This goes in the same direction of Jaak Pansepp's researches. In Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions (1998), Jaak Panksepp boldly and insightfully asserts that "the failure of psychology to deal effectively with the nature of the many instinctual systems of human and animal brains remains one of the great failings of the discipline. The converse could be said for neuroscience." In Pankseep's Affective Neuroscience, he explains that there "is good biological evidence for at least seven innate emotional systems…." Panksepp explains that some of these "universally recognized emotions correspond to the 'infantile' feelings that young children exhibit."
Yeah, psychology has really failed on that account, by itself. However, intensive mind training combined with psychology can go a very long way towards rewiring our instinctual systems and making formerly unconscious motivations conscious and controllable. The problem is the practical difficulty of mind training, and that is where the new technologies of the brain are going to prove very useful.
+ytinformes2 I read the preview for Panksepp's book on Amazon and I find it really exciting stuff! I can't wait to see what this century will bring for psychology.
Dony Christie Just based on the evidence we have from the relatively primitive treatments that are approve at the moment, the power of neuroscience seems stunning. For instance, I am a longtime sufferer of OCD and very intensive cognitive-behavioural treatment has resulted in painfully slow progress. Meanwhile, precise stimulation of neurons has been shown to "switch off" OCD in certain people. I'm also a follower of Buddhist teachings but am not too keen on the prospect of spending 100,000 hours meditating to get the huge results that you see in all the studies that prove the efficacy of meditation. Neuroscience could probably bring that number down very quickly very soon, as in, the next few decades. What's amusing is that most people seem completely unaware of the implications of all the research going on, despite its vast implications. Some are even hostile to it, as if getting rid of all sorts of diseases is okay, but making it easier to be happy is not. Humans are addicted to drama.
My hypothesis is that: In a healthy and active individual, "Contemporary Happiness of the Brain" begins at the amygdala that follows the course to lateral hypothalamus (via stria terminalis and septum pellucidum) and ends at periaqueductal gray (along dorsal longitudinal fasciculus)
Happiness is a subjective judgement that fundamental needs and desires are satisfied and that one is free of stress, anxiety and pain. It need not require any element of pleasure or elation despite the our tendency to use the term "happiness" to represent such elements of our experience. It is hardly legitmate to claim that anyone is "happy" when such an alleged state is frequently open to, at least, suspension from the impact of concerns arising in everyday life. Neuroscientific bunk here!
55:00 the gentlemen talk about "want". Is "want not associated with the ego? Are theories of ego controlling the brain part of modern teaching at Harvard? I have not heard anything on this so far....
A simple procedure for 'happiness', easy refutable, easily explained from the affective neuroscience research of Kent Berridge Think of your meaningful tasks at hand (i.e., events that have branching virtual positive outcomes), choose any meaningful task and alternate its performance with thinking non-judgmentally or ‘in the moment’, or being mindful. Because you do not have to make continuous judgments between rational (meaningful) and affective choices which are derived from the present (distraction), past (regret), or future (worry) your muscles will soon be at an inactive or resting state, and their prolonged inactivity will result in the release of opioids or ‘endorphins’ in the brain that will give you a feeling of pleasure. In addition, the anticipation or awareness of subsequent meaningful choices during mindfulness sessions and the performance of those choices afterwards increases attentive arousal (due to the activity of midbrain dopamine systems that cause arousal but not pleasure) that accentuates the feeling of pleasure in relaxation (or dopamine-opioid interactions), resulting in an enhanced positive emotional state during and after mindfulness sessions, or a sustained feeling of ‘bliss’. You will note that you will feel totally relaxed and have greater self-control and an accompanying sense of positive arousal, pleasure, and alertness, thus representing good feelings and much higher productive capacities that will extend into your otherwise stress-filled day. (a summary explanation of this and it’s corollary neuroscience is on pp.44-51) And the good thing is that you will be fully rested and alert and experience a natural ‘high’ and will not have to take a course on mindfulness, or meditation, or even for that matter read the book that follows! It’s that simple.
This procedure is based on the work of the distinguished affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan, who was kind to review and endorse it. A more formal explanation from a neurologically based learning theory is provided on pp. 25-27, and 44-51 in a little open-source book on the psychology of rest linked below. www.scribd.com/doc/284056765/The-Book-of-Rest-The-Odd-Psychology-of-Doing-Nothing Berridge article on the Neuroscience of Pleasure and Arousal- from Scientific American sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2019/10/Kringelbach-Berridge-2012-Joyful-mind-Sci-Am.pdf
Kent Berridge Lab sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/
❤❤❤
This goes in the same direction of Jaak Pansepp's researches.
In Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions (1998), Jaak Panksepp boldly and insightfully asserts that "the failure of psychology to deal effectively with the nature of the many instinctual systems of human and animal brains remains one of the great failings of the discipline. The converse could be said for neuroscience."
In Pankseep's Affective Neuroscience, he explains that there "is good biological evidence for at least seven innate emotional systems…." Panksepp explains that some of these "universally recognized emotions correspond to the 'infantile' feelings that young children exhibit."
Yeah, psychology has really failed on that account, by itself. However, intensive mind training combined with psychology can go a very long way towards rewiring our instinctual systems and making formerly unconscious motivations conscious and controllable. The problem is the practical difficulty of mind training, and that is where the new technologies of the brain are going to prove very useful.
+ytinformes2 I read the preview for Panksepp's book on Amazon and I find it really exciting stuff! I can't wait to see what this century will bring for psychology.
Dony Christie
Just based on the evidence we have from the relatively primitive treatments that are approve at the moment, the power of neuroscience seems stunning. For instance, I am a longtime sufferer of OCD and very intensive cognitive-behavioural treatment has resulted in painfully slow progress. Meanwhile, precise stimulation of neurons has been shown to "switch off" OCD in certain people.
I'm also a follower of Buddhist teachings but am not too keen on the prospect of spending 100,000 hours meditating to get the huge results that you see in all the studies that prove the efficacy of meditation. Neuroscience could probably bring that number down very quickly very soon, as in, the next few decades. What's amusing is that most people seem completely unaware of the implications of all the research going on, despite its vast implications. Some are even hostile to it, as if getting rid of all sorts of diseases is okay, but making it easier to be happy is not. Humans are addicted to drama.
My hypothesis is that: In a healthy and active individual, "Contemporary Happiness of the Brain" begins at the amygdala that follows the course to lateral hypothalamus (via stria terminalis and septum pellucidum) and ends at periaqueductal gray (along dorsal longitudinal fasciculus)
Happiness is a subjective judgement that fundamental needs and desires are satisfied and that one is free of stress, anxiety and pain. It need not require any element of pleasure or elation despite the our tendency to use the term "happiness" to represent such elements of our experience. It is hardly legitmate to claim that anyone is "happy" when such an alleged state is frequently open to, at least, suspension from the impact of concerns arising in everyday life. Neuroscientific bunk here!
55:00 the gentlemen talk about "want". Is "want not associated with the ego? Are theories of ego controlling the brain part of modern teaching at Harvard? I have not heard anything on this so far....
A simple procedure for 'happiness', easy refutable, easily explained from the affective neuroscience research of Kent Berridge
Think of your meaningful tasks at hand (i.e., events that have branching virtual positive outcomes), choose any meaningful task and alternate its performance with thinking non-judgmentally or ‘in the moment’, or being mindful. Because you do not have to make continuous judgments between rational (meaningful) and affective choices which are derived from the present (distraction), past (regret), or future (worry) your muscles will soon be at an inactive or resting state, and their prolonged inactivity will result in the release of opioids or ‘endorphins’ in the brain that will give you a feeling of pleasure. In addition, the anticipation or awareness of subsequent meaningful choices during mindfulness sessions and the performance of those choices afterwards increases attentive arousal (due to the activity of midbrain dopamine systems that cause arousal but not pleasure) that accentuates the feeling of pleasure in relaxation (or dopamine-opioid interactions), resulting in an enhanced positive emotional state during and after mindfulness sessions, or a sustained feeling of ‘bliss’.
You will note that you will feel totally relaxed and have greater self-control and an accompanying sense of positive arousal, pleasure, and alertness, thus representing good feelings and much higher productive capacities that will extend into your otherwise stress-filled day. (a summary explanation of this and it’s corollary neuroscience is on pp.44-51) And the good thing is that you will be fully rested and alert and experience a natural ‘high’ and will not have to take a course on mindfulness, or meditation, or even for that matter read the book that follows! It’s that simple.
This procedure is based on the work of the distinguished affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan, who was kind to review and endorse it.
A more formal explanation from a neurologically based learning theory is provided on pp. 25-27, and 44-51 in a little open-source book on the psychology of rest linked below.
www.scribd.com/doc/284056765/The-Book-of-Rest-The-Odd-Psychology-of-Doing-Nothing
Berridge article on the Neuroscience of Pleasure and Arousal- from Scientific American
sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2019/10/Kringelbach-Berridge-2012-Joyful-mind-Sci-Am.pdf
Kent Berridge Lab
sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/
where's the more at 5 shit??
I think it´s better do excersises that eat chocolate thanks.
Stop animal testing.