[MUSIC] >> Hi, welcome again to this course. We will talk in this, set of medias about the, neuroanthropological approach to emotions. And trying to understand the relationship between neurons and societies. And these next first session we'll try to talk about unemotional neurons, but emotional brains. And I, would like to give my, my thanks to [INAUDIBLE] with which I, I've been been discussing several times about how neurons can create so very interesting buttons of activity. And even to create, to create the emotion of the emotional brain. So we can consider the brain as something really different from, from the basic bricks of, of its architecture neurons. Because we cannot really state that the, the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. We can see that there are similar living entities that life without neurons. For example, sponges or, or even leaf with various small brains or close brain systems like the roundword, worm. The C elegans that has 302 neurons. And although, we can see that the numbers increase, jellyfish, 100 neurons is like 18,000, and arriving to the, to the real, really, those big numbers of human beings. These numbers don't explain, how it's possible that, that neurons feel. So are we faced again to the qualia problem. I think its not necessary but at the same time. The the, the [INAUDIBLE] of this situation requires a system perspective in which we can define several layers of activity. So it's important at which point of the tree of life we can see the starting moment of emotion as of feelings. I think that the, that this, these question can be answered with a new question and it's necessary. No, a different meaning. Because the, the very important thing with emotional analysis is why and when they emerge in order to create new meaning. Because at the, at the end emotional, emotions are semantic ways to approach true reality. So when we look at, at the brains as a result of all of the relative trends, we can see that, that it's a conjecture follows a main functional design. There are innate forces, we, we, obviously don't, are born like a blank slate or tabula rosa. But we are really preprogrammed in order to, to, to produce some specific responses to some specific input. At the same time we are not all, all completely hard wired, we are able to learn and we show long brain plasticity all throughout our, our life. At the same time, we are designed by natural evolution, trying to solve some very, you know, purpose. And especially, a specialized situations that can ha, happen at the same time. For example, we are really designing, you know, you don't have to solve motion processes. And in order to use symbolic language. In the same time our brains are really oriented towards social interaction and very intensive social interaction. Something that calls reason to be half called behavior alfinitive. We are also designing to learn by imitative processes that, that have a neural correl, correlate in our brains. We are also close and naturally bonded to reasoning strategies. And also, we are also constrained by some [INAUDIBLE] situations, or, or, or context in which we are, we are constrained by the kind of reasoning that we are able to produce. For example, are these cognitive biases? For example, a more cognitive bia, biases can be found according to mood. What, how can we describe for example these, these glass or, or these, these glasses? It's completely objective point-of-view, you know, to produce some kind of response. Well, we can use a very quantitative approach, but in our life we are not making a strong quantitive, quantitative measurements of reality. We are qualitatively trying to understand what what is happening in my window, in my room, in my university, with my family, with everything. We are not, not always trying to quantify our, or to parse any action in order to use very det, detailed descriptions. So according to the mood, we can find that something it's has a specific flavor or a specific meaning or another one when we are sad. See the world with different eyes than those with which we have when we are really happy. And, reality is the same because reality is not reality. Reality is something that we are processing according to our internal states. So, we can find a lot of cognitive biases according to our mood. For example, there is a bit of apprehension according to how we feel. We feel fear, or we we feel guilt or or depending on the person you are empathetic of our relationships with other beings. We feel in a different way. For example, the classic ethical golden rule that can be expressed by positive or, or negative perspective. One should treat others as, as one would like others to treat them to treat oneself or one should not treat others in ways one would not like to be treated. At the end it's an emotional perspective about social interaction. It's nothing about very brainy or absolutely rational, without no, emotional information. We are following our, emotions, when we try to put meaning into these phrases. And we know, and that, and, in, in some occasions this, these, rules are not, working very properly. For example, if, if the first form, of the golden rule is expressed by, by follower of practices. Then, it's no too good for the rest of, of the human community that, that don't like to follow [INAUDIBLE] practices. So I'm not joking. It's very seriously and the goal, these, these rules are, are more close to a joke. Because when we try to really put it into context, into real contexts then we can discover that they are not so, shinier, and so clear as we thought before it. So, we, are we experiencing instinct blindness that is it, a concept created by Cosmides and Tooby. Trying to understand how we process, those mechanisms that are performed by instinct. That if we can't, are able to recognize the burden of, of these natural processes for which are bodies are better prepared. Yes, and perhaps and [INAUDIBLE] we are really blind to, to the forces of instinct. And the same time, they're related to, to this instinct programming. We can find emotional, interaction with all the cognitive processes, that until very recently. We, we're really hidden and, and banned forces. And same time we can, can say that the mind is embodied, and, and mind by natural evolution. That has, really, making, in, the last, thousands of years by more intensive social implementations and more complex social interactions. And at the same time we must, for, forgot, when we try to understand this process, of the evolutionary relationship with our,ah, brain processing. The naturalistic fallacy that is both problem. It's not true that because something, it's natural or can be found at, at the more instinctive layer of our reaction skills that we can, we cannot infer that the sum reaction is the good one. For example violence, sexist, re, reactions, or racist, actions. It's very difficult, first, to, to make a real distinction between culture and, and nature. But at the same time, even in the case, that we could demonstrate that some action is the result of the nature, our nature. Not for this reason we should, really accept that some final reactions are, are really normal. Like for example, work, or we can explain the violent nature of human beings. But we cannot justify the Holocaust. It's there are a lot of things completely different. So just to conclude we can say that brains are not really neutral systems, but they are the result of some functionalities. Created by, by natural evolution that shape our performing tasks. At the same time, brains are really flexible and able to learn and, and, I, we are really curious. And finally, brains are emotionally hardwired. So our syntax and our semantics is bodily flavored. So, thank you so much for being here. And I hope to see you next session. Bye.
