Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Neuroscience Meets Psychology | Dr. Andrew Huberman | EP 296" video.

A great conversation! It is made difficult, though, for me, by the clash of neurological and psychological terminology. The relationship between neurological operations and "sense of self" is drawn crudely with many connection dropouts--how do you get from here to there, from sensory reality to psychological reality. Implications abound but seem taken for granted, unworthy of special attention. Andrew represents the animal origin, and Jordan, the spirit origin of behavior. The neurology drives the animal behavior; the psychology drives the sense of self. The animal state is the default, because it will operate without attention. The psychology develops out of the awareness of the animal state as it develops over time, by comparison of states. What's the psychological counterpart of the "dopaminergic system"? I think Andrew's position is that the neurology precipitates the psychology, while Jordan's is likely that the patterns expressed neurologically INFLUENCE the developing psychology, perhaps being essentially universal. I'm not sure they agree on whether psychology can INFLUENCE neurology, but Andrew seems willing to entertain the possibility.
1
1:36:00--Andrew states that watching porn (other people doing it) is "very different than being in a first-person sexual experience"...and therefore...Ehhh, really? "Very" different? There are some obvious differences, but the similarities still seem overwhelming, to me. From my point of view, in order to make the "connection", you have to identify what you are seeing and accept and vivify the association with YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE. Remembering the various sensations connected with what you are watching, you can, essentially, put yourself in the picture--through "imagination", you can participate in a way your BODY accepts as "real"! The real point is to discover imagination as a tool for controlling/influencing the body. No matter the context, that is what we are always DOING! And it is good. The value of the neurological perspective seems niche. We can control/influence our neurology, but not DIRECTLY; the manner of indirection is imaginative. You can create, in imagination, "objects" that interface with the neurological level...a layer of translation, effectively. This is what we are always doing, whether we realize it or not! But doing so deliberately, purposefully, in full awareness, promises to illuminate the psyche to the furthest degree.
1
The word, "training", surfaced at 34:00! Jordan wonders, "To what degree do you think you're directly suppressing that with the prefrontal cortex and to what degree are you spinning up an alternative self that if embodied wouldn't require that physiological response." I'M wondering about this spinning up of alternate selves! What a curious conceptualization! Self-schizophrenia? hehe...Seriously, though, is it necessary to jump through all these hoops? I think this "spinning up" business is a clear reference to "imagination". What happens neurologically when you imagine?!
1
28:40--Jordan implies to me that the prefrontal cortex corresponds to the "unconscious/subconscious mind" of the traditional psychologists. Sure, we're telling stories! Stories that encode our understanding of reality. We're always reminding ourselves of what's true, real...and everything has a "story" of its own.
1
1:40:00--Andrew: "It's the big peaks in dopamine, that are not associated with any prior effort or organization of self that are particularly dangerous for the human being." Is this "danger" NOT "opportunity"? Is the "danger" simply "failure" to progress? EVERYTHING is associated with prior effort or organization of self! Do we have to split hairs over what constitutes a "big peak"?! Can dopamine "peaking" be deliberately accentuated!? I don't see why not. Personally, I see no value in developing an awareness of dopaminergicity (argh), as such. But I see great value in the exploration of "arousal". My experience of arousal is intimately available to my awareness. My experience of dopamine, as such, is nill. "Arousal" is a proper complexification of dopaminergic activity, which occurs well below the level of DIRECT awareness. I can identify arousal information; I cannot identify dopaminergic information without the intercession of the proper complexification.
1
12:40--"the conscious areas of the brain"...what do you mean, "conscious", in neurological terms, I wonder? Yes, I don't like the word in this context; it's confusing. He's saying the prefrontal cortex is the "conscious self"? Telling the insula what to DO? The insula is the "body computer", the internal microprocessor; the prefrontal cortex is the "program/programmer"...? Not useful, yet. I'm waiting for something having to do with "training", the neuro-mechanics of "entrainment".
1