Fear isn't a chemical

[Jamesqf]

Hate to disagree with MMM (yeah, sure :-)), but I have to say that he is flat wrong about fear being a chemical.  Those fear chemicals (adrenaline, principally) are the body's responses to the mental perception of fear.  The brain perceives (rightly or wrongly) that there is something to be afraid of, so it sends nerve impulses to various glands, which order them to release the chemicals to put the body into high gear for "fight or flight" situations.

Now it's fairly easy to fool the unaware brain into mistaking the physiological changes caused by the chemicals for the actual fear, but that's an illusion.  For instance, if you've ever had allergy testing, they'll often give you a shot of adrenaline afterwards to deal with aftereffects.  This produces the same physiological effects as fear - shaking, elevated heart rate, sweaty palms, &c - even though there's no cause for fear.  If you weren't aware of the cause, you might think that you actually were afraid of something.

Same applies to most, if not all, of those other hormones.  They're effects rather than causes, though the unaware can be fooled into mistaking effect for cause.

[arebelspy]

And what difference does this distinction make?

[msilenus]

This is the strongest response I know for when people try to reduce powerful human experiences down to base chemistry:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3082

[arebelspy]

This is the strongest response I know for when people try to reduce powerful human experiences down to base chemistry:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3082

It's true though - pain is just as much of a chemical reaction as love, fear, etc.

The incorrect thinking that SMBC was pointing out was not the chemical reaction part, it was the "I don't believe in it" part.

MMM believes in fear.  Just not succumbing to it.

The pain chemical is real. The fear chemical is real.

But you control your response to it.

As it says in Musashi, "If your heart is obliterated through enlightenment, the fire is cool."

[Jamesqf]

And what difference does this distinction make?

Quite a large one, I think.  It's a question of distinguishing effects from causes.  As in the example above, if someone gives you a big shot of adrenaline, oxytocin, or whatever, you may feel as though you're fearful, in love, etc, but you won't really be.  And conversely, if you have achieved Musashi's sort of enlightenment, you can deal with those states without allowing chemically-induced physiological responses to sway your judgement.

[arebelspy]

And what difference does this distinction make?

Quite a large one, I think. 

Well you please explain it then?

Whether fear causes a chemical release or a chemical release causes fear, your reaction to it is what matters.

I don't see how the distinction changes anything.  Please explain.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I think the point is to apply logic and reason to the situation. Not only can we be deceived from external forces (marketing) but we can be fooled from internal ones as well. Its a great exercise in perception and how internal forces alter our reality. If we stop and think what is doing the altering, we can change our outlook to reflect the truth.

Fear has always been a tool of control and manipulation. It's an illusion not only used by others, but used against yourself by yourself. Next time you fear something, question it!

[Myrmida]

MMM is able to face down his fears with his mind and body by rationalizing and doing what he is afraid of.  However, I think that a person's ability to act in the face of fear, chemical or "real", can depend on many factors, such as conditioning, training and whether the fear is normal or pathological. 

Someone with military training can act in situations which I imagine would paralyze me from any action.  Perhaps they can even shut off the normal chemical response to fear in the moment.  Someone who practices mindful meditation may be able to dismiss fear as a mere feeling, but others without that training are not able to do so.  On the other end, someone conditioned to fear (e.g., living in a refugee camp or an abusive household) will react differently than someone who doesn't face terrifying crises on a day-to-day basis.  Also, someone with an anxiety disorder may be unable to act in a situation because they are worn down by constant irrational fears, or they may not even be able to identify what they are afraid of.

The majority of people would respond in a normal fashion, as MMM did, and what he describes in the article is sort of like cognitive-behavioural therapy used in counselling to combat anxiety - recognize that the fear is irrational and then do what you are afraid of.  However, a number of people have different limits and abilities to attack fears with the mind and body and some will have to work harder to do what he did quite easily.  It doesn't mean that they shouldn't try, just that they may need to work harder or even seek help (through psychological counselling, learning to meditate or otherwise) to get to the same place as MMM, if they can ever attain the same level of serenity as him.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I think it's important to note fear is used to control us on a very subconscious level. Madison Ave pushes "fashion", Hollywood pushes a hero/heroine archetype and so on. Fear is very much mind control, whether it's your or someone else pulling the strings. Fear of not fitting in drives consumerism. All externally used upon us.

On the internal side, fear is a survival instinct. One a certain level that fear is there to keep us safe and alive. External forces can manipulate that response though. But that is the primary reason in the fight or flight instinct.

As for the military, going into battle was not a natural instinct for human. That has to be conditioned, and that model is said to derive from a Prussian system that essentially combines attributes of public education and nationalism. A sort of programming to squash our survival instinct in exchange for the idea that it's an honorable moral sacrifice for the state and self.

[TLV]

Those fear chemicals (adrenaline, principally) are the body's responses to the mental perception of fear.  The brain perceives (rightly or wrongly) that there is something to be afraid of, so it sends nerve impulses to various glands, which order them to release the chemicals to put the body into high gear for "fight or flight" situations.

Now it's fairly easy to fool the unaware brain into mistaking the physiological changes caused by the chemicals for the actual fear, but that's an illusion.  For instance, if you've ever had allergy testing, they'll often give you a shot of adrenaline afterwards to deal with aftereffects.  This produces the same physiological effects as fear - shaking, elevated heart rate, sweaty palms, &c - even though there's no cause for fear.  If you weren't aware of the cause, you might think that you actually were afraid of something.

Same applies to most, if not all, of those other hormones.  They're effects rather than causes, though the unaware can be fooled into mistaking effect for cause.

As someone who's been through panic disorder, I agree that there's a difference between the mental aspects of fear with the physical sensations caused by the chemicals, but it's not a strict cause/effect; rather, they form a feedback loop.

Perceiving something fearful activates the chemicals, sure, but the presence of the chemicals also cause the brain to seek out things to be afraid of.  If you consciously think there is something to be afraid of, you put out even more chemicals. If you look around and convince yourself there's nothing to be afraid of, the feedback loop breaks and the chemicals wind down.

I suppose you're right that (barring some gland disorder) the loop always starts with a mental perception, but the initial perception may be subconscious, which leaves the conscious mind casting about for an explanation of the feelings.

The majority of people would respond in a normal fashion, as MMM did, and what he describes in the article is sort of like cognitive-behavioural therapy used in counselling to combat anxiety

+1. Most people come by this skill naturally - they feel fear (the chemical) and find some explanation (whether rational or irrational, right or wrong) for why they feel that way, which allows them to break the feedback loop by getting away from their perceived cause.

If you make the mistake of thinking that the fear sensations themselves are the cause (e.g. if you think you're about to die from a heart attack because of them) then it feeds on itself and gets out of control, becoming a panic attack. Once it's happened a few times, even though you've realized by now that it's not a heart attack, it can become a habitual response, where any sensation of fear makes you afraid of having a panic attack, which of course brings on a panic attack: panic disorder.

It can take an awful lot of therapy to break that habit - it's like the difference between convincing someone who just read about investments for the first time that tax-advantaged retirement accounts are a good thing, vs. trying to convince someone who has believed for years that 401ks and IRAs are a government conspiracy to enslave the people. ;)

[Simple Abundant Living]

Hate to disagree with MMM (yeah, sure :-)), but I have to say that he is flat wrong about fear being a chemical.  Those fear chemicals (adrenaline, principally) are the body's responses to the mental perception of fear.  The brain perceives (rightly or wrongly) that there is something to be afraid of, so it sends nerve impulses to various glands, which order them to release the chemicals to put the body into high gear for "fight or flight" situations.

Now it's fairly easy to fool the unaware brain into mistaking the physiological changes caused by the chemicals for the actual fear, but that's an illusion.  For instance, if you've ever had allergy testing, they'll often give you a shot of adrenaline afterwards to deal with aftereffects.  This produces the same physiological effects as fear - shaking, elevated heart rate, sweaty palms, &c - even though there's no cause for fear.  If you weren't aware of the cause, you might think that you actually were afraid of something.

Same applies to most, if not all, of those other hormones.  They're effects rather than causes, though the unaware can be fooled into mistaking effect for cause.

MMM's article was probably my favorite that I have read thus far.  I think you are splitting hairs here.  The main issue is that we are creatures of both habit and hormones.  If that is all we consisted of, we would be a product of whatever environment we found ourselves in.  The trick to it all is that we have (if we choose to employ it) a rational brain.  Fear is conditioned.  We learn what to be afraid of.  New situations, uncomfortable situations, pain, etc.  Once we have "taught" our brain what to be afraid of, the process after that is biochemical.  Our hormones have no idea if it's a mountain lion or a public speech.  This is where that rational brain can step in.  We can talk ourselves down from the flight or fight reaction.  We can condition ourselves not to associate fear with certain situations.  We can control our destiny.

[Jamesqf]

As for the military, going into battle was not a natural instinct for human. That has to be conditioned, and that model is said to derive from a Prussian system...

The Romans would disagree, as they pre-dated the Prussians by some 2000 years.  Or the Greeks at Troy, a thousand years before that.

And what difference does this distinction make?

Quite a large one, I think. 

Well you please explain it then?

Whether fear causes a chemical release or a chemical release causes fear, your reaction to it is what matters.

I don't see how the distinction changes anything.  Please explain.

I thought I had explained :-)  But I'll try again: it's the difference between a real thing and the illusory perception of a thing.  As for instance, we have a good many dry lakes hereabouts.  At times, atmospheric conditions create mirages that cause them to appear to be full of water.  (And sometimes you can see the Jesus cows walking on that water.)  But you won't get very far trying to drink it.

So sometimes you have something, like the adrenaline shot, that causes the physiological fight-or-flight reaction, which you mistake for a real fear.  (And as mentioned above, this can lead to feedback cycles & panic disorders.)  But if you know that the reactions are not the fear, but something the body does to prepare to deal with whatever would have caused a real fear, you're better able to deal with them.

[Mr.Macinstache]

As for the military, going into battle was not a natural instinct for human. That has to be conditioned, and that model is said to derive from a Prussian system...

The Romans would disagree, as they pre-dated the Prussians by some 2000 years.  Or the Greeks at Troy, a thousand years before that.

True. Maybe that fear was more of a natural instinct in 'modern' domesticated men.

[matchewed]

As for the military, going into battle was not a natural instinct for human. That has to be conditioned, and that model is said to derive from a Prussian system...

The Romans would disagree, as they pre-dated the Prussians by some 2000 years.  Or the Greeks at Troy, a thousand years before that.

And what difference does this distinction make?

Quite a large one, I think. 

Well you please explain it then?

Whether fear causes a chemical release or a chemical release causes fear, your reaction to it is what matters.

I don't see how the distinction changes anything.  Please explain.

I thought I had explained :-)  But I'll try again: it's the difference between a real thing and the illusory perception of a thing.  As for instance, we have a good many dry lakes hereabouts.  At times, atmospheric conditions create mirages that cause them to appear to be full of water.  (And sometimes you can see the Jesus cows walking on that water.)  But you won't get very far trying to drink it.

So sometimes you have something, like the adrenaline shot, that causes the physiological fight-or-flight reaction, which you mistake for a real fear.  (And as mentioned above, this can lead to feedback cycles & panic disorders.)  But if you know that the reactions are not the fear, but something the body does to prepare to deal with whatever would have caused a real fear, you're better able to deal with them.

But in either instance, fear with an actual trigger or fear with a manufactured cause, it is your response to that fear which was discussed. So back to Arebelspy's point why does that distinction matter to your reaction?

[arebelspy]

But in either instance, fear with an actual trigger or fear with a manufactured cause, it is your response to that fear which was discussed. So back to Arebelspy's point why does that distinction matter to your reaction?

Thanks.

I felt silly saying I still didn't understand why it mattered.

[Jamesqf]

So back to Arebelspy's point why does that distinction matter to your reaction?

Ultimately, it's the difference between having a mind, and mindlessly reacting to the chemicals rushing around your body.

[Bakari]

Those fear chemicals (adrenaline, principally) are the body's responses to the mental perception of fear.  The brain perceives (rightly or wrongly) that there is something to be afraid of, so it sends nerve impulses to various glands, which order them to release the chemicals to put the body into high gear for "fight or flight" situations.

Now it's fairly easy to fool the unaware brain into mistaking the physiological changes caused by the chemicals for the actual fear, but that's an illusion.  For instance, if you've ever had allergy testing, they'll often give you a shot of adrenaline afterwards to deal with aftereffects.  This produces the same physiological effects as fear - shaking, elevated heart rate, sweaty palms, &c - even though there's no cause for fear.  If you weren't aware of the cause, you might think that you actually were afraid of something.

Same applies to most, if not all, of those other hormones.  They're effects rather than causes, though the unaware can be fooled into mistaking effect for cause.

As someone who's been through panic disorder, I agree that there's a difference between the mental aspects of fear with the physical sensations caused by the chemicals, but it's not a strict cause/effect; rather, they form a feedback loop.

Perceiving something fearful activates the chemicals, sure, but the presence of the chemicals also cause the brain to seek out things to be afraid of.  If you consciously think there is something to be afraid of, you put out even more chemicals. If you look around and convince yourself there's nothing to be afraid of, the feedback loop breaks and the chemicals wind down.

I thought it was fairly explicit in MMMs article that this is exactly what MMM was saying.  He started out talking about the nightmare.  That was the trigger.  Then, once the hormones were active, they triggered generalized worry, which attached itself to whatever they could find.  The nightmare was "real" so to speak.  But the fear of leaky roof and being unprepared for the trip were CAUSED BY the adrenaline.

Quite a large one, I think.  It's a question of distinguishing effects from causes.  As in the example above, if someone gives you a big shot of adrenaline, oxytocin, or whatever, you may feel as though you're fearful, in love, etc, but you won't really be.  And conversely, if you have achieved Musashi's sort of enlightenment, you can deal with those states without allowing chemically-induced physiological responses to sway your judgement.

Its a very fine distinction - and very possibly a false one - to say you can "feel that" you are in love, but not "actually" be.  It only exists as a feeling.  It isn't a state of being.  It can't be measured objectively or externally.  So if you feel that you are, how can you say you aren't?  If you feel afraid, you are afraid. 
Whether you acknowledge a feeling's validity (and how you choose to respond) is separate from that, and in that you and I, and MMM and RS are all in agreement.

I suppose ultimately this question leads back to "is the mind a product of the brain?" and its follow up question "If so, what does that say about free will?"
Its a fair question, but not one we will solve on this forum ;)

[matchewed]

So back to Arebelspy's point why does that distinction matter to your reaction?

Ultimately, it's the difference between having a mind, and mindlessly reacting to the chemicals rushing around your body.

Whether that rustling in the bushes is an actual tiger stalking you or just the wind when you come to the realization that your fear generated by either scenario is a chemical you put that fear aside and look for more information. Either scenario you're going to take the same actions right? You're going to try to asses whether there is a threat or not. No one is saying you're mindlessly reacting, they're saying that regardless of the actuality of the threat that you mindfully react.

[Jamesqf]

Whether that rustling in the bushes is an actual tiger stalking you or just the wind when you come to the realization that your fear generated by either scenario is a chemical...

That's my point right there.  Fear isn't the chemical.  Fear is what happens inside your mind, which causes the body to release those chemicals in order to put the body into "overdrive" in order to deal with whatever caused the fear.

In other words, the actual pathway is

  Rustling -> ears -> brain -> adrenal glands

whereas MMM would have it as

  Rustling -> ears -> adrenal glands -> brain

[arebelspy]

In other words, the actual pathway is

  Rustling -> ears -> brain -> adrenal glands

whereas MMM would have it as

  Rustling -> ears -> adrenal glands -> brain

You are still missing our point.

You are missing one final arrow on both of those that says "-> reaction".

And our point is that whichever comes first, your reaction is the important part.. so why does the order of adrenal glands/brain in that diagram matter?

[Jamesqf]

...so why does the order of adrenal glands/brain in that diagram matter?

You don't think it matters to have a correct understanding of processes?

[arebelspy]

...so why does the order of adrenal glands/brain in that diagram matter?

You don't think it matters to have a correct understanding of processes?

Not nearly as much as the end result and controlling that and looking at that.

Seems like you're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you can say why it's important to that end result that the one happens before the other, instead of vice-versa, then it seems to me to be nitpicking just for the sake of being technically correct (the best kind of correct).