emotions, though difficult, even impossible, to put into words, are, at the end of the day, physical in nature. — TheMadFool

What's to say that it's not the other way around? Philosophically, how do you explain that the physical mechanics of emotion are the emotion? It's a sweeping metaphysical claim, one that goes unchecked pretty rampantly.

What's to say that it's not the other way around? Philosophically, how do you explain that the physical mechanics of emotion are the emotion? It's a sweeping metaphysical claim, one that goes unchecked pretty rampantly. — Noble Dust

:chin: I don't think the physiologists in the many institutes around the world have made a habit of talking out of their hat. No smoke without fire, right!?

And, just curious, after what you said, what am I supposed to be thinking next?

I don't think the physiologists in the many institutes around the world have made a habit of talking out of their hat. No smoke without fire, right!? — TheMadFool

Again, on a philosophical level, what are the grounds you're standing on that lead you to conclude that the physical mechanics of emotion are emotion itself?

I recognize that we're working from different viewpoints here, and maybe the way I'm wording things is a little bit leading. Off the top of my head, here's a re-phrase: "How can you possibly demonstrate that the measurable physiological response of emotion is equal to the subjective experience of emotion? It doesn't seem possible".

Eh, re-reading that, I don't like that version either.

Again, on a philosophical level, what are the grounds you're standing on that lead you to conclude that the physical mechanics of emotion are emotion itself? — Noble Dust

I thought I clarified that point: no smoke without fire. A heuristic that led me to the conclusion that emotions are physical. After all, the entire pharmacological industry, even if not specifically, at least in a general sense, is predicated on the receptor theory of biochemistry. It's hard to ignore such good evidence, right?

How can you possibly demonstrate that the measurable physiological response of emotion is equal to the subjective experience of emotion? — Noble Dust

That's an entirely different issue. I get the impression that you want to introduce qualia into the discussion and switch the topic to one about the hard problem of consciousness but, as of this moment, you'd be preaching to choir.

Anyway...I'm not denying the subjective nature of emotions. All that matters is there are accompanying physical changes which I consider as an opening for, a gateway to, some kind of actual treatment modalities for both physical and mental illnesses.

since I believe all the information to cure the virus already exists in various forms be it elements atoms electrons ect ect yes under the parameters you've given I suppose it is what if the paint had the cure in it and you breathed it in might be abit extreme but certainly cannot rule it out .

Do I think it's likely no

I'm emotionally driven myself, so I'm probably at a bit of a disadvantage in philosophical discussions of emotion, but one thing that stands out is this: emotional triggers are not strictly physical in the first place. The harm that art therapy aims to heal is generally emotional harm that can be a result of physical trauma (abuse), but can just as easily be the result of non-physical abuse (verbal, psychological). So, fundamentally, if a cause of emotional trauma is non-physical (verbal, psychological), and you then measure physiological changes in the body of the person experiencing that trauma, why would you then assume that emotion itself on a philosophical (metaphysical) level is strictly physical? It doesn't follow. This is a bit of another one of my class dunce moments, apologies. I may be over simplifying here.

Anyway...I'm not denying the subjective nature of emotions. All that matters is there are accompanying physical changes which I consider as an opening for, a gateway to, some kind of actual treatment modalities for both physical and mental illnesses. — TheMadFool

So you're enquiring into something that would resemble a "holistic health" type approach?

emotions, though difficult, even impossible, to put into words, are, at the end of the day, physical in nature. As per physiologists, emotions are simply certain biomolecules attaching themselves to receptors on neurons, these events causing emotions. — TheMadFool

The music begins. Molecules of dopamine and serotonin are emitted, circulated, received, and up took. Perhaps you are with your partner, both hearing the music; you kiss, cuddle, and canoodle and some oxytocin is added to the mix. Warm moist rose colored light suffuses all. Lovely.

If you think emotional experiences were purely physical, would administering the proper dose of dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin produce the same experience for you, sitting alone in cool, sterile lab room? I would think not. Chemicals do not make the music resonate with you, and kissing and cuddling a plastic mannequin would not be a warm fuzzy experience. There's too much content missing.

It seems like what neurotransmitters do is to actualize the emotions arising out of experiences, memory, or Imagination. If spiders frighten you, it isn't cortisol that will cause fear. Cortisol will enable you to get away (or to attack the room-sized arachnid).

Contrary to the preceding, when people experience psychotic mania, perhaps the chemicals come first, stimulate all sorts of wild thoughts (hallucinations, paranoia, intense fear, anxiety, anger, etc.) In this abnormal situation, the chemicals cause the experience of emotions in a very crude way,

In my most stressful times, art therapy healed my pain.

I'm emotionally driven myself, so I'm probably at a bit of a disadvantage in philosophical discussions of emotion, but one thing that stands out is this: emotional triggers are not strictly physical in the first place. The harm that art therapy aims to heal is generally emotional harm that can be a result of physical trauma (abuse), but can just as easily be the result of non-physical abuse (verbal, psychological). So, fundamentally, if a cause of emotional trauma is non-physical (verbal, psychological), and you then measure physiological changes in the body of the person experiencing that trauma, why would you then assume that emotion itself on a philosophical (metaphysical) level is strictly physical? It doesn't follow. This is a bit of another one of my class dunce moments, apologies. I may be over simplifying here — Noble Dust

I'm not saying that emotions can be completely reduced to the physical. This is entirely my fault as I wanted to keep the OP short and so failed to make the necessary clarifications that would prevent misinterpretations of the gist of my theory.

All that matters is this: whatever it is that triggers emotions and whatever it is that emotions are, they go hand in hand with physical changes like pupils dilating, a cold sweat on the brow, palpitations, heavy breathing, etc. I'm inquiring as to how deep this connection, the connection between emotions and bodily changes, is and whether it can be manipulated to do things like curing infections, cancers, other kinds of maladies.

All that matters is this: whatever it is that triggers emotions and whatever it is that emotions are, they go hand in hand with physical changes like pupils dilating, a cold sweat on the brow, palpitations, heavy breathing, etc. I'm inquiring as to how deep this connection, the connection between emotions and bodily changes, is and whether it can be manipulated to do things like curing infections, cancers, other kinds of maladies. — TheMadFool

:up: In that case, I don't have much wisdom.

You have to believe that your thoughts are electrical chemical signals in your brain that's it that's what you are with some muscle memory which is your brain so when you dream is it possible it's someone else's chemical reactions from another lifetime what makes your thoughts unique what makes it yours so emotions a nerve reactions in the process crazy right

The music begins. Molecules of dopamine and serotonin are emitted, circulated, received, and up took. Perhaps you are with your partner, both hearing the music; you kiss, cuddle, and canoodle and some oxytocin is added to the mix. Warm moist rose colored light suffuses all. Lovely.

If you think emotional experiences were purely physical, would administering the proper dose of dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin produce the same experience for you, sitting alone in cool, sterile lab room? I would think not. Chemicals do not make the music resonate with you, and kissing and cuddling a plastic mannequin would not be a warm fuzzy experience. There's too much content missing.

It seems like what neurotransmitters do is to actualize the emotions arising out of experiences, memory, or Imagination. If spiders frighten you, it isn't cortisol that will cause fear. Cortisol will enable you to get away (or to attack the room-sized arachnid).

Contrary to the preceding, when people experience psychotic mania, perhaps the chemicals come first, stimulate all sorts of wild thoughts (hallucinations, paranoia, intense fear, anxiety, anger, etc.) In this abnormal situation, the chemicals cause the experience of emotions in a very crude way, — Bitter Crank

Good point, well said although this isn't what I really want to discuss but, very interesting thoughts on the matter I must say and so, let's discuss it anyway.

Your vivid description of an intimate moment between two people and contextualizing it in a biochemical setting is very important as far as I'm concerned.

First, it raises the issue of whether hedonism makes sense or not. One, as you so rightly pointed out, it appears impossible to evoke the same emotions I have when I'm with my lover just by injecting myself/ingesting the putative chemicals that are believed to evoke those emotions. The sterile lab you mentioned, the lab where I experiment on myself doesn't seem capable of giving me the same experience. Doesn't this mean that, pace hedonism, it's not just the feeling of pleasure/happiness that counts? I'm afraid this is a puzzle whose solution is beyond my ken. I remember asking myself the questions:

1. Does a thing have value because it makes us happy?

or

2. Does a thing make us happy because it has value?

If it's 1 then, hedonism is true but then what you said doesn't make sense. A person should be completely satisfied to experience the same emotions fae experiences with a lover by simply injecting faerself or ingesting the putative chemicals. This, you've said, and I concur, isn't possible. Is it?

This means it's 2 - happiness is secondary to value in the sense that first comes value and happiness is simply a response to that value. The problem I see with this can be clarified with a thought experiment. Imagine that 2 is the case and that there's a person X who sees value in an object Y and that makes him happy. If, for some reason, it so happens that Y begins to make X unhappy/sad, the most plausible outcome of this seems to be that the value of Y will diminish in X's eyes.

Does this mean, it's both 1 and 2? Maybe neither? God knows.

I seek your counsel...

:up: In that case, I don't have much wisdom — Noble Dust

As a champion you must choose your battles. You can't waste time on every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses your path. :up:

In my most stressful times, art therapy healed my pain. — healing-anger

That's a point in favor of my theory. Can you provide any details if it's not too personal?

You have to believe that your thoughts are electrical chemical signals in your brain that's it that's what you are with some muscle memory which is your brain so when you dream is it possible it's someone else's chemical reactions from another lifetime what makes your thoughts unique what makes it yours so emotions a nerve reactions in the process crazy right — Dan Hall

If it doesn't lead to a contradiction, it's possible. I don't see any as of this moment but I can do what everyone does - ask for evidence for this theory of yours?

Very well put I'm not writing anything tonight I don't think going to bed But I will try to write a lecture here when I can.

Very well put I'm not writing anything tonight I don't think going to bed But I will try to write a lecture here when I can — Dan Hall

Sarcasm? No problem. Thanks :up:

But everything I said other than the dream is accepted society theory of the subjects at hand namley thoughts and emotions and how the human brain and nerves work ;/

:ok:

I would love to talk qualia ... things can also disturb
But I think true art and true poetics are active in a more neutral place ... the place of relations .. taste is dictated by qualia ie - whether you like a thing or not .. but your reaction is based on other more deliberate judgements
.. as to art therapy healing. .. well yes, up to a point .. these things can also make you sick perhaps ... I would love to heal myself through art

Art therapy is nonsense in terms of significance because best practice psychiatry is so superior combined with action to resolve problems in life, I find.

Art therapy is nonsense in terms of significance because best practice psychiatry is so superior combined with action to resolve problems in life, I find. — DrOlsnesLea

The applications of art therapy, as herein outlined, includes but is not limited to psychiatry. You surely didn't fail to notice I was going for the physical aspect of arth therapy. Another poster but in another thread was all praises for art therapy in re psychiatric illnesses as fae seems to have experienced an improvement.

You have got a discussion going on art therapy anyway whereas I ended up writing one on sex, drugs, rock,'n,'roll etc. yesterday and so far no one is interested in the latter.

I would say that art therapy can be done from various perspectives. I would say it is a recognised profession and there have been individuals who have called themselves art therapists who have been stopped from practicing for this reason. In England there is a requirement to be registered with The British Association of Art Therapy. I began the journey to train which takes 2 to 3 years but unfortunately did not complete it. This training involves academic studies, clinical placement and undertaking personal therapy.

Having begun the journey to become an art therapist but not completeId it I would say that I remain interested in the field but an amateur nevertheless. In this respect, I have run creative art groups and have found that some individuals can participate for relaxation and making art. However, I would say that talking is often a part of this.

There is a whole body of research on art therapy.
Much is based on the whole tradition of psychotherapy, extending back to the thought of Freud, dare I say it, along with Melanie Klein. However, that does not mean that there are no other approaches because there are, including the person centred.

In England the professor is one which is used in schools and psychiatry hospitals, but in some other settings, such as hospices. However, it often receives less funding than therapies which are considered more cost effective, such as cognitive behavioral therapy.

On the level of healing, based on my own engagement, I found that the art making had some but not completely value. In some senses, I found that translating experience into images was helpful. The downside for me was that I took an interest in the art therapy because I was serious about making art and the need to produce 'good' quality art got in the way. I am not sure that the tension between therapy and making quality art has to exist

Since studying art I find that I am too inclined to
wish to analyse my art and this sometimes interferes with my creativity when I am making it, so subjectively I am not one hundred per cent a fan of it.


What I have found is that creative writing, especially fiction seems to have more of a transformative role for me, and I do not feel that the tension is so great between expression of emotions and writing well. Perhaps that goes back to what I said in the thread about Sigmund Freud, and of course it is my own subjective experience.

You have got a discussion going on art therapy anyway whereas I ended up writing one on sex, drugs, rock,'n,'roll etc. yesterday and so far no one is interested in the latter. — Jack Cummins

These don't seem to be mutually exclusive although I'm not sure whether it's because art is so expansive or if sex, drugs, rock-n-roll are true art?

I was serious about making art and the need to produce 'good' quality art got in the way. I am not sure that the tension between therapy and making quality art has to exist — Jack Cummins

I'm sure this isn't something out of the ordinary. After all, even if one relaxes the standards of art for personal reasons (to see yourself as an artist), there's a limit to how much the rules can be bent/broken, and you simply wouldn't/couldn't say that your handiwork was/is art even when you lower the bar so much that it's, well, literally sitting on the floor.

Just saying...

A placebo can help cure illnesses. This is the mere idea that you are getting an appropriate cure, when in fact you are not. To me it is obvious that anything that affects our emotions can have positive or negative (or both) kinds of effects on our health.

Let's jump to the side: There was a study done of Japanese male smokers in Japan compared to two groups of Japanese-American men in the US. Japanese male smokers do not develop cancer and heat disease to the same degree as american men and scientists wondered if this had to do with family life, which was much more extended and closer in Japan. And it turns out that if Japanese american male smokers continue Japanese family traditions (like elderly parents come into the adult child's house instead of a nursing home and there is more intra-familial contact, etc.) they do as well as their counterparts in Japan. But if they take on american family patterns with more independent and distant family relations, they get the same health problems at similar rates.

But art therapy is more of a pscyhological tool. By that I mean dealing with emotional problems, interpersonal problems.

A placebo can help cure illnesses — Coben

This seems like an oxymoron for the simple reason that a placebo doesn't cure anything, that's why it's a placebo. I wonder though how all this makes any sense. A placebo has some "curative" effect; if it didn't then it wouldn't be a placebo. Then, it's said, a placebo doesn't actually have a "curative" effect. I suppose the point is that it's not the placebo that's doing anything, it's actually the belief that one is being given medication that's causing improvement. I see an opportunity here, diabolical as it may seem. Why don't all the pharmaceutical companies hold a secret meeting and publicly announce the discovery of drugs for all diseases but, of course, it would be a lie. Then, they flood the market with placebos. No one would know and if the placebo effect is true, treatments for all illnesses would be, is it ok to say, successful. If they ask me for advice, :smile: I'd suggest they start with cancer medicine. I wonder... :chin: I see a sci-fi short story in the making.

By the way, I fail to see how the notion of placebos is relevant to my theory. Do you mean to say that we wouldn't be able to tell whether art therapy is actually the placebo effect? I'm sure scientists will figure out a way to solve that problem.