Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

Postby encode_decode » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:38 pm

    encode_decode: I like to think of it in terms of the mood being a pond and the emotion being a stone that is thrown into the pond eventually the ripples make it back to the edge of the pond.

    Arcturus Descending: I liked that analogy. I have often thrown pebbles into a pond and watched the interplay between that pond, pebble and ripples. It is quite beautiful to see and it points out the effect which one single action can have on everything which surrounds us.

    encode_decode: Well thank you - I like your response. If the stone is going to the depths of the pond - I wonder what is in the depths of the mood. All this talk about mood and emotions requires one to dig deep.
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 915
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 6

      Postby encode_decode » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:44 pm

        From the section: 6 Getting Angry: The Jamesian Theory of Emotion in Anthropology (1984)

        From the section: Emotions in Anthropology

        Robert C. Solomon wrote:Even if the emotions were essentially the same in all people, however, it is evident that the language and interpretation of emotions, as well as their causes,
        expressions, and vicissitudes, vary widely from culture to culture. The effects of epinephrine may be identical in angry people from Borough Hall in Brooklyn to the beaches of Bora Bora, but there are, nevertheless, differences in the emotional lives of various peoples, and this is where anthropology enters the picture.

        There are also differences in people from the same culture - the adrenaline level in a person down the road might be different even under an identical circumstance. However the anthropological example in the quote is very worthy of further thought - obviously people from different cultures have different ways of perceiving things and their emotional reactions will in turn be different too.

        From the section: The Variability of Emotions

        Robert C. Solomon wrote:Take aggression as an example. A distinction must be made between the instrumental acts that are indices of aggression (e.g., hitting, insulting, nonco-operating) and the hypothetical "goal response" of the aggression motive (perceiving another person's reactions to injury).

        Good point . . .

        In section 6 Robert discusses the circumstance that leads to a specific emotion is different from place to place. For instance what is considered offensive in one country maybe not offensive in another country. So aggression has different causes depending on where you are - if then anger leads to aggression then anger is different from place to place and in turn each person. A little like the color red being experienced differently by different people I guess.

        The brain scans mentioned in my previous notes would have to change to account for the variability of the person being scanned from another person being scanned - the scanner would have to somehow learn the individual's cognitive systems so that it could determine what system is being looked at that is potentially out of order.

        Robert C. Solomon wrote:To believe that anger is a force building up pressure is to experience the physiological symptoms of anger as a force "inside," just as believing that "falling in love" is bound to have a certain irresponsible influence on one's loving.

        Obviously there is some truth to this - but I would no be so quick as to dismiss an overflow effect of some sort. There has to be a threshold that one reaches before they start crying - a complex set of emotional states that eventually fall in line with the state that precedes crying.

        Robert C. Solomon wrote:The fact that one language has a dozen words for sexual affection and another has fifty words for hostility already anticipates the kinds of models that will be
        appropriate. A culture that emphasizes what David Hume called "the violent passions" will be ripe for the Jamesian theory, but a culture that rather stresses the "calm" emotions (an appreciation of beauty, lifelong friendship, a sense of beneficence and justice) will find the Jamesian theory and the hydraulic model that underlies it patently absurd.

        I can safely say that I agree with this - with one caveat in mind - here we are only talking about previous philosophies and Roberts own philosophy and we are not taking into account the potential for a culturally adaptive single model - as complex as it may be.

        Robert also talks about the building blocks of emotions being a few basic emotions that all of the later emotions a made up of. I find the rather interesting. I do wonder however whether the emotions follow a more genetic chain of events whereby some people are more prone to different emotions than others. I also wonder whether indeed we do learn some emotions and our systems do come with some basic emotions built in.

        Robert speaks of an Eskimo culture whereby the people within it do not get angry pointing out a significant difference in their emotional lives. However he goes on to say how the Anthropologist who wrote about the culture may have got it wrong due to a false sense from her empathy.

        From the section: The Cognitive Theory of Emotions: Emotions as Cultural Artifacts

          Not only ideas, but emotions too, are cultural artifacts. (Geertz 1973:81)
          . . . complete rubbish. (Leach 1981)

        Robert C. Solomon wrote:An emotion is a system of concepts, beliefs, attitudes, and desires, virtually all of which are context-bound, historically developed, and culture-specific (which is not to foreclose the probability that some emotions may be specific to all cultures).

        And this I find total synergy with . . .

        In the last part of the book(Part 5) it was quite intense reading albeit rather interesting. This Part of the book(Part 6) on the other hand is less intense and really interesting - it is insightful and easier to digest. I found myself glued to the book throughout this part. Not only was it a real mind opener but it was also very stimulating. To consider things from a sociological and cultural perspective is important when one is to contemplate what emotions are.

        The references to this part of the book point to what I can only determine to be rather interesting reading.


        Inspired Note: I am wondering whether there might be something akin to an emotional bypass - given that whens somebody gets angry it seems that there is a rational bypass. Somehow I was inspired from thoughts relating to overflow effect to consider a bypass effect - it could be nothing.
          User avatar
          encode_decode
          Thinker
           
          Posts: 915
          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
          Location: Metaspace

          Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 7

          Postby encode_decode » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:46 pm

            From the section: 7 On Emotions as Judgments (1988)

            This is perhaps my favorite part of the book so far - it used a lot of terminology that I was familiar with but is still not too difficult for any person who has not been involved with emotions and philosophy of mind to grasp. I found it detailed where it needed to be and not where it didn't need to be.

            I make a contrast between emotions, rationality and existence with the following statement:

              Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
            This is how I tend to define the mind - what is the reality component then? I view this as the external component to ourselves - in other words the information passed onto us from our surroundings. I believe emotions can help us to over produce that reality - giving it extra meaning - perhaps meta-information.

            Philosophers often make contrasting examples of some component against another to help them make distinctions.

            The first part of: On Emotions as Judgments - reads: "Philosophers have often contrasted "reason and the passions," typically championing the former against the latter. Descartes and his compatriot Melebranch, for example, treated emotions as "animal spirits," distinctively inferior parts of the psyche".

            Leibniz and Kant among others made their own contrasts.

            These contrasts serve a purpose and we all do it with everything - even when we are thinking emotionally . . .

            . . . making contrasts helps us to define our reality . . .

            . . . these contrast further intensify the clarity in the mind when not over produced . . .

            . . . over producing some parts of our reality can help to bring meaning to our existence.


            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Emotions in this tradition are typically characterized as unlearned, "natural," involuntary and non-rational, if not irrational, forms of (more or less) physical excitement. They are quite opposed to the distinctly human (but also "godlike") virtues of calm contemplation, thinking, reason, and judgement.

            In defense of the passions, "David Hume, most notably, insisted that"

              "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions."
            Just the same however, Hume also contrasted emotions against rationality.

            Robert goes on to talk about Aristotle, Seneca and Stoic:

            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Unlike Aristotle, however, Seneca saw these emotional judgments as essentially irrational—misinformed or in any case mistaken attitudes, distorted by desire, which philosophical reason, properly applied, would correct. Nevertheless, the distinction between passion and reason, emotion and judgment, now becomes an internal matter within the realm of judgments. Some emotions are rational; others are not. Some judgments are emotional; others are not.

            Contrary to the above quote: I myself have been working with two models: one of which treats logic first --- and the other --- treats emotion and logic as equals - I also make the distinction. I am now however leaning toward emotions as judgements as a potential. I have also allowed for the possibility that emotions are nonsensical paradoxes of the sensed - reason fighting passion for instance. Robert writes: Emotions, I suggest, are self-interested, desire-defined judgments.

            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Here is one typically blunt statement of the standard objection (there are many others) by Jerome Shaffer, from his recent essay, "An Assessment of Emotion": Perhaps it is this superfluity of the physiological/sensational component that has led some philosophers to identify emotion with judgments, appraisals, and valuations. But the identification will not work. One can hold precisely those beliefs and desires in a dispassionate and unemotional way. So getting emotionally worked up must involve more than just beliefs and desires. (Myers and Irani, eds., Emotion: Philosophical Studies (New York: Haven, 1983 ) p. 206)

            Perhaps they are just more than just beliefs and desires as I said they could be nonsensical paradoxes of the sensed - and to reiterate: reason fighting passion for instance --- or quite possibly as Robert wrote: Emotions, I suggest, are self-interested, desire-defined judgments.

            Roberts theses on page 82 are very informative . . . it is nice to see things put into a list in that manner . . . and I did like his use of the following:

              Saint Augustine: "Voluntas est quippe in omnibus . . . "—"For what are desire and joy but the will saying yes to the things we want, and what are fear and sorrow but the will saying no to things we don't want?"

            Robert writes "my claim that emotions were judgments was interpreted as the claim that emotions were essentially about information, a claim I have always vigorously rejected (which is not to say, of course, that emotions do not involve all sorts of information and information-processing)" --- to which I assert that emotions are indeed about information processing - just that the information being processed is being calculated against outcomes from former states; so here I kind of disagree, for the time being anyway - I do still think emotions are a special type of information however - some of it is beautiful and some of it is ugly.

            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Andrew Ortony (1988) has developed a range of "intensity variables" (in an essentially information-processing model of emotions) to specify certain classes of emotion, and in such a model intensity would seem to be itself a set of judgments, one of the system of judgments that make up the emotion.

            This model might not tell you exactly what emotion is in action but is does give us insight into the idea of a spectrum of emotions that I also apply to logic. Further I would suggest that the physiological effects of such intensity would come about through a specialized feedback loop between the peripheral nervous system and central nervous system. From that point biochemical effects take place to provide for how we feel physically - in turn information is fed back into the loop via receptors.

            Robert C. Solomon wrote:The expressions of emotion are not independent of emotion but built into the system of judgments that constitute the emotion. Aristotle caught this in his insistence (in the Rhetoric) that anger includes—rather than causes—the desire for revenge. Now this might seem to support the anticognitivist argument, but only if one maintains—unreasonably, I think—that the intentions embodied in action are not cognitive because they are not "purely" cognitive, or that the desires embedded in emotion can be sharply distinguished and separated from judgment.

            I can see this because I do believe desires are cognitive by their nature.

            I truly enjoyed this snippet of writing by Robert: an emotion is initiated by a judgment (or a system of judgments) but then carried on by (a system of) beliefs, but this then fails to explain the experiential content of the ongoing emotion. A very different solution is to suggest that emotions—like God's universe according to some theologians—require not just creation but an ongoing effort.

            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Emotions are judgments, but not judgments in the sense that they are detached and disinterested momentary reflections about a world that does not deeply concern us. Rather, they are judgments which cannot be understood apart from the systematic connections with action and desire and a holistic view of our experience over time. Arguing that emotions are strongly cognitive does not make them philosophically less exciting. They can be just as subject to illuminating conceptual analysis as other more established topics in ethics and the philosophy of mind.

            I would agree here and add that emotions are judgements that are attached and very interested instances about a world that deeply concerns us. We have to attempt to understand emotions in line with logic if we are to understand them at all so a distinction no matter how temporary must be made. As Robert states we have to view the mind as a whole and that includes emotions - by viewing our experience over time. I think emotions are incredibly exciting and probably one of the things we value the most about our mind whether we admit it or not.
              User avatar
              encode_decode
              Thinker
               
              Posts: 915
              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
              Location: Metaspace

              Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

              Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:33 pm

              encode_decode wrote:
                encode_decode: I like to think of it in terms of the mood being a pond and the emotion being a stone that is thrown into the pond eventually the ripples make it back to the edge of the pond.

                Arcturus Descending: I liked that analogy. I have often thrown pebbles into a pond and watched the interplay between that pond, pebble and ripples. It is quite beautiful to see and it points out the effect which one single action can have on everything which surrounds us.

                encode_decode: Well thank you - I like your response. If the stone is going to the depths of the pond - I wonder what is in the depths of the mood. All this talk about mood and emotions requires one to dig deep.


                  Your welcome, encode_decode.

                  I think that might depend on what the *pebble* is in each case. What it is which draws us into those depths.

                  For me, it might be Puccini's O mio babbino caro. So beautiful. I imagine that we have many different pebbles.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUENWpkPcQo

                  It is so difficult to name it. It's like an experience of the eternal and the sacred way down deep where I really *live*. I am just there. It's like a flowing river.
                  :oops:

                  Puccini is a god.
                  SAPERE AUDE!


                  If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                  What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                  Thomas Nagel


                  I learn as I write!
                  User avatar
                  Arcturus Descending
                  Consciousness Seeker
                   
                  Posts: 14852
                  Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                  Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                  Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

                  Postby encode_decode » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:35 pm

                    Arcturus Descending

                    I was reading on ScienceDaily that "Poetry is like music to the mind . . . "
                    . . . here are a few select snippets from that article:

                    ScienceDaily wrote:. . . New brain imaging technology is helping researchers to bridge the gap between art and science by mapping the different ways in which the brain responds to poetry and prose . . .

                    . . . Scientists use functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to visualize which parts of the brain are activated to process various activities. But until now, no one had ever looked specifically at the differing responses in the brain to poetry and prose . . .

                    . . . In research published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, the team found activity in a "reading network" of brain areas which was activated in response to any written material. But they also found that more emotionally charged writing aroused several of the regions in the brain which respond to music. These areas, predominantly on the right side of the brain, had previously been shown as to give rise to the "shivers down the spine" caused by an emotional reaction to music . . .

                    . . . In a specific comparison between poetry and prose, the team found evidence that poetry activates brain areas, such as the posterior cingulate cortex and medial temporal lobes, which have been linked to introspection . . .

                    And just for the sake of it - let us look at an excerpt.

                    A small snippet from PoetrySoup:

                    Nom de Plume wrote:. . . to ensconce in our aspirations, to squander our time and memory, to seek out names, to remember faces and places. To afford its attempts, avidity and appetite to influence even the most infinitesimal of decisions. To say this street or that street. This café or that . . .

                    The above snippet is not from one of my poems - I was inspired by your response . . .

                    . . . it was also kind of poetic in a way - and it made me think about how music and poetry arouse emotion . . .

                    To your response:

                    Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that might depend on what the *pebble* is in each case. What it is which draws us into those depths. For me, it might be Puccini's O mio babbino caro. So beautiful. I imagine that we have many different pebbles. It is so difficult to name it. It's like an experience of the eternal and the sacred way down deep where I really *live*. I am just there. It's like a flowing river.

                    Agreed - definitely we have many different pebbles. I believe there are emotions that we have not named yet - that there are feelings that we have not named yet.

                    It seems the depth of the human being is endless . . . especially when it comes to the human beings emotional depth . . .

                    - - - Life is a Rich Tapestry - - -
                      User avatar
                      encode_decode
                      Thinker
                       
                      Posts: 915
                      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                      Location: Metaspace

                      Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 8A

                      Postby encode_decode » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:07 pm

                        From the section: 8 Back to Basics: On the Very Idea of "Basic Emotions" (1993, Rev. 2001)

                        I have two emotional sets - the first is directed at the self and the second is directed at others.

                        I like to group my emotional sets in to two basic groups:

                          ► Negative Emotions

                          ► Positive Emotions
                        From here other emotions are built over time via two more sets of emotions - evolutionary emotions and configuration emotions - by evolutionary I mean that I will attempt to at the very least account for hereditary characteristics, personal evolution is something I am taking into account separate from configuration - by configuration I mean such things as personal, family, social, love, cultural local, cultural national, cultural global and many others.

                          Evolutionary emotions are those that happen seemingly by themselves . . .

                          . . . and . . .

                          . . . configuration emotions happen with the influence of the conscious mind or external sources . . .

                        Section 8 starts out talking about basic emotions and the building blocks of emotions.

                        It is a familiar topic to me but I will explore it anyway even if only because I find it kind of interesting how others come to group things.

                        Robert starts out this section talking about a battle that happened years ago on campus, using a metaphor about the atoms of emotional chemistry to describe basic emotions in the department of psychology - he also talks about how typically the psychology department and the philosophy department tend to keep a distance from each other but nonetheless the battle was still philosophical in nature.

                        The section then moves into what could be considered basic emotions and the building blocks of emotions.

                        Robert C. Solomon wrote:There are extensive and successful research programs and increasingly sophisticated debates in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, not to mention literary, music, and art theory and criticism. As research on emotions comes into its own as an established discipline, there is a strong temptation to "get to the bottom" of things, to identify the basic building blocks of emotion, the basic emotions.

                        Somewhat akin to the periodic table an analogy to an atom is made for each basic emotion - that the emotions each in their basic form are a fundamental and non reducible unit of emotional life. If we were to then take any arbitrary number of these basic building blocks - if it were - we could combine them to form new emotions. Emotional molecules so to speak.

                        However . . .

                        Robert C. Solomon wrote:It is a plausible argument that this fundamental unit of emotional life is to be found in biology. Philosophers such as René Descartes and David Hume, under the swat of the science of their day, sought these fundamental units in the "animal spirits" that pulsed with the blood through the body.

                        As plausible as it is I think we are going to find that there is a difference between the mind and the body.

                        Robert C. Solomon wrote:I would like to explore the matter from a number of different angles, for instance, from the claims that there are basic emotions (and try to see what they might be) and that there are no basic emotions (and see what that leaves us with).

                        You see, I fall between these two categories in my theories - that we have instinct - on top of instinct is a blank slate more or less - emotions are quickly learned - then there are the higher functioning emotions - the more abstract - we could probably go on inventing emotions forever - hence I like the idea of a spectrum.

                        But as Robert points out, we need to proceed with caution; that we don't look at emotions in too confined a manner. Still anyone's guess . . .

                        . . . we should also be careful that we are not heading in the wrong direction altogether . . .

                        But then there is the topic of facial expressions . . . emotive expressions contained within the confines of the face . . . can these be learned too?

                        Robert writes: But to what extent are facial expressions of emotion biologically determined, and to what extent are they learned, perhaps even taught, within a culture? <<< To which I would reply: There is some evidence to believe that some emotions are biologically determined . . . but that also makes me wonder whether they can still be called emotions. If so then we have at least two sets of emotions.

                        Robert C. Solomon wrote:I also want to scrutinize what Peter Goldie calls the "avocado pear" model of emotions, that is, the idea that emotions have a basic (neurologically hardwired) core with a softer, more pliable covering provided by culture and individual experience.

                        With some evidence pointing at biologically determined emotions - basic ones at that - we are moving into the territory of instinct, my model also has connections with the neurologically hardwired with a small difference - for me we are in fact a template of sorts when we are born - a kind of blank slate if you will - there is enough biological configuration to get us started - to effect emotions and logic - but this is a process that takes time to build the functionality of more complex emotions. I am not against changing my mind on the matter just that this is in fact where I am at this stage - mapping the mind and mapping the body(brain).

                        So is the neurological process and the emotion one and the same? I don't believe so - I believe there is a hidden language - a language hidden within the neural networks that is unique to each individual and is being translated into mind, emotion, logic, inner reality and eventually the spoken language as well as anything else I may have missed here.

                        Robert C. Solomon wrote:With the emphasis on the face we step across the imaginary barbed wire that separates so much of philosophy and psychology. Psychologists, desperate for observables and something to measure, tend to lean toward the description of behavior, not necessarily denying "inner" experience but minimizing both its role and its significance.

                        Psychology is perhaps missing out on an important opportunity here by ignoring what is hidden away - by knowing that each individual has a unique neural language less reliance on text book psychology and more reliance on good old fashioned legwork - brain-work - might come back into psychology. How can one rely on descriptions of behaviors when the behavior is going to have different starting lines for each individual? I suggest we can not and this is why a lot of misdiagnosis is going on and people are placing themselves in harms way as guinea pigs as is the case with psychiatry.

                        Do we even have to be aware of an emotion to perceive it - I would say not because if we are directly perceiving it then we are feeling it - this feeling is another way to be aware. What is so significant about this comment? We will get to see that later.

                        Robert goes on to say that the face is our primary means of "display" toward other beings. A smile indicates safety and acceptance; a frown or a scowl, danger or disapproval. That we display these facial reactions possibly before birth but definitely onward in most cases indicates a degree of autonomy. Facial expressions then are obviously hardwired from our genetics. The language of the body especially the face was the language that preceded written and spoken language - but even growls and grunts could be considered utterances. These languages come with emotion for better or for worse - we can not remove them even when we think we have.

                        I am inspired at this point to ask the question: Does one actually have to look happy on the outside to actually be happy on the inside? I still find the very notion of a "basic emotion" to be deeply problematic - at least without emergence and configuration that is - pattern building in the mental systems.
                          User avatar
                          encode_decode
                          Thinker
                           
                          Posts: 915
                          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                          Location: Metaspace

                          Re: Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 8B

                          Postby encode_decode » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:16 pm

                            From the section: 8 Back to Basics: On the Very Idea of "Basic Emotions" (1993, Rev. 2001)

                            That state left over when you believe that you are void of emotion I am certain is still an emotional state and you are in fact deluding yourself to believe that you could ever be void of emotion and still remain as you were meant to be - this could be argued - but what would you be arguing the case of? Perhaps your desire to be a robot - perhaps a much more complex form of life than a single celled organism devoid of emotion. Ask yourself then what is your life without emotion - without fear - without happiness - do you honestly think that emotion is not an advanced form of stimulus? You have to dig deep for the answers - not rely on what you have learnt but add to it.

                            Now can it be said that the origins of language were to be found in the need to express our emotions? This is what Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed to be: yes.

                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:The basic scheme is multidimensional, but it significantly limits or minimizes all of those features of emotion which most philosophers would be keen to emphasize (thoughts, appraisals, feelings, beliefs, and desires).

                            Mind itself is multidimensional and ever changing so each dimension listed is going to change as well.

                            I will now quote basic lists of emotions contained within the book:

                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:enumeration of competing lists, Ortony and Turner include, for example, Watson's (1930) minimal list of three (fear, love, and rage), Izard's (1971) list of ten (anger, contempt, disgust, distress, fear, guilt, interest, joy, shame and surprise), Ekman's (1982) list of six (anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise), Panksepp's (1982) list of four (expectancy, fear, rage, and panic), Kempers's (1987) list of four (fear, anger, depression, and satisfaction), Oatley's (1987) list of five (happiness, sadness, anxiety, anger, and disgust), and Frijda's (1986) list of six (desire, happiness, interest, surprise, wonder, sorrow).

                            If it is difficult to see the problem here then you are not digging deep enough - believe me - later I will prove this to be the case.

                            We must also be careful what we are classing as an emotion before we proceed to enumerate a list of any sort. You should be able to determine from the above enumerations the problems faced in the classification of emotions - that hardly anyone agrees what basic emotions are. From this then we can only conclude that emotions are not as they seem - but potentially something different than we have ever imagined. We can at least say that there is a degree of probability that where the lists overlap - this overlap is hinting at partial or full truths. The degree changes as the availability of evidence changes - the accuracy of the evidence - using this chain of reasoning it should be possible to follow the path from its source and analyze each evidential increment to determine correlations that point at truths.

                            Returning to anger . . .

                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Anger was of interest to Aristotle, in particular, because it plays a central role in the nature of "man" as a rational and social animal. Anger is not irrational or antisocial, as is often thought today. It is a natural reaction to an offense. It is a moral force, which can be cultivated, controlled, and provoked by reason and rhetoric.

                            I would class anger as one of the sense paradoxes too . . . Providing there is truth to Aristotle's interest then I would be interested in moral paradox . . .

                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:This last comment is worth repeating because even if one rejects the idea that some emotions are basic, the temptation to reductionism is very strong. For example, one can readily imagine a theorist (not me) who holds that emotions are cognitions and that cognitions are judgments which can be broken down into logically simple components. These various judgments could then combine to form increasingly complex emotions

                            I am perhaps one of those theorists but despite this I still find some affinity with Robert's work. The temptation to reductionism is valid and that is why the temptation is actually there - reductionism has its limits and it would be foolish to think that raw science can solve everything without the help of philosophy. We can break cognitions and judgements down into logically simple parts - doing this however will not lead to the simple parts giving rise to names and descriptions for the cognitions and judgements. Each judgement will communicate like neurons to form increasingly complex emotions - you could call this the judgement network if you wanted. In any case you are not going to be able to remove an obvious connection between the mind and body.

                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:To twist around a question from William James, "Once you subtract cognition and culture from an emotion, what is left?" The answer is nothing, or at any rate nothing that would be identifiable as an emotion.

                            I have to totally agree with this statement - and probably on the basis for having different ideas. Cognition itself is cultured(configured) and evolves(after emergence) so obviously once you subtract cognition and culture from an emotion there is nothing left - at least not an identifiable emotion.

                            In another thread I talk about the primordial template of consciousness - the emergence of awareness from our biological core - after this emergence we personally evolve to the point where we are able to consciously configure our selves - it seems to be the nature of the universe anyhow.
                              User avatar
                              encode_decode
                              Thinker
                               
                              Posts: 915
                              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                              Location: Metaspace

                              Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 8C

                              Postby encode_decode » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:48 am

                                From the section: 8 Back to Basics: On the Very Idea of "Basic Emotions" (1993, Rev. 2001)

                                Now with an uncertain amount of potential emotions and a potentially infinite amount of spectral emotional states we continue our inquiry. This matrix that Robert speaks of is something similar to what I have developed to test learning abilities - I am interested in what he is saying here because I have suspected for a little while that the same model I have could be applied to emotional choice.

                                Robert C. Solomon wrote:In an early effort to combat reductionism, I developed a "structuralist" or matrix theory of emotions . . .

                                . . . Anger and fear are just two emotions among hundreds or possibly thousands of others.

                                I was saying this earlier on that we could go on inventing emotions forever. The emotional spectrum is infinite. What is important for us to understand emotions however is to have some sort of list containing description - we may never be able to capture every state - but what does that matter. We only need enough information to get the job done otherwise we are just placing the situation in an unnecessary state of convolution.

                                Robert C. Solomon wrote:They may in fact be wired into our nervous system more directly and demonstrably than, say, jealousy, pride, or righteous indignation, but I did not take this to be a defining feature of their identity . . .

                                . . . All emotions have a neurological basis, but the identity of particular emotions lies elsewhere, in their phenomenological structures.

                                Now how could one argue with this?

                                Robert C. Solomon wrote:The emotions differ, to be sure, but they are not compounds or molecules concocted out of one another. So, I argued, no emotion deserves to be elevated over others as more "basic."

                                We have to be very careful with this type of thinking . . . a compound or molecule could be considered a network . . . on a matrix there could and probably would be many networks - since the brain is not so neatly quantified.

                                Robert C. Solomon wrote:In "folk psychology" (which has taken an undeserved amount of abuse lately) "folks" have been distinguishing emotions for thousands of years, often in much more fine-grained ways than are available in scientific psychology . . .

                                . . . Whereas psychologists talk rather clumsily about "anger" and "rage," for instance, we readily distinguish between resentment, contempt, pique, displeasure, irritation, moral and righteous indignation, wrath, hatred, being in a bad mood, sulking, bitterness, rancor, acrimony, outrage, fury, raving, fretting, frustration—as well as all of those metaphors, fuming, foaming, simmering, stewing, boiling over, bristling, bursting, being hotheaded, becoming incensed, "crabby," blowing one's top, and flying off the handle . . .

                                . . . And on the basis of content, context, and structure an enormous number of subtle and sophisticated distinctions can be made that could not possibly be captured in the reductionist perspectives which would rather talk about a limited number of affect programs.

                                I totally agree that folk psychology has taken an undeserved amount of abuse - if it was not for regular people like you and I where would academic psychology be from the first place until now. When people communicate to each other, they increase the resolution of emotional states because as Robert states, "folks" have been distinguishing emotions for thousands of years - and in much more fine-grained ways - perhaps talking and communication in general between the masses is the way forward to identifying potentially many thousands of emotions.

                                Psychologists seek to reduce things down only because if they did not then the field of the practicing psychologist would probably take several lifetimes to learn. There is little we can do for modern psychology except to keep updating it with more efficient methods in the hopes that a psychologist can cover more ground. As I said reductionism has limits and it would be foolish to think that raw science can explain everything without the help of philosophy - philosophy would not be able to explain everything without people. I am saying that philosophy, science, psychology and people are required to solve the emotional dilemma through effective communication.

                                Robert C. Solomon wrote:To be sure, some emotions are more tightly "wired" neurologically than others. Others are more prone to voluntary control. Some are more socially connected and some are more appropriate to isolated individuals. But they are all just nodes in the nexus.

                                And this I could not agree more with . . . I find total synergy with this quote . . . it is again illustrating how complex the situation actually is when it comes to the topic of emotions. Emotions too are very much a part of our individual defining core and as I stated before, unique to each individual.

                                :-k
                                  User avatar
                                  encode_decode
                                  Thinker
                                   
                                  Posts: 915
                                  Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                  Location: Metaspace

                                  Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 8D

                                  Postby encode_decode » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:25 pm

                                    From the section: 8 Back to Basics: On the Very Idea of "Basic Emotions" (1993, Rev. 2001)

                                    I will let Robert start this part: "It is sometimes said—but, I suspect, much more often thought—that the distinction between basic and nonbasic emotions is in fact a crude distinction based on the structural complexity of emotion. Or else, why is fear a basic emotion while jealousy is not? Fear is a relatively simple emotion, almost no more than a negative desire."

                                    Let us now take a look at a micro-analysis Robert makes on fear and jealousy:

                                      "Thus an affect program might well account for all of the immediate reactions of fear, leaving aside the complicated behavior that might follow fear or the complications of long-term fear."

                                      "Jealousy, by contrast, involves not just a single "object" but a complex dynamic involving one's engagement with both another person and a rival (in romantic jealousy, for instance). There is no way that an affect program could possibly account for such interpersonal dynamics."
                                    "Fear has often been described as a "component" of jealousy, and indeed, fear and jealousy share something in common—the awareness that one is or might be in danger. But this constitutes all of the fear but only one small part of the jealousy. Thus fear is said to be basic and jealousy is not."

                                    My thoughts: Fear and anger seem like cousins to me - jealously I do believe is an ugly and complex beast. There seems to me to be a combination of fear and anger involved in jealousy - even an inverse ratio involved between the levels of fear and anger - I would go as far to say that fear and anger can be amplified or more precisely their inverse ratio can be amplified. This gives me thoughts of an emotional energy pool whereby energy is diverted into prominent emotions in the moment allowing for the amplification of a state to occur whilst other emotions are deferred in the energy distribution. When all the energy is used up then the emotional state becomes flat - not neutral as such but reaching a floor as opposed to a ceiling.

                                    From the section entitled: Basic Emotions as Basic to a Society

                                    Robert C. Solomon wrote:The seeming universality of some emotions has always been one of the main supports of the claim that there are basic emotions. A basic emotion (as an affect program) is universal; emotions that involve cognition and complex appraisals, by contrast, might be "socially constructed."

                                    My thoughts: Is jealousy universal? Probably not if I am correct about each individual having there own hidden language. The configuration of the individuals hidden language mixed with the energy pool previously described is going to make jealously complex to analyze. Note: Each person experiences jealously differently.

                                    Robert C. Solomon wrote:I want to address a very different question, namely, What if basic emotions are those considered to be important in some particular society? But "important" here does not necessarily mean, as many commentators have taken it to mean, most common. The most common emotions may be deemed of no interest or importance at all, for example, mere irritation or frustration.

                                    Regarding Anger, Robert goes on to say a little bit further into the book; it is, in the terms of the distinguished psychoanalyst-turned-anthropologist Robert Levi, "hypercognized." Anger is often talked about, greatly feared, and rarely experienced. It is, one might therefore argue, a basic emotion, even if it is rarely displayed and negatively valued. It does not matter whether the emotion or its expression is hardwired or universal.

                                    He further states even further on; Insofar as "basic" means "fundamental" (as significance) and not just "foundational" (in the building block sense), it might well be the case that those emotions as defined by (and limited to) affect programs are too limited, too stereotyped, too uncomprehending, too socially insensitive to count as basic emotion. Rejecting the affect program interpretation of basic emotions and my overly egalitarian matrix theory as well, what remains?

                                    My thoughts: I would at the very least say that fear and anger are universal - I can see it in many creatures and I would guess that they are two basic emotions. Can I say the same thing about happiness? I believe I would have to analyze this more before I could - I will say however that it seems that calm is a basic state to many creatures and that happiness might stem from this into a more complex state. I will be however exercising caution and going with the subjective degree of belief changing with the availability of evidence - I can intuit that fear, anger and calm are basic and I can see evidence for these being affect programs - I will cautiously explore these possibilities and write the philosophy appropriately to fit these probabilities.

                                    "Could envy, even if it is not associated with any affect program, be a basic emotion? I think that the answer is yes, if it plays a dominant role in a culture."
                                    Robert C. Solomon

                                    My final thoughts on this section is that there is most certainly a lot to take into consideration involving emotions. We seem to place such a high value on rationality that we forget how important and potentially how much more complex emotions are. From days of old until now it seems that emotions have been pushed to one side and we have tried to slowly strip our spirit away to end up in a robotic utopia forgetting that even the engineer has to use his imagination to solve a problem. In engineering it seems we spend a lot of time developing methods to dodge the use of imagination and I would say that it the reason why we have ended up in a rehash society of sorts - we have removed our substance from our selves - removed our ability to move forward through the use of imagination to creativity via the emotional logic. I for one am glad to see the concept of emotional intelligence getting around the countryside these days.

                                    It is likely that we have unfairly devalued the concept of emotion to a dangerous degree . . .

                                    It is stated in the book that envy is a basic emotion of capitalist society - I will also say that envy spreads like a disease if this is the case into other societies.

                                    From the conclusion:

                                    Robert C. Solomon wrote:There are many questions that can be asked about emotions. Some of them have to do with the causal substrata of emotion. The most promising research on this front comes out of neurology and psychopharmacology, and the question of which emotions involve affect programs is a lively part of that perspective. While I think such matters have only limited value in the analysis of emotions in general, I expect this interesting research to continue to emerge. A second set of questions has to do with the phenomenological "feel" of emotions.

                                    The phenomenological side of emotions is something that interests me greatly - it is not something that should be given up on as Roberts agrees, plus he also adds that it can not stand alone. There is for certain much exciting research being performed in the case of neurology and psychopharmacology - these two fields should work alongside phenomenology to produce synergy. There is also a type of new knowledge emerging among all of the disciplines that we have invented and it is this new knowledge that is probably the most exciting knowledge of all. Just when we thought we had discovered everything, figuratively speaking of course, it seems that we have only begun to discover ourselves and the true value of the emotional state, as it pertains to us and other creatures.

                                    As Robert suggests there is also exciting information in the social sciences too. I think with the availability of the internet folk psychology and folk philosophy are becoming big players in the field of emotions as well. It is perhaps through social endeavors that we will discover the most about human beings and the human mind. So whether it be neurology or psychopharmacology, phenomenology or one of the social sciences, a folk discipline or part of the new derivative knowledge that is coming from pattern matching and statistics or a promised other new knowledge of sorts - we are truly discovering the power and role of the emotional intelligence as it relates to our lives.
                                    - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                    User avatar
                                    encode_decode
                                    Thinker
                                     
                                    Posts: 915
                                    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                    Location: Metaspace

                                    Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . . Notes

                                    Postby encode_decode » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:26 pm

                                      I have been greatly enjoying this book so far - I am past the half way mark up to this point. The book has enabled me to assimilate knowledge, contrast and reflect on what is written in it through my reading record - which I guess is more like a journal of sorts. Some highlights that I will mention are as follows:

                                      From the preface:

                                      Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:For the idea which I have never ceased to develop is that in the end one is always responsible for what is made of one. Even if one can do nothing else besides assume this responsibility. For I believe that a man can always make something out of what is made of him. This is the limit I would today accord to freedom: the small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social being someone who does not render back completely what his conditioning has given him.

                                      I can now say that I have been able to think about how we might be responsible for our emotional states - not in great depth as of yet - but enough to get me started on some serious thought about the idea . . . I have also found myself engrossed in the social aspects of emotion.

                                      Further into the book:

                                      Robert C. Solomon wrote:If emotions are judgments or actions, we can be held responsible for them. We cannot simply have an emotion or stop having an emotion, but we can open ourselves to argument, persuasion, and evidence. We can force ourselves to be self-reflective, to make just those judgments regarding the causes and purposes of our emotions, and also to make the judgment that we are all the while choosing our emotions, which will "defuse" our emotions.

                                      This inspires in me a dimension(an imaginary culture) whereby every occupant of this dimension is responsible for their emotional state - it is an ongoing maintenance for the citizens(occupants) of the dimension as each state is built upon by the next - they have to maintain their own calm for the benefit of others.

                                      From section three:

                                      Robert C. Solomon wrote:"I didn't mean it; I didn't know what I was doing. I acted without thinking; I acted irrationally. I was emotionally upset." How often we hear that! And, without attempting a refutation, we sense its falsity, the hollow desperation that accompanies a feeble and halfhearted excuse. "I was emotionally upset"; that is the touchstone of a cop-out plea of momentary insanity.

                                      Hmm . . . I think there are a few cases in history when the person was legitimately insane - but if one were to maintain their own sanity would this ever happen?

                                      From section four:

                                      Robert C. Solomon wrote:Emotions, according to David Hume, are "simple and uniform impressions", "internal" impressions which are related to other impressions according to an empirically demonstrable set of "laws of association." The notion that an emotion is "simple" and a mere "impression" accounts for the relatively little attention the topic of "the passions" has received in modern philosophy, at least until very recently.

                                      Nonetheless - using ones own imagination allows for a small leap into applying emotions into impressions. This would be a feedback loop.

                                      I will add highlights from sections five to eight in my next set of notes . . .

                                      The next section is called The Politics of Emotion - one must push on and leave no stone unturned - especially it seems in the case of emotions.
                                        User avatar
                                        encode_decode
                                        Thinker
                                         
                                        Posts: 915
                                        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                        Location: Metaspace

                                        Instinct, mood, emotion, philosophy and responsibility.

                                        Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:37 am

                                          A brief note on responsibility . . .

                                          If one were to maintain their own sanity by keeping their emotions in check then surely this would enable one to be more responsible. If one were to maintain a mood that is built upon a responsible set of emotions then it should make it easier to maintain ones level of responsibility.

                                          A small note on instinct - it seems to me that we have justice built into us as instinct - controversial I know but surely you can feel it?

                                          Robert C. Solomon wrote:If emotions are judgments or actions, we can be held responsible for them.

                                          And we probably should be held responsible for them - this is a complex issue however and I have seen this between a man and a woman whereby the man purposely antagonizes a woman until she breaks and then he says that she is being irrational . . . but what really just happened?

                                          Not only do I think we are responsible for our emotional state and maintaining it - I think it is rational to be responsible - I also think the need for emotional calm is built into each and everyone of us. With this in mind, we are able to think of the negative emotions that drive us to piss people off . . .

                                          . . . and hopefully avoid doing that.

                                          Emotions can be self serving and drive a self serving individual to rationally plan out their self serving interests . . .

                                          Is it really so responsible to be so self serving?
                                          - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                          But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                          User avatar
                                          encode_decode
                                          Thinker
                                           
                                          Posts: 915
                                          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                          Location: Metaspace

                                          Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 9A

                                          Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:21 am

                                            From the section: 9 The Politics of Emotion (1998)

                                            From the section entitled: The Purpose(s) of Emotions

                                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:One of the more exciting theses about emotion to (re)emerge in the twentieth century is the insistence that emotions are purposive. They have what Jean-Paul Sartre called finalité. That is to say, they are not only functional and occasionally advantageous, and they are not just the fortuitous residue of fickle evolution; they are in themselves strategic and political.

                                            Let us begin to work on the forerunner to The Politics of Emotion . . .

                                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:As strategies, emotions seek their own satisfaction, in anger, through vengeance, in hatred, through vanquishing, in love, through "possessing." This is not to say that all emotions can be satisfied or have conditions of satisfaction.

                                            As is mentioned in the book Grief, for example, is an emotion with no such conditions, except per impossible, the resurrection of the lost loved one.

                                            The question here is do such emotions as Grief have a purpose? It seems as though the answer to this would be yes. I would suggest as a temporary fill-in for loss. The purpose of such an emotion as grief could be to use up the energy distribution that is associated with such loss. An individual who is grieving or a group of individuals who are grieving for the same reason would need the experience the emotion of Grief to flat-line the emotional state back to normal . . . it would also seem to be apparent that such an emotion might have a dependence that needs to be filled. The sudden loss of something or someone that another person was dependent on for any arbitrary reason would be the condition that needs to be satisfied - that is to say that the dependency would need to be replaced - the dependency could easily be love or something else. Either way it is still debatable whether Grief is an open-ended emotion with no purpose.

                                            Grief could easily have a political agenda . . .

                                            I should be careful what I say here however because as Nietzsche famously noted, we always prefer bad explanations to no explanation at all.

                                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:Sartre famously tells us that emotions are "magical transformations of the world," by which he means that emotions are intentional and strategic ways of coping with "difficult" situations. We choose them, and we choose them for a purpose.

                                            As is also pointed out emotions were, for so many years, coupled as a poor cousin to "motivation" in psychology textbooks. No one knew where else to put them.

                                            We are soon to find out however that there is more to the picture, and that emotion is also tied to the expression of meaning, and meaning itself can be tied to an expression of emotion. I further suggest that meaning comes out of logic in the most usual sense so if emotion is an expression of meaning then that emotion is likely an expression of logic. Does this work in reverse? Lets try it: emotion is expressed which means something and the receiver logically deduces what the emotion is about.

                                            Mentioned in the book is the idea that emotions are also tied to action . . . So if emotions are tied to meaning, action and are a poor cousin to motivation, then what else can we say about them? Aside from what we have discovered so far, we could potentially say thousands of times as much. One thing that is clear is that emotions are not just biological - how could they be? Let us not worry about this for now and press on . . . I will leave you with meaning as a driver to emotion; I am saying that you are not born with meaning in the sense that you have it now - it is all around you and emotes you - not biological but learned and stored - see how the phenomenon is useful to help us reduce to some conclusion - still lets be careful. Apply similar thought to action and motivation.

                                            Robert C. Solomon wrote:However, it is the controlled, unexpressed, hidden emotion that requires special explanation, not the connection between emotions and their expression. When an employee gets angry with her boss, or when a mature, respectful child gets angry with a teacher or a parent, it is not the absence of expression that is notable but the restraint, the distortion of expression, which is almost always evident to those who know what to look for.

                                            And this is the forerunner to The Politics of Emotion . . .

                                            - Purpose -

                                            The emotion is "in the world," not in the mind, the psyche, or the soul.
                                            Robert C. Solomon (1998)
                                              User avatar
                                              encode_decode
                                              Thinker
                                               
                                              Posts: 915
                                              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                              Location: Metaspace

                                              Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

                                              Postby encode_decode » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:54 pm

                                                Multi Dimensional Reduction - August - 9 - 2017

                                                Seven Dimensional Cross Spectral Abstract

                                                WARNING - THIS MODEL IS NOT CONFINED

                                                Basic States(∆): flight - calm - fight

                                                  ♦ Startle might stem from calm and lead to fight or flight - with a tendency to calm bias - resolution

                                                  ♦ flight would be a self - this could cause anger

                                                  ♦ calm would be self and other - it is possible that calculated anger could be placed here

                                                  ♦ fight would be an other - anger of course could be here

                                                ► Self(∆) - For Each Emotion(Evo∫Conf - Cross Spectral Integration) - Negative or Positive(Spectral Weights)

                                                ► Other(∆) - For Each Emotion(Evo∫Conf - Cross Spectral Integration) - Negative or Positive(Spectral Weights)


                                                Self and Other are containers to the Basics States(∆). Self and Other also lay on the same spectrum.

                                                Weights and Integrations directed at self or other are just the coordination of processes in the mind - they are pattern processes that are "superimposed" on neural networks - each emotion is either an Evo(Evolution) or Conf(Configuration) or Cross Spectral Integration that is weighted in terms that can be thought of as Negative or Positive.

                                                The Negative and Positive is purely figurative and is in fact a second spectrum. I am contemplating the Spectral Weights for their validity - this is a reduction so I am concerned that I have possibly reduced it too much and possibly removed needed complexity.

                                                The complete emotional state is a complex set of subtleties built upon a logical framework. Each emotion shows itself more defined at different times and that is why we find commonality and are able to give them names - but the reality is that no emotion can be named truthfully because each persons pattern processes are different and each qualia is not the same as the next persons each qualia. Colors for instance remain the same in the electromagnetic spectrum but differ in the persons Cross Spectral Integration.

                                                What can I say about this reduction: I can say that is elegant yet abstract - I can say that there are discrepancies in the fight, calm and flight versus self and other. It is yet to be considered the idea of internal/external fear, calm and conflict - that fight is not an other and fear is not a self. I can also say that what this reduction expands into is incredibly complex and that might be difficult to ascertain from the abstract. Finally I can say that it is not clear how negative and positive should be represented; my intuition tells me not as negative and positive but more as something like beneficial and non-beneficial; I was also hoping to leave the binary representation behind but it seems to be inescapable.

                                                NOTES: All emotions that we could name may live within these seven dimensions. There are possibly eight dimensions here instead of seven - I would have to scrutinize it more carefully. One thing this model shows is the filtering out of dimensions to an imaginary singular dimension or quite possibly a binomial dimension when a single emotion becomes apparent. This model is also not bounded because I rushed the thoughts into writing - so it only serves as a basis for further ideas. Hopefully I am counting the dimensions correctly in the first place - egg on my face if not.
                                                - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                                User avatar
                                                encode_decode
                                                Thinker
                                                 
                                                Posts: 915
                                                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                                Location: Metaspace

                                                Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

                                                Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:30 am

                                                  Controlling our emotional state . . .

                                                  I have my doubts that we do not think our way into emotional states. I say this because of my observations of other people. I understand how hormones can affect the emotional state. I am wondering whether there is a method that we can choose to think our way into an emotional state, given my observations of other people and even despite the interaction of hormones within our bodies. I do believe that culture and social interactions would play a big part here. I also wonder whether when we suffer a physiological affect that can change our emotional state, whether it can be identified internally to avoid negative after affects.

                                                  I have noticed that emotions are easy enough to over-ride but I need to consider the benefit of such a decision as well as any possible detriment. On the physical side it is not good to overstimulate any neural receptor for too long as damage can result. Given that emotions can affect receptors then there must be an acceptable threshold that one can enter that keeps one functioning optimally and causes no damage to the nervous system. On the mental side there is always the danger of bad internal programming and corrupting internal processes with extreme emotional thinking - there are emotional releases and I have also experienced something similar with logic that I would refer to as a rational release.

                                                  I think it is safe to say that our own responsibilities and intentions can guide us through a potentially treacherous path whereby we are able to be betrayed by our emotions. I think back to a time when I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive a nail into a piece of wood - quickly the pain was overtaken with anger and much profanity. So now I have to contrast my statement: I have my doubts that we do not think our way into emotions; Now I have to say at the very least there are some emotional events that can not be avoided - these emotional events are the events that need the previously mentioned emotional releases.

                                                  To what length can these emotional events be avoided? I can imagine the "nicest" person still experiencing anger internally even if they are not showing it externally. Does anger have a seed? I have had the experience where because of another person being around, I did not lose my cool and quickly adrenaline and possibly endorphins were able to extinguish any outburst that may have occurred. Thus the seed became infertile or thrown back into the seed "packet".

                                                  How much control we have over our emotional state will lead to how much we are able to confine ourselves from what we perceive to be bad. Then there is also the problem of free will which I will also mention in rationality. Does free will exist? That would depend on your definition I suppose - I think of free will as you being able to choose whatever you want - I do not think this is possible at all. Do we have any will? I believe so - I think our will is confined to causal situations that apply pressure to our mind and body, and decision making(if performed correctly) can lighten this pressure and extend the amount of freedom we have.

                                                  So where does that leave us with emotions? I would say that we have enough mental power to lighten the pressure of our emotions too - that we are able to lessen the confinement of the causal situation we are in, and in turn relatively free ourselves of the bondage of confining emotions(ones that we do not want to be confined by in particular) - while I still believe it is impossible to escape emotional confinement(or an emotional state) entirely - life can still be made more pleasant mentally. This takes discipline however, and the giving over to, the power of rationality.

                                                  When I speak of confinements I am speaking of a perimeter of sorts or an end or even a beginning and of course a voluminous entity contain within its on space. And emotion has a beginning and an end so it must be driven and also must drive - id est it is driven by another emotion or thought or stimulus and the result drives another emotion or thought or stimulus - the pattern here should be clear enough to apply to sociological, neurological, political and et cetera relations.

                                                  Like perception I am going to have to consider whether emotions are expressions of events that happen in the past. What calculus is being used - stone in the pond - makes ripples. Emotions like logic are going to boil down to information programming information - updates - new strategies - new beliefs - new methods - passions, desires, new emotions, new thoughts . . .

                                                  . . . new views of reality . . .
                                                  - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                                  But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                                  User avatar
                                                  encode_decode
                                                  Thinker
                                                   
                                                  Posts: 915
                                                  Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                                  Location: Metaspace

                                                  Re: Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 6

                                                  Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:13 am

                                                  encode_decode wrote:
                                                  Robert C. Solomon wrote:....

                                                  I suspect that no one should speak of "emotion" until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like "God").
                                                  Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                                                  Else
                                                  From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                                                  The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                                                  You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                                                  The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                                                  It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                                                  As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                                                  Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                                                  Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                                                  The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                                                  .
                                                  James S Saint
                                                  ILP Legend
                                                   
                                                  Posts: 25433
                                                  Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                                                  Re: Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 6

                                                  Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:21 am

                                                    James

                                                    James S Saint wrote:I suspect that no one should speak of "emotion" until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like "God").

                                                    I could define emotion as follows:

                                                      Rational Mismatch Feedback - (Sense Functioning)
                                                    A state when "sense functioning" is not within the limits of one's own rationality. The emotional state is not in a default state of calm(or rational parity).

                                                    Then rationality would have to be unambiguously defined too . . . logic has been variable over the course of history.

                                                    Rationality would be what ever makes the most sense . . .
                                                    - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                                    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                                    User avatar
                                                    encode_decode
                                                    Thinker
                                                     
                                                    Posts: 915
                                                    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                                    Location: Metaspace

                                                    Re: Instinct, mood, emotion and philosophy . . .

                                                    Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:27 am

                                                      CPC - Cyclic Parity Check

                                                      Mind requires a binomial base state - calm & true
                                                      Emotion and Logic are like sophisticated sensory networks acting on mind's behalf.

                                                      Somewhere between the two is a CPC.

                                                      When the emotion is calm then the logic is true - when the logic is true then the emotion is calm.

                                                      Based on subjective tolerance - a threshold that the subject allows that is built by the subject's living conditions.

                                                      Calm and True are based on conditions accumulated and assembled through experience and - I surmise - are therefore relative to meaning.
                                                      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                                      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                                      User avatar
                                                      encode_decode
                                                      Thinker
                                                       
                                                      Posts: 915
                                                      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                                      Location: Metaspace

                                                      Re: Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 6

                                                      Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:48 pm

                                                      James S Saint wrote:
                                                      encode_decode wrote:
                                                      Robert C. Solomon wrote:....

                                                      I suspect that no one should speak of "emotion" until they bother to unambiguously define the word (much like "God").


                                                      Can the word *emotion* actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined? :-k
                                                      Look what we do with the God word.
                                                      Some words can become more defined and refined by taking away what they seem not to be.

                                                      But the inner experiences which are affected by both our inner and outer worlds ~~ how do we make that clear considering that we all think and experience things differently, express ourselves differently.

                                                      Perhaps I am wrong but do not go and say so James unless you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am. :evilfun:
                                                      SAPERE AUDE!


                                                      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                                                      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                                                      Thomas Nagel


                                                      I learn as I write!
                                                      User avatar
                                                      Arcturus Descending
                                                      Consciousness Seeker
                                                       
                                                      Posts: 14852
                                                      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                                                      Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                                                      Re: Emotions and Choice - Reading Record - Part 6

                                                      Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:08 pm

                                                      Arcturus Descending wrote:Can the word *emotion* actually be UNAMBIGUOUSLY defined? :-k

                                                      Yes.
                                                      Arcturus Descending wrote:Look what we do with the God word.

                                                      Then perhaps we should not allow "we" to do it.
                                                      Arcturus Descending wrote:Some words can become more defined and refined by taking away what they seem not to be.

                                                      Certainly. A good definition will inherently exclude whatever is not meant by the word (aka "UNambiguous").

                                                      Arcturus Descending wrote:But the inner experiences which are affected by both our inner and outer worlds ~~ how do we make that clear considering that we all think and experience things differently, express ourselves differently.

                                                      Just because we each taste food a little differently doesn't mean that we can't define what "tasting food" means.

                                                      Arcturus Descending wrote:Perhaps I am wrong but do not go and say so James unless you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am. :evilfun:

                                                      So. :D

                                                      Personally, I define "emotion" as any consciously sensed urging or emoting from within. Urgings that are not consciously sensed, even if identical otherwise, are not called "emotion", but rather words like; "reaction", "response", "instinct", and so on. "Over-emotional" refers to the presents of so much urging or emoting that rational discipline is lost."Too little emotion" refers to the lack of sufficiently reasonable emoting with words such as; "heartless", "callous", "dispassionate", "cold hearted", "apathetic", "lazy", "laissez faire", "cavalier", and so on.
                                                      Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                                                      Else
                                                      From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                                                      The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                                                      You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                                                      The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                                                      It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                                                      As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                                                      Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                                                      Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                                                      The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                                                      .
                                                      James S Saint
                                                      ILP Legend
                                                       
                                                      Posts: 25433
                                                      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                                                      I have been thinking about this James

                                                      Postby encode_decode » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:02 am

                                                        I like the way you have categorized the following . . .

                                                        James S Saint wrote:Personally, I define "emotion" as any consciously sensed urging or emoting from within. Urgings that are not consciously sensed, even if identical otherwise, are not called "emotion", but rather words like; "reaction", "response", "instinct", and so on. "Over-emotional" refers to the presence of so much urging or emoting that rational discipline is lost. "Too little emotion" refers to the lack of sufficiently reasonable emoting with words such as; "heartless", "callous", "dispassionate", "cold hearted", "apathetic", "lazy", "laissez faire", "cavalier", and so on.

                                                        . . . I view what you have written here as a categorization of three domains, instinct, emotion and that which I currently refer to loosely as Rational Mismatch. I am interested in the different ways people combine things. I do however think that we can split response in two by saying that a response can be driven automatically in both of the following cases:

                                                        1. Fight and Flight.
                                                        2. Something more premeditated.

                                                        In the case of 2, like a previously imagined response becoming manifest in reality as if it were instinctively swift.

                                                        :-k

                                                        I too have a categorical master set that I seek to change . . .
                                                        . . . the changes will be based on the available evidence that I have at my disposal.
                                                        - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                                        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                                        User avatar
                                                        encode_decode
                                                        Thinker
                                                         
                                                        Posts: 915
                                                        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                                        Location: Metaspace

                                                        Previous

                                                        Return to Philosophy



                                                        Who is online

                                                        Users browsing this forum: No registered users