What makes us want, and why, and why not computers?

Just thought of something else...a little clarification I hope.


Another way of putting it is that, 'it is not that we like certain emotions; rather, to like is the same as those emotions that we say we like.'

How do you account for liking one emotion and not another?

liking=those emotions that we say we like

disliking=those emotions that we say we dislike

i.e., there are different feelings


This division between the action liking and the object of that liking is arbitrary and imaginary and analogous to that of subjet/object, external/internal or cause/effect.

... similar to beauty and sublimity, then - liking is in the experience of the beholder ... (probably because beauty and sublimity are modes of liking? )

There are many different types of Happiness. In Hebrew, there are at least 5 words for happiness that have very different meanings. The main word for happiness is Simhha. Simhha stems from Satisfaction.

The main concept is comfort and discomfort. A creature that is cold will seek warmth. It is an instinct to distance oneself from discomfort and to closen onself to comfort. A creature that is Happy, experiences the Happiness because they are in a comfortable state.

This instinct like all others, leads to survival

There are many different types of Happiness. In Hebrew, there are at least 5 words for happiness that have very different meanings. The main word for happiness is Simhha. Simhha stems from Satisfaction.

The main concept is comfort and discomfort. A creature that is cold will seek warmth. It is an instinct to distance oneself from discomfort and to closen onself to comfort. A creature that is Happy, experiences the Happiness because they are in a comfortable state.

This instinct like all others, leads to survival

I agree with you Binyamin, except in a very subtle way. The word 'instinct' is used as a basis that is somehow beyond investigation; Nietzsche might say 'it is the horizon line of our understandin'. We posit this word where we can no further explain. For example, the question 'why do we have instincts that lead us toward pleasure and away from pain?' cannot be answered except tautalogically, by saying 'pleasure is desireable and pain is undesireable.' That explains nothing.

Therefore, I prefer the idea that an instinct refers to the fact or nature, the manner in which the world (and we, as part of it) are. We are one way and not another. It is not that our nature (our instinct) causes us to prefer happiness to sadness. We merely categorized our life and given the different parts different names, like happiness and sadness.

That is why I say that a statement such as, 'I like to be happy, but I don't like to be sad,' really means that happiness is liking and sadness is disliking and that those two states are just parts of our experience that we have defined and named.

The problem would be akin to naming a rock 'plob' and then naming its actions 'plobbing' and then asking 'why does plobbing occurs only with plob?' The question arises not from a reality, but from the fact of our organization and nomenclature that we have imposed. This sort of thing is evendent everywhere is human life; our questions necessitate themselves because of their own existance. It all folds back into a unity, which is speechless and undescribed. By describing and speaking we impose the divisions whose origin we then inquire about.

So we seek equilibrium of emotion? What defines that equilibrium? Is there equilibrium for any cognitive process? What about logic? Does that mean there is an objective basis for insanity in general?

Woah I've got a lot to write about now. This thread is far from finished!:a-ok:

What if computers were set to... hey that means desire is fueled by a monistic tension. Equilibrium is a determinate set of conditions.

Holiday, are you responding to my comments (I hope so, as I would love to have provoked such enthusiasm)? Either way, please write again soon, I need some more detail; i.e., I have no idea what your talking about...:bigsmile:

Unhappiness to a low intelligent creature means that the creature is in a state where it will not survive (tension). Happiness is the (release of tension) state where the creature will survive.
In higher intelligent creatures this emotion extends beyond survival. It is the satisfaction of all of our desires that brings us to happiness. One who has no lack. (all desires stem from a lack).
When all of our desires are satisfied we are in a state of happiness. (or sometimes if a single desire is satisfied)

So we seek equilibrium of emotion? What defines that equilibrium? Is there equilibrium for any cognitive process? What about logic? Does that mean there is an objective basis for insanity in general?

Woah I've got a lot to write about now. This thread is far from finished!:a-ok:

What if computers were set to... hey that means desire is fueled by a monistic tension. Equilibrium is a determinate set of conditions.




Yes, your statements lit up my brain for the first time in a while now. Thanks!



I am still confused though. What defines our desires? Probably my fault, but I feel like I'm going around in circles here.

I think that I could define two types of desire. The internal speculative desire, and the external speculative desire, (as I would wish to call them).

Even though all desire is a fulfillment reaction to what we want, regardless of whether we need it or not is irrelevant, it requires cognitive processes to take desires into account. The first type of desire, internal speculative desire, means that those desires are projected from the body directly, in other words, the desires are controlled by an involuntary, unconscious reality. For example, one may have the desire to eat because their body is telling him/her to eat. I suppose these don't have to be considered desires because any responses to the body are needs to keep the body in a state of equilibrium and is intrinsically rooted to the survival instinct, thus we do not have to be aware of our reactionary nature.

Desires have to be conscious.

The second type of desires are external speculative desires. These are projected by conscious thought, (involuntary or not, is again, irrelevant for these types). They are meant for the equilibrium of the external reality. We require the equilibrium of body, and the equilibrium of environment. External is to environment, and internal is to body. They are both kinda the same because in respect to the sanity level (which determines properties of cognitive processes), the mind is what invokes, and processes desire, I would assume. An example of external desire is logically presuming the need to study in order to get a good mark, only because your parents tell you to do so. There may be no consequences or personal motivation, but is it not still possible to study anyways for the logical outcome? This form is indirect, which basically means more than one cognitive process to come to the awareness of a desire. In this case, it is logic and them the emotional stimulation. In the first type, it was the body having direct influence. No logic whatsoever is required.

I mean yes, yes, duh, this form of desire can be linked back to the first type of desire, where we require emotional stimulation and visceral responses as direct speculations, but the distinction of influences on the mind between direct and indirect impacts would mean different forms of sanity.

So desire is subsequent to the healthy mind. And then what am I to say that sanity cannot be incorporated? I can make a gradient of the direct vs. indirect flow of cognitive processes that result in certain desires, and then I realize a correlation between the level of indirectness and the level of sanity.

The more cognitive processes that occur to get to that awarness/desire constitutes how sane the resulting action is going to be. This is actually kind of obvious too. Especially when you realize there is an order for cognitive events to occur in. And then I'm guessing there is a level of priority that processes have on one another as one becomes more and more aware of the cause. And then there is a correlation between the level of awareness vs. the cognitive process. Critical thought, and logic are conscious projections throughout the course of influencing the desire. ( It doesn't matter if the logical calculations one makes are deterministic and involuntary).

When it comes to internal desire, the subconscious cognitive processes happen first, so they take priority, The external desire means that conscious cognitive processes takes priority, because I can't really say they happen before subconscious processes (sub processes are much faster, right?)

When my body undergoes a subconscious cognitive process telling me that I'm tired, I will become aware of it, and then the desire sets in by being aware of it. So I go to sleep. The logical, conscious process doesn't have to come into effect, so it cannot take priority on the subconscious process, as it cannot precede it either. This tells me that the desire is internal.

External desires are the vice-versa, really. I'm sure you can think of them.

The sanity of an action comes in when we consider all the cognitive processes that can be incorporated to the cause of the desire, so as to have the effect sane. The effect is the action, and the action is a clear, definitive way to label sanity, right?

Pretend the cognitive processes can be layed out linearly. (Actually, I'm sure they are not even close to being linear, but this makes it easier for me). And so we have a line. On one side there is the subconscious, and on the other side there is the conscious processes. External desire starts at the conscious side, and the internal starts at the subconscious, and it doesn't matter where processes start in determining the outcome sanity of a soon-to-be action. I believe that sanity would be determined by how much of the line is used in the process of the resultant action.

Oh, and about computers...

Quite simple if you don't view the the world especially the human beings mechanically. It is because of our rationality and consequently freedom. As rationals animals, we can not only perceive things, but also weigh things according to what our minds tell us advantageous,or rather what is right or just, depending on our morality. Computers don't even have life to intrinsically and genuinely know the value of life. Computers are dependent and lifeless, so why expect them to show emotions?