Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: I hold more of a Branden view of the importance of emotions in life, he places more of an emphasis on them than Rand does. Korben, I once read that Rand's main standard was morality and NB's main standard was health. That pretty much sums up why their life's work went in such different directions. btw - Health is closer to biology than morality. So I disagree with views of emotion that discard or downplay biology, evolution, etc. Reason sits on top of emotions and they evolved precisely based on information. Ask yourself why human infants innately fear snakes or snake-like forms. Or why do newborns innately seek human faces from the rest of their visual fields to start their learning about reality? Where did the knowledge to do that come from? Are they using reason? So emotion versus reason is not some kind of internal either-or divide. Without one or the other, we can't even identify things correctly, much less evaluate them. The human mind needs both for (1) survival, (2) flourishing, and (3) propagation of the species. This has been proven time and time again with lobotomized patients. Now, with recent findings of neuroscience, the only way to hold to the false dichotomy is to ignore science anyone can observe and repeat. In fact, in my view, to propose a fundamental internal reason-versus-emotions dichotomy is the same thing as saying humans are born with original sin. In the reason-versus-emotions dichotomy view, we humans are born morally defective, or, if left unprogrammed, will grow morally defective as our cognitive faculty develops, and we have to use philosophy to mold ourselves into moral perfection. Without philosophy, we will continue being our normal morally imperfect selves. Bah. I have no sympathy for that view. What's worse, I used to hold it without detecting the contradiction of imposing artificial rules on my eyes and calling that observation. Once I became aware of it, I started checking premises right and left and reading--doing a hell of a lot of reading. If a principle cannot be justified by observation at the root, it is not valid. And when we observe human evolution, man, does a lot get left out in ideological thinking. (btw - I'm not against ideology. I'm against blanking out observation when it doesn't fit an ideology or a principle.) Why do people use artificial rules in place of observation instead of deriving their rules from observation? The answer is it either boils down to (1) someone said so, or (2) an epistemological process I call deducing reality from a principle. This last means extending the reach of a principle to parts of reality that are not yet observed, or are observed and in contradiction with the principle, in which case, these parts of reality are rationalized away with bullshit. And that's just plain wrong--both cognitively and emotionally. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: I find you too much the expert publicly unleavened by data and personal experience and any sense of wonder. Why would that matter? From Correct Thinking "It is not possible to judge what is being taught by judging the teacher. What must be judged is what is being taught. A teacher's apparent sincerity, air of authority, charismatic charm, credentials, certifications, popularity or broad acceptance do not matter, only the content of their teaching matters. One may only learn from others if one completely understands why what they are taught is true and it does not contradict any certain knowledge they already have." I do not care how you make your judgements, especially of me, but I think yours is the wrong criteria in this case. If you disagree with anything I wrote, because you see some error in the reasoning or disagree with some premise that's fine. If you disagree with what I wrote because of something you think about me, even if what you think is true, it is the wrong reason to disagree, don't you think? Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ask yourself why human infants innately fear snakes or snake-like forms. They don't. "People aren't born afraid of spiders and snakes: Fear is quickly learned during infancy" Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 hours ago, regi said: They don't. "People aren't born afraid of spiders and snakes: Fear is quickly learned during infancy" Randy Randy, Heh. Let's assume this is correct as a gotcha. First, to me, saying infants fear snake forms and spider forms as opposed to snakes and spiders is a matter of semantics when dealing with brain operation. And pretending a primitive form of emotion is not an emotion because it is not the developed form is rationalization. (It reminds me of the abortion argument that a fertilized egg is not an individual human being because it is at an earlier stage of its growth cycle than at a later one.) Also, I was already familiar with Mineka's research, which actually reinforces my position. In other words, knowing and feeling about something in reality is practically the same thing as knowing what to look for and feel for if the question is: Is there something knowledge-wise and emotion-wise there before experience? Why, pray tell, do infants learn such fear "quickly"? Why don't they learn to fear, say, bubbles or clouds or ice cream just as quickly? Because those things are not threatening? How does the infant know those things are not threatening? In other words, if emotion only comes from experience (and, presumably, rational learning), is it true that an infant will only learn to fear a predator and typical predator shapes after having part of his body damaged or consumed by a predator? Does that make any sense to you? Granted, fear can be learned by imitating adult reactions, but that is different than saying ALL fear is learned from imitation. Asking why certain fears are innate in infants or why infants are innately quick to learn one kind of fear over other fears is the same question when dealing with innate knowledge and emotions conveying information. In the "quick to learn" case, the mind already knows what to look for and what to discard. Where did the information to do that come from? Rand called unanswerable questions like this "the given." That sounds pretty innate to me. Frankly, when you look at the behavior of infants as they mature, you see that certain emotions contain a hell of a lot of innate information. Infants come prewired to know what to look for. Evolution-wise, our ancestors developed and passed on some innate knowledge about predators and predator shapes. Those that didn't discern predators in an automatic way became dinner. And that made it hard for them to reproduce. Thus, those individuals did not become our ancestors. Not to mention how emotion affects memory. Basically, when there is no emotion triggering the right neurochemicals, there is no long term memory. Good luck on making concepts and "thinking correctly" without long-term memory. Incidentally, Jordan Peterson has a pretty convincing argument as to why dragons are found in all systems of primitive mythology the world over. A dragon has the main characteristics of primary predators and dangers for monkeys: reptilian form, four legs and claws, fire or hot breath, wings, they are huge, they roar, and so on. A dragon is a Frankenstein monster of sorts, except it is made with different parts of different predators. The fact that these imaginary animals are so uniform through so many different cultures, many without communication to other cultures, is a pretty good external indication of what is innate and what is not fear-wise in the human brain, at least as regards predators... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: In other words, if emotion only comes from experience (and, presumably, rational learning), is it true that an infant will only learn to fear a predator and typical predator shapes after having part of his body damaged or consumed by a predator? Does that make any sense to you? Of course not. Most "fears" are learned rationally, that is, children learn the danger of things by being taught. Here's the problem with emotions. Many people have feelings of fear about things which are actually harmless and deprive themselves of perfectly good things, or suffer debilitating terror when in reality there is nothing to fear. The latter is called paranoia. Other people do not fear things that really are dangerous and rush into things that harm them, because they depend on their feelings to guide their choices. The feelings of fear are obviously not reliable and depending on feeling alone for any judgement is just a gamble. So by what means does one determine whether their feelings of fear are right or not? Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, regi said: ... depending on feeling alone for any judgement... Randy, This is the crux of the false dichotomy, the word "alone." I do not treat feelings as the opposite of reason. In fact, evolution-wise, reason emerged from them (that's a clunky way to say it, but it's pretty accurate). We can probably say that reptiles and other lower life forms that secrete oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, etc. in their nervous systems, depend on "feeling alone" for judgment. Human beings have a different context, but that context and the emergence of reason does not annul the information that is embedded in feelings. Reason builds on it. (Ask any marketer. They commonly teach: Sell with emotion, then justify with logic.) It's not an either-or thing. It's both, it's always been both in humans, and it will probably always be both. You can't turn off parts of your brain when gathering information or processing it. You can slow many of the parts down through willing it and practice (like with meditation or intense semantic focus), but stopping them altogether is like trying to stop your heartbeat or saliva secretions when smelling something appetizing on purpose using only your mind. Here's a great example that shows how reason and emotions (feelings, etc.) interact when they work at odds, and this gets back to our snakes. A man walks in the grass. He sees a snake and before he even realizes it's a snake, he jumps back. Then he sees it's a garden hose and laughs. The initial feeling he got came from a shortcut between the thalamus (an early processing point of sensory input from the eyes) and the amygdala (the main controller of fear and fear-related hormone triggers) without going first through the neocortex. (btw - Both pathways to the amygdala exist, one directly from the thalamus, the shortcut, and the other from the thalamus to the neocortex to the amygdala, which is much longer and takes longer to grok.) Later, when the neocortex of our scared man added more information, he looked closer, saw it was a garden hose, and the fear produced by the amygdala turned into laughter. This initial response is not taught. It develops with growth pretty much like height develops. You can't not develop it. When you keep an infant secluded from certain kinds of predatory shapes (that is, keep the infant in an abnormal artificial environment in the manner of Rand's comprachico pots that the bad guys used for growing distorted skeletons in infants), the infant, on encountering predatory shapes, will later learn to react to them a lot faster than it will learn to react to other unfamiliar things. The brain already evolved how to do this without anyone telling it. And the brain automatically adds fear to the mix when the shortcut is used, not sadness or joy. That is innate knowledge by any standard. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 51 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I do not treat feelings as the opposite of reason. In fact, evolution-wise, reason emerged from them (that's a clunky way to say it, but it's pretty accurate). I'm sorry Michael, I cannot accept anyone's faith in the non-scientific or non-objective as the basis for anything. Evolution is an unscientific conjecture about origins which no one knows and must accept on faith because it cannot be verified by evidence or repeatable experiment. I certainly don't care if you do, most people believe in evolution or some other religion. However, I am amazed at the lengths to which people will go to deny that everything they think and do must be by conscious choice. Why does anyone want to believe they have some kind of mystic knowledge injected into their consciousness by the Holy Spirit, or heredity, or evolution? So help me out. If someone provided incontrovertible proof that there is no knowledge of any kind except that learned by the individual using their own mind, would that disappoint you? If it would, why? No matter how you answer, I will not argue with it. It is your opinion I'm asking for. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 40 minutes ago, regi said: So help me out. If someone provided incontrovertible proof that there is no knowledge of any kind except that learned by the individual using their own mind, would that disappoint you? No. But why are you interested in my emotions? And how does that help you? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 45 minutes ago, regi said: I'm sorry Michael, I cannot accept anyone's faith in the non-scientific or non-objective as the basis for anything. Evolution is an unscientific conjecture about origins which no one knows and must accept on faith because it cannot be verified by evidence or repeatable experiment. Randy, Then you obviously don't believe in genetic engineering. GMO's and so forth. Like the ones that are sold in supermarkets everywhere. Right? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: But why are you interested in my emotions? I wasn't asking how you'd feel, I was asking if you would be disappointed, intellecutally, as when you expect something to be one way then discover it is another, which might or might not be accompanied by a feeling. It would help me to know how people think, which I'm very much interested in. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Randy, Disappointment is an emotion. It doesn't matter if it's source that triggers it is intellectual, from relationships, whatever. Disappointment, just like elation, is an emotional response. Look it up. If we can't agree on that, specifically that we can't use normal dictionary meanings for words, I don't know how to continue. I mean, we can look at a foot and call it a hand because you think it should be called a hand, but I don't see the point. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 william.scherk, Thanks for the link, William. I've researcched evolution for over thirty years and believe I've examined every argument for it. Evolution is plausible enough, which is why it is so widely accepted, it just isn't science. It is a hugely complex hypothesis which has more unanswered questions and problems than any substantial evidence. I have no objection to others accepting it without question, as most do. For the life of me I cannot figure out why it bothers anyone else if I don't accept it. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Look it up. I did. I was using the word disappointment in this sense from the Collins English dictionary: "Something or someone that is a disappointment is not as good as you had hoped." I really don't care how you would like to define it, if you don't care to answer the question just say so. That will be answer enough. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 28 minutes ago, regi said: I have no objection to others accepting it without question, as most do. For the life of me I cannot figure out why it bothers anyone else if I don't accept it. I study persuasion and it's awfully tempting to go into this bait and switch and show how it works. In fact, I will a little. Most people are not bothered by someone not accepting evolution. Most people are bothered by the claim that evolution can only be accepted on faith and then are compared to fundamentalist religionists. The purpose of baiting and switching this way, I believe, it to scratch a vanity itch. So let me help out our dear Randy. Winding up... Here goes... Most people are bothered by Randy not accepting evolution because such non-acceptance is proof he is intellectually superior to them and that makes them feel bad, poor things. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, regi said: I was using the word disappointment in this sense from the Collins English dictionary: "Something or someone that is a disappointment is not as good as you had hoped." Hope is an emotion. Thus, disappointment is an emotional reaction to an emotion (hope) according to Collins. That is the meaning for conceptual thinkers. And even for gotcha thinkers, defining disappointment with disappointment is a bit of a tautology... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 william.scherk I just responded to your request on the Moral Individual. Please use the article as you please. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Hope is an emotion. Thus, disappointment is an emotional reaction to an emotion (hope) according to Collins. That is the meaning for conceptual thinkers. And even for gotcha thinkers, defining disappointment with disappointment is a bit of a tautology... Michael Thanks, Michael. I've got my answer. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, regi said: I've researcched evolution for over thirty years and believe I've examined every argument for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, regi said: Thanks, Michael. I've got my answer. Randy, I'm not sure what the question was, but I'm pleased you have found the answer. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I'm pleased you have found the answer. Really? or is it just a feeling? ;) I'm pleased you're pleased. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Setting aside the fun, I want to share a persuasion technique with readers. I've mentioned this before, but it has been unfolding right before our eyes. So I want to call attention to it. There are many names for it, double bind, limiting the menu, false dichotomy, etc. Once you know about it and can to "meta thinking" with it, ("meta thinking" is a technical sounding term for being aware of a thinking process at the same time you are using it), you will see it everywhere. I don't want to get involved in the evolution thing since it tends to lead to weird places, but I do want to use one of Randy's statements as he is doing double binds a lot in this thread. Take this statement, for example: 5 hours ago, regi said: The feelings of fear are obviously not reliable and depending on feeling alone for any judgement is just a gamble. So by what means does one determine whether their feelings of fear are right or not? What is on the menu? 1. "Feelings of fear are obviously not reliable," and 2. "Depending on feeling alone for any judgement (sic) is just a gamble." What is not on the menu? Examples where fear works well for information, the neuroscience of fear and all the rest. That's what. (There are other issues--like emotion and reason being part of the same mental processes and even other science--but I don't want to go into the substance in this post. The issue is how the substance is framed, i.e. the limited menu.) So there are two options. Clear and reasonable-sounding options. Then, when the question comes ("by what means does one determine whether their feelings of fear are right or not?"), if you are taking this question seriously within the context of the post, you might not notice that the answer is already given in two options, or you might come up with a third option of trying to mention new information, but this has already been pre-dismissed as "obviously not reliable" and "just a gamble" since it will inevitably deal with fear. This is a pretty on-the-nose example of menu limiting so it's instructive. Why do that? Well, in the example above, it's to reinforce a presupposition about emotions rather than engage in critical thinking about them. So the potatoes are pretty small. btw - Randy has no monopoly on this. And I suspect he doesn't do it on purpose. It's more like a habit. But, the fact is, people do this all the time. Double-binds can be used for trickier stuff, too. Wanna see? Once you have engaged in conversation with a pretty girl and she has warmed up to you, and you have mentioned there is a show on Thursday and Friday that she seems to be interested in, you ask her which show she prefers to go to with you, the one on Thursday or the one on Friday. What's not on the menu? Her not going anywhere with you. That's what. But she has the illusion of a reasonable choice since there are a couple of options on the menu. It's just that in both cases, she will be going on a date with you. She isn't being offered a choice for that part. If you start paying attention to when a specific outcome or answer is included in all choices given for a question, and you pay attention to how people respond, you will start to see how effective this darn little technique is. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 34 minutes ago, regi said: I'm pleased your pleased. You're. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regi Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 5 hours ago, regi said: The feelings of fear are obviously not reliable and depending on feeling alone for any judgement is just a gamble. So by what means does one determine whether their feelings of fear are right or not? What is on the menu? 1. "Feelings of fear are obviously not reliable," and 2. "Depending on feeling alone for any judgement (sic) is just a gamble." What is not on the menu? Examples where fear works well for information, the neuroscience of fear and all the rest. That's what. (There are other issues--like emotion and reason being part of the same mental processes and even other science--but I don't want to go into the substance in this post. The issue is how the substance is framed, i.e. the limited menu.) So there are two options. Clear and reasonable-sounding options. Then, when the question comes ("by what means does one determine whether their feelings of fear are right or not?"), if you are taking this question seriously within the context of the post, you might not notice that the answer is already given in two options, or you might come up with a third option of trying to mention new information, but this has already been pre-dismissed as "obviously not reliable" and "just a gamble" since it will inevitably deal with fear. Michael, There is no menu. If you believe there are examples of, "where fear works well," is irrelevant to the question. Unless you believe fear always works well, the question pertains to those instances when someone experiences fear about which they are in doubt. What method do they use to determine if the fear is reality based or simply paranoia. The two sentences you misconstrued as, "menu items," only described the situation when the nature of fear is in doubt. The question is entirely open ended. There is no suggestion of any method. I don't think you intended to, but you completely misrepresented my question. Unless fear always, "works well," it means it sometimes does not "work well." It means at least sometimes it is unreliable. How does one know when their fear is "working well," and when it isn't. Isn't it risky to act out of fear if one isn't certain their fear is, "working well?" Wouldn't that be a gamble? That's all I said. Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now