Skip to main content

Threat Circuits, not Fear Circuits

Image result for laboratory rats

Regular readers know of my interest in the nature and origin of emotions.

Recently I came upon a certain story about the work of a neuroscientist named Joseph LeDoux.

It seems that LeDoux tried to study fear in rodents. This meant (he thought) asking the question: what is happening in the brain of a rat when it perceives a threat? He learned a good deal about the two distinct "roads" by which news of the threat gets to the amygdala, the quicker but less informative "low road" and the slower higher-info "high road."  

BUT ... this was the part that struck me and that may be of philosophical significance ... LeDoux came in time to the conclusion that he hadn't been studying fear at all. He had been studying survival circuits and threat conditioning Such things should be named, or renamed, in a way that cleanses them of the subjective and human-centric notion that the rats are "afraid" of something merely because the sight or smell of it causes them to run the other way.

I refer you to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for more:

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/8/2871.full

It seems that LeDoux has something in common with Judy Collins who, though knowing clouds from up and down, determined in the end that she never knew clouds at all.

Comments

  1. I haven't read the link, but I think it safe to assume that humans as well as rats respond to threats as a result of survival circuits and threat conditioning. The difference between humans and rats is that only humans fool themselves into believing that subjective fear prompts them to respond to threats by the exercise of free will.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please "Donnie Christopher," do not attempt to use the comment section of my blog as a marketing tool. Craigs List is that-a-way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…