Why do experiencing something as "good" feels good?
I'm not talking about oxytocine or the likes of it. I want to understand why the release of certain molecules is associated with a good feeling?
What's the fundamental difference between pleasure and pain? Pain and pleasure are often evolutionary advantageous, but this is not the topic.
Any insight?
I'm not sure I have been very clear, it's hard to express. Feel free to ask for more details.
>inb4 qualia
>inb4 OP can't inb4
>>8066389
Generalized
Certain chemicals will fit into receptor sites that are not necessarily intended for them. For example, a pleasure inducing chemical may be able to fit into the dopamine receptor site. So, where do these pseudo chemicals come from? Caffeine, for example, originated in a plant as a sort of defense mechanism intended to ward off or kill predators. Sorry I can't be any more descriptive than this because I don't really know.
>>8066403
Sorry as I thought I didn't convey my thoughts very clearly.
I know some chemical processes give you a feeling of pleasure or well-being.
But what does it mean to feel pleasure or to feel good? What is pleasure in essence? Is it related to consciousness?
>>8066389
>Why do experiencing something as "good" feels good?
Feeling good is the definition of experiencing something as good.
>I want to understand why the release of certain molecules is associated with a good feeling?
Brain signals are associated with all feelings, and no feelings aren't associated with brain signals. Why would good feelings not be associated with certain signals?
>What's the fundamental difference between pleasure and pain?
Not much really, it's also worth noting that there's no real difference between the various senses and pleasure and pain. I mean just try and rigorously describe the qualitative differences between the experience of touch and hearing, or pleasure and sight. They're all just signals you're interpreting. Values stored in a neural register somewhere in your cranium
>>8066451
>Brain signals are associated with all feelings
how so?
brain signals are associated with sensations. But pleasure is not a sensation, it's the result of a combination of sensations/imagination
How does pleasure emmerge from this combination?
>>8066458
>But pleasure is not a sensation
Well actually, it is. It's just a sensation not immediately associated with an organ -> a cognitively excited sensation.
>>8066389
Is the question why do we go back for more pleasure and avoid pain?
>>8066462
I can't see it.
I mean when I eat a big fat burger, the sensation of satiety afterwards is pleasurable, even though I don't have to think about it. Or does this count too as cognitively excited sensation?
>>8066467
>Is the question why do we go back for more pleasure and avoid pain?
I'm not sure. The answer is relevant to my interests though.
>>8066458
Basically I imagine that all the senses more or less work like this:
Sense cell receives a stimuli,
It transmits a signal up to the brain
This triggers an update of the relevant sensory field, which can be thought of as a volatile storage array - data stored in it dissipates rapidly over time
Brain monitors sensory fields for changes and dynamically assigns cognitive resources to changes which are deemed important
>>8066474
>I mean when I eat a big fat burger, the sensation of satiety afterwards is pleasurable, even though I don't have to think about it. Or does this count too as cognitively excited sensation?
Yes it's cognitively based. If you disabled the part of your brain responsible for receiving the satieted signal (which comes from the gut) you wouldn't get the associated pleasure.
Welcome to qualia, fags
I thought this paper was pretty insightful: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3274778/
Because the things that feel good were good for your ancestors. The people who felt good when they cut their own limbs off did not become your ancestors.
