I ordered the vidotape of the BRAIN series. Yesterday they arrived;
three 90 minute tapes.
jkp
On Sun, 18 Dec 1994 stdjbr01 at SHSU.edu wrote:
> In article <1994Dec9.000156.11848 at galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, stevens at prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes:
> >Between mof2n at fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Milton Omar Faison)'s comment that:
> >
> >>I was watching that BRAIN show on the Discovery channel and
> >>heard some information that I find hard to swallow. They
> >>attributed love to a release of dopamine, norepi, and epi
> >>which, beyond the fluttery heart and sweaty palms, also leads
> >>to a loss of logic or "love." I'm only in my first semester in
> >>a neuroscience grad program, but i haven't heard anything that
> >>justifies this, and I was wondering if anyone could provide
> >>some kind of justification to this.
> >
> >and pcook at umich.edu (P.B.Cook)'s comment that:
> >
> >>Skip the LUST and head for LUV - take Beta-blockers!
> >
> >
> >I'd have to say that no, there's no justification, simpy because "love"
> >is such a cognitive/associatively based phenomenon. If you're going for
> >the feeling, then sure, go for P. Cook's idea. Or better yet, do what
> >people have been doing for decades to simulate those feelings: it's
> >called a speedball, and it's a very simple way of altering neurochemistry:
> >inject a mixture of heroin and cocaine. This simulates both the rush in
> >the autonomic nervous system associated with the "giddiness" of love
> >and the comfortable "high" of feeling close to comeone (both neurochemical
> >and psycholinguistic studies indicate that heroin gives subjective feelings
> >akin to those of attachment).
> >
> >But that physiological response still isn't "love" because there isn't
> >a cognitively identified attachment object (i.e. person).
> >
> >An interesting thought -- borderline personalities, who make strong
> >attachment, followed by strong separations, are addicted to the same
> >process of the speedball: attachment provides them neurochemically
> >with heroin, and te anxiety of separation provides them with the coke.
> >
> >Hmmm...
> >
> >Greg Stevens
> >
> >stevens at prodigal.psych.rochetser.edu>>> Personally, I think the idea of neurotrans. being the source of "love" is
> almost logical when you consider the two factor theory of emotion. The
> release of dopamine or NE for ex. creates a physiological state of arousal
> which is then interpreted by the individual based on context. If the context
> is a job interview, the interpretation may be anxiousness. If the state occurs
> in the presence of an attractive individual it may be interpreted as more than
> just mere physical attraction. I am not saying that sniffing a little cocaine
> in the presence of a model will result in "love"; I am saying that neurotrans
> action in conjunction with individual interpretation of the resulting physio.
> state, *can* result in the label of "love". I think we all need to be careful
> of making the idea of "love" somewhat different than any other part of human
> cognition. If chemical, electrical, etc. stimulation in the brain can produce
> fear, anger, compassion, etc. than the experience of "love" for whatever
> reason, must also be bound by the same mechanisms. However, we all may be
> controlled by aliens who have inplanted devices in our brains but that is a
> topic for the paranoia group. --Johnny Russell SHSU
>>
