[Tactical Panda]

Or do you see it as a benefit of instinct?

Or do you see it as an impersonal sort of species management device that you otherwise don't particularly have a stance on?

In other words, what are your thoughts or feelings on the matter?

[politefiction]

I kind of see it as something that just is. Brain chemicals keep the body functioning, like the heart or the lungs. Although it's sometimes useful to know which brain chemicals do what and be able to manipulate them to your advantage.

[Scrotus]

Well...seeing is how the chemicals released by our bodies don't seem to be random, I view emotions as data to be analyzed by the human. Even when it's seemingly illogical, it's generally illogical only because of some missing data.

It's a funny little bit of information that many ENTJs and INTJs don't stumble upon frequently.

[Sk8ordude]

I'm not annoyed at all, I just see it as an obstical to overcome.

[Nordman]

...the what now?

No. That would be silly. My brain chemistry does not allow silly on that high a level.

[Pingo]

I find it kind of inconvenient, especially because they can turn a normal human being into a monster (that's what PMS is--hah!)

[plotthickens]

It's inconvenient at best, and fucking annoying regularly.

[TheWanderer]

It is pretty annoying, but then it can usually be handled with a good diet.

[Knighthkm]

I find it quite annoying..

[Eyedears]

More than annoying: exasperatingly puzzling. Like, for example, how do we know if "love" isn't just a chemical condition? (I don't want to believe that, but logically, it's a question that rears its ugly head.)

I'll never forget what someone told me who was taking Paxil (for Social Anxiety Disorder and unmanageable anger): "I don't feel anything at all anymore, positive or negative. No sexual desire, either." Basically, he was numb. I told him I don't relish experiencing negative emotions, either, but that I'd be averse to sacrificing the full range of human feelings just to get rid of the yucky ones.

For me, who has yet to be convinced that man is not an amazing interplay of non-matter with matter, the fact that meds (or a lobotomy, for that matter) can totally alter a person, really is a burr under my saddle.

[Distance]

Analogous would be that you dislike chemicals because some can hurt you.

Without brain chemicals, you wouldn't be alive.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[gecko]

instinct is a benefit. And sure, interspecies management, but I wouldn't call that impersonal. What's annoying is the lack of congruent behaviors supporting my obvious role as most dominant in the room.

[Megalomania]

Nope. I believe we have a great deal of control over how we feel. Neurotransmitters might make us susceptible to certain emotions or behaviors, but ultimately we are able to control our emotions and behaviors within reason.

[joeleoj]

I'm with politefiction; it just is. It's almost like an analogy for the advent of science- in older times, those that were abnormal were seen as influenced by demons or spirits. Now that we are less ignorant, we know it is just in many ways dependent on the knife's edge balance of a cocktail of chemicals within the brain in symbiosis with environmental factors. In that light, I find it pretty amazing. Does that mean there are less people with mental "abnormalities" now? Seriously doubtful (we just re-framed our perspective to match better explanations).

That being said, consciousness is a bit of a trick, in many ways.

If that gives you anxiety, maybe re-framing your perspective of control might make life a little easier.

[jkatra]

Complaining about brain chemicals is almost like complaining about our dependence on oxygen. I would rather complain about the lack of oxygen in outer space.

[Zhen]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or do you see it as a benefit of instinct? Or do you see it as an impersonal sort of species management device that you otherwise don't particularly have a stance on? In other words, what are your thoughts or feelings on the matter?

sorry my first instinct was to think "are you SERIOUS"? but yeah i agree with jkatra...well put!

[yoginimama]

Not annoyed. Curious. I think it's kind of neat. Love is a chemical reaction, but that doesn't diminish it or the joy it can bring.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In other words, what are your thoughts or feelings on the matter?

Let me consult my brain chemicals and see what they think.

Brain chemicals say that you're imagining a homoculus inside the head. A mind distinguishable from the brain. The brain chemicals ask you to refine your question, because it sounds like an innocuous six-year old's.

[Phaze228]

I'm annoyed at this post that is essentially asking me if I'm annoyed about certain chemicals that can annoy me.
The fact that I can get annoyed makes those chemicals obviously awesome, now use jkatra's example and make your next post. You annoying cat...
Damn I'm annoyed.

[True Rune]

Just another thing to consider.

[vampyroteuthis]

What would you rather have affect behaviour?

[Tactical Panda]

This thread is outrageous.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by jkatra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Complaining about brain chemicals is almost like complaining about our dependence on oxygen. I would rather complain about the lack of oxygen in outer space.

Our dependence of oxygen sucks when deep under the sea without suitable gear.

Sucks seawater that is.

If you complained about the lack of oxygen in outer space, would anyone be able to hear you compain?

Mystery upon mystery...

[jkatra]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would you rather have affect behaviour?

Good question. If there weren't brain chemicals, there would never be a brain as we know it, so what would be an effective substitute for brain chemicals influencing behavior? I don't want to have a non-chemical cyborg brain.

---------- Post added 06-15-2012 at 09:47 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Tactical Panda To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you complained about the lack of oxygen in outer space, would anyone be able to hear you compain?

I would write a sternly worded letter to whoever is responsible for no oxygen in space, although the letter might never be delivered to them in my lifetime because space is so big.

[John01]

Without neurotransmitters I wouldn't be able to have any thoughts or feelings on the matter.

[Ender]

Well there's the rational brain and then there's the limbic system. It gets annoying when the limbic system is so far off in left field that it's blinding the rational brain entirely. Yet without it, the rational brain would probably conclude that thinking is not worth the effort and just find some leaves to munch on until the body died from lack of food intake.

I'm a little fascinated and disconcerted by just how much can be influenced by chemicals and environment. Mainly because environments tend to be extremely messy and chemicals are plentiful.