life--to walk to the top of a blade of grass in a lea and wait to be eaten by a cow. Once eaten, the bug releases eggs that are expelled in the cow's dung, where they mature into more bugs which climb to the top of a blade of grass to be eaten by a cow. Obviously, the bug's brain isn't very large--it only has that one reason for living.

We have many purposes, and many potential neural paths that can lead to the same goals. If we always follow the same pathways, however, we may someday find ourselves in a literal rut. We're as bored as our neurons. For example, you always drive to work over the same route, day in and day out. Your driving is automatic--habitual. One day, your work location changes. You know where you have to go, but you find yourself, suddenly, taking the old route to work. Why? The goal is the same, but the route taken has to change.

Plasticity within the brain exists and allows you to take the road less traveled, should you care to do so. If you choose the road less traveled, you just might discover things you never before knew existed.

[Ierrellus]

Drives are part of genetic continuums. For humans the brain can experience drives over and beyond the simple drive to survive. In this over and beyond are aesthetic and spriritual propensities.

[Amorphos]

I expect the bug took many routes before it found the simplest way to survive and reproduce. Perhaps we are always trying to find some such simplicity - in a manner of speaking.

What would we become if we found it?

Is the human mind so complex that it will always arrive at more complexity?

So we will always have our demons spread across the species, could there ever be a time when people don’t do bad shit?

[lizbethrose]

I expect the bug took many routes before it found the simplest way to survive and reproduce. Perhaps we are always trying to find some such simplicity - in a manner of speaking.

What would we become if we found it?

Is the human mind so complex that it will always arrive at more complexity?

So we will always have our demons spread across the species, could there ever be a time when people don’t do bad shit?

LOL--I don't recall Dennett going into the number of routes the bug had to take.

Do we look for simplicity or 'elegance?' I'd rather think some humans look for elegance in the way they think, but we can never be totally rational (assuming rationality = elegance)--we have too many nooks and crannies in our minds to achieve complete rationality.

I think the human mind is complex because of the brain's plasticity and because no brain is exactly like any other. This is why I've always been dubious about AI anytime in the foreseeable future. As for demons--I went back to your OP to see if you had an explanation for your use of that word. I believe the 'pleasure principle,' if that's what you mean, is so over-used it's become an excuse. If you think of pleasure as the absence of pain, then it becomes--the absence of pain, that is--a human need, rather than a demon. At the same time, I don't want to over-use the phrase, 'plasticity of the brain,' because it isn't totally plastic. There are, apparently, some right hemisphere functions that aren't duplicated in the left hemisphere, and vice versa.

So, yeah, as of now, I think there will always be people who do bad shit.

[Amorphos]

liz

Do we look for simplicity or 'elegance?' I'd rather think some humans look for elegance in the way they think, but we can never be totally rational (assuming rationality = elegance)--we have too many nooks and crannies in our minds to achieve complete rationality.

Hmm interesting question, I think we [or I] look for simplicity and elegance comes into that. For me rationality is in the fuzzy world of linguistic thought and concepts, and in there is an inherent duality in the disposition of contrasts.
I find some elegance in visualisations and in some art, some scenery, some poetry, and some ideas, but ultimately simplicity is found in transparency and emptiness.

My use of the term ‘demon’ was because I don’t think we are the authors of lesser thoughts, instincts and desires. For me the spirit is pure and everything which isn’t is not of spirit.
If we don’t initially control it, and occasionally in our weakness we fail to ultimately control it, then surely that’s a demon ~ speaking metaphorically?

I suppose some manner of moral integrity is to be found in ones overall resolve, when I was considering this I was having difficulty in knowing what I’d have to give up to attain that. If in every desire seceded we loose that integrity, what are we left with?
Secondly is not the journey of life to kinda go along with earthly desires, to find a balance ~ or to find a balance between these two ideals? Surely balance destroys integrity?

_

[Moreno]

I think you are right in what you say - up to a point, though Dennet has spoken about the way neurons get used to things e.g. the same coffee, even if it’s the best in town you need a change after a while.

Dennet, to my mind, should be considered a religious person. He has very strong fixed opinions about minds and consciousness.

Sure, complicated organisms like mammals like some variety.

You know what's funny. Everyone talks about brains/minds in terms of patterns of neurons. Neuroscientists are just realizing that what they dismissed as structural cells - glial cells, which simply meant glue cells - have a lot to do with intelligence, communicate more globally in the brain and via different mechanisms than neurons. Not sure if Dennet is even up to speed on this.

Einstein for example was found to have a very normal neuronal structure, disappointing researchers. However his glial cells, WAY OUT OF THE NORM.

For all we know we have just barely scratched the surface of what is going on in brains.

I mean how long does it take to get bored of your wallpaper or of sex with the same person? Especially after a long marriage, its almost impossible to not want change.
As such I think there are both long and short term effects, at least in our experience ~ I had assumed that to be mostly neuronal.

I can't separate out brains from the endocrine system for example. People get bored, not neurons.

It removes the demons and shows us a process that we can understand and work with.

Or it is a demon and shows us presuming we have (near) complete knowledge.

Instead of thinking ‘its me’ or ‘its demons’, we can just think; its neurons, they want to be stimulated, it is not ‘my’ desire and I don’t have to go down the road of constantly trying to satisfy what I am not the author of.

I don't see what the problem of thinking 'its me' is. From a reductionist standpoint, and one a decade out of date, I am my neurons or my neurons are me. No one is forcing anyone to satisfy their desires, or the desires of the neurons (lol), but it would be weird to try to satisfy other desires. If you don't want to go down that road, you will nevertheless experience what it is like to not satisfy the desires you no longer identify as yours. Which is a choice and some people prefer it.

I think there are a myriad of ways in which that’s quite an important distinction ~ if its true or somewhat true.

It sounds rather Buddhist actually. Which is fine. Though that perspective would also be your 'neurons and glial cells and whatever else we don't know about yet'. And the urge to not identify with your neurons would also be your neurons urge.

[lizbethrose]

Daniel Dennett is a determinist, and he says he is--so he'd hardly religious.

Moreno, you said, "...glial cells, which simply meant glue cells - have a lot to do with intelligence, communicate more globally in the brain and via different mechanisms than neurons."I thought, last I read, 'glue cells' attached themselves to and 'took care of' neurons. Can you lead me to a more recent site?

Thanks.

[Ierrellus]

I agree with Moreno. The trinite influences on DNA drives and dispositions are neuronal, glial and endocrinal.

[Amorphos]

Moreno

You know what's funny. Everyone talks about brains/minds in terms of patterns of neurons. Neuroscientists are just realizing that what they dismissed as structural cells - glial cells, which simply meant glue cells - have a lot to do with intelligence, communicate more globally in the brain and via different mechanisms than neurons.

Interesting stuff, thanks.
I agree we have only just scratched the surface on the physics, even less so on emergent properties, and what they come from.

I can't separate out brains from the endocrine system for example. People get bored, not neurons.

I am sure I read somewhere that neurons require stimulus or they wilt and die [may have been on the royal institution lectures]? Change, difference and boredom may be outer features of this.
For some reason it appears to be part of our condition, so I assume its represented physically in some manner?

I don't see what the problem of thinking 'its me' is

I see some of these things as not of my conscious authorship, though they could be a subconscious reaction to my conscious likes and dislikes.

I think murderers and rapists consider the self to be entire, and then the thoughts they get are part of them. It seems part of the resolution to such evils, that we first disassociate the self with things it has not authored.

It sounds rather Buddhist actually. Which is fine. Though that perspective would also be your 'neurons and glial cells and whatever else we don't know about yet'. And the urge to not identify with your neurons would also be your neurons urge.

Not necessarily, if the experiencer and perceiver or maybe the entire consciousness is a non physical emergent property, or something else which occupies the vehicle, then it would be producing a number of the urges and the neurons responding to that.

_

[Moreno]

Interesting stuff, thanks.
I agree we have only just scratched the surface on the physics, even less so on emergent properties, and what they come from.

This was the book I got my info from on glial cells, but I see there are others out there also...

http://theotherbrainbook.com/home.php

(note this webpage makes it sound like hype, but the book is written by one of the key researchers and not some 'science journalist')

I am sure I read somewhere that neurons require stimulus or they wilt and die [may have been on the royal institution lectures]? Change, difference and boredom may be outer features of this.
For some reason it appears to be part of our condition, so I assume its represented physically in some manner?

It seems like when neuronal paths are used, they remain strong. If they are not used, other paths seem to get precendence and some paths are no longer so effective as they once were. But this is the opposite of the boredom issue. Boredom tends to come from repetition, but neuronal paths are strengthened by repetition. Like we can see a certain area of the brain change and even grow when people learn to juggle. If they don't juggle, perhaps because they find it boring, this area will go back to where it was.

But I don't think assigning global emotions, which humans have, to single cells makes sense.

I see some of these things as not of my conscious authorship, though they could be a subconscious reaction to my conscious likes and dislikes.

Sure, much of what I would say is me is not something I consciously authored, but I am not sure identity needs to be defined as what one has authored in oneself.

We don't think of other things like this. Chairs made by a human. Even other people. Perhaps they act like they hate me. If they tell me it was never their intention to hate me, but yes, they feel hate for me sometimes, it still makes sense for me to consider that they hate me. That it is their hate.

I think murderers and rapists consider the self to be entire, and then the thoughts they get are part of them. It seems part of the resolution to such evils, that we first disassociate the self with things it has not authored.

Some people do go in the direction you are suggesting. Though pretty much all of them will identify the rapists as having aggression toward women and that this is part of who they are, at least now. I prefer to go in the other direction, which is to identify with everything I find in myself and others, get to the root of it and see if it can change there. If I am not my anger, then I am not the part of me that dislikes it and wishes it would go away either.

[Moreno]

Daniel Dennett is a determinist, and he says he is--so he'd hardly religious.

WEll, just to focus on this argument, Calvinists are determinists and they are certainly religious. There are many other religious determinists. Its only some strange, literally cloistered theologians who got many people associating free will with religion as a whole.

aside from that I know that Dennet is a non-theist, but I think he is religious in the pejorative sense of having an irrational agenda which he proselytizes angrily.

Moreno, you said, "...glial cells, which simply meant glue cells - have a lot to do with intelligence, communicate more globally in the brain and via different mechanisms than neurons."I thought, last I read, 'glue cells' attached themselves to and 'took care of' neurons. Can you lead me to a more recent site?

I linked to a site about the book I read in the post above. There are other books out and if you look for that one in amazon other new neuroscience works on glial cells will appear as recommendations.

[lizbethrose]

Thank you. Because of where I live, I can't get a library card. Because of limited income and limited shelf space, I can't buy too many books. I thought you might have an on-line critique or some published articles to illustrate the studies--that's why I asked for a possible on-line link. What you've given seems nothing more than a publicity blurb.

[Amorphos]

Moreno
Interesting reading, I’ll just pick up on this, the rest I’ll have to research more…

If I am not my anger, then I am not the part of me that dislikes it and wishes it would go away either.

I don’t see why that follows, I don’t think I am my anger and I do think that that inner core of consciousness is the thing that doesn’t like the negative aspects of the zombie, and that it puts them upon it. The opposite direction would mean that I’d have to consider all aspects of me, surely I have to be detached from that duality in order to conquer it?

[Ierrellus]

The is no duality.