I think, by now, it is safe to say that I am internally quite jumbled. In the past, I have considered different divisions within myself, within my personality, regarding "the scientific side" and "the artistic side" or even "the physical side" and "the emotional side." This divisions arose through different experiences in my life such as realizing that science and art classes were distinctly separated, identified as opposites. In turn, I made the same distinction within myself regarding my own habits and tendencies.

This particular distinction has long been blurred back together through further experiences and discussions (like those we have every week). However, it is the recombination of the other separation that is taking much longer for me to grasp.

There is often a distinction between the body and the soul of an individual. The body being the physical presence and the soul the spiritual - the difference between the life of an organism that functions, undergoes metabolic processes and grows; and the mind that thinks, believes, feels (and not always rationally). If the physical world behaves according to laws that we are continually researching, then I would expect bodily processes to obey laws in the same fashion: concentration gradients, chemical reactions, electromagnetic and gravitational forces...

But as we have considered (at least briefly) before is the idea that we can continue dividing the body - body to systems to organs to tissues to cells to molecules to atoms...- but no where do we find this "soul." We don't find the mysterious body of energy that evades the physical laws of the earth.

But then what about us is conscious? What feels? What creates emotions? And where are irrational, illogical conclusions approved within us if the brain is a physical mechanism? Unless there happens to be something beyond us that would be considered this soul, then I must think that all of me (including who I feel I am and my emotional experiences) are derived from my physical body.

I've been looking into some theories of emotions to try to explain a little more (hopefully in a more credible way than What The Bleep) about why we even have emotions if they're simply a part of the physical experience. Generally, emotions appear to be a fundamental part of being human, serving both physical and psychological purposes. Emotions differentiate individuals, giving them depth and differentiation, linked closely with creativity and expression. But while these purposes are valid in daily life, why would they be in the first place and how to they come about?

The James-Lange theory suggests that after an individual experiences a specific (emotional) stimulus, once the situation has been processed, there is a physiological response directly to the situation (possibly a threat or another challenging situation) and then the person's interpretation with the physical changes (such as a repeated physical response associated with memory) combine to create the emotion. While from my own experiences I can confirm that if I were almost hit by a car, I first would have experienced the physical change of my body's release of epinephrine and I then would have interpreted the serious physiological change, compared it to the car that just rushed past me, and feel afraid; I am not sure I believe this theory covers the bases. Different emotions can be linked to different physical responses and this theory still involves the person's interpretation of his own body experience.

The Cannon-Bard theory also proposes that it is two processes happening in conjunction that create emotional experiences.  Upon experiencing a stimulus, the body's senses sends the information to the brain which then sends the information to both the cortex and the hypothalamus. It is the hypothalamus that dictates the autonomic body responses, or the physiological changes. The cortex is he part of the brain that controls conscious thought such as thinking and feeling (maybe the cortex contains this magical soul somewhere...).

Regardless, I am not sure in the first place how I feel about defining my emotions as a set of physiological processes. I believe people identify themselves with their "spirits" and emotions. People will call themselves a happy person and don't want it to be reduced down to chemicals. Similarly, someone who is extremely upset or angry doesn't want to have someone else diminish what could be the worst experience of his life to simple chemical reactions. Without maintaining that concept of "something else," we might feel like we lose a bit of what we've defined as humanity.

Yes, emotional responses are necessary for survival. The release of epinephrine and fear as someone is attacked allows him to respond quickly and run away. Love, particularly maternal love, allows mothers to go out of their way to protect their offspring, protecting their own genetic information. But our emotions are much more in depth. Maybe, like we have developed mechanical time as a way to function in a cohesive society, we have developed a heightened sense of emotional experience to that we may share experiences and feelings with other members of our society - a Revolution of sort.