Emmotions are lies

[pcmattman]

So I just realised that emotions are all just a product of evolution that aids social interactions (or makes them possible...) and reactions.
They have the sole purpose of allowing us to get what we want....

Okay... Whatever.

The realisation has kind of depressed me....

Are you serious? That line alone completely disproves everything you say.

Thanks for a great laugh

[Omega]

Head Shot! Geez, you are completely insane. Let's pray.

[suthers]

I didn't say that I wasn't effected by emotions, just that they where all caused by evolution and we have a reason to do so...
I like your description it makes the Pavlov effect sound a bit like programming another living being
We can't not be effected by emotions because they are hard wired into us, we can condition our selves to ignore them or if we are effected by them to often we will be less effected by them... (Classical symptom in a person who takes drugs, they need more and more to get the same effect...)
As for the Toba catastrophe, it could explain why certain things that would not give anyone person a particular advantage are so wide spread....
And Hope isn't synthetic, it is merely us wanting something to happen which is not 100% sure to happen.
Why should we be effected by the plight of others 1000 of miles away?
It's simply the empathy effect which makes us 'feel' for others plight so that we might attempt to help them, so that when we are in trouble ourselves, they will remember the time we where in trouble and have a higher chance of attempting to help us...
as for why it effects us even when the people we see, we cannot help, it is because evolution has had relatively little time to adapt us to modern living....
(Though I doubting that empathy will be evolved out, because it gives us no particular disadvantage, in fact few genes can be evolved out these days because off the fact that we are so protected by human rights, etc..., so our gene pool cannot really have anything removed from it except genes that cause severe genetic diseases..., the reason why there are very few dominant genes around to day that cause genetic diseases..., only ones like Huntington's disease that manifest themselves later in life, most of the others are recessive and stay around only because of this...)
What makes you think that emotions cannot be evolved Omega?

Jules

edit corrected speelings

[JackScott]

Adding to that, one only has to look at how much a person's emotions progress over the course of a lifetime. New brain connections are made every time we interact, and so the emotions get stronger and weaker, more evolved and eventually a set of morals takes shape. It would not be difficult to say that Richard Stallman was more concerned about free software at age forty than he was at four.

In the same grain, humans progress through teaching over generations. This applies to emotions and so on too. We are taught how to act at differing situations by our parents and mentors. For instance, a person's first funeral is usually very confusing... they don't know how to act, and so they follow their parents lead (unless it is the parents death, in which case they follow somebody else). But they get used to it. Death is part of life. And so they pass this on to their children, and so and so forth. Their children will have stronger emotional bonds, through teaching.

I'm not sure how strongly this is all connected to genes though. Surely there are instincts (such as eating when hungry, sleeping when tired, etc) that every species has, but those are not determined by reason. Or are they? What I am asking really is, are emotions caused by instinct or by reason? If the former, they may be changed through genes, but if the latter, I can't see how they could be. And do all creatures have so much capability in reason as to have emotions? For instance, can a mouse be genuinely unhappy? Or is it just the instinct for hunger/pain/etc coming through?

$0.02

[suthers]

I believe it is a mix of nature and nurture (nature = genes) (nurture = upbringing, teaching, etc...)
The fundamentals of our emotions are based purely on instinct though...
Jules

[suthers]

I have to say that the fact that we are completely controlled by chemical reactions is an interesting subject...
I think that we are not entirely based on chemical reactions, these reactions are caused/effected themselves by external stimuli...
I believe that to have the diversity in human activities/behavioral traits that exist today, a source of 'true' random generation is required (As opposed to a vaguely predictable seeded one, though I hardly needed to explain this on this forum ).
This is where we get to the quantum world, since the reactions of Bosons and Fermions are only predictable to the extent where we can say there is X% chance it will do this and Y% chance it will do this, etc... in different situations, this is quite definitely (In my eyes at least), the source of the random variation...
We cannot explain the source of the 'randomness'.
If we take classical Newtonian, this is completely impossible, and if on top of this the source of it cannot be explained, is it entirely impossible that they are effected by the action of some invisible force, therefore not completely excluding the idea that a 'soul' might exist...., giving rise to the source of 'randomness' required to create the things we can see in this universe...
If we where to follow Omega's idea (Which is entirely based on Newtonian physics), it would be possible given enough computing power and the position of each atom when the 'big bang' (or whatever other theory you believe in) occurred and the amounts of energy each one had...., and other forms that where floating around in the form of Bosons....
Now, you might ask, how do you fit this in to your idea of all emotions are conditioned/evolved into us?
Well, my answer to that is similar to the current catholic churches view on why do people who are psychologically have limitations on how much they can express emotions, etc... and does this effect their soul...
I'll answer this question using a analogy that will be familiar to everybody on this forum:
Imagine your soul as a person sitting in front of a computer, they have an interface through which they can give commands to the computer (The computer represents the body and the interface (TUI/GUI) your brain), if your interface is buggy, however much you type in a command that is buggy, it will still not work properly..., that's my idea at least...
Jules

[JackScott]

Even based on entirely an entirely materialistic view, there is still the possibility of completely random events and objects. For instance, it is known that sub-atomic particles often flitter in and out of existence. It's not really known why they do this, it may be random (or we just might not have discovered the reason why yet). So in this, I agree with suthers. It is truly random. In addition, we have to build a computer that can compute using all this information as input. To calculate everything in the universe in at least real time, you would need a computer the size of the universe itself at least. So that's unlikely to work.

The idea of the soul and the body co-existing (Dualism) is a fairly old view now, most famously held by Descartes. I won't point out all the flaws in his argument, just one. The problem is not believing that the soul exists: we have emotions, we know we exist because we think etc (except for Nietzsche... but he was odd); nor that the body exists... we can feel it, we can see and hear each other and the world around us. The problem comes in how these two are connected. Is it through the brain like suthers suggests? I personally find the idea a bit absurd... it's just atoms interacting to me.

And then as soon as you choose one of these options, Qualia comes along to throw a spanner in the works. If you're a materialist (like myself) it becomes a huge problem... why does my brain see the colour red as red, and why do I feel good when I see blue (my favourite colour)? And then we are back to where we began.

[suthers]

Good ol' cogito ergo sum he?
Well I was not suggesting that the brain was LITERALLY an interface I was using that as an analogy that on second thought wasn't very good, I believe that the soul acts on us by effecting the reactions in our brain..., given the ability to effect quantum 'decisions', it is entirely feasible to effect reactions on this kind of scale, seeing as quantum effects have been observed in molecules as large Buckminsterfullerine....
Also it is a possibility that what we perceive as 'our' soul is in fact 'the soul' which is a source of entropy for randomness for all man kind, effecting us all in different, but perceptible ways, the sum of which added to our nature and it's effect on others (effecting our nurture), allows our 'personality to emerge....
As for why we see blue as blue and red as red, when I look at a colour, I might not 'see' the same thing as other people, but I was told that that colour was red, so through my nurture, I came to know it as red, this might also explain why people have different favourite colours, a combination of their personalty and how they actually perceive a colour...
Jules

edit: changed see to know....

[JackScott]

The soul as a source of entropy? I like that, I like it a lot. Though, on closer inspection it still seems the same as quantum particles. Same effect, but one fits into a material PoV and the other a dualist PoV. Everything you've said seems to still fit a material PoV.

[suthers]

Staying within materialism yet explain the existence of the soul is a difficult task...
Yet I think all my thought fit into both...
My idea for the soul being a source of entropy for the 'randomness', is a good one (at least I think so....), but yes it is in fact the same as the ideas behind quantum theory...
But I differ in the sense that I believe that the randomness isn't the soul, but the randomness is cause by the soul....
It is even possible, if as I do, you think that string theory is correct (though not completely expanded yet...), it is possible to think that the soul might actually be a physical thing..., as it is possible for things to be imperceptible to us as we can only see 3 dimensions of space..., were as according to string theory there are many others which are folded away so that we cannot perceive them...
The soul could be a physical thing that effects us by being a source of entropy that we cannot perceive as it is folded away in other dimensions of space and the 'values' it has for the dimensions we can perceive are 0, but effects certain reactions in our brain...
It is possible that it does this by effecting the parts of the particles we perceive that are present in the dimensions that we do not perceive, as for the particles that appear and disappear, the current thinking is that they exist thanks to energy that they 'borrow' to be able to leave the sea of potential particles that we live in to for a fraction of a second before having to repay it's debt and stop existing again...
It is even possible that this thinking about energy levels, giving them the ability to exist is merely the particles refolding so that they become perceptible to us...
But enough of my thoughts on string theory....
The soul, could be an object in this dimension that interacts with the particles we perceive through the parts of these particles we cannot perceive, it could create this entropy through changing it's shape and reacting with our particles in ways we do not yet understand, but if they have a similar vector way of being expressed as the systems shown in Newtonian mechanics, then again it would be a pseudo-random seeded system..., but it is also possible that it is a true source of randomness....
What do you people think the soul might be/any ideas/opinions about what I just said?
Jules

[Omega]

Well, you have an id, and ego, and super ego. The id I think is you primitive brain which is a lot like the BIOS, it only knows how to start the system at very low levels (breathing, etc). Then you have the ego which is your conscious mind I think this comes from the frontal lobe where all your motor neurons are; they help you experience life without experiencing it physically (like playing a game or watching pron). Then you have the super ego this lies in your sub-conscious and it tells you when you are in trouble or did something right or wrong; I think this is your emotion interpreter; here is where you are asked by the ego, "How'd that feel?".

So, you have these three possible interpreters of the external stimuli and it is up to you to keep them balanced. You do that through self-actualization.

Yes, the brain is highly programmable. The mind learns best under duress, it must contain chaos to take that memory from short term to long term memory. So, if I was to water board someone and at the same time convince them they are Hitler you better bet the farm that person will come out of it thinking they are Hitler. They will of course have a fear of water, drowning, confrontation, etc, which of course would severely limit the person. We also have state dependent memory which means that whatever state you were in when you learned something it is easier to remember it when you return to that state. So, I could get you drunk and teach you Quantum Physics and when you awake you will have probably forgotten everything, but when I get you drunk again, you may pick it up right away. What does all this mean? It means that 1) man was designed to stay current (so no need for evolution (if anything only micro evolution is available)) and 2) man is extremely programmable.

Everything we do is followed by steps. This post will be a step toward my next and from that it may be a step toward something new. Look back at your life and see how you got here, you will see that it was all meant to be, you didn't arrive here on accident.

I think that ideas travel through space as if it were light and people tend to tune in to them, that is how ideas are developed I think. Einstein said, the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. Netwon said I stood upon the shoulder of giants. Edison and another man half-way across the world both filed a patent for the light bulb at the exact same time, just an hour apart. This is more than just a coincidence.

There is certainly more to this life than what meets the eye just waiting to be re-discovered.

[suthers]

What exactly do you mean by micro evolution?
A man does not evolve during his life time, his genes stay the same (to a greater or lesser extent excluding small amounts of mutations...).
A person is meant to be constant during his life time, that I acknowledge, but this does not mean that evolution cannot occur and change personalities between generations over many thousands of years....
I believe that you are thinking of the psychological evolution of a person, but I am talking about the evolution of a species....
Your brake down of the human mind is in fact quite interesting and scientifically based...
The fact that two people did file a patent at different sides of the Atlantic within an hour of each other for the same invention is interesting and could link into my idea (quantum entanglement), that at a macro level, we are much more effected by the quantum world than would at first be apparent (as above I in fact suggest that this could in fact be the soul...) and that one arrived later than the other because of other external variables...

Jules

P.S. sorry for the short post, I'll expand on my ideas in the morning, but it's 1:46 here and I'm tired...

[Omega]

Hi Suthers. What I meant about micro evolution is basically a slap in the face to evolutionists because it implies having a Creationist perception, which I have and do not deny. What I mean by saying "Micro-Evolution" is that the body can only change as you said in a micro way, not a macro way as if a man could one day be man and the next become a bird. Micro-Evolution describes the reason why humans in different parts of the world look different (skin color, bone structure, mass, etc). This is because the body has a natural way of adapting to change such as diet, elevation, and more; however, this change is not instant and takes many generations.

Cool Experiment: I like to test the minds of animals to seek what the limit of and what their 'mind's OS' is capable of (what programs they have, how they deal with errors, change, etc). I have a Russian Hamster and I tied a string to corn and hung it from the center of his cage just high enough he couldn't reach it. He couldn't get it after 24 hours, so I realized that his mind's OS is not creative like perhaps a monkey may be who might employ a stick to help reach the corn. So, I tested his memory by moving the corn just out of reach and just beyond the edge of his second level. I basically installed a fool's trap as it was certain he would fall off trying to go for the corn and he did, but only twice. The third time he reached whilst taking care not to fall off and I don't know how as I wasn't watching anymore at that point but he figured out a way to get it (I am still baffled by it). Anyway, you see even the smallest of creatures posses a good mind capable of adjusting and most importantly adapting to new situations. Thus proving Micro-Evolution.

My favorite is the memory map we create in our minds. This is how we find our ways home or to work, etc. This is how we find our way to our bathrooms and back to the computer. This is how we place the spoon of soup in our mouth and not in our eyes. This map is abstract and imaginary in terms of what is physical. Our minds are naturally abstract in order to preserve us from going into shock. Seriously, humans are insane for their own good. Just think about it for a minute. If humans were not insane we would never drive a car, or fly a plane, or leave our house. The pressure would be too much to handle. We trick ourselves into believing that everything is OK, when in fact it is not.

It is good for man to be clueless, which is why I think we see a pattern of human civilizations growing to the extreme and then falling off the face of the earth. Man cannot handle the ultimate truth, it makes them suicidal, anti-social, etc. I think that what we as pop-culture agree upon as acceptable social behavior is actually unacceptable to the one who is enlightened with ultimate truth. As the ultimate truth about life is that we are always dirty, filled with bacteria, emotions are fake, words are useless (as they often express ones mind state which we know as already as being false), everything we do and achieve means nothing in time (our bones will be trampled upon by the plows of time), what does survive will be questioned for authenticity (so eventually your life will be a lie), and so on and so forth. But, we don't want to live like that, in fact we cannot live like that, so we block it out and substitute reality with our own false sense of reality (one that is typically agreed upon by the masses). If any type of behavior has evolved, especially within the last century, then it was desensitization which was used to abstract reality so that people could actually live long enough to reproduce despite two World Wars and countless other wars thereafter, famine, recession, genocide, terrorism, etc. We need to either be crazy or self-actualize; or else.

[dag]

Read this, and your questions will be answered:

http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/....... (shortened link text - Combuster)

[suthers]

Hi Omega,

I agree completely with your concept of micro evolution...
There are only small changes we can easily do to ourselves...
But herein lies the problem, I agree that parent's will pass on some of their knowledge to their offspring, but with our world changing so fast will it always be applicable?
On top of that are discussion is about whether or not emotions evolved, in the way of macro evolution over many millions of years...
I believed it must have, because are emotions are in build, does somebody teach you how to react to certain things? yes, to a certain extent, but do they teach you how to be sad, how to be happy, how to love? no, they do not, it's in built, engraved into your very genes....
Though I agree that people do evolve some of their personality during their life time and pass that on to their offspring through contact, this is not enough to explain the some of our behavior, most of all not emotions...
Jules