Isn't wanting neurotransmitter-wise the lack of dopamine. Old theory suggests that dopamine release is what activates pleasure. The first speaker eludes to the fact that dopamine doesn't actually give pleasure yet he doesn't make reference to a neurotransmitter that does. I wish he would have talked more about the neuronic system. I think the question of what happiness is can't be answered by neuroscience but that neuroscience can facilitate the understanding of how to better achieve happiness.
The need a better tech at these conventions to prevent mic feedback. That being said the second speaker who spoke of compassion meditation spoke about his survey. It would seem to be despite having reliability there would be no validity. He later got into some (in my opinion) better science. I think it is encouraging to find that an eastern religion's practices may show brain changes that is congruent with other findings in positive psychology. It not only brings about the power of faith (not religion) but even more important the power of the brain. The compassion meditation has implications of the power of good unlike the good vs. evil that is preached in western religions that is usually expressed in hate and exclusion.
Both speakers presented many theories that generated many thoughts while watching this video.I think it is interesting that each speaker refers to happiness in different aspects. The first speaker appeared to be talking about the state of happiness and pleasure whereas the second speaker was alluding to the trait of happiness and pleasure.
How do achieve this sustained level of well being in order to be in a content in pleasurable state? I wish the researchers would have addressed the variations that occur from infancy to adulthood involving the brain centers for pleasure.
I am reminded of the inter-connectivity of the mind,body, and spirit. We can manipulate the brain to see what is causing pleasure but shouldn't other factors be considered. I think the neuroscience slice of the pie serves as a fundamental tool in further researching happiness.
Jonathan Bellino brings up an important point that neuroscience cannot answer all questions associated with happiness and pleasure because they are leaving out so many linking factors. _Lauren Goudreau
Jon - lack of dopamine leads to liking without wanting. Check out "Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology" by Kahneman, Diener, and Schwarz, page 541 (it's on Google Books, http://books.google.com/books?id=3toRUh4L12EC&pg=PA541&dq=wanting+liking+dopamine+deficit&hl=en&ei=8rqgTpPdMKT20gHek5mjBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wanting%20liking%20dopamine%20deficit&f=false). Great paragraph on the effect of dopamine blockers on "wanting," relating it to lack of motivation for things one likes.
In light of that, I think the last question in the presentation is a good one - "want" directly relates to motivation. I accept that less want and more like may equal more happiness, but do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? More specifically, I'd love to see if we could find out which pathways are engaged if we study monks when they're directed to accomplish a goal without going into a meditative state.
I liked a lot of this presentation, but one thing bothered me: Berridge said that a hypothesis arising from current research is that the brain systems for temporary pleasure might be used for sustained pleasure. I didn't feel he adequately explained that jump from temporary to sustained in his presentation, other than stating that 80% of people who experience high levels of hedonia also self-report high levels of eudamonia.
If I understand correctly, it seems like Berridge's definition of eudamonia fits in with the idea of 'life satisfaction' in the sense that eudamonia refers to life engagement and compassion, whereas hedonia seems to be referring to 'positive affect.' Berridge defines hedonia as 'current.' He uses the terms we've been using in class interchangeably, which I thought complicated his presentation.
I wish Berridge explained further how we can maximize our hedonic states, and how we can use those states to create short term and long term well-being. I think I would have also liked to know what kinds of activities we can be engaging in to turn on our senses of 'liking' and 'wanting,' but to be honest I am saying that for selfish purposes.
I am extremely curious to learn more about how we can 'train' our brains to switch negative experiences or reactions into positive ones. Berridge provided an example that was brought on by injections of a particular chemical, and explained that there are opioids and naturally occurring 'feel-good' chemicals in our brains that create pleasure. However, he never got into how we can make such reactions occur automatically - or even at our will, or how to heighten those senses.
I would also agree that Berridge seems to be primarily referring to states of happiness whereas Davidson is referring to individual traits.
In terms of Davidson's presentation, think it is fascinating that performing short-term interventions of compassion training can boost one's brain structure in a way that it produces a long-term effect. I'd like to research more about that practice on my own time, and become familiar with the ideas and conceptual framework.
On an entirely somewhat unrelated note, I recently read "The Compassionate Life" by the Dalai Lama - it was nice to see some of the themes in the book incorporated into the presentation.
I got preoccupied with Kent Berridge and the concept that some addicts behavior is motivated by not "liking" the drug of choice but "wanting" it and how the physical brain responds to this. It made me think of watching people smoke crack. People who smoke crack don't appear to enjoy it. The become paranoid, fighting over who is getting a fair share of the rock in the pipe. This isn't fun or relaxing. Other times they are peeping out the window, paranoid about nothing. This makes me think that they are not smoking to get high, to feel good as much as they are rewarded by having their "wanting" systems satisfied. Maybe this explains the language addicts use when they say they "want to get high" with the emphasis on the "to get" part. Hmmmmmm.
In the presentation the first speaker points out that human emotions are located within the brain and not the heart like many people outside the science field might believe.
The first speaker talks of the relationship between pleasure and happiness and then uses the term Eudemonia to mean happy in or with you life and this seems very similar to me to the life satisfaction which we use in class.
The part where he talks about locked in patients being happy freaked me out. The fact that they were a +3 on a -5 to +5 scale is hard to believe personally. I cant imagine being happy being cognitively there but not being able to move etc.
The idea of there being more sites to code pleasure than cause pleasure was different. This then leading into the idea that people born without a cortex can still show more intense happiness without the cortex meaning that mainly pleasure cause is located below the cortex.
The rat compared to the baby video was interesting but I mostly found myself laughing at it instead of listening to what the speaker was talking about.
The idea that many addicts want without liking and that wanting is different from liking I find to be a neat idea. This could be something of interest because I know you hear of many addicts saying that they don't like what it is they are doing but they want it or they need it. It makes sense that these two things are different. We are built to seek pleasure but we have the cognitive abilities to decide that which we find brings us physical pleasure may not be something we mentally agree with or enjoy. Just a thought.
This idea caught most of my attention.
Overall both speakers make many points and theories to pleasure and happiness but they use them a bit different. It's something you must pay attention to is how they use the terms and what they are studying exactly.
I find this video really interesting. It's important that we are studying how the brain interacts with happiness. With an increased knowledge in this, we will be able to make "nice things nicer and nasty things less nasty." This will also cause an increase in overall happiness within individuals. This knowledge could also lead to new treatments for those who struggle with addiction, depression, etc.
I particularly enjoyed the second speaker, as he demonstrated science in an applied way. I found fascinating the data from the experiment that measured how compassion training changes the brain functionality. The aspect that I particularly noted was that even after only 2 weeks of compassionate training there was a reduction in activity of the amygdala region of the brain which is stimulated by threat. The idea that the mere act of compassion unto others and unto one’s self could lower levels of perceived threat is extremely exciting. Both speakers touched upon the relationship between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness is, perhaps, not a state, but rather, a trait that is an enduring quality. In my personal development and understanding of happiness I have explored the question, “What is the benefit of personal experience?” I wonder, if we look at all personal experience, even meditation, as an aspect of consciousness that is fairly meaningless, would we gain better knowledge about our true nature and the true nature of happiness. Meaning, that the human experience is one in which there are two different experiences going on within a person: personal experience (that which has to do with the concept of “me” as some identifiable concept. E.g. “I feel happy because I have a new relationship.”), and consciousness (that which can observe personal experience without any identification with it: without time, emotion, outcome, etc.). So, is the act of watching personal experience (pain, pleasure, anger, etc.) without personal identification with that experience a trait? Isn’t putting value on person experience eventually upsetting to the concept of “me”? If personal experience, as some identifiable “me”, was of no value and we were able to merely witness it, wouldn’t we naturally have a greater level of internal satisfaction and a greater level of compassion? I believe the answer is, yes! I believe compassion comes from an understanding of where and how suffering occurs. ~Paul Bavineau
There is definitely a difference between want and like. I smoke cigarettes and getting the craving for one is me wanting it but when i smoke i get light headed and sick feeling some times and i dont like that at all.
I really cant agree with the happiness people who are fully paralyzed. How could someone be a +3 and only be able to move their eyes up and down. you cant feed yourself or wipe yourself. They have no real communication with anyone. Even being able to see your loved ones, you will never be able to hold or touch them. I wonder if there is a way that people in that situation can deal with it and come to terms with it. I want to know how long those people have been paralyzed and how happy they have gotten over time.
The talk about practitioners being happier after feeling compassion is, after being in this class, obvious. They even mentioned that people become more happy after giving money to other people. A doctor's job is to help people and should be happier than most others.
I love the dalai lama’s quote that says “the more we care for the happiness of others the greater our own sense of well being becomes”. I know we’re about to talk about happiness and religion in class so this might not fit with the schedule but I really enjoy examining happiness from an evolutionary perspective. It makes sense to me considering that humans are social creatures and have been evolving in social groups for thousands of years. We must be innately programmed to develop love and compassion for other humans. Maybe it promotes reproductive success or maybe just survival but either way people who develop love and compassion for other people are more likely to have their genes passed on to the next generation. I also found it interesting that rats feel the same pleasure humans do. Not saying that humans are better than rats but if rats can feel the same pleasure as humans then maybe there is more to being happy than experiencing that hedonic pleasure. It seems to be a common theme, at least to me, that life satisfaction is what I should be striving for instead of pleasure.
I thought the first speaker's information was interesting. I like their definitions of eudemonia and hedonia; they reflect well the difference between life satisfaction and moments of pleasure.
In particular I thought it was interesting that hedonia is related to deep brain circuits. Turned on through physical pleasures, such as food, sex, and drugs, as well as cognitive pleasures and abstract pleasures. I liked his idea that the feelings of hedonia could be cultivated to become a free floating state of mind.
I thought it was cool that he was able to show the brain circuits related to happiness. It struck me that there were 3 parts to happiness, coding, causing, and wanting. But also it was interesting to hear that there were multiple systems that worked together to produce the feelings of happiness.
14 comments:
Isn't wanting neurotransmitter-wise the lack of dopamine. Old theory suggests that dopamine release is what activates pleasure. The first speaker eludes to the fact that dopamine doesn't actually give pleasure yet he doesn't make reference to a neurotransmitter that does. I wish he would have talked more about the neuronic system. I think the question of what happiness is can't be answered by neuroscience but that neuroscience can facilitate the understanding of how to better achieve happiness.
Jonathan Bellino
The need a better tech at these conventions to prevent mic feedback. That being said the second speaker who spoke of compassion meditation spoke about his survey. It would seem to be despite having reliability there would be no validity. He later got into some (in my opinion) better science. I think it is encouraging to find that an eastern religion's practices may show brain changes that is congruent with other findings in positive psychology. It not only brings about the power of faith (not religion) but even more important the power of the brain. The compassion meditation has implications of the power of good unlike the good vs. evil that is preached in western religions that is usually expressed in hate and exclusion.
Jonathan Bellino
Both speakers presented many theories that generated many thoughts while watching this video.I think it is interesting that each speaker refers to happiness in different aspects. The first speaker appeared to be talking about the state of happiness and pleasure whereas the second speaker was alluding to the trait of happiness and pleasure.
How do achieve this sustained level of well being in order to be in a content in pleasurable state? I wish the researchers would have addressed the variations that occur from infancy to adulthood involving the brain centers for pleasure.
I am reminded of the inter-connectivity of the mind,body, and spirit. We can manipulate the brain to see what is causing pleasure but shouldn't other factors be considered. I think the neuroscience slice of the pie serves as a fundamental tool in further researching happiness.
Jonathan Bellino brings up an important point that neuroscience cannot answer all questions associated with happiness and pleasure because they are leaving out so many linking factors.
_Lauren Goudreau
Jon - lack of dopamine leads to liking without wanting. Check out "Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology" by Kahneman, Diener, and Schwarz, page 541 (it's on Google Books, http://books.google.com/books?id=3toRUh4L12EC&pg=PA541&dq=wanting+liking+dopamine+deficit&hl=en&ei=8rqgTpPdMKT20gHek5mjBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wanting%20liking%20dopamine%20deficit&f=false). Great paragraph on the effect of dopamine blockers on "wanting," relating it to lack of motivation for things one likes.
In light of that, I think the last question in the presentation is a good one - "want" directly relates to motivation. I accept that less want and more like may equal more happiness, but do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? More specifically, I'd love to see if we could find out which pathways are engaged if we study monks when they're directed to accomplish a goal without going into a meditative state.
I liked a lot of this presentation, but one thing bothered me: Berridge said that a hypothesis arising from current research is that the brain systems for temporary pleasure might be used for sustained pleasure. I didn't feel he adequately explained that jump from temporary to sustained in his presentation, other than stating that 80% of people who experience high levels of hedonia also self-report high levels of eudamonia.
If I understand correctly, it seems like Berridge's definition of eudamonia fits in with the idea of 'life satisfaction' in the sense that eudamonia refers to life engagement and compassion, whereas hedonia seems to be referring to 'positive affect.' Berridge defines hedonia as 'current.' He uses the terms we've been using in class interchangeably, which I thought complicated his presentation.
I wish Berridge explained further how we can maximize our hedonic states, and how we can use those states to create short term and long term well-being. I think I would have also liked to know what kinds of activities we can be engaging in to turn on our senses of 'liking' and 'wanting,' but to be honest I am saying that for selfish purposes.
I am extremely curious to learn more about how we can 'train' our brains to switch negative experiences or reactions into positive ones. Berridge provided an example that was brought on by injections of a particular chemical, and explained that there are opioids and naturally occurring 'feel-good' chemicals in our brains that create pleasure. However, he never got into how we can make such reactions occur automatically - or even at our will, or how to heighten those senses.
I would also agree that Berridge seems to be primarily referring to states of happiness whereas Davidson is referring to individual traits.
In terms of Davidson's presentation, think it is fascinating that performing short-term interventions of compassion training can boost one's brain structure in a way that it produces a long-term effect. I'd like to research more about that practice on my own time, and become familiar with the ideas and conceptual framework.
On an entirely somewhat unrelated note, I recently read "The Compassionate Life" by the Dalai Lama - it was nice to see some of the themes in the book incorporated into the presentation.
-Bianca Sturchio
I got preoccupied with Kent Berridge and the concept that some addicts behavior is motivated by not "liking" the drug of choice but "wanting" it and how the physical brain responds to this. It made me think of watching people smoke crack. People who smoke crack don't appear to enjoy it. The become paranoid, fighting over who is getting a fair share of the rock in the pipe. This isn't fun or relaxing. Other times they are peeping out the window, paranoid about nothing. This makes me think that they are not smoking to get high, to feel good as much as they are rewarded by having their "wanting" systems satisfied. Maybe this explains the language addicts use when they say they "want to get high" with the emphasis on the "to get" part. Hmmmmmm.
In the presentation the first speaker points out that human emotions are located within the brain and not the heart like many people outside the science field might believe.
The first speaker talks of the relationship between pleasure and happiness and then uses the term Eudemonia to mean happy in or with you life and this seems very similar to me to the life satisfaction which we use in class.
The part where he talks about locked in patients being happy freaked me out. The fact that they were a +3 on a -5 to +5 scale is hard to believe personally. I cant imagine being happy being cognitively there but not being able to move etc.
The idea of there being more sites to code pleasure than cause pleasure was different. This then leading into the idea that people born without a cortex can still show more intense happiness without the cortex meaning that mainly pleasure cause is located below the cortex.
The rat compared to the baby video was interesting but I mostly found myself laughing at it instead of listening to what the speaker was talking about.
The idea that many addicts want without liking and that wanting is different from liking I find to be a neat idea. This could be something of interest because I know you hear of many addicts saying that they don't like what it is they are doing but they want it or they need it. It makes sense that these two things are different. We are built to seek pleasure but we have the cognitive abilities to decide that which we find brings us physical pleasure may not be something we mentally agree with or enjoy. Just a thought.
This idea caught most of my attention.
Overall both speakers make many points and theories to pleasure and happiness but they use them a bit different. It's something you must pay attention to is how they use the terms and what they are studying exactly.
Christina Valeriani
I find this video really interesting. It's important that we are studying how the brain interacts with happiness. With an increased knowledge in this, we will be able to make "nice things nicer and nasty things less nasty." This will also cause an increase in overall happiness within individuals. This knowledge could also lead to new treatments for those who struggle with addiction, depression, etc.
Nick Randall
The Neuroscience of Happiness
I particularly enjoyed the second speaker, as he demonstrated science in an applied way. I found fascinating the data from the experiment that measured how compassion training changes the brain functionality. The aspect that I particularly noted was that even after only 2 weeks of compassionate training there was a reduction in activity of the amygdala region of the brain which is stimulated by threat.
The idea that the mere act of compassion unto others and unto one’s self could lower levels of perceived threat is extremely exciting. Both speakers touched upon the relationship between pleasure and happiness, and that happiness is, perhaps, not a state, but rather, a trait that is an enduring quality. In my personal development and understanding of happiness I have explored the question, “What is the benefit of personal experience?”
I wonder, if we look at all personal experience, even meditation, as an aspect of consciousness that is fairly meaningless, would we gain better knowledge about our true nature and the true nature of happiness. Meaning, that the human experience is one in which there are two different experiences going on within a person: personal experience (that which has to do with the concept of “me” as some identifiable concept. E.g. “I feel happy because I have a new relationship.”), and consciousness (that which can observe personal experience without any identification with it: without time, emotion, outcome, etc.). So, is the act of watching personal experience (pain, pleasure, anger, etc.) without personal identification with that experience a trait? Isn’t putting value on person experience eventually upsetting to the concept of “me”? If personal experience, as some identifiable “me”, was of no value and we were able to merely witness it, wouldn’t we naturally have a greater level of internal satisfaction and a greater level of compassion? I believe the answer is, yes! I believe compassion comes from an understanding of where and how suffering occurs.
~Paul Bavineau
There is definitely a difference between want and like. I smoke cigarettes and getting the craving for one is me wanting it but when i smoke i get light headed and sick feeling some times and i dont like that at all.
I really cant agree with the happiness people who are fully paralyzed. How could someone be a +3 and only be able to move their eyes up and down. you cant feed yourself or wipe yourself. They have no real communication with anyone. Even being able to see your loved ones, you will never be able to hold or touch them. I wonder if there is a way that people in that situation can deal with it and come to terms with it. I want to know how long those people have been paralyzed and how happy they have gotten over time.
The talk about practitioners being happier after feeling compassion is, after being in this class, obvious. They even mentioned that people become more happy after giving money to other people. A doctor's job is to help people and should be happier than most others.
I love the dalai lama’s quote that says “the more we care for the happiness of others the greater our own sense of well being becomes”.
I know we’re about to talk about happiness and religion in class so this might not fit with the schedule but I really enjoy examining happiness from an evolutionary perspective.
It makes sense to me considering that humans are social creatures and have been evolving in social groups for thousands of years. We must be innately programmed to develop love and compassion for other humans. Maybe it promotes reproductive success or maybe just survival but either way people who develop love and compassion for other people are more likely to have their genes passed on to the next generation.
I also found it interesting that rats feel the same pleasure humans do. Not saying that humans are better than rats but if rats can feel the same pleasure as humans then maybe there is more to being happy than experiencing that hedonic pleasure. It seems to be a common theme, at least to me, that life satisfaction is what I should be striving for instead of pleasure.
-Jesse Miller
I thought the first speaker's information was interesting. I like their definitions of eudemonia and hedonia; they reflect well the difference between life satisfaction and moments of pleasure.
In particular I thought it was interesting that hedonia is related to deep brain circuits. Turned on through physical pleasures, such as food, sex, and drugs, as well as cognitive pleasures and abstract pleasures.
I liked his idea that the feelings of hedonia could be cultivated to become a free floating state of mind.
I thought it was cool that he was able to show the brain circuits related to happiness. It struck me that there were 3 parts to happiness, coding, causing, and wanting. But also it was interesting to hear that there were multiple systems that worked together to produce the feelings of happiness.
-Justin Roux
Post a Comment