(Oh, B...S again.)
> PRECIS OF "THE BRAIN AND EMOTION"
EmotionS. Apart from that I numbered two emotion generators in the
body, and there are more.
> The topics treated in The Brain and Emotion include the
> definition, nature and functions of emotion (Chapter 3),
But if any one of them actually managed to name some thousands of the
main ones, that'd interest me. Though personally I am still for the
frame system that I suggested in here at some point.
>the neural bases of emotion
Did not know that neuro (or physics) was far enough for that.
> a theory of consciousness and its application to understanding emotion and pleasure
I have some trouble deciding which of the consciousnesses you are
referring to, though my first guess would be either the own, or all
areas with I perception of the brain, or that who wrote is is too far
back to understand the brain well enough and therefore generalizes.
Guess the latter.
Might be also why emotion is used in the cingular and split from
pleasure(s) in this form.
> The approach is that
>emotions can be considered as states elicited by reinforcers (rewards and punishers).
> classifying different emotions;
I still prefer to name or abrv. the emotion generator, and maybe some
major group consisting of subprograms that the according emotion(s) is
part of, and maybe in the far future also many connections, so that
for all interested who are just having access to part of the
they can find the parts of the reaction chains they know about and
also fill in data for those interested.
It is the most effective system I can think of.
Wonder how some of the empaths would feel about such.
Maybe they would not even find it worth naming them at all.
As so many humans are having so many different ones, I guess for many
emotions it might be a waste of time or something for people having
enough time and enjoying to spend it that way.
> and in understanding what information processing systems
> in the brain are involved in emotion,
This sounds about nearly as idiotic as to say to find out which
person is involved in talking.
If not specifying the sector or / and the emotions meant,
then how is someone else supposed to know which one exactly is meant?
Excuse me, but most brainsurfers I met have several times the
intelligence level of that when going on about such stuff,
though sectors for intelligence might be damaged.
Most people I know got at least far enough that there is not just one
emotion, and a lot also got far enough that they noticed that there
are body areas to do with emotions.
One could believe that there is some total idiot talking who has not
gotten yet that there are different places in the brain and body to do
with different emotions, and that there are ways to go to different
internal stages that are seeing to differences what emotions for
example own areas process how.
> and how they are involved.
Sober or on drugs like LSD, LSA or the Irish little magic shroom with
the twisted stem?
>By specifying goals rather than particular behavioral patterns of responses, genes leave much
> more open the possible behavioral strategies that might be
> required to increase fitness.
Surrre, the dear genie is specifying the goals and seeing to loads of
other stuff; neat that, though there are so many of the same of them,
single ones are that intelligent.
Which gene where was that exactly referred to there?
Some brain generalized gene not in the body or what?
Specifying what is exactly referred to might help the reader to
understand the goals of the author.
To generalize genes in the head but not of the body
and to generalize emotions all into one
does not sound very enticing.
I just thought of them folks from Bremen keeping babbling off nonsense
in piles; if one had one and another group good in that,
they could keep submitting to each other
and doing peers reviews of it;
that might get quite hilarious.