Hi Ecmandu,
Yeah . . .
Maybe . . .
Not too sure about the dick stuff . . .
Thanks Ecmandu - I appreciate this comment.
So are you saying that fascination keeps you happy? - or - Are you saying that fascination keeps you happy at times?
Hi fuse,
True - I guess taking responsibility for our emotions is harder than developing a logical mind.
Good point - which is where I became quite happy at the idea of there being a metric for emotional confinement - I think what you are saying happens all the time but to a more or a lesser degree.
I totally agree fuse.
Thank you very much - I will most certainly take a look at the articles - thank you for the other sources too, that is very considerate of you.
Hi Pandora,
Funny you should say that, when I performed a Google search that is mostly/all what I found from memory - poetry.
Thanks for the link I will take a look and make a comment on it.
Very appreciated Pandora.
ecmandu,
This is true, ecmandu.
It would primarily depend on who the individual is who is indulging in curiosity and what the subject of that curiosity is.
There are emotions, besides happiness, which some might find to be more beneficial to our well being albeit happiness is important for our all-around survival. If we are following our curiosity ~~ for instance, intellectual curiosity ~~ that can give us a sense of wonderment and mystery which can be extremely fulfilling.
We all need to be careful of that “cat within” though which could lead us astray.
Instead of words like happiness, intrigue and fascination…
I’d use the word “profundity”
James S Saint
It is going to take me a few days to get my head back in the game.
A) Here I only compare two states on purpose. It it easier to contrast two states than more. I am interested in other states that you might define - would you provide for me one or two more states? Please exclude substrate states; ie. the states within the brain.
B) I just want to remind you that I have often mixed these up. I accept the blame for the ambiguity I introduced - it is clear to me what you are saying.
So reasoning is deterministic and mood is bias?
- - - Extra - - -
There is more than one level of programming:
- The substrate code.
- The natural language.
- Logic Conclusion/Possible Corruption
Each sitting atop of each other. Confined to states internal and external to the substrate.
- - - logic working in all three layers - - -
Points → i (affectance)
i ≡ inception ∨ recognition ∨ perception
helps us understand why we forget and remember things; helps us understand why ambiguity takes place.
∴ i can be thought of as always there because as you say: “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.
i ≡ secondarily the potential for the unknown to become known. In other words the unknown is always there.
- - - Correction - - -
- You say: Mood is a mental state that biases emotional response.
- I now say: Reasoning is a mental state that determines logical response.
Better?
I know the feeling.
I would say that reasoning is more logic bound (consistency of thought). Mood is inattentive to logic.
If by “natural language”, you mean the natural language of thought, I would agree. There are also social languages and social education, each divergent from natural physiological construct.
I would call that state, “sanity” (cohesiveness of thought). Reasoning is a process, much like programming.
James
Extremely valuable input - thank you very, very much . . . It is becoming very clear to me how RM:AO affects my work - I endeavor to make it very clear to you if it isn’t already. One step at a time as they say . . . I am very grateful to you . . .
That is exactly what I mean. There are two of them - one is English in our case and the other is hidden/silent(you don’t need English to think). The same rules apply for social language.
I am going to go out on a limb here. To get my point across I must play with words a little.
► Everything known was once unknown.
► Everything there is still to know already exists, it is just undiscovered, un-evolved an un-configured.
► Everything can be expressed as information.
► Discovery is just the unknown configured into formation.
► Inception is formation.
► Unknown in-formation is known.
∴ i(inception) ≡ unknown/known(both quantifiable - even if random; randomness is then just un-evolved and un-configured)
∴ i can be thought of as always there because as you say: “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.
∴ i ≡ secondarily the potential for the unknown to become known.
With a twist of lemon: The known is always there - even if undiscovered.
Now for some cerebral flatulence:
If this holds for logic then I suspect it works for emotion - therefore I do not think all emotions are instinctual but rather some emotions are manufactured once we become self-aware - self-awareness is potentially a product of logic. Instinct is a product of logic that is formed in the substrate. The substrate is formed prior to birth. All things are recursively repeating - substrate is formed from matter - matter is formed from affectance. The skipped steps in this paragraph are arbitrary to the gist. Energy and matter are the same thing. Logic and emotion stem from the same place. The universe is alive and intelligent(I don’t know how) and can be thought of as a huge brain - like the brain some parts are undiscovered, un-evolved and un-configured.
- - - back to regular viewing - - -
Oh I agree - I am still keeping the two separate - just that they stem from the same place and inevitably affect each other.
There is a hint however that reasoning is deterministic - even if only partially - delta.
I feel sanity is a convergence of the mood and logic. Correct me if I am wrong - we might debate it a little though - just fyi.
I stand corrected.
They are inclusive so:
i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness
??? Emotion and mood seem to be more autonomous ???
FINAL NOTES: i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness is confined as follows:
Confinement[space ∨ scope ∨ time](i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness)
or more elegantly:
► Confinement(i)
or even better:
► C(i)
I call this Rational Confinement(RC) . . . Motion bounds space and time to each person but that is a story for another day . . .
So to refine the terminology:
► RC(i)
or more simply:
► R(i)
The is a hint of the emotional process and Emotional Confinement in this post.
To re-iterate a subsection of Rational Confinement(R):
Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:
[list]1. cognitive limitations
2. time available to answer the question
3. openness to influence from the social norm
4. availability of accurate information[/list:u]
∴ Plugging this subsection of R gives us a/one potential confinement to our consciousness.
or:
► R(i)
So hopefully the dots are easier enough to join here . . .
To where is all of this leading? 
Hopefully, on topic,
encode wrote
Is randomness an actuality or does it only (seem to) exist due to our limited perspectives…unscaled? If it is undiscovered (un-evolved/un-configured) to us, then only order exists?
James
To answer your question it might pay for me to ask you a question - forgive me if I am wrong. I often introduce ambiguity - so your question is confusing me and it is probably because of something I have done(affectance); clarify - verify etc.
My question is:
Something bother you about it?
Paranoia . . . that’s me . . .
:-"
Only that without a goal in mind, it seems like a lot of vague or loose ends. It’s hard to make decisions concerning what is important or not until a purpose or priority is establied.
James
OK I understand the question now.
My goal was stated at the top of the original post as follows:
This thread is about instinct, mood and emotion and a philosophical discussion about the three.
In saying that however - I have never minded getting a little off topic especially when it illustrates analogous thinking - no matter how distant it might seem.
So to restate my original goal a different way - it was simply to have a philosophical discussion about instinct, mood and emotion. The most general question would be: what are they? But it need not answer that.
At the end of the original post I stated:
In other posts I will initiate the topics of instinct and emotion but I wanted to start with mood given how hard it is to get a grip on.
So you could say the goal of the thread is to get a grip on instinct, mood and emotion in a philosophical setting. Not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea but I thought I would throw it out there.
Now to your original question:
Just to an enhanced understanding of instinct, mood and emotion.
Hopefully that clears things up.
fuse
I finally got around to starting the book you suggested: Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice by Robert C. Solomon.
I like how the preface opens:
I particularly like the following from the preface:
I admit to not having put much thought into the first and have spent most of my time on the second - I can certainly see how choice can affect emotions and how emotions can drive choice. I can see that this book is going to be very interesting for me to read.
.
encode_decode,
You are not TOO SURE about that?
I suppose you DO value your mind over all things but isn’t that getting just a bit too carried away here? 
Emotions are like the parents.
Moods are their children.
Getting much further into the book recommended by fuse: Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice by Robert C. Solomon.
It is really starting to get quite interesting.
Another few cool passages from further on into the book:
Here I am noticing some correlations to my other thread: Why do people have the desire to talk?
From this section: 3 The Rationality of the Emotions (1977):
Interesting, I somewhat agree.
Still I am not yet ready to dispute my logic first approach - although I am working on another approach whereby logic and emotions are equal which this book kind of points at from what I can determine thus far - Robert states somewhere before Section 3 that emotions are rational if I remember correctly.
In any case I am getting plenty of food for thought. It may well be the case that I have to read it again to fully absorb it.
Back to reading . . .
Very insightful . . .
From: Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice by Robert C. Solomon.
I am too tired to make a comment - I have finished up to chapter four. Let the structural analysis begin . . . After a sleep . . .
From the section: 4 Nothing to Be Proud of (1980)
This book is thoroughly stimulating for all the right and all the wrong reasons - that is - reasons contained within my mind.
I still find Hume’s impressions inspiring - they inspired in me the idea that: what if the emotions are contained within a system, an emotional system. The emotional system in my head is based on pattern differentiation and integration of past and present patterns that form future patterns of complex emotional states. I think it is narrow minded to look at emotions individually and stop there - sure there are benefits to identifying each emotion but I think that knowing the state of the emotional system is of far greater benefit.
I grow as I learn but in the preceding paragraph I was at a stage whereby the complex emotional state forms the mood over time through changing associations of each impression through a feedback loop. Still I think that looking at things from a more abstract level of passions has its merit. Perhaps passions do “form a complete chain of reasoning by themselves”.
Which makes me wonder whether Hume was in fact satisfied with his work - I doubt he was able to write down everything that he had in mind just as I doubt whether he was actually fully satisfied with his output. The value of Hume’s work still persists; and why is important to take into consideration. I am not saying that Robert has not taken this into account just that we should not dismiss valuable texts entirely because of a hunch. An unnecessarily complicated theory to me is in the eye of the beholder and as Robert says: no doubt one could pursue a number of different interpretations of Hume’s work.
Why can we not rely on purely causal connections when it comes to emotions?
And look at how complex the situation that precedes being a parent is, yet it could still be explained with causal connections.
Exactly. I myself have a useful interpretation even if it is somewhat flawed, but whose interpretation of Hume is not flawed?
As Robert C. Solomon writes: What is a proposition, other than a semantic construction of philosophers?
Some food for thought later on down the track. I do like the way it is stated later in the book: neither is it the case that ideas and beliefs are merely the
causes or the cognitive presuppositions of our emotions — and — “Intentionality” is a concise but hardly precise way of characterizing the fact that
emotions are always “about” something — from the section: Taking Emotions Seriously: Beyond Intentionality.
Arcturus Descending
I don’t know. Do you think I was getting just a bit too carried away? Do I really value my mind over other things?
I am still not too sure about the demon possession thing. If I had to answer the question:
Do you want a demon to possess you to cut off your own dick with your own arms?
I would say: No
Should I have answered the question?
So no: I am not TOO SURE about that.
How would you have approached the whole ordeal? Provided you had a dick.
