Emotions

[Edgarcito]

Thought we might have a discussion into what are emotions.  Are the physiological, innate, learned, voluntary, involuntary, etc.  Thought it might be interesting.  Appears to be more behind the curtain that I first gave credit.

 

Thanks

[RankStranger]

Emotions are the story our brains tell about the signals we're getting from our body.

 

I heard that on a podcast I think.  It's probably not true.

[pantheory]

 

Howdy Edgarcito,

 

From the dictionary: 

 

Emotions:

 

Conscious mental reactions such as anger, fear. love, hate, etc.  subjectively experienced as strong feelings, usually directed toward a specific object, animal, person, etc. and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emotion

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Howdy Edgarcito,

 

From the dictionary: 

 

Emotions:

 

Conscious mental reactions such as anger, fear. love, hate, etc.  subjectively experienced as strong feelings, usually directed toward a specific object, animal, person, etc. and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emotion

Thanks.  Not sure this will be a fruitful endeavor other than speculation.  It appears from the outset that a given culmination or presentation of emotion is input driven and specifically into very unique devices....which would make one think that there should exist variations just as input is varied...but I don't read that's the case.  Seems like a very interesting subject, but just that I don't have the expertise to answer my own questions.

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  Not sure this will be a fruitful endeavor other than speculation.  It appears from the outset that a given culmination or presentation of emotion is input driven and specifically into very unique devices....which would make one think that there should exist variations just as input is varied...but I don't read that's the case.  Seems like a very interesting subject, but just that I don't have the expertise to answer my own questions.

 

You probably know I don't like to argue, especially not religion. But you can fit religion in with emotions which I expect is your idea. Cheers for the holidays my friend  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  Not sure this will be a fruitful endeavor other than speculation.  It appears from the outset that a given culmination or presentation of emotion is input driven and specifically into very unique devices....which would make one think that there should exist variations just as input is varied...but I don't read that's the case.  Seems like a very interesting subject, but just that I don't have the expertise to answer my own questions.

 

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

emotions.  Are the physiological, innate, learned, voluntary, involuntary, etc.  Thought it might be interesting.

 

I would say emotions are all those things and more. 

 

Starting to think critically about the emotional aspect of Christianity?

 

DB

[freshstart]

I think I've heard it said that a thought always precedes (and triggers) any emotion (or "mental reaction" per the dictionary definition) -even if its only a split second thought. But the weird thing is the same thought can trigger wildly different emotions in different people.

So if emotions are subjective experiences that accompany chemical and physiogical changes triggered by a thought,  . . . what is a thought?

[walterpthefirst]

Here's something for you to consider about emotions, Edgarcito.

 

In science when the true nature of something remains elusive and refuses to be pinned down or characterized, there is another way of tackling the problem.

 

Look at what it does and what it's effects are.

 

If, we can't adequately pin down what emotions are, maybe we should look at what they do and what their effects are?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:45 PM, freshstart said:

I think I've heard it said that a thought always precedes (and triggers) any emotion (or "mental reaction" per the dictionary definition) -even if its only a split second thought. But the weird thing is the same thought can trigger wildly different emotions in different people.

So if emotions are subjective experiences that accompany chemical and physiogical changes triggered by a thought,  . . . what is a thought?

And some believe emotions can be triggered by unconscious thoughts.  By previous experiences that you have repressed.  Or were too young to have conscious memory of.  And in my experience I think it may be true.  We are talking pretty deep stuff here.

[freshstart]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

And some believe emotions can be triggered by unconscious thoughts.  By previous experiences that you have repressed. 

To take it even further, I'm reading a book (Bittersweet by Susan Cain) and in one of the last chapters she explores some research on how trauma can cause genetic changes (epigenetics) resulting in mental/emotional expressions that can be passed on to offspring. If that is true, it would certainly explain some things in my lineage!

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, freshstart said:

To take it even further, I'm reading a book (Bittersweet by Susan Cain) and in one of the last chapters she explores some research on how trauma can cause genetic changes (epigenetics) resulting in mental/emotional expressions that can be passed on to offspring. If that is true, it would certainly explain some things in my lineage!

 

Yes, very interesting stuff!  I will take a look at that book.  When I went into the profession over 50 yeats ago, the thinking was that most of what we are was conditioned into us after birth.  But as time went by, the more I began to think some of it was inherited.

[Edgarcito]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:45 PM, freshstart said:

I think I've heard it said that a thought always precedes (and triggers) any emotion (or "mental reaction" per the dictionary definition) -even if its only a split second thought. But the weird thing is the same thought can trigger wildly different emotions in different people.

So if emotions are subjective experiences that accompany chemical and physiogical changes triggered by a thought,  . . . what is a thought?

Seems like there are multiple inputs, internal and external, present and past apparently, conscious, unconscious/subconscious (uncertain if those last two vary), voluntary and involuntary, all together to generate understanding or no.  Makes me speculate whether there is a hierarchy of thought given whichever input is signaling loud enough.  Certainly when our bodies are sick or injured, those signals typically win the thought process.

 

Excellent question FS.  thx.

[Rev R]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Seems like there are multiple inputs, internal and external, present and past apparently, conscious, unconscious/subconscious (uncertain if those last two vary), voluntary and involuntary, all together to generate understanding or no.  Makes me speculate whether there is a hierarchy of thought given whichever input is signaling loud enough.  Certainly when our bodies are sick or injured, those signals typically win the thought process.

 

Excellent question FS.  thx.

and all of those inputs are interconnected and interdependent

[◊ Weezer ◊]

While on this subject I'll throw in one more theory about emotions.  Some say anger is a secondary emotion.  Underlying it is sadness or fear.  And especially men who don't want to show sadness or fear, divert it to anger.  HA!  From personal experience I think there is some truth in that theory.

[walterpthefirst]

Here's something for you to consider about emotions, Edgarcito.

 

This was a landmark science paper published in 1960 by Eugene Wigner.

 

https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf     THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

 

In it Wigner comments on Galileo's experiment of dropping two rocks of different sizes from the leaning tower of Pisa, in Italy.  By doing this he discovered that they both hit the ground at the same time, regardless of their different sizes, shapes, weights and compositions.  Here is what Wigner says about it.

 

The world around us is of baffling complexity and the most obvious fact about it is that we cannot predict the future. Although the joke attributes only to the optimist the view that the future is uncertain, the optimist is right in this case: the future is unpredictable. It is, as Schrodinger has remarked, a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered. One such regularity, discovered by Galileo, is that two rocks, dropped at the same time from the same height, reach the ground at the same time. The laws of nature are concerned with such regularities. Galileo’s regularity is a prototype of a large class of regularities. It is a surprising regularity for three reasons.

 

The first reason that it is surprising is that it is true not only in Pisa, and in Galileo’s time, it is true everywhere on the Earth, was always true, and will always be true. This property of the regularity is a recognized invariance property and, as I had occasion to point out some time ago, without invariance principles similar to those implied in the preceding generalization of Galileo’s observation, physics would not be possible. The second surprising feature is that the regularity which we are discussing is independent of so many conditions which could have an effect on it. It is valid no matter whether it rains or not, whether the experiment is carried out in a room or from the Leaning Tower, no matter whether the person who drops the rocks is a man or a woman. It is valid even if the two rocks are dropped, simultaneously and from the same height, by two different people. There are, obviously, innumerable other conditions which are all immaterial from the point of view of the validity of Galileo’s regularity. The irrelevancy of so many circumstances which could play a role in the phenomenon observed has also been called an invariance.

 

The preceding two points, though highly significant from the point of view of the philosopher, are not the ones which surprised Galileo most, nor do they contain a specific law of nature. The law of nature is contained in the statement that the length of time which it takes for a heavy object to fall from a given height is independent of the size, material, and shape of the body which drops. In the framework of Newton’s second "law," this amounts to the statement that the gravitational force which acts on the falling body is proportional to its mass but independent of the size, material, and shape of the body which falls.

 

So what has this got to do with emotions?  Simply this.  In the light of what it written about Galileo and the truth he uncovered by experimentation perhaps should ask ourselves the following question.

 

 

Can we trust our emotions to reliably discover universal truths about reality?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

On 12/19/2022 at 10:48 AM, Edgarcito said:

Thought we might have a discussion into what are emotions.  Are the physiological, innate, learned, voluntary, involuntary, etc.  Thought it might be interesting.  Appears to be more behind the curtain that I first gave credit.

 

Thanks

 

Emotions are probably a physical manifestation resulting from a signal sent to our bodies from our immortal soul. 

 

But that"s just  a guess. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Edgarcito

 

I've been hoping you would clarify why you brought this subject up. The emotional side of Christianity has come up a couple of times recently. Has it resulted in some critical analysis in your own Christian walk? 

 

If you think about it. Christianity is completely driven by emotions from the very start. And all the emotions within services there after are really no different than getting excited about a football game. People start "feeling" the Holy Ghost move. They start thinking about the gift of eternal life and Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. Tears begin to fall from peoples eyes. Somebody might let out a shout or an AMEN! As a result others perceive the Holy ghost is doing its work. More people get happy and the next thing ya know the whole church is doing the biblical equivalent of a wave in a stadium. People are going down to the altar under an emotional conviction to have a one on one conversation with God. Etc. Etc. The music is being played and everyone is having a grand ole time in the Lord. 

 

Every single bit of it goes back to fallible emotions. Other than fallible emotions and "feelings" that all stem from Christian thought, teachings, and beliefs. Christianity can offer no other proof that their God exists. Not even the evidences that the Bible, apostles, and Jesus himself say should be there. 

 

Its a lot to process really. But its true. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

The music is being played and everyone is having a grand ole time in the Lord. 

The holy spirit can not, and does not, move until after the second key change.  Because he's mysterious and shit.

[duderonomy]

On 12/19/2022 at 4:35 PM, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  Not sure this will be a fruitful endeavor other than speculation.  It appears from the outset that a given culmination or presentation of emotion is input driven and specifically into very unique devices....which would make one think that there should exist variations just as input is varied...but I don't read that's the case.  Seems like a very interesting subject, but just that I don't have the expertise to answer my own questions.

 

 I determined to know nothing among you save Christ, and him crucified, but you do you, you Christian you.

[duderonomy]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The holy spirit can not, and does not, move until after the second key change.  Because he's mysterious and shit.

 

Do you have source for this claim? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Do you have source for this claim? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

[duderonomy]

23 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

 

Oh, ok. Science then.

 

Also, Happy New Year you absolute asshat. 

[Shinzon]

 

nevermind

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, Shinzon said:

 

nevermind

 

Okay.

[Edgarcito]

On 12/21/2022 at 10:30 PM, Weezer said:

While on this subject I'll throw in one more theory about emotions.  Some say anger is a secondary emotion.  Underlying it is sadness or fear.  And especially men who don't want to show sadness or fear, divert it to anger.  HA!  From personal experience I think there is some truth in that theory.

+1