How Our Brains Feel Emotion | Antonio Damasio | Big Think

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@7788Sambaboy]

Demasio has an incredible (and rare) ability to explain very complex concepts and deep knowledge in a way that interested students and non-experts can begin to learn. Brilliant!

[@viswavijeta5362]

2:35 To feel an emotion you need to represent an emotion in the structures that are different from the structure which leads to the emotion. When you have feelings of varieties of emotion, the insular is active but it's not the most important one, there are structures in the brain stem that are active. 6:50 Emotion is largely non-conscious, automated. It's in the feeling/perceiving of that emotion, you react to the danger or happy sight. 8:05 Feelings can stay in the memory in terms of the elaboration we make about feelings e.g. language. Using those elaboration for future emotions make huge difference.

[@edwigcarol4888]

This short video is a jewel. So brilliant. So interesting and so important. I could listen to A Damasio hours and hours..

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain the reason why our scientific knowledge disproves the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or classifications of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual microscopic physical processes, which are described DIRECTLY by the laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The claim that emergent properties exist independently of a conscious mind is therefore simply nonsensical because it is equivalent to the claim that an approximation exists as an actual entity. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstract idea which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is not a physical entity but just an abstract idea and so are all its properties. Any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently an abstract idea that refers to a property of another abstract idea (the set) and not to a physical entity. So any emergent property is by its very nature an arbitrary abstraction that refers to another arbitrary abstraction (the set). Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any property of a set as a whole, and therefore consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@arcanuslosanara2823]

"I think, therefore I am."

[@g.a.altnbay5204]

Thank you so much for the transcription of the interview.

[@rkwakernaak]

Thank you for sharing this!

[@akramkarim3780]

emotions : Amygdala feeling : Anterior cingulate cortex

[@Kyrani99]

Dr Damasio I think your work is fabulous. One thing though. I haven't found anything about the emotion of worry. I found that worry, which is circular thinking, tries to get the body to return to resting metabolism. I believe this is because the brain doesn't want to be competing with the musculature for fuel materials. Have you done any work regarding worry? Anxiety is fear and worry or anger and worry and that creates conflicts, especially for the heart. They can be overcome by addressing the worry aspect. But I would like to know, from a neuro-scientific view, what happens in the brain in states of worry.

[@PedroPereira-si3sy]

I think worry/anxiety is fear that movement will cause change in the homeostatic process. Completely normal process, still some have more than others mostly because (i think) of unbalance on the regulating molecules of the nervous system.

[@Kyrani99]

@@PedroPereira-si3sy I believe that anxiety is worry AND fear. They don't co-exist. They are sequential, one sets off the other. Thus the heart gets signals to go fast then slow then fast again and so on. This makes the heart ineffective as a pump so people may experience cold limbs. Worry however does not seem to be fully appreciated as an emotion. It arises where there is a difficult or perplexing problem or a problem the person can't understand so is unable to find a solution. So they ruminate on and on. It is facilitated by the parasympathetic nervous system so the person ends up with low metabolism over time if worry perpetuates.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

It seems to me to be a feedback loop within a feedback loop or a conflation of two feedback processes that is matched with a lack of cognitive closure.

[@muskduh]

Thanks for the archives.

[@neillamas8929]

Difference between emotions and feelings. Insular cortex + brainstem are actives when feeling emotions

[@JDemen82]

I stopped feeling anything years ago and have gotten to a place where I don't know how a normal person would react to an event or what a normal person would say to a question/comment.

[@supertigik]

maybe because you dont socialize enough and because you're inauthentic, you think what to say to people and not say what you feel, hiding some stuff, probably because low self esteem. read the book "six pillars of self esteem" by nathaniel brandon.

[@nespith]

@@supertigik Saying what you feel often is a very bad idea when what you feel is very controversial. For example, if I start going off on why I think Capitalism is trash everytime some centrist opens their mouth about politics I would be starting all kinds of needles fights.

[@supertigik]

@@nespith theres a difference between being an asshole and being authentic

[@edwigcarol4888]

Is there anyone here taking this comment seriously and respectful ?? There are people affected by an impaired sense of emotions. That makes just the reason why A. Damasio does his job!

[@JDemen82]

@@supertigik I used to be very empathic, but with so many rude, negative, self centered people I've become quite apathetic.

[@julianholman7379]

In my almost 60 years of experience most emotion seems less helpful for dealing with situations than positively handicapping. Even joy seems just to make the gods irritable

[@ivan.tucakov]

Could we say that motor neuron responses are essentially emotions?

[@socint74]

The lecture here is by Antonio Damassio who, despite his high reputation, speaks in terms which suggest he does not ,himself, understand "emotion" He comes out with phrases such as "feeling an emotion" "emotions are engaged" and even-for brain damaged patients- "inability to conjure up emotions" Emotion is historiaclly misused , in sematic terms, as relating, not only to the process as an evolved coping mechanism for survival but to the moods, sensations, thoughts and behavior induced.

[@ugniusneimontas4498]

Damassio explains everything perfectly. Emotion is a set of processes in the organism activated by it's changing environment. It is expressed physically by body movement, facial expressions. But it is also felt by us. Emotion doesn't only happen to us, but is also felt by us. Since you are constantly in midst of some kind of an emotion, you always feel somehow and the sum of these feelings is the MOOD. And it certainly effects our behavior and thoughts. People usually use "emotion" in context of feelings and moods since it is directly related, but some times they mix and confuse terms. However, Damassio is distinguishing them correctly.

[@robbieklein6162]

You think there is one acceptable usage of the term "emotion"? You clearly do not study emotion scientifically.

[@randomkiliinterviews9453]

Would love to see a debate between Damasio and Ledoux

[@thomas.d.peterson]

I think the idea is that if organisms and their activities can be simplified to consequences of physics, and if physics can be simplified into laws, then free will seems to be a disguise to the basic laws of physics that determine our behavior.

[@nanfolio]

Seems reductionist since our appraisals of emotions are important when behaving according to our emotions

[@omnirath]

In a theory you can replicate dna with basic understanding of the laws of the universe but turning this theory into something applicable is pure science fiction the same is true with our mind and our consciousness,we know absolutely nothing about our brain and his capabilities...the free will/ determisim is more a philosophical one...

[@cailm2419]

Very insightful. Gives me and I'm sure - a lot others something to think about.

[@BartolomeuLanca]

Am I thinking or is it an imagination of the thought? Am I a thinker or am I being thought?

[@sleepingundrtree]

Free will is an interesting idea, you should read up on it. A lot of ideas seem to make free will impossible. Physics for example.

[@AndyJK45]

Physicists invented physics of their own free will.

[@patrickong2843]

i have broken this down into a simpler form, it is tjought memory feeling and emotions. hoe they work in a circle consciously and subconsciously. Prayer meditation is the understanding of how to train yourself to be in control over your subconscious reaction. it is Grace it is nirvana. this is the story of Solomon using a magical ring to chase out demons. Buddha, Jesus And many others understood how great this knowledge is. they also learned how hard it was to teach.

[@pegasus6724]

Our souls vibrate at 4th dimension so can't be seen with the 3 dimensional eyes but the soul exists which is how ghosts still ha e emotions and feelings

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Woo-woo…

[@pegasus6724]

All emotions are energy coming through chakra energy centers in the human soul we have 7 chakras and emotions are felt mostly through the heart chakra and solar plexus chakra

[@EastTactics]

7:53

[@sudhakarlingala3259]

what is the way to improve our brain except the meditation

[@ideasofmind38]

thinking is the exercise for brain, think more, best without conclusion of feeling. thinking feeling is still thinking.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

What do you have against meditation?

[@terminusadquem6981]

Yeah, I think there are many ways to improve & different aspects to improve too like memory, intelligence, self-control, awareness, etc. 🙂

[@L0932]

How does physics make free will impossible?

[@ideasofmind38]

define free in the free will before starting to think.

[@malaknoueili131]

Rick senchez brought me here😂

[@aminhakim5087]

hi

[@aminhakim5087]

hi

[@PaulCris314]

why is he dissing squirrels?

[@RyanHansen_101]

I think academics are just like that. I was doing a software engineering module and when I asked a question about the coursework specification, he started talking about potato stamps and paint. I assume they just think they are explaining the idea in a different way.

[@EscapeFromDaSystem]

haha i actually thought of that rick and morty episode when he said that

[@EscapeFromDaSystem]

Also the start of Inglorious Bastards when hes talking about rats and Squirrels because he does have quite . Christoph Waltz Vibe

[@janglestick]

consider the lillies

[@christopherhamilton3621]

He’s not: he’s explaining evolutionary pro’s & cons. If the squirrel did think, it wouldn’t ever go out for fear of predation. Not that some don’t, but we have so many different ways of coping because of adaptation, selection & other factors…

[@VNDROID]

lol, so physics makes free will impossible. Seems correct. Except not

[@s.toctopusn248]

Free will is still posible as we make choice base on the material affect us and what material in the future we will get on subconcious level base on danger and opportunity. On our concous level, imagination or "free will" , thought are just possibility of outcome which it self is material. Material determine thought.

[@ideasofmind38]

free in the free will is not totally free, there's still limited, otherwise we are all god.

[@WhosTeos]

Sick ! Former : Emotion_Teos :P

[@umbrellawitch504]

psyc106 suppp

[@andrevoleiko572]

im tired of your book ,i cant stop reading and thinkig ..im monkey ,my mother is the monkey and my father was the monkey ,so who i can be? modern monkey? better than before?worst?

[@zaimahbegum-diamond1660]

Sooo outdated.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

According to whom?