Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 15:23:23 GMT -5
Of course our decisions are based on emotions. Without emotions, we wouldn't care enough to make decisions. That doesn't mean emotions are the only factor involved.
Also Bob, neither emotions or habit are mutually exclusive with free will (or agency, to use a less loaded and more precise term).
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 16, 2017 21:21:27 GMT -5
Of course our decisions are based on emotions. Without emotions, we wouldn't care enough to make decisions. That doesn't mean emotions are the only factor involved. Yes. Agreed. As I said, my disagreement was with the author's claim that emotions are the only factor involved. That claim is incoherent. We agree again. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Oct 17, 2017 8:07:05 GMT -5
Bob - I agree that things like hunger are not emotions per se, but I do think that it's our physical bodies that produce emotions. It's sort of like how computers work. At the lowest level there's machine language (1s and 0s), then above that there's code (If A32=null, then goto A37 until A37>17) and above that is human language (Click the link to see the video). In humans, the lowest level is physical "needs" and emotions and logic are built on top of those.
Here's an interesting quote from a Wired article this morning. Not sure how accurate it is, but at first glance it makes sense.
"That trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the Internet. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book "Entertaining Ourselves to Death", the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 13:10:50 GMT -5
The supposed trend towards rationalism and enlightenment has always seemed largely fictional to me. The 20th century saw the height of the destructive power of irrational political movements like fascism and nationalism, and that was before TV or the Internet became household items .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 13:50:26 GMT -5
In Objectivism, emotions are something one chooses, not something that one feels. I guess somewhat like a robot or computer rather than a flesh and blood person. That's why, in my opinion, it's so easy for Objectivists to look at other people as objects.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 17:07:01 GMT -5
Bob - I agree that things like hunger are not emotions per se, but I do think that it's our physical bodies that produce emotions. It's sort of like how computers work. At the lowest level there's machine language (1s and 0s), then above that there's code (If A32=null, then goto A37 until A37>17) and above that is human language (Click the link to see the video). In humans, the lowest level is physical "needs" and emotions and logic are built on top of those. Here's an interesting quote from a Wired article this morning. Not sure how accurate it is, but at first glance it makes sense. "That trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the Internet. As Neil Postman noted in his 1985 book "Entertaining Ourselves to Death", the rise of television introduced not just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic culture to a photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to entertainment. In an image-centered and pleasure-driven world, Postman noted, there is no place for rational thinking, because you simply cannot think with images. It is text that enables us to “uncover lies, confusions and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another.” I knew Neil Postman. He and Charles Weingartner wrote a book titled "Teaching as a Subversive Activity." Back in 1969, I walked into Weingartner's office at Queens College and told him that his book cost me two teaching jobs! I asked him if he knew of any school that would permit his type of teaching. He said he didn't know of any, but asked me if I could start my own. I said, sure, why not! Postman and Weingartner let me list their names as sponsors of my school. They mentioned me in their next book, "The Soft Revolution." I'm on page 2. Postman died in 2003. I don't agree with what he said here. Print can be just as emotional as television, and vice-versa. Is it really more difficult to detect lies on television than in print? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 17:11:26 GMT -5
The supposed trend towards rationalism and enlightenment has always seemed largely fictional to me. The 20th century saw the height of the destructive power of irrational political movements like fascism and nationalism, and that was before TV or the Internet became household items . True. I always thought it absurd when people say that someone is "On the wrong side of history." History doesn't have a right side and a wrong side. 20th century destructive political movements clearly demonstrate this. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 17:17:10 GMT -5
In Objectivism, emotions are something one chooses, not something that one feels. I guess somewhat like a robot or computer rather than a flesh and blood person. That's why, in my opinion, it's so easy for Objectivists to look at other people as objects. Lily, the article you posted doesn't say that at all. Where does it say we choose emotions? We don't. It is values we choose. The article also doesn't say that Objectivists have to look at other people as objects. The main point of that excerpt you posted is that emotions are not a good guide for action. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 17:42:43 GMT -5
You interpreting the article in the way you did, is not the way that the Atlas Society explains emotions. So, apparently you don't agree with them. Fine with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:28:35 GMT -5
Bob, where do values come from? Are you born with them? Do you learn them growing up? Do you finally choose them? If emotions arise out of internal values--which you choose--then it's the same as saying that you choose your emotions.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 20:19:58 GMT -5
Bob, where do values come from? Are you born with them? Do you learn them growing up? Do you finally choose them? If emotions arise out of internal values--which you choose--then it's the same as saying that you choose your emotions. Not directly. Let's say that there are two people who are voting for different candidates. After the election, the person who voted for the winner is happy. The person who voted for the looser is sad. Neither person chose their emotions. Once the values are in place, the emotions are an automatic response to circumstances. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 20:34:56 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that "once the values are in place, the emotions are an automatic response to circumstances"--arising out of the values you've chosen. Right, just what Objectivism says.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 21:29:02 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that "once the values are in place, the emotions are an automatic response to circumstances"-- arising out of the values you've chosen. Right, just what Objectivism says. Yes. Is there something wrong with that view? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 21:40:21 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that "once the values are in place, the emotions are an automatic response to circumstances"-- arising out of the values you've chosen. Right, just what Objectivism says. Yes. Is there something wrong with that view? Bob Yes. And if you read this thread and watched the video, you would know why. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 17, 2017 21:55:25 GMT -5
Yes. Is there something wrong with that view? Bob Yes. And if you read this thread and watched the video, you would know why. Yes. Damasio says that the areas of the brain associated with emotion are also important for making decisions. As evidence, he gave the example of a person who couldn't make even simple decisions. Why? Take a close look at that example. That brain-damaged man could not make simple decisions because he couldn't place a value on the alternatives. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 22:08:00 GMT -5
That's not the point. The point is where emotion comes from in the first place. It's a biological thing, not something one can train oneself to produce the kind of emotion one wants from the kind of values one chooses. Now that would be marvelous. People see therapists and are prescribed drugs to help people with emotional problems. Of course it's your right to believe differently. But doesn't mean it would be correct. I prefer the scientific explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 18, 2017 13:47:24 GMT -5
That's not the point. The point is where emotion comes from in the first place. It's a biological thing, not something one can train oneself to produce the kind of emotion one wants from the kind of values one chooses. Now that would be marvelous. People see therapists and are prescribed drugs to help people with emotional problems. Of course it's your right to believe differently. But doesn't mean it would be correct. I prefer the scientific explanation. It's not enough to prefer scientific explanations. You have to prefer correct scientific explanations. And it is a fact that our emotions can be different if we have different values. Remember that example of two people who voted for two different candidates? They did that because they had different values. The same event (an election) made one happy and the other one sad. Why? Different values, different emotions. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 14:16:34 GMT -5
Have it your way. This is my last post to you because you just make up things, and I'm no longer wasting my time. Count on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 18, 2017 20:57:44 GMT -5
Have it your way. This is my last post to you because you just make up things, and I'm no longer wasting my time. Count on it. What did I "make up?" Nothing. I gave reasons. Do you have any evidence that any of the reasons I gave are wrong? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 11:22:50 GMT -5
That's not the point. The point is where emotion comes from in the first place. It's a biological thing, not something one can train oneself to produce the kind of emotion one wants from the kind of values one chooses. Now that would be marvelous. People see therapists and are prescribed drugs to help people with emotional problems. Of course it's your right to believe differently. But doesn't mean it would be correct. I prefer the scientific explanation. Our neural patterns are not inborn however, they develop and change over time. Learning in the psychological sense isn't purely mental - when we learn, we develop certain patterns in our brains. So our emotions can be both biological and a learned response. Of course, some responses are hardwired to our brains - for example the fight/flight/freeze response is how we react to danger. But then again what triggers the response is not hardwired. But yea, Rand had no knowledge of psychology or neuroscience, and it shows. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 20, 2017 19:22:31 GMT -5
That's not the point. The point is where emotion comes from in the first place. It's a biological thing, not something one can train oneself to produce the kind of emotion one wants from the kind of values one chooses. Now that would be marvelous. People see therapists and are prescribed drugs to help people with emotional problems. Of course it's your right to believe differently. But doesn't mean it would be correct. I prefer the scientific explanation. Our neural patterns are not inborn however, they develop and change over time. Learning in the psychological sense isn't purely mental - when we learn, we develop certain patterns in our brains. So our emotions can be both biological and a learned response. Of course, some responses are hardwired to our brains - for example the fight/flight/freeze response is how we react to danger. But then again what triggers the response is not hardwired. But yea, Rand had no knowledge of psychology or neuroscience, and it shows. Non Sequitur. You didn't specifically connect your comments on the brain to Rand's views on emotions. How does what you say relate to those views? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 13:23:40 GMT -5
Rand's positions were based on her ignorance of the subjects of neuroscience and psychology, as well as her dismissal of these fields as invalid, therefore I see no reason to take her seriously on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 23, 2017 14:04:55 GMT -5
Rand's positions were based on her ignorance of the subjects of neuroscience and psychology, as well as her dismissal of these fields as invalid, therefore I see no reason to take her seriously on this subject. Once again, where is your evidence? And where did she dismiss psychology and neuroscience? Bob |
|
