Reasoning and/or emotions

Discussion about how emotions work with reason

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#21  Postby Fallible » Nov 28, 2016 7:36 am

Well I don't insist that cognition gives rise to emotions, which is why I said 'if you want to go with...'. It's a theory that is widespread, and the basis of the current favourite psychotherapeutic model. It's taught that the first sign that one has of these thoughts is the emotion they elicit. I'm not sure why it's daft that the cognition comes first...but then I never got how babies thinking before they can speak was a contentious idea either. Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event. Or do emotions just arise spontaneously, and if so, how is this explained? The thought isn't 'ah, I see a nice pair of boobies there'. It's instantanious and can be gone without being consciously registered.

Yes, the cognition includes perceiving the triggering event. It isn't a rational thought process, no - as I said, it's based on core beliefs which can owe little to reason and evidence. I don't really see how you can claim no thought process is going on, and then use a synonym (perception) to describe what is going on. I only included the part about false beliefs as an extra, it's not important here.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44312
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#22  Postby archibald » Nov 28, 2016 11:15 am

WeirdPattern2.0 wrote:Hello. This is my first post, I hope I'm post this in the right place.

A friend linked me the following video on facebook and I'm looking for a place to seriously discuss the issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXDw73rToPE&t=0s

Even though the video is very hyped and presents little evidence, it still got me thinking.I consider myself a strong rational thinker (& atheist), but then what about my emotions?
I can't deny having emotional parts in my brain (amygdala, limbic system, ...), yet they can go against my reason. This poses a contradiction as I can't both be completely reasonable without amputation my emotional brain regions.

Would like to hear some thoughts on this.


I just watched all of that video.

My thoughts, in a nutshell are: 'scary bullshit'. :)
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9501
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#23  Postby igorfrankensteen » Dec 04, 2016 1:41 am

Fallible wrote:Well I don't insist that cognition gives rise to emotions, which is why I said 'if you want to go with...'. It's a theory that is widespread, and the basis of the current favourite psychotherapeutic model. It's taught that the first sign that one has of these thoughts is the emotion they elicit. I'm not sure why it's daft that the cognition comes first...but then I never got how babies thinking before they can speak was a contentious idea either. Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event. Or do emotions just arise spontaneously, and if so, how is this explained? The thought isn't 'ah, I see a nice pair of boobies there'. It's instantanious and can be gone without being consciously registered.

Yes, the cognition includes perceiving the triggering event. It isn't a rational thought process, no - as I said, it's based on core beliefs which can owe little to reason and evidence. I don't really see how you can claim no thought process is going on, and then use a synonym (perception) to describe what is going on. I only included the part about false beliefs as an extra, it's not important here.


I'm not clear on everything you said here.

"Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event." This seems to imply that you perceive emotions as being the result of a decision of some sort, which contradicts the most common view, that emotions require effort to apply logic to.

"Or do emotions just arise spontaneously, and if so, how is this explained?" Emotions are biochemically-energized reactions to stimuli. The stimuli can be anything from a purely physical event (a loud sound, for example) to a thought (such as imagining that your mate isn't at the seven-eleven, they are screwing one of your neighbors). We do see some people for whom the biochemistry of emotion does occur spontaneously, in response to nothing at all, but this is rare. Anyway, it's not clear what you mean by "spontaneously," especially given the previous statement.

As for the idea somewhere above that emotion is the primary force behind actions, I've seen nothing at all in observed life to support that. One can look at things such as Maslows' hierarchy of needs, and how relatively respected that concept is, to see that emotional satisfaction is relatively down the line of motivations behind human actions.
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 64
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#24  Postby Clive Durdle » Dec 04, 2016 9:52 am

Isn't this the Cartesian error?

http://yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?K=9780300208825 Guy claxton intelligence in the flesh
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4809

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#25  Postby Fallible » Dec 04, 2016 10:10 am

OK, so what I see here in your third paragraph is an argument from personal incredulity. This is the same sort of response I saw from you over whether theists were interested in finding out the truth of their gods' existence. Such an argument may satisfy you, and if it does, I'm glad for you. Beyond that, it doesn't have much utility. I've studied this area for a number of years now, and although that does not make me an expert, it gives me just enough information to be able to tell when a post here is relatively flimsy. For example you use Maslow's hierarchy to argue against what I've said, but there seems to be some confusion about what it actually shows. The hierarchy is a map of the markers an individual strives to reach in order to become a 'fully actualised' person, the need to be such driving them onward. So it is a list of what the individual is motivated to achieve, with the motivator described as 'need'. What do you perceive that 'need' to be? 'Emotional satisfaction', as you put it, can be said to be achieved at every level of the pyramid, when another milestone towards 'actualisation' has been hit. What do you think drives the individual towards achieving those milestones? What is that 'need'? The application of logic? Does that sound right? How does that work in a small child, for example?

Going back to the beginning of your post, nothing I have said suggests that emotions are the result of a decision. I have spoken about a model within which they're the result of cognition. Cognition and decisions are not the same thing. You then go on to describe the 'common view' that 'emotions require effort to apply logic to', which, putting aside the fact that it appears to entirely miss the point, also as far as I can tell confuses or conflates the application of logic with cognition. Logic is the application of reason through a series of known principles. It is a conscious, active undertaking. Cognition is a mental process of knowledge acquisition which does not necessarily require conscious thought, as it concerns experiencing and using the senses as well, and is ongoing.

In your second paragraph, you basically outline what I have said, except you exclude cognition, so you have people simply reacting 'instinctively', as it were, to stimuli with an emotion, except when you say that the stimulus can be a thought. I'm inclined to challenge this, because there are several problems with it as I see it.

Firstly, you have the thought as a stimulus, the beginning of the line, but this does not seem convincing. What stimulated the thought? Or did that arise spontaneously? If so, what is the mechanism for that? You also appear to be confusing reflexive responses to outside stimuli with emotions. They are not the same thing. The fight or flight response, for example, is a psychological reaction to an event which is perceived to be a threat - perceived through the senses - which concerns cognition.

Thirdly, consider the following: an event occurs, for example, a person that you know walks past you on the street. You will respond to that event in a specific way - you might feel mildly disappointed. The same event might happen to me, but I will feel relief that they didn't stop. A third person, experiencing the same event, will feel anxious. Three different emotions, three different reactions, but all following the same event. How does that work? Is it random? Or do you think the difference could possibly have something to do with different experiencing of the event itself, based on cognition? More generally, what do you think emotions are 'for'? Anything?
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44312
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#26  Postby crank » Dec 04, 2016 10:47 pm

Fallible wrote:Well I don't insist that cognition gives rise to emotions, which is why I said 'if you want to go with...'. It's a theory that is widespread, and the basis of the current favourite psychotherapeutic model. It's taught that the first sign that one has of these thoughts is the emotion they elicit. I'm not sure why it's daft that the cognition comes first...but then I never got how babies thinking before they can speak was a contentious idea either. Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event. Or do emotions just arise spontaneously, and if so, how is this explained? The thought isn't 'ah, I see a nice pair of boobies there'. It's instantanious and can be gone without being consciously registered.

Yes, the cognition includes perceiving the triggering event. It isn't a rational thought process, no - as I said, it's based on core beliefs which can owe little to reason and evidence. I don't really see how you can claim no thought process is going on, and then use a synonym (perception) to describe what is going on. I only included the part about false beliefs as an extra, it's not important here.

I see where you are coming from, I think it's in definitions that we differ. I'm going with the way an argument I had with a psychologist over this went, not good to argue with someone in the area of his expertise, but why let that stop me? To me, and the way the shrink was arguing, 'cognition' would mean, or at least take on the connotation of, a conscious thought process where you had enough time to at least minimally consider options and then make a decision, like 'this makes me angry' or sad, etc. If this were what lies behind how we feel, react, to situations, triggers, etc, then we should have control over our emotions to a significant degree, and we just don't, not in many many situations. Looking at it this way is at odds with saying "Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event." I just can't grasp this is what happens, not to me I can say. We can all struggle to control our emotions, if we are "deciding" how to feel, why would we ever struggle?

With your infant example, surely a baby has hunger before it can have rational thought processes? Emotions are thought processes of some kind, but they're not a rational thought process as in one that employed reasoning before making some kind of decision. Emotions are evolution's solution for how to drive a critter to do what needs to be done. Isn't that a fairly well accepted idea? I think of our conscious minds as a kind of restricted subset of our minds, and not generally the part in control. It isn't that conscious, rational thought processes can't change how we feel, though that is far from the norm, and usually requires a considerable effort. In the 7th grade when I started lusting after the boys and not the girls, I surely didn't think about that, it's what happened to me, that's how it felt. Emotions aren't something you do, they are something that happens.

I don't see how babies thinking before they talk could be contentious either. I tend to go with Chomsky who posits language could very well have come long before anyone ever tried to communicate with anyone else. The advantages of having an internal language are vast, e.g., memory aid, categorizing/organizing aid, etc. Who do we 'converse' with by far the most? It's ourselves. The species may have gone for a long period before they managed to develop an external mechanism, a language, allowing for the added huge benefit of communication. Babies thinking before they speak makes perfect sense to me. I'm really curious to hear what you think of Chomsky's idea.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 2
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#27  Postby Fallible » Dec 05, 2016 7:09 am

crank wrote:I see where you are coming from, I think it's in definitions that we differ. I'm going with the way an argument I had with a psychologist over this went, not good to argue with someone in the area of his expertise, but why let that stop me? To me, and the way the shrink was arguing, 'cognition' would mean, or at least take on the connotation of, a conscious thought process where you had enough time to at least minimally consider options and then make a decision, like 'this makes me angry' or sad, etc. If this were what lies behind how we feel, react, to situations, triggers, etc, then we should have control over our emotions to a significant degree, and we just don't, not in many many situations. Looking at it this way is at odds with saying "Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event." I just can't grasp this is what happens, not to me I can say. We can all struggle to control our emotions, if we are "deciding" how to feel, why would we ever struggle?


As I said, I don't call myself an expert, but still, I suppose I see it slightly differently from your psychologist. Cognition is a catch-all term for thought processes both conscious and non-conscious; my previous example of the fight or flight response is an instance of non-conscious cognition. It's a psychological response to perceived threat. At least enough thought is going on here in order to process the threat value of a situation, but we're not aware of that happening. It takes place so quickly. In the model I am talking about, it's similar. The cognition which takes place in response to an activating event is known as an automatic thought, and often the first sign that we've had one is the emotion that follows. So with this model, we don't have control over the emotion we experience. However, once experienced, we can change that emotion by discovering what the thought was which flitted through our head the instant before we became aware of the emotion and altering it; this is how anxiety, depression and anger are treated. What I am saying is that we don't 'decide' how to feel, but that automatic thoughts, processes of cognition over which we don't have conscious control in the first instance, inform our emotions.

With your infant example, surely a baby has hunger before it can have rational thought processes?


Of course, but hunger isn't an emotion. It's a physiological sensation which we experience when our bodies need food. In this model, though, that sensation is the activating event which then triggers a thought which then triggers the emotion, eg. hunger -> psychological awareness of hunger -> emotion, eg. anticipation -> behaviour (seek food).

Emotions are thought processes of some kind, but they're not a rational thought process as in one that employed reasoning before making some kind of decision.


In my view they're not thought processes at all, rational or otherwise. They're the result of un-/pre-/non-conscious thought processes.

Emotions are evolution's solution for how to drive a critter to do what needs to be done. Isn't that a fairly well accepted idea?


It is, yes, and nothing I've said contradicts that idea.

I think of our conscious minds as a kind of restricted subset of our minds, and not generally the part in control. It isn't that conscious, rational thought processes can't change how we feel, though that is far from the norm, and usually requires a considerable effort.


Yes, I agree with that. Those conscious, rational thought processes can change how we feel, that's the principle that CBT is based on. We can do it; most of the time we don't need to, because our cognitions work as they 'should' and don't cause us any problems, so they continue to do their thing without intervention, or even awareness, from us. When they do cause us problems, it requires a conscious effort to re-shape them in that instance (when we become aware of them), which in turn alters the emotion attached.

In the 7th grade when I started lusting after the boys and not the girls, I surely didn't think about that, it's what happened to me, that's how it felt.


Yes, you experienced the feeling of lust. My point is that it didn't arise spontaneously in you, devoid of any kind of thought process. It's true that you weren't aware of that process, but neither can you be said to be aware that you have just perceived a loud noise as a threat to your life and decided to get yourself ready to run before you jumped out of your skin and your stomach leapt into your mouth. As far as you are aware, you just heard the noise and felt scared or shocked. Only after that did you begin to consciously form an idea or narrative about what just happened.

Emotions aren't something you do, they are something that happens.


Yes, they are something that happens as a result of cognition - I don't know if you read my post above, but I think the example I use there is quite useful in elucidating what I'm on about. You feel lust when you look at men, but why doesn't a straight man? It's the same stimulus. Same stimulus, different emotional response. Is that just random, or might cognition explain it?


I don't see how babies thinking before they talk could be contentious either. I tend to go with Chomsky who posits language could very well have come long before anyone ever tried to communicate with anyone else. The advantages of having an internal language are vast, e.g., memory aid, categorizing/organizing aid, etc. Who do we 'converse' with by far the most? It's ourselves. The species may have gone for a long period before they managed to develop an external mechanism, a language, allowing for the added huge benefit of communication. Babies thinking before they speak makes perfect sense to me. I'm really curious to hear what you think of Chomsky's idea.


Well, from my pretty ill-informed position, I appear to be in general agreement with it. There was a thread here, though, where people disagreed that thought came before language.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44312
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#28  Postby igorfrankensteen » Dec 05, 2016 12:38 pm

There may be some semantic confusions going on here. Example: cognition being confused with reasoning. Including that many people generally also confuse learned responses with reasoned ones.

As for emotion being an evolutionary solution, it's a classically crude one, if it is. I'd suggest that it is more of a side effect, than an actual direct "solution."
User avatar
igorfrankensteen
 
Name: michael e munson
Posts: 2114
Age: 64
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#29  Postby crank » Dec 07, 2016 2:19 pm

Fallible wrote:
crank wrote:I see where you are coming from, I think it's in definitions that we differ. I'm going with the way an argument I had with a psychologist over this went, not good to argue with someone in the area of his expertise, but why let that stop me? To me, and the way the shrink was arguing, 'cognition' would mean, or at least take on the connotation of, a conscious thought process where you had enough time to at least minimally consider options and then make a decision, like 'this makes me angry' or sad, etc. If this were what lies behind how we feel, react, to situations, triggers, etc, then we should have control over our emotions to a significant degree, and we just don't, not in many many situations. Looking at it this way is at odds with saying "Surely it makes sense that a thought process of some kind has to occur before you know how to feel about the event." I just can't grasp this is what happens, not to me I can say. We can all struggle to control our emotions, if we are "deciding" how to feel, why would we ever struggle?


As I said, I don't call myself an expert, but still, I suppose I see it slightly differently from your psychologist. Cognition is a catch-all term for thought processes both conscious and non-conscious; my previous example of the fight or flight response is an instance of non-conscious cognition. It's a psychological response to perceived threat. At least enough thought is going on here in order to process the threat value of a situation, but we're not aware of that happening. It takes place so quickly. In the model I am talking about, it's similar. The cognition which takes place in response to an activating event is known as an automatic thought, and often the first sign that we've had one is the emotion that follows. So with this model, we don't have control over the emotion we experience. However, once experienced, we can change that emotion by discovering what the thought was which flitted through our head the instant before we became aware of the emotion and altering it; this is how anxiety, depression and anger are treated. What I am saying is that we don't 'decide' how to feel, but that automatic thoughts, processes of cognition over which we don't have conscious control in the first instance, inform our emotions.

With your infant example, surely a baby has hunger before it can have rational thought processes?


Of course, but hunger isn't an emotion. It's a physiological sensation which we experience when our bodies need food. In this model, though, that sensation is the activating event which then triggers a thought which then triggers the emotion, eg. hunger -> psychological awareness of hunger -> emotion, eg. anticipation -> behaviour (seek food).

Emotions are thought processes of some kind, but they're not a rational thought process as in one that employed reasoning before making some kind of decision.


In my view they're not thought processes at all, rational or otherwise. They're the result of un-/pre-/non-conscious thought processes.

Emotions are evolution's solution for how to drive a critter to do what needs to be done. Isn't that a fairly well accepted idea?


It is, yes, and nothing I've said contradicts that idea.

I think of our conscious minds as a kind of restricted subset of our minds, and not generally the part in control. It isn't that conscious, rational thought processes can't change how we feel, though that is far from the norm, and usually requires a considerable effort.


Yes, I agree with that. Those conscious, rational thought processes can change how we feel, that's the principle that CBT is based on. We can do it; most of the time we don't need to, because our cognitions work as they 'should' and don't cause us any problems, so they continue to do their thing without intervention, or even awareness, from us. When they do cause us problems, it requires a conscious effort to re-shape them in that instance (when we become aware of them), which in turn alters the emotion attached.

In the 7th grade when I started lusting after the boys and not the girls, I surely didn't think about that, it's what happened to me, that's how it felt.


Yes, you experienced the feeling of lust. My point is that it didn't arise spontaneously in you, devoid of any kind of thought process. It's true that you weren't aware of that process, but neither can you be said to be aware that you have just perceived a loud noise as a threat to your life and decided to get yourself ready to run before you jumped out of your skin and your stomach leapt into your mouth. As far as you are aware, you just heard the noise and felt scared or shocked. Only after that did you begin to consciously form an idea or narrative about what just happened.

Emotions aren't something you do, they are something that happens.


Yes, they are something that happens as a result of cognition - I don't know if you read my post above, but I think the example I use there is quite useful in elucidating what I'm on about. You feel lust when you look at men, but why doesn't a straight man? It's the same stimulus. Same stimulus, different emotional response. Is that just random, or might cognition explain it?


I don't see how babies thinking before they talk could be contentious either. I tend to go with Chomsky who posits language could very well have come long before anyone ever tried to communicate with anyone else. The advantages of having an internal language are vast, e.g., memory aid, categorizing/organizing aid, etc. Who do we 'converse' with by far the most? It's ourselves. The species may have gone for a long period before they managed to develop an external mechanism, a language, allowing for the added huge benefit of communication. Babies thinking before they speak makes perfect sense to me. I'm really curious to hear what you think of Chomsky's idea.


Well, from my pretty ill-informed position, I appear to be in general agreement with it. There was a thread here, though, where people disagreed that thought came before language.

They argued no thought before language? Well, I have to call that daft also. Really daft. They must have some rather unusual definition of 'thought' What exactly were our pre-language brains doing while awake and never having a 'thought'?

I think mostly we disagree on whether emotions are derived from some kind of reasoned choice. You say, "Only after that did you begin to consciously form an idea or narrative about what just happened." That is probably true, but does it have any certainty of being correct, or is it an ad hoc thing the brain does to make sense of what it has already done? Split brain folk do some really weird unbelievable rationalizing in their half of the brain that wasn't responsible for some action that it perceives the whole person did in fact do. Some of the problem as I think I see it, is the uncertainty over whether an unconscious behavior is the result of some reasoned choice by the unconscious mind that we can recover consciously later and even alter, like CBT. CBT works, for some people, but others seem unable to make it work. It's usually blamed on their not having tried consistently enough, but there is also evidence that it just isn't workable for other. I think, I've only seen limited information about this topic. You seem to imply, though, that you should be able to change your sexual orientation through something like CBT? I don't think you would say that, but it seems the implication of what you wrote. I would say that a lot of our emotions are not amenable to control, not changing them thoroughly.

This is one of those arguments that is too hard to do well like this, it really requires a face to face exchange.

It's really down to your statement:
In my view they're [emotions] not thought processes at all, rational or otherwise. They're the result of un-/pre-/non-conscious thought processes.

and what it means. What are un/pre/non-conscious thought processes? Since no one really has any idea, we probably shouldn't be arguing too much about it. I'm now at a point where I don't even know what I think anymore, maybe because it's 4:30 am and haven't gotten t sleep yet.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 2
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#30  Postby Fallible » Dec 07, 2016 5:08 pm

Crank I'm at work so can't do a long reply, but I had to quickly comment on the point you brought up about CBT and sexuality. I definitely would not say that you could change that through CBT, I would find that an awful thing to say. This has made me think I need to examine that part of my argument in more depth. Cheers.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44312
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#31  Postby crank » Dec 07, 2016 10:47 pm

I'm not confident that there are answers to a lot of these questions, not with our state of knowledge.

Something I have been thinking about for some time now centers on the idea of uploading our minds into machines. But it really doesn't require that at all, that's just what lead me to the line of thought. At some point, we will gain total control of ourselves, biologically, physically, etc, meaning, have the capability to alter our bodies and minds however we may desire, within the limits of the technology. This could be due to uploading to a machine, but the same applies to the wetware. If someone doesn't accept this, they would necessarily be a dualist whether they know it or not.

So, maybe 100 years from now, or a thousand, we'll get there. We could tailor our minds in pretty much any way we wanted, there'd be an app for that most likely. Now for the hard to understand bit. What then would emotions be? Would they have any meaning, assuming they have any now, they certainly have a great deal of meaning to the one having them. Would it mean anything to say to someone I love you, if you could turn that off and on again on a whim? I think this is worse than 'unweaving the rainbow', how science is supposed to destroy beauty by understanding the underlying nature of something. Feynman showed how misguided that idea is. If all feelings, all emotions, are something to be be tweaked and twiddled with a knob, how important can they be? How will those future 'human' define themselves? This opens the possibility of turning yourself into the opposite of who you are or were, maybe even by accident. And that's a nightmare if you think about it.

Earlier talk of dreams reminded me of a few times I've had dreams where some friend or acquaintance did something to cause me significant harm in some probably weird or impossible way you get in dreams. The next day, if I ran across this person, I found myself spontaneously reacting to their presence with negative emotions like I would have if the dream had actually happened, though with considerably less force. Are there any implications of having such emotions?
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 2
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#32  Postby Willie71 » Dec 09, 2016 10:09 pm

crank wrote:
Fallible wrote:Yes, if one wants to go with Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis on this, it goes activating event -> cognition -> emotion -> behaviour. The activating event elicits a chain reaction; the individual has a thought about the event, the though elicits a certain emotion and it is the emotion which drives the individual to act. If the thought is rational, no problemo. Problems can arise when the thought is the iceberg tip of a core belief, and is based not so much on factual evidence or reason and more on skewed ideas about the world, the self and the future picked up through biased evidence-gathering over time; evidence which corresponds with the core belief is absorbed, while evidence which does not is either passed over or distorted in order to fit. So yes, emotions have their place in driving us to action, and are helpful, providing the process isn't kicked off by a thought based on incorrect beliefs heavy on emotion and light on evidence.

I've heard a few who insist cognition gives rise to emotions, that they are prior, but that is daft. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what they mean by 'cognition'? Emotions are primitive, much older evolution-wise, than conscious thought, How much cognition goes into screaming after you hit yourself with a hammer?

Does their cognition include recognizing/perceiving the triggering event? That would make sense looked at from that perspective, but I wouldn't call that a rational thought process, or even an irrational one. If I see some highly sexually attractive person, or something extremely disgusting, whatever, there just isn't any thought process going on, the mere perception triggers the feelings, the thought lags significantly. You say 'if you want to go with ...', what is it you think? What drives us to action? If not some kind of emotion, what then? You mentioned a thought kicks off an emotion that drives us to do something, can just the thought drive us to act without an emotion? It's irrelevant if the emotion is based on false beliefs or true ones, it's still an emotion driving the action.


Most cognition is coloured by perception and ultimately becomes automated. It's an efficiency thing. You shouldn't contemplate what I lion roar means each time you hear one.
well, the 'mericuns chose alien, rather than predator. The rest of the world has to burn now.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3002
Age: 46
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Reasoning and/or emotions

#33  Postby Willie71 » Dec 09, 2016 10:39 pm

The misunderstanding of cbt is that one can control their emotions. This is complete bulkshit. One can influence them, decrease their intensity, and make better decisions.

In terms of effectiveness, cbt does not work as well with people with impaired abstract reasoning, poor verbal skills, or lower IQ. It's not a universal one size fits all solution.
well, the 'mericuns chose alien, rather than predator. The rest of the world has to burn now.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 3002
Age: 46
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest