science and maths

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;87896 wrote:

If you acknowledge all of this, then I'm at a loss as to why you would try to lump emotions into three categories. Clearly three categories just does not suffice. Fear, for instance, like Aedes detailed, can be a very complex emotion. You acknowledge the complexity, but feel more comfortable oversimplifying to make categorization easier?

Nitpicking since it was already explained.

Zetherin;87896 wrote:

I think you can only feel indifference towards things you are aware of.

Exactly, so the person sitting in the car next to you. Do they exist? Have you ever met them? If your first answer is yes and your second answer is no then tell me what your experience is.

You might not have ever met a dolphin but I bet you can say weather or not you like dolphins. Or do they not exist so you can't determine that?

Zetherin;87896 wrote:

As of yet, I don't 'grip' what your simplified categorization can lend us, or how what you just said in your last post isn't a contradiction to what you've previously said. It seems you're backpedaling. I'll reread your posts several times in order to try to understand. Perhaps someone else can chime in and help this communication out.

I don't think you intend to "grip" what it is I am saying.

0 Replies

@rcs,

Krumple wrote:

Nitpicking since it was already explained.

I don't see how I'm nitpicking. I've brought up points which, as I see it, are essential to the understanding of emotion.

Quote:

Exactly, so the person sitting in the car next to you. Do they exist? Have you ever met them? If your first answer is yes and your second answer is no then tell me what your experience is.

I don't understand this at all.

Quote:

You might not have ever met a dolphin but I bet you can say weather or not you like dolphins. Or do they not exist so you can't determine that?

Nor this. Are you trying to say that I should have a general feeling towards all humans, just as I would have a general feeling towards all dolphins or chocolate icecream? :confused:

Judging from the attitude I see in your post, I don't believe you want to continue. However, if you choose to clarify, I'm here.

I'm sorry to have upset you. Perhaps someone else can chime in and help clarify.

0 Replies

@rcs,

In this outstanding article from the NY Times magazine, it seems that moral judgements (both positive and negative) are rationalizations of viscerally-felt emotional responses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Emotions simply cannot be categorized as "positive" and "negative" or something in between. The love I feel for my living grandparents fills me with joy. The love I feel for my dead grandparents fills me with sadness. Yet it's the same "positive" love, just regarded in different contexts.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I believe that emotion is the basis of judgement.

My emotions are often more like a symphony than a single note.

Imagine standing in a hospital room with a brain damaged child in the crib. The parents stand nearby. They're oblivious to the situation. Simple physics reveals to us that their story makes no sense. We know what happened.

My emotions in a situation like that are apt to be so complex and powerful that all I can do is let it blow through me. I'd love to see the mathematical formula that corresponds to it.

There's no neutral emotion.. but there is the opposite of emotion: numbness. I think that in the same way the body protects itself from overwhelming physical pain, the psyche can protect itself by shutting down emotion.

And: I pervasively use the idea of a spectrum to make sense of my experience.

0 Replies

@rcs,

Arjuna wrote:

My emotions are often more like a symphony than a single note.

Well said. This is how I often feel as well and why I find it absurd to categorize emotions into just three categories.

Aedes wrote:

The love I feel for my living grandparents fills me with joy. The love I feel for my dead grandparents fills me with sadness. Yet it's the same "positive" love, just regarded in different contexts.

Exactly. And that's because when we say "love", we are trying to do exactly as Arjuna notes: making sense of our experience. Really, "love" can be the symbol for a melange of different feelings, many of which we may not even be able to articulate. I may be sounding a tad poetic, but hey, our emotions deserve it Smile

And Krumple, feeling good or feeling bad (which is, I believe, what you're basing your categorization on) is just not so simple sometimes. What about the times I'm feeling bad that I'm feeling good, and the times I'm feeling good that I'm feeling bad? And then what about all the complexities in each articulated emotion (e.g. fear being a good thing, the differentiations in love, hate, etc.)? What about the times we can't even process it all, 'blown through me', as Arjuna worded? There's just so much we're not taking into account here.

And thanks for the article, Aedes, checking it out right now.

0 Replies

@rcs,

What I find incongruous about Krumple's argument is that he argues that everything is reducible to its physical (i.e. empirically understandable) constituents and mechanisms. But then he portrays human judgements and emotions as a simple binary switch.

The human brain is an awfully complex organ, suffice it to say, and anyone who has actually studied it knows that even "positive" vs "negative" don't boil down to some specific neurophysiologic correlates. In other words, the positive-neutral-negative axis doesn't exist in neurologic terms, so if he's going to argue that it all comes down to pathways, neurotransmitters, action-potentials, etc, then he has to explain why there isn't a positive signature and a negative signature.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87947 wrote:

What I find incongruous about Krumple's argument is that he argues that everything is reducible to its physical (i.e. empirically understandable) constituents and mechanisms. But then he portrays human judgements and emotions as a simple binary switch.

Since when is three options binary? You reduced it to two but I never said two options. Unless you think binary means three options.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88000 wrote:

Since when is three options binary? You reduced it to two but I never said two options. Unless you think binary means three options.

I'm not sure he meant only two options for human emotion. A binary switch simply means something can exist in one of only two states. So, I think Aedes meant that you seem to think someone is either in a positive or not positive, is in a negative or not negative, or is in a neutral or not neutral, state, with no other options in between. That is, you can never be in two of those states at once, you can only be in one at a time. It's a discrete switching on and off of a number of options.

Krumple, you still haven't addressed the main concerns Aedes, Arjuna, or I have voiced. You simply picked out a quote which allowed you to sidestep the real issues of your argument, and then left a sarcastic response to Aedes in hopes to convince readers that Aedes has misunderstood your argument. I think we all understand your argument, and we've noted why we disagree with it. If you'd like to clarify why you believe emotion is as simple as three states, we're all ears.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;88000 wrote:

Since when is three options binary? You reduced it to two but I never said two options. Unless you think binary means three options.

Positive / negative, with "neutral" simply being indifference to either end of the scale. But whatever, call it "trinary" if it gets your juices flowing.

Still doesn't solve the problem we're raising that you think the human brain, with its billions of neurons, is basically a three-sided die.

And it still doesn't solve the problem that you'd rather play childish word games than answer the question. In my last post I called your position "incongruous". I stand by that. Would you like to try and defend your point of view, or do you want to start a debate about what the word trinary means?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;88081 wrote:

If you'd like to clarify why you believe emotion is as simple as three states, we're all ears.

Once again, I was not originally talking about the emotions themselves. I was talking about reacting or responding to experiences in one of three ways. The emotions were brought into the conversation to use as an objection to what I had said. I followed that up with stating that they can be categorized BUT there are times when even a "positive" emotion can be "negative". An example (I am sure this will be objected to) is love. It can actually be placed in either positive or negative, but it depends on the context of it's arising.

So why does everyone keep focusing on the emotions when it is about the experience? I don't really care about the emotions because I can categorize just about every single one of them into the "negative" category. It just depends on their arising.

I grow tired of this discussion, if you have any further objections, feel free to post them but this is my last response on this topic, I feel I have stated my case quite clear and if that is not good enough then so be it. Call it what ever you want believe me, I won't be heart broken.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;88095 wrote:

I don't really care about the emotions because I can categorize just about every single one of them into the "negative" category.

Like optimism? Happiness? Giddiness? Glee? Love? Passion? Enthusiasm? Fondness? Joy? Ecstasy?

So your negative-neutral-positive scale isn't really -10 -- 0 -- +10, it's more like -10 -- 0 -- +1

Would you say that represents all of humanity? If so, maybe we need to reevaluate what neutral means, because on your scale neutral indifference would be somewhere between existential angst and contemplation of suicide.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;88128 wrote:

So your negative-neutral-positive scale isn't really -10 -- 0 -- +10, it's more like -10 -- 0 -- +1

I think he was rather refering to possibility than reality.
Plus, as far as I remember he somewhen said that to him there is no spectrum like the one you are using.

Aedes;88128 wrote:

Would you say that represents all of humanity?

Judging from what he wrote: No.
He quite unambiguously stated that the way you evaluate an emotion depends on it's arising.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

I said I was not going to respond to this anymore but this is the last time.

Aedes;88128 wrote:

Like optimism? Happiness? Giddiness? Glee? Love? Passion? Enthusiasm? Fondness? Joy? Ecstasy?

What would you call it if someone enjoyed murdering? If they received some joy out of killing? Is it still positive because it is joy? Or would you dismiss it and say that no one actually enjoys murder? Like I said before, it depends on the arising of the emotion.

Aedes;88128 wrote:

So your negative-neutral-positive scale isn't really -10 -- 0 -- +10, it's more like -10 -- 0 -- +1

This is now the third time that a spectrum was brought up. Are you not paying any attention to any of my responses?

Aedes;88128 wrote:

Would you say that represents all of humanity? If so, maybe we need to reevaluate what neutral means, because on your scale neutral indifference would be somewhere between existential angst and contemplation of suicide.

Is suicide always a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Is anger always a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Is depression always a bad thing? Not in my opinion. In fact depression has recently been determined to be an evolutionary advantaged. According to the study students who were depressed were more lily to score higher on exams than students who were not. This flys in the face of what we see in our culture with trying to cure depression as if it were some sort of disease. Mind you that there are cases in which depression can be a health concern but the findings are interesting to say the least.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88378 wrote:

What would you call it if someone enjoyed murdering?

The emotional reaction is positive, right? Isn't that one of our only three choices for how the brain works?

Krumple;88378 wrote:

Is suicide always a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Is anger always a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Is depression always a bad thing? Not in my opinion.

Now you're confusing what you've previously written about emotional reactions with value judgments one might place on the object of that reaction. You need to keep this organized if the discussion is going to go anywhere.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;88378 wrote:

Is suicide always a bad thing?

Yeah kinda, especially for the person involved, it is permanent after all, no going back, leave loved ones really messed up and hurt, (pretty selfish), so yeah can't see anything good about suicide really not even for the poor desperado trying to escape life for whatever reason.

2 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline;88423 wrote:

Yeah kinda, especially for the person involved, it is permanent after all, no going back, leave loved ones really messed up and hurt, (pretty selfish), so yeah can't see anything good about suicide really not even for the poor desperado trying to escape life for whatever reason.

This aside, again Krumple has moved beyond whether emotional reactions (regardless of their object!) are positive/neutral/negative, and is now talking about whether murder and suicide are positive/negative. Completely different conversation.

Yet this should illustrate how complex the human brain is even when considering two variables, and why his simplification is just unrealistic.

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline;88423 wrote:

Yeah kinda, especially for the person involved, it is permanent after all, no going back, leave loved ones really messed up and hurt, (pretty selfish), so yeah can't see anything good about suicide really not even for the poor desperado trying to escape life for whatever reason.

What about a person who is terminally ill and the doctors have tried everything they can? Perhaps it is a cancer that has progressed beyond a stage of conventional treatment. The patient is given ten months and it will be a very painful ending? Wouldn't the option of suicide be a much better option than suffering through bouts of extreme pain?

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;88427 wrote:

This aside, again Krumple has moved beyond whether emotional reactions (regardless of their object!) are positive/neutral/negative, and is now talking about whether murder and suicide are positive/negative. Completely different conversation.

Yet this should illustrate how complex the human brain is even when considering two variables, and why his simplification is just unrealistic.

I agree.

Krumple;88428 wrote:

What about a person who is terminally ill and the doctors have tried everything they can? Perhaps it is a cancer that has progressed beyond a stage of conventional treatment. The patient is given ten months and it will be a very painful ending? Wouldn't the option of suicide be a much better option than suffering through bouts of extreme pain?

You're talking about mercy killing, the only one thing that is perhaps different to suicide as in killing yourself because you feel no hope. When you mentioned suicide I rightly assumed you meant suicide as we generally take it to mean, it might help if you give an example of what you mean instead of relying on me to second guess you. What is your point?

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline;88429 wrote:

You're talking about mercy killing, the only one thing that is perhaps different to suicide as in killing yourself because you feel no hope. When you mentioned suicide I rightly assumed you meant suicide as we generally take it to mean, it might help if you give an example of what you mean instead of relying on me to second guess you. What is your point?

What's my point? Seriously?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;88431 wrote:

What's my point? Seriously?

Yeah? (Sarcasm really doesn't suit you), yeah what is your point, you stated that suicide is good so what is your conclusion or are you going to continue this tone like you always do and I'll just wont bother debating with you again like when you didn't want to know anymore when we were discussing domestic violence which I was hoping we could both learn something but its not about learning with you is it? All I've seen in alot of your posts is alot of sarcastic comments, people just wont bother debating with you anymore. Shame.

1 Reply

science and maths

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know