Scientific laws are really mostly just uncontested theories.

The modulator on a guitar amp is not the sound it simply has a large amount of control over it.

Well that is part of what "moods" are but certainly not the entire story. Limits of both language and scientific description probably apply.

Scientific laws are really mostly just uncontested theories. — Outlander

Or more adequately scrutinized through the scientific method to render them as "valid"?

The modulator on a guitar amp is not the sound it simply has a large amount of control over it. — Outlander

Well, sure, but unless there's some specific reason to say so this doesn't really mean anything unless we have some reason to investigate the workings of a guitar modulator on the sound of the guitar as a whole.

For example, if I have phenylketonuria, I will be concerned with how much phenylalanine (104mg) is in my diet coke. Thus, there's some reason to state this, pragmatically.

Well that is part of what "moods" are but certainly not the entire story. — prothero

I don't see this as a reason why I should give the entire discourse into the what moods are composed of. It's almost commonsensical to state nowadays that moods are neurotransmitter levels working in the brain.

Limits of both language and scientific description probably apply. — prothero

But, in normal everyday language, I don't need to describe the mechanics that neurotransmitter levels play in every part of the brain, unless it is useful to do so with someone else in discourse. So, those limits are not hard or the description normally is adequate.

what is wrong with assuming that moods are really just neurotransmitter levels working in the brain? — Shawn

Because they're different. A mood is a background state of feeling. A neurotransmitter doing its thing is a neurotransmitter doing it's thing. The fact that they occur together suggests a relationship, sure. But a simple identity is not quite right. The two things have different properties. More needs to be said.

The fact that they occur together suggests a relationship, sure. — bert1

But, the correlation is strong enough that we can establish a relationship. This relationship is strong enough that we even have drugs that treat imbalances in the brain of neurotransmitter levels. So, what's wrong with that?

But an identity is not right. The two things have different properties — bert1

I don't quite see how this is comparing apples to oranges. They need not be identical...

But, the correlation is strong enough that we can establish a relationship. This relationship is strong enough that we even have drugs that treat imbalances in the brain of neurotransmitter levels. So, what's wrong with that? — Shawn

Oh, sure. I misunderstood, I thought you were suggesting a simple identity.

what is wrong with assuming that moods are really just neurotransmitter levels working in the brain? — Shawn

As long as you realize that no mood ca be reliably induced by manipulating levels of single neurotransmitters. Neurohormones are involved in affect just as they are involved in all aspects of cognitive function. But moods are much more complex that anything that can be reduced to individual hormones. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not always alleviate depression for this reason. I would go so far as to say that the way neurotransmitters are involved in moods is inseparable from the way they are involved in cognition in general.

I don't see this as a reason why I should give the entire discourse into the what moods are composed of. It's almost commonsensical to state nowadays that moods are neurotransmitter levels working in the brain. — Shawn

When you state it this way it causes problems.
One correlation is not causation. Two correlation is not identity.
So "moods" are correlated (loosely I might add) with neurotransmitter activity in the brain.
Hence the clinical utility in some cases of drugs which alter neurotransmitter uptake or release in treating clinical mood disorders.

Let me reiterate my point or specify it in a different way for the sake of discussion.

Is there anything wrong in stating that neurotransmitters are scientifically assumed to play a role in the regulation and experience of affective behavior?

Yes, we can delve deeper and state that there are obviously more factors at play in the way we experience moods, but, that's not relevant to how we can talk about moods in an ordinary manner that (as I see it) is pragmatic.

Consider this thought experiment how such thinking could be problematic about “moods”.

Let us say we hooked up a device to someone and asked the subject “what mood are you in?” She says “Happy” and the device reads “neuron 250”. A day later you ask the subject the same and she says “depressed” and device reads “neuron 890”.

A week passes and you hook up the device again and it reads “neuron 890”. You say to her “So you are feeling depressed? And she replies, “No, quite the contrary, I feel happy”.

What are we to say here? 1. She is lying and the device speaks the truth. 2. She was lying or confused during the first experiment, she was actually depressed when she said she was happy and happy when she said she was depressed. 3. The machine was not working today. 4. The machine was not working last week. 5. She did not understand what we are asking her. 6. She is not in touch with her feelings.

Have we made talk of “moods” easier by adding talk of biochemistry? I am incline to say we have added unnecessary complexity that added uncertainty to the conversation.

Isn't it really true that moods and emotions are really mostly neurotransmitters working in the brain? — Shawn

Mostly. That's why stoics and yogis learn to control them.

Is there anything wrong in stating that neurotransmitters are scientifically assumed to play a role in the regulation and experience of affective behavior? — Shawn

I appreciate that you’re making this claim as general and open-ended as possible. In fact , I suspect that the claim is so flexible as to run the risk of saying very little. What is a neurotransmitter? Well, it’s the ‘fuel’ that allows neurons to communicate with each other. So affect implies a brain, a brain implies neurons, and neurons imply neurotransmitters. Not sure what else one can learn here.

Is there anything wrong in stating that neurotransmitters are scientifically assumed to play a role in the regulation and experience of affective behavior? — Shawn

Yes. Here's one striking example. There's no proof that serotonin insufficiency causes depression and mental illness, yet millions are on SSRIs. These drugs have major side effects Literally every single 20-something mass murderer and school or movie theater shooter turns out to be on SSRIs. Are the drugs causing the bad behavior? We're not allowed to ask. The politicians blame the guns and nobody ever asks about the drugs. Of course the drug companies say that well, the kids were emotionally disturbed to start with which is why they were on psych drugs. Nobody ever looks into the high correlation between psycho killers and SSRIs.

A casual Google search on the phrase, "psycho killers and SSRIs' turned up a bunch of links.

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antidepressants-side-effects-psychosis-nice-terror-attack-german-wings-pilot-extremism-terrorism-a7191566.html

https://nypost.com/2017/07/26/common-antidepressants-linked-to-at-least-28-murders/

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/us/boy-who-took-antidepressant-is-convicted-in-killings.html

And:

Do Antidepressants Increase Violent Behavior?

Antidepressants are supposed to make people feel happier and more at ease, but a study has linked several prescription antidepressants to an increased risk of violent behavior, including physical assault and homicide.

This is a major problem with the claim that in order to lead a happy life, all we need is a little pill to balance out our neurotransmitters. Not only is there no scientific evidence for the proposition; there is mounting evidence that these drugs cause harm.

Is there anything wrong in stating that neurotransmitters are scientifically assumed to play a role in the regulation and experience of affective behavior? — Shawn

No nothing wrong with that statement at all.

Yes, we can delve deeper and state that there are obviously more factors at play in the way we experience moods, but, that's not relevant to how we can talk about moods in an ordinary manner that (as I see it) is pragmatic. — Shawn

Actually we do not talk about moods ordinarily in terms of neurotransmitters (scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists might) but we usually just talk about about our affective experience, not the underlying neuroscience, neuroanatomy and neuropharmacology which correlates with our experience.

Whilst neurotransmitters have an effect on moods, they are not moods themselves. Moods are a function of consciousness, they exist regardless of the levels of neurotransmitters. However, changing the neurotransmitter balance, will have an effect on mood, as will changing the balance of any of the information that contributes to a moment of consciousness.

Serotonin is an upper and dopamine is a downer. Both feel good.

Low serotonin and high dopamine is the most relaxing state.

High serotonin and low dopamine is the most agitated state.

I think that what is interesting is that while moods are so related to neurotransmitters, they are affected by experience so much. Also, some people seem to get immediate effects of mood after specific experiences and others seem to get cumulative ones. Each person is so variable in the experience of moods, and some are not able to pinpoint the triggers or the factors.

But, all this does mean that working with 'mood disorders' is extremely complex, with or without medication. In our age, if we are feeling low, an easy answer is to request medication, whereas in previous ages, people had to rely on nature rectifying the problem. It is interesting that some people find the various therapy options more helpful and it shows how moods and neurotransmitters can be implicated in the way in which we think about and structure our experiences.

Also, some people seem to have moods which are more even, while others have a rollercoaster of possible fluctuations. There are even some people who, even with every medical option seem to be permanently low in mood. I think that this may show that the wiring of moods through neurotransmitters is shaped in early life.

↪Shawn Whilst neurotransmitters have an effect on moods, they are not moods themselves. Moods are a function of consciousness, they exist regardless of the levels of neurotransmitters. However, changing the neurotransmitter balance, will have an effect on mood, as will changing the balance of any of the information that contributes to a moment of consciousness. — Pop

It all comes back to the problem of treating the observer, the experiencer, the perceiver as though they were not part of reality itself. As though there would be any science at all without them.

Isn't it really true that moods and emotions are really mostly neurotransmitters working in the brain? — Shawn

Isn't that question just finger twitches in the vicinity of a keyboard?

Well no it isn't. And moods aren't 'just' neurotransmitters any more than they are 'just' quarks and/or quanta. Reductionism is 'just' shit.

Part of this thread isn't only about how moods are affected by neurotransmitter levels or some.

It's also about why we choose to say things this way, and, for that reason I'd like to highlight the pragmatic use of language when speaking about the topic, which I bolded in the OP.

moods are effected by neurotransmitter levels — Shawn

Or maybe neurotransmitter levels are affected by moods.

It all comes back to the problem of treating the observer, the experiencer, the perceiver as though they were not part of reality itself. As though there would be any science at all without them. — prothero

How would you define the observer? I would say the observer is a concept enmeshed in the informational content of consciousness. Not very humanizing I must admit, but the observer evolves in line with the system.

It's also about why we choose to say things this way, and, for that reason I'd like to highlight the pragmatic use of language when speaking about the topic, which I bolded in the OP. — Shawn

If you choose to be consistent, you would have to say that choosing and pragmatism and highlighting and posting on philosophy forums are also just neurotransmitters and chemicals in da brain.

Moods and emotions are always being negated and opposed to 'rationality'. It is why depression and self-harm are major symptoms of modern Western culture. No one says that rationality is just neurotransmitters. So I reject your so-called 'pragmatism' on the basis that moods are the source of meaning. nothing means anything without the feeling response that is sometimes called 'mood', and sometimes (by me), 'giving a fuck'.

"why we choose to say things this way"

The inanimate world 'does not care' which means 'is unaffected by' how we feel about it, and when our talk is similarly 'disaffected' or 'dispassionate', we find that it more closely models this world. This is called 'Science', aka 'Rationality'. And for the manipulation of dead matter it is simply the best. And of course it is a simple inductive extension to presume that what works for the inanimate will work for the animate. But it neglects the simple fact that 'giving a fuck' is what distinguishes the living from the non-living, from the yeast cell that loves sugar, and is poisoned by the alcohol it excretes in the absence of oxygen, on up to the Crown of Creation. This means that it does not model life so well, because it leaves out of account the 'vital' part.

If you choose to be consistent, you would have to say that choosing and pragmatism and highlighting and posting on philosophy forums are also just neurotransmitters and chemicals in da brain. — unenlightened

As long as it fits the scope of being pragmatic.