Are emotions worthless for understanding reality?

[D'rok]

This thread is based on Belz's comment in lightcreatedlife's epic thread of nonsense that "emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2516845#post2516845

I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I am in firm agreement with Belz. Our best chance for revealing what is real about the world around us certainly lies in the scientific method and the systematic attempts to eliminate bias, emotion, and irrational beliefs. I suspect that like me, most JREF'ers think that "things" exist and there is such a thing as an objectively real world about which we are capable of making true statements.

OTOH, it is painfully obvious that humans are not perfectly or even inherently rational beings. Hell, how many of us behaved perfectly rationally last Saturday night? I know I didn't, even though I attempt to maintain a rational, sceptical outlook as much as possilbe.

Where the rational approach breaks down is when it is confronted with social or even political reality - i.e., the particularly human world that we create for ourselves. There is a sense in which we all rely on basic emotional instincs such as empathy to guide our decisions and we "rationalize" these decisions post-hoc. We are creatures of Eros as well as Logos.

If anyone has read the book The Manticore by Robertson Davies, the main character (Davey Staunton) goes to see an illusionist and is confronted by a dismebodied talking head named Friar Bacon (as in "Francis") who gives inane and trivial answers to audience questions. It quickly becomes apparent that Davey himself is a disembodied head and the rest of the book is his quest to rediscover his guts, heart and feelings in order to live a completely human life.

The flip side of this is someone who lives entirely by their guts, loins and heart and ignores their head. Such a person is like the headless horseman, and we all know what headless horsemen do...they go around trying to seperate everyone else from their heads. (Hello DJJ, Godsend, etc.)

So my point to all this is...at what point does our scepticism render us into disembodied heads? Isn't the real challenge of being human to know when to rely on our emotional instincts and at the same time recognize when our emotional intincts interfere with our reasoning about the world?

In short, do JREF'ers accept a place for emotion in understanding reality, however limited that place may be?

(Sorry if this has been covered in depth previously, I'm relatively new here)

[Ichneumonwasp]

If we are expansive enough in our definition of "emotion", then we do nothing without them. A non-emotional "intellect" would be similar to a CPU. Emotions underly all of our intellectual endeavors -- they are what tell us what to study and why. They serve as our motivators. Folks with frontal lobe damage who cannot pair emotion with "reasoning" very well cannot perform simple daily functions or order what is important in their day.

[D'rok]

If we are expansive enough in our definition of "emotion", then we do nothing without them. A non-emotional "intellect" would be similar to a CPU. Emotions underly all of our intellectual endeavors -- they are what tell us what to study and why. They serve as our motivators. Folks with frontal lobe damage who cannot pair emotion with "reasoning" very well cannot perform simple daily functions or order what is important in their day.

Good answer. I like the CPU analogy. Perhaps emotions are an integral part of the source code of our OS.

[slingblade]

I don't have much of a choice but to acknowledge and attempt to live with my emotions. Mine are fairly intense, and difficult to control. It is not a matter of will-power, or the lack thereof.

I've only just begun to see exactly how I should be dealing with and attempting to regulate (not control) my emotional mind. But without my emotions, especially my empathy, my reasoning would definitely suffer.

I think everyone's would suffer without a certain amount of emotional ability. How much, I don't know.

But those on the opposite end of the spectrum from me.....I believe we call them sociopaths, yes? Speaking in unforgiveably broad terms, having a near or total lack of conscience, of empathy or sympathy, tends to cause one to make some pretty lousy choices, yes? That's not evidence or proof, but it shows me at least one way emotional ability can be considered important.

[andyandy]

In short, do JREF'ers accept a place for emotion in understanding reality, however limited that place may be?



insofar as everything we understand is processed through our subjective self, emotion is inevitably a part of our understanding of reality....

[Loss Leader]

Having participated in the LCL thread, I am sure that Belz meant that emotions are worthless for understanding the physical world. They are really only relevant to our emotional lives - internal and social. In understanding psychology or sociology, an understanding of emotions is not just important but necessary.

However, is there ever a time when emotional reaction produces better understanding of any issue than logical thought? We may need to understand what emotions are at play in a presidential election, but do we need to feel them in order to study them? I'm not so sure. The only information one can reliably gather from the fact that one is feeling angry is that one is feeling angry. Anything else (like figuring out what factors caused the anger) requires reason.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Having participated in the LCL thread, I am sure that Belz meant that emotions are worthless for understanding the physical world. They are really only relevant to our emotional lives - internal and social. In understanding psychology or sociology, an understanding of emotions is not just important but necessary.



But emotions are critical to value. We have no idea what anything means in the eternal world without them or what is important. I'm not sure that we can speak of "understanding" in the radical absence of emotion whether or not that "understanding" refers to objects in the external world or our internal states.

[D'rok]

But without my emotions, especially my empathy, my reasoning would definitely suffer.

I think everyone's would suffer without a certain amount of emotional ability. How much, I don't know.

I tend to agree with this.

But those on the opposite end of the spectrum from me.....I believe we call them sociopaths, yes? Speaking in unforgiveably broad terms, having a near or total lack of conscience, of empathy or sympathy, tends to cause one to make some pretty lousy choices, yes? That's not evidence or proof, but it shows me at least one way emotional ability can be considered important.

I agree with this too. But consider the choices made by those who reject reason and rationality. Nietzsche and Heidegger, if read in a really poor fashion, seem to be calling for a pre-Socratic, pre-rational, mytho-poetic aproach to the world. This is the approach championed and actualized by fascism and totalitarianism in general.

Shutting off your brain and emphathizing strictly with the State or the "Volk" is really dangerous. It seems like there has to be a place for "reasonable" emotion in human understanding.

[D'rok]

But emotions are critical to value. We have no idea what anything means in the eternal world without them or what is important. I'm not sure that we can speak of "understanding" in the radical absence of emotion whether or not that "understanding" refers to objects in the external world or our internal states.

For me, a fascinating wrinkle in this is the effort by neuroscience to understand the source and mechanics of emotion. It may be possible for us to acquire an empircal, scientific description of emotion itself. Would this change our perception of the value of emotion? Would a scientific understanding tend to validate emotion or denigrate it?

[Ichneumonwasp]

For me, a fascinating wrinkle in this is the effort by neuroscience to uderstand the source and mechanics of emotion. It may be possible for us to acquire an empircal, scientific description of emotion itself. Would this change are perception of the value of emotion? Would a scientific understanding tend to validate emotion or denigrate it?

It should simply exlain it. That is what science does. Sunrises still look damn beautiful to me even though I know the explanation for them.

And it should stopper the mouths of all the dualists in the world, since it will provide better means for us understanding that slippery bugger we call consciousness.

[Dancing David]

I would say that emotions are meant to be like the road signs of life, curve ahead, danger and stop.

Of course one should not take roadsigns as gospel.

The real problem is when people ignore what thier emotions are trying to tell them. Like your spouse is abusive or you are upset about something.

[Dancing David]

For me, a fascinating wrinkle in this is the effort by neuroscience to uderstand the source and mechanics of emotion. It may be possible for us to acquire an empircal, scientific description of emotion itself. Would this change are perception of the value of emotion? Would a scientific understanding tend to validate emotion or denigrate it?


From my understanding, which is rather limited, the emotions have meaning only in the context of cognition and memory, some emotions are basicaly the same but interpreted by the cognitive context. Anger and sexual arousal are physiologicaly the same, it is the context of the brain that gives it the definition. And that also explains some of the stranger behavior of people, like why they are attracted to people that make them angry.

[D'rok]

IAnd it should stopper the mouths of all the dualists in the world, since it will provide better means for us understanding that slippery bugger we call consciousness.

Good point.

[Dancing David]

But emotions are critical to value. We have no idea what anything means in the eternal world without them or what is important. I'm not sure that we can speak of "understanding" in the radical absence of emotion whether or not that "understanding" refers to objects in the external world or our internal states.

Yay! We are rational, intuitive and emotive beings, emotions are part of non-cognitive perceptions and responses.

[Belz...]

Here's what I meant.

Although emotions are PART of our subjective reality, they are worthless for understanding the physical, objective reality.

Long version. When something happens to me that makes me angry, sad, happy or otherwise emotional, it does not follow that said emotion reveals any truth about reality. For example, just because someone says something to me and it makes me angry, doesn't mean he did it on purpose, or that his words somehow are inherently anger-generating. I am angry because of my biological responses to an interpretation of the words' meaning. But the true meaning of the words, only the speaker knows.

It's the same for the other emotions and for the lot of emotional responses I can have. Just because I have them, doesn't tell me anything about the world. Just think of how many people buy stuff because they have "a good feeling" about the product. Your feelings mean NOTHING about the efficacy of said product. So why trust them ?

So your emotions are part of your reality. Understanding them will help you cope with YOUR life. But if what you're trying to do is form a working model of an aspect of physical, objective reality, then you'd better find a more consistent methods than trusting your instinctive survival traits and hormones.

[D'rok]

Here's what I meant.

Although emotions are PART of our subjective reality, they are worthless for understanding the physical, objective reality.

Long version. When something happens to me that makes me angry, sad, happy or otherwise emotional, it does not follow that said emotion reveals any truth about reality. For example, just because someone says something to me and it makes me angry, doesn't mean he did it on purpose, or that his words somehow are inherently anger-generating. I am angry because of my biological responses to an interpretation of the words' meaning. But the true meaning of the words, only the speaker knows.

It's the same for the other emotions and for the lot of emotional responses I can have. Just because I have them, doesn't tell me anything about the world. Just think of how many people buy stuff because they have "a good feeling" about the product. Your feelings mean NOTHING about the efficacy of said product. So why trust them ?

So your emotions are part of your reality. Understanding them will help you cope with YOUR life. But if what you're trying to do is form a working model of an aspect of physical, objective reality, then you'd better find a more consistent methods than trusting your instinctive survival traits and hormones.


I can't argue with any of this. But I wonder how succesfull you are at maintaining your own standard? Not that I doubt the value of the attempt or your sincerity, but it is a pretty high standard.

In other words, is there any particular understanding of physical phenomena that you are especially emotionally invested in? Could you shed yourself of any facet of your knowledge based on evidence alone? No matter how rational we are, we all get pretty emotionally attached to our notions.

I don't really agree with him, but Heidegger makes a pretty compelling argument that we impose our will on reality through our categories of understanding. He calls it "enframing". I call BS on it in general, but there is just enough of a grain of truth in it to put a splinter in the mind's eye.

Another question is the value of instrumental reason to us as hairless monkeys. It is possible to argue that emotions/myths/fables have more value to us even if their truth function is nil.

I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, as I essentially agree with you. Yet questions remain.

[Belz...]

I can't argue with any of this. But I wonder how succesfull you are at maintaining your own standard?

Not bad. I'm usually extremely emotional. But when it comes to forming opinions, I'm fairly objective.

[Hokulele]

For a strange twist on this question, consider Capgras' Syndrome (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03266/224822.stm). This is a brain disorder some neuroscientists believe is caused by a problem with equating emotions to perceived objects. This can cause the sufferer to fail to recognize family members or even themselves. Here, emotions are directly tied to observing the "real world", and making judgements about what is observed.

Note: The article linked isn't a scientific publication, but gives sources and a decent overview of the syndrome. A quick Google should find more than you really want to know.

[D'rok]

For a strange twist on this question, consider Capgras' Syndrome (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03266/224822.stm). This is a brain disorder some neuroscientists believe is caused by a problem with equating emotions to perceived objects. This can cause the sufferer to fail to recognize family members or even themselves. Here, emotions are directly tied to observing the "real world", and making judgements about what is observed.

Note: The article linked isn't a scientific publication, but gives sources and a decent overview of the syndrome. A quick Google should find more than you really want to know.

That's a fascinating example. I hadn't heard of this before. Thanks Hokulele.

[drkitten]

Although emotions are PART of our subjective reality, they are worthless for understanding the physical, objective reality.

Long version. When something happens to me that makes me angry, sad, happy or otherwise emotional, it does not follow that said emotion reveals any truth about reality. For example, just because someone says something to me and it makes me angry, doesn't mean he did it on purpose, or that his words somehow are inherently anger-generating. I am angry because of my biological responses to an interpretation of the words' meaning. But the true meaning of the words, only the speaker knows.

I would disagree with this. Or more accurately, I would disagree with the direction you are trying to take this.

I like to think of my emotions they way I do about my "hunches." They're my "subconscious" mind trying to think for me, which it usually does via pattern-matching. Now, my subconscious mind isn't always right, but it's got an extremely good track record, enough that I'm usually willing to trust it. If I'm in an interview situation, for example, and I suddenly get really "bad vibes" about the whole situation, I'll usually end up saying "no" even though I can't consciously, directly, and rationally analyze what's wrong.

Sometimes, of course, this keeps me from accepting very good situations and positions. At least in theory. So far, it hasn't. Usually (on the plane home or something like that), I've been able to take a few hours and stare at the situation until I can rationally identify the problem, and my usual reaction is "I almost stepped in what?" So my subconscious has as close to a 100% accuracy rate --- no "false positives" -- as my mortal memory will permit.

Does this mean that my emotions help me understand reality? I'd say that it does. Without them, and the emotional cues I get, I'd probably get into substantially more trouble than I do. In particular,

you'd better find a more consistent methods than trusting your instinctive survival traits and hormones.

I thin that my "instinctive survival traits and hormones" seem to have a very, very good and consistent track record -- better in many ways than my rational thought processes.

[strathmeyer]

Huh? Can you restate the question? Perhaps my answer is "obviously not"?

[D'rok]

Sometimes, of course, this keeps me from accepting very good situations and positions. At least in theory. So far, it hasn't. Usually (on the plane home or something like that), I've been able to take a few hours and stare at the situation until I can rationally identify the problem, and my usual reaction is "I almost stepped in what?" So my subconscious has as close to a 100% accuracy rate --- no "false positives" -- as my mortal memory will permit.

Does this mean that my emotions help me understand reality? I'd say that it does. Without them, and the emotional cues I get, I'd probably get into substantially more trouble than I do.

But isn't this just post-hoc rationalizaiton of an emotional decision? I'll assert that you would probably be able to perform this cognitive feat regardless of the decision - i.e., your 100% success rate is really only your success in rationalizing your decisions whatever they may be and is not a reflection of an accurate perception of reality.

We do this kind of reasoning all the time where we assume that just because something happened in a certain way means that it had to happen that way. There's an entire discipline of philosophy (historicism) based around it. This is fallacious in my opinion.

[drkitten]

But isn't this just post-hoc rationalizaiton of an emotional decision?

That's certainly a possibility, but simply because a decision is analyzed after-the-fact and determined to be correct doesn't make it a "post-hoc rationalization."

I'll give you a specific example. I was interviewing for an assistant professorship with the ink still wet on my Ph.D. (ah, for the halycon days of youth) and was talking to some very nice people at Whatsamatta U. when I started to get a really bad feeling about the place. I didn't say "no" at the time, but I had more or less written them off my list. It wasn't until I got a phone offer a few days later and I saw what they were paying -- basically, 2/3 of what I could have (and did) get elsewhere within a couple of days -- that I realized how out of touch they were with the economic realities of the discipline. There were a number of other signs as well -- out-of-date textbooks, a curriculum that hadn't been updated in a while, and so forth. But the salary was what brought this fact to my conscious notice.

Similarly, at another place, I started getting the screaming meemies, and only later did I find out that a) we hadn't discussed teaching load at all during the interview, and b) they expected a 5/5 teaching load (where a more normal load is 2/2 or 2/1) at this place, which would have prevented me from ever writing another paper in my life.

I'll assert that you would probably be able to perform this cognitive feat regardless of the decision

I specifically disagree. I think that no rational analysis could have made either of those places a good spot or a good fit for me. In both of those cases, I was later able to find specific information that, had it been available to me at the time of the interview would have caused me to turn down the invitation to visit. They had managed to conceal that information from my conscious mind, but not from my "instincts"....

[Belz...]

I like to think of my emotions they way I do about my "hunches." They're my "subconscious" mind trying to think for me

Really ? Pray tell, what is this "subconscious" of which you speak ?

Now, my subconscious mind isn't always right, but it's got an extremely good track record, enough that I'm usually willing to trust it.

Examples ? My "subconscious" usually makes my eyes blink and my lungs pump air.

If I'm in an interview situation, for example, and I suddenly get really "bad vibes" about the whole situation, I'll usually end up saying "no" even though I can't consciously, directly, and rationally analyze what's wrong.

Which is exactly what I was talking about. Your "bad vibes" are not waves emitted by the other person. They have noting to do with the world around you and they don't give you actual information. They are an internal feeling that may or may not have anything to do with physical reality. If they're ever right, then I dare you to prove that they are more often than we'd expect from chance alone.

So my subconscious has as close to a 100% accuracy rate --- no "false positives" -- as my mortal memory will permit.

I call confirmation bias.

Does this mean that my emotions help me understand reality? I'd say that it does. Without them, and the emotional cues I get, I'd probably get into substantially more trouble than I do.

Emotional cues ? So when someone says something that anger you, the anger "cue" means they did it on purpose ?

I thin that my "instinctive survival traits and hormones" seem to have a very, very good and consistent track record -- better in many ways than my rational thought processes.

I have a hard time imagining how it could. Analysing situations and problems is what makes humans smarter. If hunches were enough, we wouldn't need this very energy-costly brain of ours.

[Belz...]

when I started to get a really bad feeling about the place.

Uh-huh. But was this really a feeling, or a feeling based on something you observed ?

And do you tend to notice when you're wrong ? If you don't, or if you still claim an impossible near-100% success rate, I definitevely call confirmation bias.

[D'rok]

I specifically disagree. I think that no rational analysis could have made either of those places a good spot or a good fit for me. In both of those cases, I was later able to find specific information that, had it been available to me at the time of the interview would have caused me to turn down the invitation to visit. They had managed to conceal that information from my conscious mind, but not from my "instincts"....

I think there's probably something to what you're saying in that we frequently base our decisions and evaluations on instinct and emotion...and we usually value those evaluations quite highly. I'm less convinced that your compelling reasons weren't, as Belz says, confimation bias.

This isn't a personal attack, I'm just curious about how the mind works. Whatever the mechanism, your decision-making capacity is probably functioning perfectly.

[drkitten]

Which is exactly what I was talking about.

Yes, that's good, because that's what it was intended as. A specific example that illustrated that you're fundamentally wrong.

More exactly,
Your "bad vibes" are not waves emitted by the other person.

Of course they aren't. But on the other hand,


They have noting to do with the world around you

The hell they don't.


and they don't give you actual information.

And again, the hell they don't.

If you're afraid, then there is often a reason you're afraid. The world used to be divided among people who were afraid when tney saw a sabre-toothed tiger and those who thought "nice kitty," and now it's divided among the descendants of, largely, the first group. Because there is an objective and valid reason to stay away from large predators, and if "fear" makes you do that, then "fear" gives you that information.

They are an internal feeling that may or may not have anything to do with physical reality.

If they are no more accurate than chance, then evolution has a lot to answer for.



I call confirmation bias.

Nope. The few times I've ever gotten "vibes" that strong, I've always been able to find specific information proving the hunches to be correct.

Analysing situations and problems is what makes humans smarter. If hunches were enough, we wouldn't need this very energy-costly brain of ours.

Then you don't know much about what hunches are. As I said, most emotional cues (and hunches) are the result of the pattern-matching performed in the very energy-costly brain that we've evolved. "Rational," step by step thought is relatively slow; pattern maching can be done in an instant. But there's little that's actually "instinctive" about the pattern matching beyond the process, since most of the power in being able to recognized patterns comes from the patterns themselves that one has learned to identify. An expert chess player, for example, uses mostly pattern-recognition (instead of play analysis) to determine what the best move to make in a given situation is; an expert in the art world can spot a forgery at a glance because it doesn't "look right" (See Blink for a discussion of this.), without being able to consciously articulate the problems.

[ImaginalDisc]

Then you don't know much about what hunches are. As I said, most emotional cues (and hunches) are the result of the pattern-matching performed in the very energy-costly brain that we've evolved. "Rational," step by step thought is relatively slow; pattern maching can be done in an instant. But there's little that's actually "instinctive" about the pattern matching beyond the process, since most of the power in being able to recognized patterns comes from the patterns themselves that one has learned to identify. An expert chess player, for example, uses mostly pattern-recognition (instead of play analysis) to determine what the best move to make in a given situation is; an expert in the art world can spot a forgery at a glance because it doesn't "look right" (See Blink for a discussion of this.), without being able to consciously articulate the problems.


That sounds like a lot of rationalization for the fact that you took an action without an rational thought, based purely on your emotional reaction.

[ImaginalDisc]

Then you don't know much about what hunches are. As I said, most emotional cues (and hunches) are the result of the pattern-matching performed in the very energy-costly brain that we've evolved. "Rational," step by step thought is relatively slow; pattern maching can be done in an instant. But there's little that's actually "instinctive" about the pattern matching beyond the process, since most of the power in being able to recognized patterns comes from the patterns themselves that one has learned to identify. An expert chess player, for example, uses mostly pattern-recognition (instead of play analysis) to determine what the best move to make in a given situation is; an expert in the art world can spot a forgery at a glance because it doesn't "look right" (See Blink for a discussion of this.), without being able to consciously articulate the problems.


That sounds like a lot of rationalization for the fact that you took an action without any rational thought, based purely on your emotional reaction.

[drkitten]

Uh-huh. But was this really a feeling, or a feeling based on something you observed ?

That question doesn't even make sense. Almost all feelings are based on things that people notice.


And do you tend to notice when you're wrong ?

Yes. And it happens rarely enough that I'm comfortable relying on my hunches as a source of judgement.

If you don't, or if you still claim an impossible near-100% success rate, I definitevely call confirmation bias.

That is, of course, your perogative -- with the proviso that you are absolutely, completely, beyond-the-pale and possibility of redemption, wrong.

I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the idea of subconscious pattern matching. It's a well-documented neurological phenomenon. As an accessible example, see Larry Weiskrantz's blindsight studies. He found a set of people with damage to the visual cortex of their brains, such that they could only see (report on ) the left side of images. (Or maybe right side). For example, if you gave them a picture of a plate of food, they could only name the items on the left side of the plate. If you showed them a picture of a person with a band-aid on the right side of his face, and asked "has he been injured recently?", they would say "no."

But he found that they could still make emotional judgements about the photos. For example, he made a drawing of a house with flames coming out of (only) the right side, and an identical drawing but without the flames. The subjects swore up and down that there was no difference between the two pictures -- but when asked, in a forced choice situation, "which house would you rather live in," they almost all picked the one that wasn't on fire. There was obviously some information in the picture that they couldn't (consciously) "see" or articulate, but that they were able to process and to understand at an emotional level.

If Larry's patients can decide that a house isn't fit to live in without actually noticing the flames, I have no problem believing that I can recognize an uncongenial work environment without actually noticing the specific cues that tripped that recognition. And in this sense, "emotions" are very helpful, because they're another way of analyzing data.

[drkitten]

That sounds like a lot of rationalization for the fact that you took an action without any rational thought, based purely on your emotional reaction.

No, it's actually a lot of rationalization because I noticed that my emotional reactions were so much more likely to be right than my "rational" ones, and I wondered why that was the case. Fortunately, there's a well established body of research on the subject, so a few months in the library were able to satisfy my curiosity on the issue.

[D'rok]

Yes, that's good, because that's what it was intended as. A specific example that illustrated that you're fundamentally wrong.

More exactly,


Of course they aren't. But on the other hand,


They have noting to do with the world around youThe hell they don't.



And again, the hell they don't.

If you're afraid, then there is often a reason you're afraid. The world used to be divided among people who were afraid when tney saw a sabre-toothed tiger and those who thought "nice kitty," and now it's divided among the descendants of, largely, the first group. Because there is an objective and valid reason to stay away from large predators, and if "fear" makes you do that, then "fear" gives you that information.



If they are no more accurate than chance, then evolution has a lot to answer for.




Nope. The few times I've ever gotten "vibes" that strong, I've always been able to find specific information proving the hunches to be correct.



Then you don't know much about what hunches are. As I said, most emotional cues (and hunches) are the result of the pattern-matching performed in the very energy-costly brain that we've evolved. "Rational," step by step thought is relatively slow; pattern maching can be done in an instant. But there's little that's actually "instinctive" about the pattern matching beyond the process, since most of the power in being able to recognized patterns comes from the patterns themselves that one has learned to identify. An expert chess player, for example, uses mostly pattern-recognition (instead of play analysis) to determine what the best move to make in a given situation is; an expert in the art world can spot a forgery at a glance because it doesn't "look right" (See Blink for a discussion of this.), without being able to consciously articulate the problems.


These are interesting counter-arguments. For your overall argument to hold, it would have to be possible to determine if you correctly identified that those metaphorical sabre-toothed tigers (poor choices for employment) were bad for you because they had claws, fangs, and were hungry. Maybe you just observed that they had stripes and fur and concluded that that was the reason for your instinctual reaction? I don't know how it would be possible to tell the difference between a correct after-the-fact evaluation and an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization.

[drkitten]

I'm less convinced that your compelling reasons weren't, as Belz says, confimation bias.

In what sense is three-times-the-workload for two-thirds the pay not a compelling reason to reject a job?

[ImaginalDisc]

In what sense is three-times-the-workload for two-thirds the pay not a compelling reason to reject a job?

You're contradicting yourself? That's not a "bad vibe" that's a poor offer.

[drkitten]

These are interesting counter-arguments. For your overall argument to hold, it would have to be possible to determine if you correctly identified that those metaphorical sabre-toothed tigers (poor choices for employment) were bad for you because they had claws, fangs, and were hungry.

Er, no, it wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the whole point of pattern matching is to avoid that sort of analysis.

Maybe you just observed that they had stripes and fur and concluded that that was the reason for your instinctual reaction?

But that's what pattern matching does. My pattern matching has noted, apparently, that stripes and fur -- or possibly vertical stripes on cloudy Friday afternoons -- are bad. It doesn't need to notice details like claws and fangs, because stripes and clouds are enough for it to trigger.

The question -- and it's an empirical one -- is how well the pattern matcher can learn the right accessible clues and put them together to get the hidden ones. Mine seems to be quite good.


I don't know how it would be possible to tell the difference between a correct after-the-fact evaluation and an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization.

As I said, my standards were fairly clear-cut. If I had known the information that I later received, I would not have accepted the interview for the job. I had prior criteria that I used to eliminate job propects preemptively (I don't want to waste my time or theirs if there is no chance of my accepting the job.) The information that I later recieved crossed that line, but I didn't know it at the time I accepted the interviews. This, to me, suggests that the after-the-fact evaluation was correct and appropriate, since it met the same objective criteria I was using in other situations.

[drkitten]

You're contradicting yourself? That's not a "bad vibe" that's a poor offer.

You're not paying attention to the time table.

I interviewed on Friday. I got a bad vibe and decided I probably didn't want to work there. On Tuesday, I got an offer that confirmed (objectively) that I didn't want to work there. But how did I know on Saturday that I didn't want to work there?

Now, of course, my "bad vibe" might have been wrong. They might have come through on Tuesday with an offer to end all offers -- or even "average." But somehow, I had subconsciously expected otherwise, and that expectation was confirmed. And when expectations like that are confirmed a lot more often than they're wrong, I start to trust those "vibes."

[D'rok]

Er, no, it wouldn't. As a matter of fact, the whole point of pattern matching is to avoid that sort of analysis.

Isn't it the point of pattern matching to be able to determine relevant and meaningful patterns? Otherwise it is quite useless.



But that's what pattern matching does. My pattern matching has noted, apparently, that stripes and fur -- or possibly vertical stripes on cloudy Friday afternoons -- are bad. It doesn't need to notice details like claws and fangs, because stripes and clouds are enough for it to trigger.If that's the case, then your pattern matching has produced the correct evaluation for the wrong reasons. You will now recognize other striped furry objects as dangerous instead of hungry fanged ones.

The question -- and it's an empirical one -- is how well the pattern matcher can learn the right accessible clues and put them together to get the hidden ones. Mine seems to be quite good.This is the question I was asking. I think it is empirically difficult to answer.



As I said, my standards were fairly clear-cut. If I had known the information that I later received, I would not have accepted the interview for the job. I had prior criteria that I used to eliminate job propects preemptively (I don't want to waste my time or theirs if there is no chance of my accepting the job.) The information that I later recieved crossed that line, but I didn't know it at the time I accepted the interviews. This, to me, suggests that the after-the-fact evaluation was correct and appropriate, since it met the same objective criteria I was using in other situations.It seems that in this case, you already knew that hungry fanged things were bad, and perhaps matched some secondary pattern like stripes and fur to allow you to come to the right conclusion.

[ImaginalDisc]

You're not paying attention to the time table.

I interviewed on Friday. I got a bad vibe and decided I probably didn't want to work there. On Tuesday, I got an offer that confirmed (objectively) that I didn't want to work there. But how did I know on Saturday that I didn't want to work there?

Now, of course, my "bad vibe" might have been wrong. They might have come through on Tuesday with an offer to end all offers -- or even "average." But somehow, I had subconsciously expected otherwise, and that expectation was confirmed. And when expectations like that are confirmed a lot more often than they're wrong, I start to trust those "vibes."

That's a confirmation bias. Welcome to being a woo. Enjoy the nonsense.

[Dogdoctor]

Our emotions respond to a variety of stimuli. If we can learn exactly what these stimuli are then emotions can be used to determine something about whatever we are emotional about. I think emotions can help us to more accurately perceive the stimuli that causes our emotions.

[Belz...]

The hell they don't.

And again, the hell they don't.

You think emotions exist to give you information on the outside world ? Please, by all means, tell us how this works. How does your body translate information that doesn't exist into useful stimuli. You said yourself that they don't stem from the other person. Where do they come from ? What does your body transform into hormones ? How does it get from the outside world to you ?

No. Your body reacts in a programmed way to situations it was often simply not "designed" to react to. Your instincts are supposed to maximise your chances of surviving by making you make quick decisions based on scant information. But what you're really doing is filling the gaps in your knowledge with a certainty that stems from body chemistry. It doesn't tell you anything useful. It simply hints to the most obvious conclusion, which is often the wrong one.

Example: A rabbit is eating, surrounded by tall grass. Wind catches the grass and it makes a sound. The rabbit hears the sudden sound. It doesn't know what that sound is. Reaction ? Fleeing. But there IS NO PREDATOR there. The emotion of fear didn't provide the rabbit with any useful information. But if a predator HAD been there, its chances of surviving would be better if he fled. It's the same with the rest.

If you're afraid, then there is often a reason you're afraid.

There's a REASON, but it doesn't follow that this reason is that something is truly threatening you. Take phobia, for example. There is nothing threatening about closed spaces, crowds, darkness or elevators. So why are people afraid of them ? Are you saying that the fact that they are afraid makes those situations unsafe ? I'm sure you're not.

If they are no more accurate than chance, then evolution has a lot to answer for.

Go ahead. Try it. Make statistics.

Nope. The few times I've ever gotten "vibes" that strong, I've always been able to find specific information proving the hunches to be correct.

Then I call woo, this time.

Then you don't know much about what hunches are.

Chemical responses. Not unlike brain activity, mind you.

As I said, most emotional cues (and hunches) are the result of the pattern-matching performed in the very energy-costly brain that we've evolved.

True. And pattern-matching makes you see faces in piles of dirty clothes.

"Rational," step by step thought is relatively slow

Yes, and it's not very good for survival. However, just because a survival trait is useful doesn't mean it's informative.

But there's little that's actually "instinctive" about the pattern matching beyond the process, since most of the power in being able to recognized patterns comes from the patterns themselves that one has learned to identify.

True. But it's not the pattern-matching itself that's in question, here, but the emotion that's triggered by the interpretation of that process.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Really ? Pray tell, what is this "subconscious" of which you speak ?
All the information the senses collect (and the brain shuffles) is not made available to the conscious.

Examples ? My "subconscious" usually makes my eyes blink and my lungs pump air.
It has nothing to do with information shuffling? Like how the brain completes images to make up for blind spots, matching sounds with the right images?


Which is exactly what I was talking about. Your "bad vibes" are not waves emitted by the other person.
Most of them travel by way of light, some by sound. It is a wave thing.

They have noting to do with the world around you and they don't give you actual information.
"How did they look?" "Scared."

They are an internal feeling that may or may not have anything to do with physical reality.
Internal feelings that "polarize" the body into an image that is conveyed by way of reflected light, and/or soundwaves.

[Belz...]

That question doesn't even make sense. Almost all feelings are based on things that people notice.

Allow me to clarify, then. If you noticed that people were odd, or immature, or otherwise untrustworthy, then obviously you would get a "hunch" that something was amiss, there. In that case the emotion, though still useless, stems from observation.

Yes. And it happens rarely enough that I'm comfortable relying on my hunches as a source of judgement.

Ridiculous. It's precisely because I read about the unreliability of emotions and hunches that I realised how often I really was wrong but never noticed because of confirmation bias.

That is, of course, your perogative -- with the proviso that you are absolutely, completely, beyond-the-pale and possibility of redemption, wrong.

Anyone who claims that "vibes" are giving him "hunches" that are near-100% accurate at picking up information which he wouldn't otherwise be able to pick up is eligible for a million dollars. Your claim is that you somehow acquire information from something that is NOT one of your five senses. I call foul. You've got a paranormal claim to prove.

I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the idea of subconscious pattern matching.

Strawman. You didn't talk about unconscious pattern-matching. You said "They're my "subconscious" mind trying to think for me", emphasis mine. You're suggesting a second mind within your brain. That's a far more complicated claim than mere pattern-matching.

No, it's actually a lot of rationalization because I noticed that my emotional reactions were so much more likely to be right than my "rational" ones, and I wondered why that was the case.

And your conclusion is inconsistent with logic, reason and empirical science. Care to guess why ?

In what sense is three-times-the-workload for two-thirds the pay not a compelling reason to reject a job?

That's not a "vibe" or a "hunch", bloke. That's reason.

I interviewed on Friday. I got a bad vibe and decided I probably didn't want to work there. On Tuesday, I got an offer that confirmed (objectively) that I didn't want to work there. But how did I know on Saturday that I didn't want to work there?

I'm calling you on this again: please tell us what physical process would feed you the information as emotions if you don't have the ability to acquire this information through your regular senses.

[Belz...]

All the information the senses collect (and the brain shuffles) is not made available to the conscious.

Correct, for once.

It has nothing to do with information shuffling? Like how the brain completes images to make up for blind spots, matching sounds with the right images?

It was a hyperbole. Gosh.

Most of them travel by way of light, some by sound. It is a wave thing.

No, they don't. "Vibes" don't exist.

"How did they look?" "Scared."

Again, completely off-subject.

Internal feelings that "polarize" the body into an image that is conveyed by way of reflected light, and/or soundwaves.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm sure it's wrong.

[D'rok]

Most of them travel by way of light, some by sound. It is a wave thing.

I'm sending some "emoto-waves" to you right now. Are you getting them?

[skeptifem]

Having participated in the LCL thread, I am sure that Belz meant that emotions are worthless for understanding the physical world. They are really only relevant to our emotional lives - internal and social. In understanding psychology or sociology, an understanding of emotions is not just important but necessary.

However, is there ever a time when emotional reaction produces better understanding of any issue than logical thought? We may need to understand what emotions are at play in a presidential election, but do we need to feel them in order to study them? I'm not so sure. The only information one can reliably gather from the fact that one is feeling angry is that one is feeling angry. Anything else (like figuring out what factors caused the anger) requires reason.


I can think of times where an emotional reaction produces better understanding than logical thought. Without emotion it would be impossible for anyone to see something wrong with the world and do something about it, like preserving the enviroment or making sure people have their rights protected. If i were to think about abortion without any emotion you might say something like "who cares if they end up pregnant, they can just give their babies away", when empathy is needed to understand the position a woman is put in when she is pregnant and doesnt want to be. It would certainly be more simple to not consider emotions or feel anything but i think it would make people draw erroneous conclusions. Understanding our own emotions and experiencing them helps us understand other peoples emotions and the magnitude of harming others emotionally, it helps us to make decisions that reduce the harm to others. I am thinking mostly about politics here i guess.

[ImaginalDisc]

I can think of times where an emotional reaction produces better understanding than logical thought. Without emotion it would be impossible for anyone to see something wrong with the world and do something about it

What the hell? Are you saying that there are no logical, ethical reasons to save the planet?

[lupus_in_fabula]

What the hell? Are you saying that there are no logical, ethical reasons to save the planet?

I'm not sure but I think he/she meant that it boils down to making an emotional judgement that the world is worth saving, otherwise we’re just left with something like: what is, is!

There might be logical reasons for saving the earth, but I guess we have to make the judgement whether those logical reasons are acceptable and lead to any action.

[Belz...]

I can think of times where an emotional reaction produces better understanding than logical thought. Without emotion it would be impossible for anyone to see something wrong with the world and do something about it, like preserving the enviroment or making sure people have their rights protected.

I disagree. I think rational thoughts are an integral part of ethics.

I do agree with your point on empathy, however.

If i were to think about abortion without any emotion you might say something like "who cares if they end up pregnant, they can just give their babies away", when empathy is needed to understand the position a woman is put in when she is pregnant and doesnt want to be.

Aren't you just voicing your opinion on the subject, now ? If it's based on emotion, how do you know it's the correct choice ?

[Belz...]

There might be logical reasons for saving the earth, but I guess we have to make the judgement whether those logical reasons are acceptable and lead to any action.

Let's ask Skynet!!

[slingblade]

Aren't you just voicing your opinion on the subject, now ? If it's based on emotion, how do you know it's the correct choice ?

I quibble with "based on."

To value the dimension that emotion can add to one's reasoning is not the same thing as basing one's reasoning on emotion. I think you may be making a leap that wasn't stated, or even implied. That I use emotion doesn't necessarily imply that emotion was all I used.

I'm an emotional being, as well as a reasoning one. To divorce my reasoning from my emotions strikes me as...I dunno, is that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? Or maybe just unrealistic?

Just as one quick example, is it right that justice be tempered with mercy? Isn't mercy an emotion? What's it doing in there with the cold, hard logic of law and facts?

As to how one knows one has made a correct choice....depends on the outcome of the choice, doesn't it? I know I've reasoned myself right into exactly the wrong decision now and again.

Haven't you?

[Dancing David]

But isn't this just post-hoc rationalizaiton of an emotional decision? I'll assert that you would probably be able to perform this cognitive feat regardless of the decision - i.e., your 100% success rate is really only your success in rationalizing your decisions whatever they may be and is not a reflection of an accurate perception of reality.

We do this kind of reasoning all the time where we assume that just because something happened in a certain way means that it had to happen that way. There's an entire discipline of philosophy (historicism) based around it. This is fallacious in my opinion.

Now this is on a different point than what I believe drkitt was headed in. I agree that we have to be careful and she stated it carefuly.

There are things that we percieve that we can not place into verbal cognition easily and post hoc rationalization or expressive verbal cognition is part of the process.

Sometimes it is the phrasing of statemenst that we respond to, word choices, phrasing and emphasis as well as the subtle interplay of human expression can tell us a lot about the power dynamics of s situation and we are practiced in judging personality and power interactions in many ways.

They will not always be accurate, but they can be very useful to making choices wisely. Someone who reminds us of a crazy power and control person, or a histrionic person or a narcissistic person may or may not be those things. But they may be very muckh like them.

I did crisis work during most of my ten years as a case manager in mental health,did a domestic violence hotline for three years, and I did crisis intervention for a year and a half, I also have done assesments. In other words I have met a lot of people in trouble and in pain. many of them should have listened to thier feelings and emotions, but they used thier rational functions to ignore the warning signs.


It cuts both ways, we must watch out for invalid emotions but we must also watch out for invalid thoughts and rationalizations.

We must examine both and become aware of our decision making processes, we need to know our triggers and vulnerabilities. But here is the big deal:

We should always listen when our emotions give us the 'ooky' signal. It needs to be examined and listened too, I can usualy spot an angry or abusive person a lot of the time and I can defintily tell when there is power and control going on. So listen, not as a mandate but as another channel of information.

[Belz...]

As to how one knows one has made a correct choice....depends on the outcome of the choice, doesn't it? I know I've reasoned myself right into exactly the wrong decision now and again.

Haven't you?

Of course. Not doing so requires quite a bit of effort.

[Dancing David]

Really ? Pray tell, what is this "subconscious" of which you speak ?



Examples ? My "subconscious" usually makes my eyes blink and my lungs pump air.



Which is exactly what I was talking about. Your "bad vibes" are not waves emitted by the other person. They have noting to do with the world around you and they don't give you actual information. They are an internal feeling that may or may not have anything to do with physical reality. If they're ever right, then I dare you to prove that they are more often than we'd expect from chance alone.

.

I call confirmation bias.



Emotional cues ? So when someone says something that anger you, the anger "cue" means they did it on purpose ?



I have a hard time imagining how it could. Analysing situations and problems is what makes humans smarter. If hunches were enough, we wouldn't need this very energy-costly brain of ours.


I would say that you have the usual western bias of the over empasis on solely verbal cognition and logic. there are plenty of good studies being done in the areas of non verbal cogntive skills. there are just as many falacies in the world of rational/logical though as there are in the emotional world. It is the dialouge between the two and the integration of information from different cahnnels that allows us to make the best choices.

take the person who mariies another person because they think that they are sexy (solely) or will make a good income (solely), they can rationalize and explain thier choice for ever, they will give you thousands of tight logical arguments for why it is the right choice for them. But they often totaly ignore the emotional side of the equation in the relationship. they make a totaly rational choice, and it is still wrong. Because they ignored the potential emotional consequence of the choice.

We need both sides of ourselves to be fully aware, i have met so many intellectuals who make very good rational choices and then they miss the boat on life because of the ignorance and discomfort with thier emotions.

[Dancing David]

That sounds like a lot of rationalization for the fact that you took an action without an rational thought, based purely on your emotional reaction.

But I would argue if you make the decision that does not fly in the face of reason then you can often be right.

It is about looking at the whole picture, we have the parts of the picture that come from the verbal cognitive/rational area and we have the data that comes to us from the emotional/inuitive side.

They are both prone to errors and invalid perceptions, it takes the whole picture to make the best choice.

I have met many a rational person who lives thier life in a state of total destruction and ruined relationships because they rely solely on thier rational side.

There is the thing that happens in crisis work and police work, and it is not always right, but it is called the 'gut feeling'. If your gut feeling says something is wrong you gather more data.

Now as a BIG Caveat :There are poeple whose emotions and thoughts are totaly invalid most of the time, usualy do to a chemical imbalance in the neural network. These are often the people we think of when we look at the over emotional people. But there are plenty of miserable people who are totaly divorced from thier emotions and they lead train wreck lives because of it.

[slingblade]

Of course. Not doing so requires quite a bit of effort.

Yes, it does take quite a bit of effort to reason one's way to a good choice or decision. You can expend the same amount of effort, or more, to make a poor one, as well.

Emotion is going to be part of your reasoning process. To me, that seems a given, unless you have no emotions to speak of. To ignore them, or deliberately exclude them from the reasoning process, strikes me as an ineffective way to proceed.

Instead, would it not be better to acknowledge and be aware of your emotions as you reason through a given issue? Become actively aware of how they influence your thinking, and try to use them as tools instead of viewing them as unnecessary hinderances you'd rather pretend you don't have? They are there. Ignoring them means you're probably ignoring how they are affecting your thinking. That can't be good.

[Dancing David]

All the information the senses collect (and the brain shuffles) is not made available to the conscious.

Um, perhaps there are many forms of the process we call conscious?


It has nothing to do with information shuffling? Like how the brain completes images to make up for blind spots, matching sounds with the right images?

the brain makes up the information in the blind spot.

Sounds with images, do you mean learned pattern recollection?



Most of them travel by way of light, some by sound. It is a wave thing.
Information can be carried by a wave form, that does not mean the information is waves.

It takes the integrated recognition of why we have the emotional response we are having to make the best choice.

We have to be able to sort the data, if something just triggers a traumatic memory we have to be very careful to understand the trigger. It may have little or nothing to do with the reality of the situation, it may be totaly random. But if we examine the observational cues and make choices based upon the actaul behavior of the other individual we can make better choices.

It is important to make the distiction between the triggers and the behavior of the person creating a trigger situation.

Take the example of someone freaking out because some one is older, has white hair and a goatee beard. It will benefit them to know if they are freaking because of the appearance or because of the behavior. Do they just look like a perpetrator from the past or do they act like a perpetrator from the past. In one case you practice awareness and desensitization. In the other it is best to skedaddle.


"How did they look?" "Scared."

Internal feelings that "polarize" the body into an image that is conveyed by way of reflected light, and/or soundwaves.


Huh?

Oh you mean OOOK!

[slingblade]

Now as a BIG Caveat :There are poeple whose emotions and thoughts are totaly invalid most of the time, usualy do to a chemical imbalance in the neural network. These are often the people we think of when we look at the over emotional people.


Yes, and occasionally one of us "over emotional people" will use reason to come to the conclusion that we are so far out of the norm, we're either going to have to leave society altogether, or encounter it only in carefully controlled and limited doses. Trust me--as difficult as others find me to deal with, I find others just as difficult. Most people, frankly, seem emotionally dulled to me.

I don't consider my emotions to be "totaly invalid most of the time." I do consider them to be of a greater intensity, perhaps, than yours. Many things about me are turned on "high." I'm highly emotional, highly intelligent, highly sensitive to pain, and highly sensitive to drugs. I don't consider these to be defects needing remedy.

I suppose I feel emotion must be part of reason, partly because reason tells me it must, and probably because people like me really have little other choice....

[Dancing David]

Ridiculous. It's precisely because I read about the unreliability of emotions and hunches that I realised how often I really was wrong but never noticed because of confirmation bias.
.

I mostly agree, people should use thier emotions as road signs not as tour guides. When your emotions warn you or entice you, you should examine the situation carefully and be aware of all the channels of information available.

But reason and logic are not the end all be all, they are a tool, and a very useful one, but many people suffer in thier lievs from ignoring thier emotions and the non-verbal exchange going on around them.

Note: I do not lend credence to body language experts and the like. But we as humans are very aware of our social enviroment and the cues other people present to us. They can be very useful but we need to be able to examine the cues and uderstand them.

Like 'thugs' hanging out on the sidewalk, it is good to listen to the emotions but you have to also look at the cues, the mere fact that they are 'people of the other' is not sufficient reason to avoid them. How are they placed on the sidewalk, are they using agrresive postures or neutral postures? Are they engaging in behaviors that they are about to prey upon you, or are you just freaked because they are different. Are they laughing and playful or are they hard and mean looking. Do they have children and older feeble types around them? Are they just young and rowdy or are they young and dominating.

Do they just want to sell you drugs or mug you?

Listening to the emotions is very different from doing what they say.

[D'rok]

We should always listen when our emotions give us the 'ooky' signal. It needs to be examined and listened too

It's not the veracity of the "ooky" signal that I'm sceptical of, it's the explanation cooked up after the fact and the claim of 100% accuracy in that explanation.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not sure but I think he/she meant that it boils down to making an emotional judgement that the world is worth saving, otherwise we’re just left with something like: what is, is!

There might be logical reasons for saving the earth, but I guess we have to make the judgement whether those logical reasons are acceptable and lead to any action.

You haven't made a case that emotions are required to build an ethos. Logically based ethical systems have been in vogue in philosophy for neigh on three thousand years. I'd contest that emotions are the worst tool for making ethical decisions because they prevent one from examining all the evidence and consequences, and spur one to making snap judgments. If you don't think about an ethical decision you aren't making an ethical decision, you're merely reacting.

[Belz...]

I would say that you have the usual western bias of the over empasis on solely verbal cognition and logic.

I find this "bias" has served the west very well.

there are plenty of good studies being done in the areas of non verbal cogntive skills.

Who said anything about verbal skills alone ?

there are just as many falacies in the world of rational/logical though as there are in the emotional world.

Indeed. What does this have to do with the OP ?

It is the dialouge between the two and the integration of information from different cahnnels that allows us to make the best choices.

Again, irrelevant. It's not about choices in your personal life. It's about understanding physical reality.

We need both sides of ourselves to be fully aware, i have met so many intellectuals who make very good rational choices and then they miss the boat on life because of the ignorance and discomfort with thier emotions.

Again, we're not talking about feel-good solutions to one's life. Emotions do not give us insight into quantum mechanics.

[Belz...]

Emotion is going to be part of your reasoning process. To me, that seems a given, unless you have no emotions to speak of. To ignore them, or deliberately exclude them from the reasoning process, strikes me as an ineffective way to proceed.

Well, I'm not sure we're on the same subject, anymore.

I never said emotions were worthless, per se, though I'm sure we could do without them. I'm saying that they, and this is the crux of my post back in LCL's thread, do not give any information useful to understanding the physical world. That they give important information on how you feel is not only a given, it is tautological.

[Belz...]

Like 'thugs' hanging out on the sidewalk, it is good to listen to the emotions but you have to also look at the cues, the mere fact that they are 'people of the other' is not sufficient reason to avoid them. How are they placed on the sidewalk, are they using agrresive postures or neutral postures?

Those aren't emotional cues. Those are part of an analysis based on your own statistical interpretation. That it can be wrongly interpreted because of emotional influence or that it can cause an emotional response, itself, is not very relevant.

[drkitten]

Those aren't emotional cues. Those are part of an analysis based on your own statistical interpretation.

I'm not sure we're understanding each other.

A few simple facts, just to lay the groundwork. First, it's well-understood (cf. the blindsight studies, subliminal priming) that people will often react to things that they do not conscoiusly notice. Second, the sort of processing involving these kinds of stimuli are often quite extensive, but occur almost totally beneath the level of consciousness and verbal expression -- hence, the "subconsious" that you were so dismissive of. Third, this kind of subconsious processing of sensory stimuli has been observed, as far as I can tell, in all sensory modalities tested. Fourth, in many cases, the very process of developing expertise in a particular field causes people to do more and more of their processing at a subconscious level; they can, for example, simply look at a chessboard and see the best move (instead of reasoning it out piece by piece), or "read" a defense and know which receiver will be open first, or "sense" that a student's writing is plagiarized because "the style doesn't 'feel' right."

As David pointed out, seeing identifiable "thugs" on a nearby pavement gives you an objective and articulable basis for a threat response. But what happens if you simply glance at the scene and don't consciously take in the thugs? You've still "seen" them, even if you didn't notice them. And your subconscious can still identify a need for a threat response, which in this case would probably be "fear."

See? Your "emotions" are giving you information. Any smart cop pays attention to these kind of emotions.

Now, of course, it's a valid question as to how accurate your subconscious is at recognizing "thugs" or other kinds of threats. You could get both false positives or false negatives. I suspect that the answer will vary from person to person as much as anything else in psychology, and also (like anything else in psychology) vary from time to time and to some extent be learnable through experience. Mine, in particular, seems to be very good, in the sense of giving very few false positives. (Conversely, I get a lot of false negatives, because I very rarely get these types of hunches. My subconsious seems to miss a lot -- but when it spots something, it's usually got it pegged.)

[drkitten]

Allow me to clarify, then. If you noticed that people were odd, or immature, or otherwise untrustworthy, then obviously you would get a "hunch" that something was amiss, there. In that case the emotion, though still useless, stems from observation.

Yes, and no. There's an unfortunate ambiguity in the English language with verbs like "noticed." I can be exposed to sensory stimuli without being consciously aware of it or taking it in.

I think Sherlock Holmes expressed it well when he asked Watson how many steps there were in his house. Watson had gone up and down the steps countless times, but had never bothered to count the steps. "You have seen, but you have not observed," as Sherlock so cuttingly put it.

If I had observed, in Holmes' technology, that the people were immature, naive, and untrustworthy, I wouldn't have gotten a "hunch" that something was amiss. I would have simply learned that, in the same way that I learned that the department chair was bald. But if I just "saw" it, then I might well have gotten such a hunch. And although I might "feel" that something was amiss, I wouldn't -- and still don't -- know why I got that feeling.

But it's far from useless. The key question is, of course, "was something amiss?" Five days later, I had a clear-cut "yes," and was holding a piece of paper that more than proved it. But I "felt" something was amiss well before I could prove it -- and that feeling turned out to be well-founded.

I'm not claiming extra-sensory perception here; the ability of people to act upon information they are not consciously aware of getting is well-documented. Obviously I saw, or heard (or smelled, tasted, or felt) something that made me uncomfortable with those groups. But I have no idea what, since I didn't observe it at the time (or later). But I'm quite comfortable stating that that uncomfortable "vibe" kept me out of a situation that was later quite readily and objectively bad for me.

[D'rok]

Yes, and no. There's an unfortunate ambiguity in the English language with verbs like "noticed." I can be exposed to sensory stimuli without being consciously aware of it or taking it in.

I think Sherlock Holmes expressed it well when he asked Watson how many steps there were in his house. Watson had gone up and down the steps countless times, but had never bothered to count the steps. "You have seen, but you have not observed," as Sherlock so cuttingly put it.

If I had observed, in Holmes' technology, that the people were immature, naive, and untrustworthy, I wouldn't have gotten a "hunch" that something was amiss. I would have simply learned that, in the same way that I learned that the department chair was bald. But if I just "saw" it, then I might well have gotten such a hunch. And although I might "feel" that something was amiss, I wouldn't -- and still don't -- know why I got that feeling.

But it's far from useless. The key question is, of course, "was something amiss?" Five days later, I had a clear-cut "yes," and was holding a piece of paper that more than proved it. But I "felt" something was amiss well before I could prove it -- and that feeling turned out to be well-founded.

I'm not claiming extra-sensory perception here; the ability of people to act upon information they are not consciously aware of getting is well-documented. Obviously I saw, or heard (or smelled, tasted, or felt) something that made me uncomfortable with those groups. But I have no idea what, since I didn't observe it at the time (or later). But I'm quite comfortable stating that that uncomfortable "vibe" kept me out of a situation that was later quite readily and objectively bad for me.

I accept a great deal of what you are saying about the subconscious processing of information, but I think your analogy breaks down and I'm not convinced that your self-assessment is entirely accurate.

Surely you didn't see (as opposed to observe) the specific details of these potential jobs in the same way that Watson saw (but didn't observe) the number of steps? It was not possible for you to both see and observe these things in your interviews, they were not available for observation. Instead, you got a vague sense of the "heebie-jeebies". Your emotional, instinctual reactions were not related to the number of steps, they were related to the subtle cues of the situation. Your analysis after receiving further information validated your heebie-jeebies, but only because you were looking for validation. What if your salary and workload expectations were met by the offer, but other factors were not acceptable? You would come to the same rationalization about your heebie-jeebies. I think you are over-estimating the accuracy of the process.

Nonetheless, the end result was probably still the correct one.

[drkitten]

I accept a great deal of what you are saying about the subconscious processing of information, but I think your analogy breaks down and I'm not convinced that your self-assessment is entirely accurate.

Surely you didn't see (as opposed to observe) the specific details of these potential jobs in the same way that Watson saw (but didn't observe) the number of steps?

Of course not. As you point out, the specific details that later provided objective evidence of their unsuitability was not available at the time.

Instead, you got a vague sense of the "heebie-jeebies". Your emotional, instinctual reactions were not related to the number of steps, they were related to the subtle cues of the situation. Your analysis after receiving further information validated your heebie-jeebies, but only because you were looking for validation.

Er, no. That's why I've been stressing the objective nature of the "validation" involved; the proposed workload, conditions, salary, etc, would have put the job so far out of the range of acceptability that I would have had no compunctions turning it down.


What I saw was (presumably) evidence that I didn't want to work for them. To this day, I don't know what it was. But I knew leaving campus that I didn't want to work there.... and got confirmation by post later.


What if your salary and workload expectations were met by the offer, but other factors were not acceptable?

An objectively bad offer remains an objectively bad offer; if, for example, they had offered me a position that was acceptable in workload and salary, but that was a non-tenure track appointment, that would also have been an objective basis on which to dismiss the offer out of hand. (I had better postdocs in hand than they could have offered me.) If they had insisted, out of the blue, that I also coach the basketball team,.... well, let's just say that there are many objective criteria that could make an offer bad, some of which I hadn't even considered because they're so outlandish. ("You put WHAT in the Kool-aid?")

Now, you're right. They might have come up with an objectively acceptable offer and I might be squeezing around making noises like "quality of life" or "level of student performance" or some such. It's certainly possible that if an acceptable offer had come in, I would have found some reason to turn it down anyway.

But that didn't happen. And it's because such things don't happen that I feel confident that I'm not simply cherry-picking for reasons to reject.

[D'rok]

Of course not. As you point out, the specific details that later provided objective evidence of their unsuitability was not available at the time.



Er, no. That's why I've been stressing the objective nature of the "validation" involved; the proposed workload, conditions, salary, etc, would have put the job so far out of the range of acceptability that I would have had no compunctions turning it down.


What I saw was (presumably) evidence that I didn't want to work for them. To this day, I don't know what it was. But I knew leaving campus that I didn't want to work there.... and got confirmation by post later.



An objectively bad offer remains an objectively bad offer; if, for example, they had offered me a position that was acceptable in workload and salary, but that was a non-tenure track appointment, that would also have been an objective basis on which to dismiss the offer out of hand. (I had better postdocs in hand than they could have offered me.) If they had insisted, out of the blue, that I also coach the basketball team,.... well, let's just say that there are many objective criteria that could make an offer bad, some of which I hadn't even considered because they're so outlandish. ("You put WHAT in the Kool-aid?")

Now, you're right. They might have come up with an objectively acceptable offer and I might be squeezing around making noises like "quality of life" or "level of student performance" or some such. It's certainly possible that if an acceptable offer had come in, I would have found some reason to turn it down anyway.

But that didn't happen. And it's because such things don't happen that I feel confident that I'm not simply cherry-picking for reasons to reject.


I think we're at an impasse here for reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm not sure how to obtain a non-anecdotal confirmation that your evaluations were indeed objective. Regardless....good posts. Informative and well stated. Thanks.

[Dancing David]

Yes, and occasionally one of us "over emotional people" will use reason to come to the conclusion that we are so far out of the norm, we're either going to have to leave society altogether, or encounter it only in carefully controlled and limited doses. Trust me--as difficult as others find me to deal with, I find others just as difficult. Most people, frankly, seem emotionally dulled to me.

I don't consider my emotions to be "totaly invalid most of the time." I do consider them to be of a greater intensity, perhaps, than yours. Many things about me are turned on "high." I'm highly emotional, highly intelligent, highly sensitive to pain, and highly sensitive to drugs. I don't consider these to be defects needing remedy.

I suppose I feel emotion must be part of reason, partly because reason tells me it must, and probably because people like me really have little other choice....


Just so you know I have had major depression and OCD since I were a child, I am not saying anything other than my expeience. Both my thoughts and emotions can be totaly un-related to any given situation.

I was not singling out people with a mental illness, just relating what i know to be true for me.

[drkitten]

I'm not sure how to obtain a non-anecdotal confirmation that your evaluations were indeed objective.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. As I posed earlier, in what way is "twice the workload at two-thirds the salary" non-objective?

You seem to be under the impression that if I had received an acceptable offer, I would nevertheless have sat there and pawed through the available information until I came up with a spurious rationalization in order to reject the offer. This is silly for two reasons; first, because my whole point centers around the fact that I didn't have to do that, and second, because if I had wanted to reject the job offer, I wouldn't have needed to find a rationalization.

Basically, the situation breaks down into four cases.

Case 1, I don't get a hunch one way or another and have to make a decision in the "normal" way.

Case 2, I get a hunch, but never get objective evidence either way in order to be able to determine the validity of the hunch.

Case 3, I get a hunch, which later turns out to be (objectively) the correct evaluation.

Case 4, I get a hunch, which later turns out to be (objectively) the incorrect evaluation.

Case 1 obviously has nothing to do with the accuracy of the hunches that I do get, and case 2 doesn't have much, either. The real question is the proportion between cases 3 and 4. How often, for example, have I opened a letter and read something that makes others go "Oh, yeah, that explains it!"? How often have I opened a letter and read something that makes other people suggest I reconsider?

[Dancing David]

It's not the veracity of the "ooky" signal that I'm sceptical of, it's the explanation cooked up after the fact and the claim of 100% accuracy in that explanation.


fair 'nuff.

[D'rok]

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. As I posed earlier, in what way is "twice the workload at two-thirds the salary" non-objective?

You seem to be under the impression that if I had received an acceptable offer, I would nevertheless have sat there and pawed through the available information until I came up with a spurious rationalization in order to reject the offer.

Sort of. I'm saying that there is no way for you to prove the negative that this would not have been the case.

[Dancing David]

I find this "bias" has served the west very well.



Who said anything about verbal skills alone ?



Indeed. What does this have to do with the OP ?



Again, irrelevant. It's not about choices in your personal life. It's about understanding physical reality.



Again, we're not talking about feel-good solutions to one's life. Emotions do not give us insight into quantum mechanics.


Quite so, and your point is valid. Yet somehow I think there is more to life than QM, usefull though it is. Reality is more than the sum of science, emotions are very usefull in the human interactions, and they are part of reality.

(Now, please I am not making any outlandish woo claims, but reality includes human interactions.)

[lupus_in_fabula]

You haven't made a case that emotions are required to build an ethos. Logically based ethical systems have been in vogue in philosophy for neigh on three thousand years. I'd contest that emotions are the worst tool for making ethical decisions because they prevent one from examining all the evidence and consequences, and spur one to making snap judgments. If you don't think about an ethical decision you aren't making an ethical decision, you're merely reacting.

I wish I could see your point, but I’m afraid I don’t recognize it. Maybe it’s possible to build an ethical system based purely on logic and totally void of any emotional connotation what so ever, but I see it more as a theoretical construction than something existing in the real world. I find it difficult to imagine a workable ethos that’s entirely indifferent and doesn’t plead to any human emotions. I think both emotional and logical elements are required for an ethos to generally gain acceptance.

Certainly, albeit not necessarily regarding an ethical system per see, there’s ways of minimizing emotional decision making trough rules and processes. The Nazis practically made killing into a bureaucracy, and when people we’re put on trial they simply pleaded to having done their job or having followed orders, yet it’s not difficult to see the horrible wrongdoings anyway, and the justification for their punishments.

[Belz...]

I'm not sure we're understanding each other.

"I'm sure we're not understanding each other" would've worked, too. :D

First, it's well-understood (cf. the blindsight studies, subliminal priming) that people will often react to things that they do not conscoiusly notice.

True. I thought you were talking about the Hollywood subconscious.

Third, this kind of subconsious processing of sensory stimuli has been observed, as far as I can tell, in all sensory modalities tested. Fourth, in many cases, the very process of developing expertise in a particular field causes people to do more and more of their processing at a subconscious level; they can, for example, simply look at a chessboard and see the best move (instead of reasoning it out piece by piece), or "read" a defense and know which receiver will be open first, or "sense" that a student's writing is plagiarized because "the style doesn't 'feel' right."

Of course. I see where you're going with this. But I'd say that these aren't "emotions" per se, but reactions based on unconscious reasoning, itself based on experience. The reaction can be emotional, of course. I guess it's a fuzzy line, then.

Mine, in particular, seems to be very good, in the sense of giving very few false positives. (Conversely, I get a lot of false negatives, because I very rarely get these types of hunches. My subconsious seems to miss a lot -- but when it spots something, it's usually got it pegged.)

That still doesn't rule out confirmation bias. Do you really tend to notice when you're wrong ?

[Dancing David]

Those aren't emotional cues. Those are part of an analysis based on your own statistical interpretation. That it can be wrongly interpreted because of emotional influence or that it can cause an emotional response, itself, is not very relevant.

You mised the process, you feel the emotion and then you examine the basis for it. You are judging the information from the non-verbal cues. And if you listen to the feelings, you can gain valuable information or bogus information. There are situations where the emotions will respond more quickly, if inaccurately, IE the fight flight response. Training and practice are needed to make it useful.

Just as you should judge the information from verbal channels.

Being devoid of emotion is not a good thing. I am not arguing about the validity of science, i am stating what is stated in Blink and many other resources, emotions can provide us with a fast link to vital information. But as in all situations one needs to evaluate the data.

A person without the ability to interpret emotions and other people's emotional affect is going to well, hmm, basicaly have many problems in the reality of the human world. It is one of the problems for people with Asperger's and Autism. And it shows the problems from too many and too little emotions.

What you refer to as "analysis based on your own statistical interpretation." is post facto, it is part of the practice of being human, even in my town we have gangs and thugs and I tend to live in 'not so great neighborhoods' and before I had a car i often walked around town.

The emotions came first, the refinement of the clues and cues came later, but i am certain that there were at least three times I was about to be mugged and another time I could have been stomped by a gang if I was so foolish as to disregard the emotional warning. In the begining I had many false positives and many times I inadvertantly kept myself in danger.

It is only after the fact that you can learn to discern the true from the false positives.

The emotions have certainly helped me in protecting myself, and the refinement comes in the post analysis. As they say "Two hands wash each other."

[Belz...]

Yes, and no. There's an unfortunate ambiguity in the English language with verbs like "noticed." I can be exposed to sensory stimuli without being consciously aware of it or taking it in.

I don't think it's a problem with English. I think the problem exists in pretty much all languages specifically because the concept is ambiguous.

If I had observed, in Holmes' technology, that the people were immature, naive, and untrustworthy, I wouldn't have gotten a "hunch" that something was amiss. I would have simply learned that, in the same way that I learned that the department chair was bald. But if I just "saw" it, then I might well have gotten such a hunch.

Again, I'm not sure you can call them emotions, then.

The point is that the EMOTION is useless for understanding reality. It doesn't mean that the emotion isn't justified at least sometimes, and I think we've strayed from my original remark.

But it's far from useless. The key question is, of course, "was something amiss?" Five days later, I had a clear-cut "yes," and was holding a piece of paper that more than proved it. But I "felt" something was amiss well before I could prove it -- and that feeling turned out to be well-founded.

This is why we need to work statistics and note, even when we're wrong, whether it was accurate; otherwise I might still believe that street lights flicker when I pass under them or that I can bust cloud formations...

I'm not claiming extra-sensory perception here; the ability of people to act upon information they are not consciously aware of getting is well-documented.

Then we're arguing but not actually talking about the subject at hand.

[Belz...]

What I saw was (presumably) evidence that I didn't want to work for them. To this day, I don't know what it was. But I knew leaving campus that I didn't want to work there.... and got confirmation by post later.

Yes. Presumably. You have no idea if the hunch was due to information you saw but didn't "notice", or if it was just a gut-feeling due to bad digestion. The fact that you were "right" that time doesn't help you tell the difference, and this means the example is, at best, not very useful to our discussion and, at worst, actually in my favour.

[drkitten]

Yes. Presumably. You have no idea if the hunch was due to information you saw but didn't "notice", or if it was just a gut-feeling due to bad digestion

Absolutely. Heck, perhaps the two are related -- maybe I only get bad digestion when I "see" bad things I should have "noticed." I don't know.

The fact that you were "right" that time doesn't help you tell the difference,

I don't need to tell the difference.

You're asking for a causal analysis that doesn't need to be done The mere fact that these hunches of mine have historically been "right" is enough for me to (rationally) trust them.

It's like the danger sense when tigers are around example from earlier. A fear response to large predators with teeth and claws is objectively rational. A fear response to orange stripey things is not. But there is an empirical question -- how many orange stripey things have teeth and claws? (And, of course, how many things with teeth and claws also have orange stripes?) But the fact that the pattern-matcher is focusing on the "wrong" features not only does not invalidate the results, but it's a positive benefit, precisely because orange stripes are so much more visible. In a world filled with tigers, it makes sense to be afraid of orange stripey things.

[drkitten]

Again, I'm not sure you can call them emotions, then.

I'm not sure what else you can call "bad vibes." Hunches --at least mine -- don't usually come with propositional content. I either have a good feeling or a bad feeling about a situation, but it rarely gets more specific than that.

From another post of yours:


But I'd say that these aren't "emotions" per se, but reactions based on unconscious reasoning, itself based on experience. The reaction can be emotional, of course.

As you say, the reactions -- which are all I have to deal with -- are emotional. I get "feelings." They're not conscious propositions, they're not direct sensory impressions -- what else is there?

[D'rok]

In a world filled with tigers, it makes sense to be afraid of orange stripey things.


In the absence of other orange stripey things, I'll concede that point. But all you're really saying is that in this case, orange and stripey is just as relevant as clawed and fanged. But my original point still stands in that pattern matching is only successful if the patterns matched are relevant and useful. This is difficult to objectively determine in your particular examples.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't need to tell the difference.


Yes, you damned well do if you want to call yourself a rational being.

[drkitten]

In the absence of other orange stripey things, I'll concede that point. But all you're really saying is that in this case, orange and stripey is just as relevant as clawed and fanged.

No, that's specifically what I'm not saying. Clawed and fanged are relevant in a way that orange and stripey can never be, because I can show a causal link between claws and being hurt. Notice, in particular, that the particular pattern of injury displayed on these bodies are (ahem) "claw marks."

In the case of orange and stripey, we don't have that clear-cut a relationship between the environment and the injury. So all we can do is infer from the percieved correlation that there is some agency related to claw marks that is also related to orange stripes.

That's not at all a hypothetical, either. This is exactly the sort of argument that the tobacco industry used for years, with success, to avoid any sort of legal liability for its products. The medical data have shown since the 1950s or earlier that the rate of (e.g.) lung cancer is hugely higher among smokers than non-smokers. But you can't tie any particular case of cancer to cigarette smoking, because there's no causal link. The asbestos industry used a similar tactic with similar success for a similar length of time.

[D'rok]

No, that's specifically what I'm not saying. Clawed and fanged are relevant in a way that orange and stripey can never be, because I can show a causal link between claws and being hurt. Notice, in particular, that the particular pattern of injury displayed on these bodies are (ahem) "claw marks."

Argh. The question at hand is not the rational determination of threat. Determined rationally, of course it's fangs and claws. Are you reading my posts? The question is regarding the irrational, instinctual and emotional pattern matching that determines the threat. In this sense you have precisely said that orange and striped is relevant:

It's like the danger sense when tigers are around example from earlier. A fear response to large predators with teeth and claws is objectively rational. A fear response to orange stripey things is not. But there is an empirical question -- how many orange stripey things have teeth and claws? (And, of course, how many things with teeth and claws also have orange stripes?) But the fact that the pattern-matcher is focusing on the "wrong" features not only does not invalidate the results, but it's a positive benefit, precisely because orange stripes are so much more visible. In a world filled with tigers, it makes sense to be afraid of orange stripey things.You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point. Your claim is that your hunches were subconcsious pattern matching and that your subsequent rationalizations revealed that you recognized fangs and claws. I'm saying that you could just have easily recognized orange and stripes, and you seem to agree with me. Which is it? Did your instincts correctly reveal the threat, or did they incorrectly reveal the threat?

If you recognized orange and stripes, then your pattern matching is useful but flawed and your rationalizations are just that - rationalizations. If you recognized fangs and claws, then your pattern matching is both useful and rationally justifiable. If it is the former case, then it implies that emotions are useful for determining appropriate behaviour, but worthless for understanding reality. If it is the latter, it implies that emotions are both useful and contain some degree of truth-functional value re: reality.

Allow me to be presumptuous and quote myself from 2 pages back:

For your overall argument to hold, it would have to be possible to determine if you correctly identified that those metaphorical sabre-toothed tigers (poor choices for employment) were bad for you because they had claws, fangs, and were hungry. Maybe you just observed that they had stripes and fur and concluded that that was the reason for your instinctual reaction? I don't know how it would be possible to tell the difference between a correct after-the-fact evaluation and an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization.I still don't see how it would be objectively possible to determine this. All we can say is that your decision-making mechanism works for you.

[Belz...]

I don't need to tell the difference.

The hell you don't.

You're conflating the emotional response to observation with the interpretation of that observation. You see a tiger. You think "humm... tiger = dangerous. And you're affraid. In this case, of course you're right to fear the tiger. But the emotion itself doesn't give you any useful information. It is BASED on information that CREATED that fear. But very often, the fear is there but is baseless. How do you explain that ? Did you read my post where I talked about phobias ?

You're asking for a causal analysis that doesn't need to be done The mere fact that these hunches of mine have historically been "right" is enough for me to (rationally) trust them.

Well, I guess we all have our woo.

I'm not sure what else you can call "bad vibes." Hunches --at least mine -- don't usually come with propositional content. I either have a good feeling or a bad feeling about a situation, but it rarely gets more specific than that.

Well, we're all over the place now, aren't we ?

As you say, the reactions -- which are all I have to deal with -- are emotional. I get "feelings." They're not conscious propositions, they're not direct sensory impressions -- what else is there?

This is the same as saying that everythint that came after the Big Bang is the Big Bang itself. Such a definition of "emotion" is far too broad and, as such, not very useful.

[drkitten]

You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point.

Perhaps, since your point seems to hinge on misunderstanding my claim.

Your claim is that your hunches were subconcsious pattern matching and that your subsequent rationalizations revealed that you recognized fangs and claws.

No, my claim is that my subconscious recognized something that correlated sufficiently with fangs and claws.

But that very sufficiently correlation is, by definition, a correct identification of the threat.

I'm saying that you could just have easily recognized orange and stripes, and you seem to agree with me. Which is it? Did your instincts correctly reveal the threat, or did they incorrectly reveal the threat?

I'm saying that they correctly identified the threat, whether the features identified were stripes or claws.



If you recognized orange and stripes, then your pattern matching is useful but flawed [/QUTOE]

Welcome to real life. Everything is useful but flawed.

and your rationalizations are just that - rationalizations.

Um, wrong.

Let's continue the metaphor, but at a conscious level, for a few lines of conversation, shall we?

"Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
"A tiger? Why do you say that?"
"Well, I saw something stripey and orange behind that tree."
"Stripey and orange? Is that it? I'll have you know that lots of things are stripey and orange. Why, you might have just seen a basketball with tire marks on it. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... OH MY GOD, IT'S GOT CLAWS AND FANGS. IT'S A --"

I have just successfully identified a tiger.
You have just objectively confirmed the success of my tiger-identification.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you point to a bush concealing a tiger, and say "there is a tiger behind that bush, you have correctly identified a tiger. It doesn't matter if the reason you made that statement is because you recognized a particular pattern of blue feathers. A method of identifying tigers based upon the local feather-pattern may not be intuitively obvious, but if it successfully locates tigers, then it is not "flawed."

It is similarly not a "rationalization" to check the bush (carefully) for tigers once someone has pointed out a particular bush and to realize that there is actually a tiger behind that bush.





If it is the former case, then it implies that emotions are useful for determining appropriate behaviour, but worthless for understanding reality. If it is the latter, it implies that emotions are both useful and contain some degree of truth-functional value re: reality.

Bullflop.

Any tiger-detection method that actually detects tigers at better-than-chance is useful for understanding reality. You know understand that there is likely to be a tiger behind that particular bush, which is a part of reality.



Allow me to be presumptuous and quote myself from 2 pages back:
[QUOTE]
For your overall argument to hold, it would have to be possible to determine if you correctly identified that those metaphorical sabre-toothed tigers (poor choices for employment) were bad for you because they had claws, fangs, and were hungry. Maybe you just observed that they had stripes and fur and concluded that that was the reason for your instinctual reaction? I don't know how it would be possible to tell the difference between a correct after-the-fact evaluation and an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization.



The difference is very simple. Is there a tiger in the bush? If you can satisfy yourself that there is, in genuine fact, a tiger in the bush, then it's simply a correct-after the fact evaluation.

[jimbob]

In support of drkitten's OP, There has been some research (can't quite find it, my google-fu is weak tonight) with games where there were patterns, that were initially unknown to the subjects but revealed in the course of play. Before the subjects conciously knew the answers, they began to show physiological signs of discomfort when choosing a losing object.

The given explaination was that the *had* begun to notice the pattern, but wern't fully aware that they had...

Seems plausible to me.

[D'rok]

Perhaps, since your point seems to hinge on misunderstanding my claim.



No, my claim is that my subconscious recognized something that correlated sufficiently with fangs and claws.

But that very sufficiently correlation is, by definition, a correct identification of the threat.



I'm saying that they correctly identified the threat, whether the features identified were stripes or claws.



If you recognized orange and stripes, then your pattern matching is useful but flawed

Welcome to real life. Everything is useful but flawed.



Um, wrong.

Let's continue the metaphor, but at a conscious level, for a few lines of conversation, shall we?

"Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
"A tiger? Why do you say that?"
"Well, I saw something stripey and orange behind that tree."
"Stripey and orange? Is that it? I'll have you know that lots of things are stripey and orange. Why, you might have just seen a basketball with tire marks on it. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... OH MY GOD, IT'S GOT CLAWS AND FANGS. IT'S A --"

I have just successfully identified a tiger.
You have just objectively confirmed the success of my tiger-identification.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you point to a bush concealing a tiger, and say "there is a tiger behind that bush, you have correctly identified a tiger. It doesn't matter if the reason you made that statement is because you recognized a particular pattern of blue feathers. A method of identifying tigers based upon the local feather-pattern may not be intuitively obvious, but if it successfully locates tigers, then it is not "flawed."

It is similarly not a "rationalization" to check the bush (carefully) for tigers once someone has pointed out a particular bush and to realize that there is actually a tiger behind that bush.






Bullflop.

Any tiger-detection method that actually detects tigers at better-than-chance is useful for understanding reality. You know understand that there is likely to be a tiger behind that particular bush, which is a part of reality.




The difference is very simple. Is there a tiger in the bush? If you can satisfy yourself that there is, in genuine fact, a tiger in the bush, then it's simply a correct-after the fact evaluation.
You've just offered a very long description of a fact that I've already agreed to: namely that pattern-matching is useful in determining the presence of tiger-threats. I don't care about that. I care about whether pattern-matching reveals something rational about tiger-threats.

If you are satisfied simply by identifying the threat, then fine. I'm curious about something more. I'm curious if our instincts reveal things that are objectively true about the world - and I don't mean the objective truth that large predators are dangerous. The differentiation between fangs and stripes really is crucial for the kind of enquiry that I'm interested in.

If our instincts can't differentiate between fangs and stripes, then they are indeed useful but not strictly correct.

[drkitten]

The hell you don't.

You're conflating the emotional response to observation with the interpretation of that observation.

Conflating, hell. I'm asserting that the two are identical in this case.

You see a tiger. You think "humm... tiger = dangerous. And you're affraid.

Yes. But in this case, I remind you, I "see," but I do not "observe." So perhaps, "no" is more accurate. I "see" the tiger, but I do not "observe" the tiger. And therefore, I do not (consciously) "think" anything at all about the tiger.

At a conscious level, I'm not even aware of the existence of the tiger.

At an unconscious level, I'm of course aware of the tiger. And that awareness makes itself felt, at the concious level, by the experience of sudden and unexplained fear.

In this case, of course you're right to fear the tiger.

What tiger? I don't even know about it, remember? I've not yet observed it.



But the emotion itself doesn't give you any useful information.

On the contrary. It tells me that I am in a dangerous situation and I should get out of there. Because I recognize that fear.

It is BASED on information that CREATED that fear.[/QUTOE]

Yes. Information that I do not have conscious access to. Therefore, the fear is very informative to my consciousness.

[QUOTE] But very often, the fear is there but is baseless. How do you explain that ?

I don't. In my particular case, I specifically deny it. It's not often baseless. I explain this by observing that I guess I'm good at pattern-matching.

The accuracy rate of the tiger detector is of course an empirical question. You assume, based on the psychological literature, that mean human performance on such is pretty low. I'd probably be willing to meet you on that particular assumption. You further assume that my particular accuracy on this particular issue is close to the overall mean, and I specifically deny that.

"Experts" are well-known (see Blink or any of the expertise literature) to be able to develop instantaneous "gut-feeling" evaluations with remarkably high accuracy. You may or may not be comfortable with the idea that I personally am near the high end of the bell curve on this particular ability, but it shouldn't surprise you that someone is. Almost by definition, in any group of 20 or larger, someone will perform two sigma above the norm.... Congratulations, you've met one. I'll be signing autographs over by the bar after the show.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You've just offered a very long description of a fact that I've already agreed to: namely that pattern-matching is useful in determining the presence of tiger-threats. I don't care about that. I care about whether pattern-matching reveals something rational about tiger-threats.



Depends a bit on how you define rational. Personally, I don't think rationality makes much sense without valuation, which depends on emotion.

Without emotion we are CPUs. Most of our "rationality" is subconscious, as is most of our decision making.

If our instincts can't differentiate between fangs and stripes, then they are indeed useful but not strictly correct.

There is a difference between being correct and always correct. Gut reactions are frequently correct. We know this from a wealth of research on the topic. They are not always correct. But neither are reasoned arguments.

[D'rok]

Depends a bit on how you define rational. Personally, I don't think rationality makes much sense without valuation, which depends on emotion.

Without emotion we are CPUs. Most of our "rationality" is subconscious, as is most of our decision making.

In this case, I am defining rational as the determination of the relevant threatening quality of tigers. I've agreed that it is useful to correlate stripes with threats eminating from tigers, but it does not reveal what is threatening about tigers.

If we are confronted by a tiger, recognize the threat, succesfully get away, and then in the aftermath rationalize our flight by saying "phew...that thing had stripes...it's a good thing I ran", then this is a useful but incorrect evaluation.

I think we do this kind of post-hoc reasoning all the time but rarely recognize it as such.

ETA:
There is a difference between being correct and always correct. Gut reactions are frequently correct. We know this from a wealth of research on the topic. They are not always correct. But neither are reasoned arguments.

Good point. But I think that we rationalize after the fact that our gut reactions were correct, regardless of whether or not they were.

[jimbob]

There is the other side; again, I can't find the reference (it might have been Oliver Sachs) but the patient had lost his ability to form emotions, but unlike Spock, as a consequence had also lost all ability to prioritize, a decision about what to eat for breakfast being as important as whether to run away from a tiger (for example, and choosing something completely unrealated to previous posts).

Someone please help me find the references, I have tried a couple of quick google searches and failed...

Jim

[jimbob]

Fear is an emotion. Why else would one run away from a tiger?

[D'rok]

Fear is an emotion. Why else would one run away from a tiger?

The tiger thing is just being used as a metaphor for the emotional and instinctual judgments that we make in the course of our everyday lives and the ways in wich we reason about those judgements.

[drkitten]

In this case, I am defining rational as the determination of the relevant threatening quality of tigers. I've agreed that it is useful to correlate stripes with threats eminating from tigers, but it does not reveal what is threatening about tigers.

So you're really demanding quite a bit of "reason," aren't you? Most people would be quite happy to know that they had gotten away from a genuine threat.


If we are confronted by a tiger, recognize the threat, succesfully get away, and then in the aftermath rationalize our flight by saying "phew...that thing had stripes...it's a good thing I ran", then this is a useful but incorrect evaluation.

But there's a subtle difference between saying "phew... that thing had stripes.... it's a good thing I ran" and "phew... that thing-with-stripes turned out to be a tiger... it's a good thing I ran."

In particular, do you assert that that we need to know why tigers are dangerous before we run from them? I hope not, since that seems silly to me. I can believe correctly that tigers are dangerous while holding thte false belief that they have poisonous stingers in their tails.

Would you consider it to be a post-hoc rationalization for me to say "Gosh, I just spotted something orange in the bushes and ran. When it chased me into camp and someone shot it, it turns out that it was a tiger. Boy, good thing I ran, or it would have stung me to death with its tail"?

I guess I'm not clear where you're drawing the line between "rational" and "rationalization."

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is the other side; again, I can't find the reference (it might have been Oliver Sachs) but the patient had lost his ability to form emotions, but unlike Spock, as a consequence had also lost all ability to prioritize, a decision about what to eat for breakfast being as important as whether to run away from a tiger (for example, and choosing something completely unrealated to previous posts).

Someone please help me find the references, I have tried a couple of quick google searches and failed...

Jim

Antonio Damasio more likely. Not exactly loss of emotion, but a disconnect between emotion and reason with frontal lobe damage.

Try The Feeling of what Happens. I think that's one of the titles. Or Looking for Spinoza or Descartes Error.

If you want a quickie google term, look for "loss of executive functions".

[Ichneumonwasp]

In this case, I am defining rational as the determination of the relevant threatening quality of tigers. I've agreed that it is useful to correlate stripes with threats eminating from tigers, but it does not reveal what is threatening about tigers.

If we are confronted by a tiger, recognize the threat, succesfully get away, and then in the aftermath rationalize our flight by saying "phew...that thing had stripes...it's a good thing I ran", then this is a useful but incorrect evaluation.

I think we do this kind of post-hoc reasoning all the time but rarely recognize it as such.

ETA:


Good point. But I think that we rationalize after the fact that our gut reactions were correct, regardless of whether or not they were.

Of course we rationalize after the fact. That is most of what we call reasoning. That is virtually all of what we call consciousness.

Determination of the threatening quality of tiger depends on pattern recognition, arising in bare perception, and depending on a certain degree of reasoning of what is going on in the world and assigning value to those reasonings. The whole process depends on emotion. You cannot separate reason from emotion in our daily activities. Emotions themselves are oriented toward the world. They are engagements with the world. They are not bare "emotion", but are linked to subconscious thinking. While there may be such a thing as completely undirected anxiety, for the most part all emotion has a direction of fit with the world which depends on subconscious thought to provide that direction.

I think you guys are creating false dichotomies.

[jimbob]

The tiger thing is just being used as a metaphor for the emotional and instinctual judgments that we make in the course of our everyday lives and the ways in wich we reason about those judgements.


But how else other trhan emotions do you decide that you *want* to run away from the retorical tiger?

[D'rok]

So you're really demanding quite a bit of "reason," aren't you? Most people would be quite happy to know that they had gotten away from a genuine threat.

I'm not really demanding anything. The title of this thread was "are emotions worthless for understanding reality." A tentative answer to that question might be: "No, but there are limits and degrees to their worth that we should be aware of."



But there's a subtle difference between saying "phew... that thing had stripes.... it's a good thing I ran" and "phew... that thing-with-stripes turned out to be a tiger... it's a good thing I ran."Good point


In particular, do you assert that that we need to know why tigers are dangerous before we run from them? I hope not, since that seems silly to me.Of course not, I thought I'd made that clear.

I can believe correctly that tigers are dangerous while holding thte false belief that they have poisonous stingers in their tails.That seems silly to me.

Would you consider it to be a post-hoc rationalization for me to say "Gosh, I just spotted something orange in the bushes and ran. When it chased me into camp and someone shot it, it turns out that it was a tiger. Boy, good thing I ran, or it would have stung me to death with its tail"?No. That sounds more like an expression of a pre-exisiting incorrectly held belief, not a rationalization of an instinctual judgment. For the tiger metaphor to be relevant, you'd have to not have previous specific tiger-knowledge.

I guess I'm not clear where you're drawing the line between "rational" and "rationalization."I may have been sloppy in my usage of those terms. For me, this particular discussion revolves around my belief that we find reasons to justify emotional judgments after the fact, regardless of the objective accuracy of those judgments.

[drkitten]

I may have been sloppy in my usage of those terms. For me, this particular discussion revolves around my belief that we find reasons to justify emotional judgments after the fact, regardless of the objective accuracy of those judgments.

Nope, still not understanding.

What does "objective accuracy" mean in this context?

I submit that "stripes means run away" is, in fact, objectively accurate in the case where there is a tiger or other dangerous striped animal present. It doesn't matter whether I recognize, specifically, that there is a tiger or whether the stripes are what makes the tiger dangerous instead of fangs and claws. I further suggest that this objective accuracy is, ipso facto, a (rational and successful) justification for the emotional judgement.

I further submit that "stripes means run away" is objectively inaccurate when the animal we're talking about is a mutant orange zebra.

So I would suggest there's no such thing as a "rationalization" when a tiger is genuinely present.

[D'rok]

Nope, still not understanding.

Ugh. OK. I give up.

What does "objective accuracy" mean in this context?The same thing that I've said again and again: determination of the objectively valid threatening factor - i.e., claws not stripes

I submit that "stripes means run away" is, in fact, objectively accurate in the case where there is a tiger or other dangerous striped animal present. It doesn't matter whether I recognize, specifically, that there is a tiger or whether the stripes are what makes the tiger dangerous instead of fangs and claws. I further suggest that this objective accuracy is, ipso facto, a (rational and successful) justification for the emotional judgement.I'll repeat myself again. The determination that large predators are dangerous is a correct and objectively accurate determination even if it is arrived at through "stripes means run away". But "stripes means run away" is not objectively accurate and I think that this matters. Not in succesfully evading large striped predators, but in how we rationalize the need to do so.

I further submit that "stripes means run away" is objectively inaccurate when the animal we're talking about is a mutant orange zebra.Yes. And this is why I think an accurate understanding of our emotional instincts matters. We face mutant zebras all the time.

So I would suggest there's no such thing as a "rationalization" when a tiger is genuinely present.Of course there is. But it is really only significant when you have no previous knowledge of tigers. You rationalize your fear based on stripes (in our hypothetical example).

[drkitten]

The same thing that I've said again and again: determination of the objectively valid threatening factor - i.e., claws not stripes

Then I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself.

In post #93, I asked

[D]o you assert that that we need to know why tigers are dangerous before we run from them?

You responded (#99) "Of course not." But not you demand that one "determin[e] the objectively valid threadening factor." So we do need to know why tigers in order for our decision to run away to be "objectively accurate" and not to simply be a post-hoc rationalization?

One person sees something orange in the bushes and runs -- he's "rationalizing," while the person who sees no claws and doesn't is not rationalizing, but merely eaten?

Or the person who sees something orange and runs is "rationalizing," but the person who sees claws and runs is "rational"?



I'll repeat myself again. The determination that large predators are dangerous is a correct and objectively accurate determination even if it is arrived at through "stripes means run away". But "stripes means run away" is not objectively accurate and I think that this matters. Not in succesfully evading large striped predators, but in how we rationalize the need to do so.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.



I would suggest there's no such thing as a "rationalization" when a tiger is genuinely present.

Of course there is.

Then you're not being at all clear in what it is.

[D'rok]

I clearly do not possess the ability to make myself understood to drkitten. Perhaps I need to cultivate some "Belzian brevity".

[Belz...]

No, my claim is that my subconscious recognized something that correlated sufficiently with fangs and claws.

But that very sufficiently correlation is, by definition, a correct identification of the threat.

So is a guess.

"Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
"A tiger? Why do you say that?"
"Well, I saw something stripey and orange behind that tree."
"Stripey and orange? Is that it? I'll have you know that lots of things are stripey and orange. Why, you might have just seen a basketball with tire marks on it. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... OH MY GOD, IT'S GOT CLAWS AND FANGS. IT'S A --"

I have just successfully identified a tiger.

All of your examples are confirmed objectively. Let's go with something different, shall we ?

- "Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
- "A tiger? Why do you say that?"
- "Well, I saw something stripey and orange behind that tree."
- "Stripey and orange? Is that it? I'll have you know that lots of things are stripey and orange. Why, you might have just seen a basketball with tire marks on it. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... See ? Basketball."
- "Crap."

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, and the two of you have shown that different strategies in different situations can be effective.

But consider this. Why look behind the tree in the first place? Why care? Why do you get out of bed in the morning?

You cannot separate emotion from rationality. Or you get a CPU. Without emotion there is no motivation, no valuation.

[Belz...]

Conflating, hell. I'm asserting that the two are identical in this case.

Fascinating. So what you're saying is that, if I'm in an elevator, find myself stricken with fear and begin to suffocate, my decision to exit the elevator in a rush is not only based on emotion, but is an emotion, itself ?

Not only that, but you seem to be also saying that it was the correct decision, whether the elevator actually collapses and kills all inside, in which case I say you were NOT correct, simply because your decision to leave the elevator had NOTHING to do with the fact that it was unsafe, or whether it doesn't, and you forget about it.

At a conscious level, I'm not even aware of the existence of the tiger.

Which is irrelevant to the point. We're not talking about unconscious processing or unconscious pattern-matching. We're talking about the emotion itself: fear, love, anger, bliss, boredom, etc. The emotion ITSELF doesn't mean squat, because as much as it can be caused by a variety of factors that turn out to be correct, it can also be caused by medecine, for example.

At an unconscious level, I'm of course aware of the tiger. And that awareness makes itself felt, at the concious level, by the experience of sudden and unexplained fear.

I'm not so sure this analogy is correct. How can you be unconsciously aware of the tiger but not consciously ? At which point does this subconscious mind of yours decide to transmit its information to the rest of you ?

What tiger? I don't even know about it, remember? I've not yet observed it.

"Remember" ? You just made that up in your post. We're not having a live conversation, here.

On the contrary. It tells me that I am in a dangerous situation and I should get out of there. Because I recognize that fear.

Excellent. Explain claustrophobia, now.

Yes. Information that I do not have conscious access to. Therefore, the fear is very informative to my consciousness.

In the sense that it is, in and of itself, information, yes. But it doesn't follow that said emotion has any reason to be there at all. You're placing far too much trust on your perceptions.

I don't. In my particular case, I specifically deny it.

Claustrophobia.

The accuracy rate of the tiger detector is of course an empirical question.

Oh ? So standard tiger detecting is not as accurate as DrKitten's detector ?

You further assume that my particular accuracy on this particular issue is close to the overall mean, and I specifically deny that.

Many people deny that. When put to the test, they fail, which is why no one's taken Randi's million yet.

"Experts" are well-known (see Blink or any of the expertise literature) to be able to develop instantaneous "gut-feeling" evaluations with remarkably high accuracy.

Here you are again, conflating terms. Those aren't "gut-feeling" evaluations. Those are trained reflex-like reactions BASED ON EXPERIENCE.

You may or may not be comfortable with the idea that I personally am near the high end of the bell curve on this particular ability, but it shouldn't surprise you that someone is.

Don't patronise me. Your claim amounts to saying that you have the ability to analyse non-information, which is ridiculous.

Almost by definition, in any group of 20 or larger, someone will perform two sigma above the norm....

Not if the task is physically impossible.

Congratulations, you've met one. I'll be signing autographs over by the bar after the show.

You might want to deflate before you start taking too much space in there.

[drkitten]

So is a guess.

Absolutely. And if someone is able to guess correctly often enough, that makes their guesses well worth paying attention to.


All of your examples are confirmed objectively.

Absolutely. That's the point I was trying to make.

Let's go with something different, shall we ?

- "Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
- "A tiger? Why do you say that?"
- "Well, I saw something stripey and orange behind that tree."
- "Stripey and orange? Is that it? I'll have you know that lots of things are stripey and orange. Why, you might have just seen a basketball with tire marks on it. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... See ? Basketball."
- "Crap."

Yup. I have just unsuccessfully identified a tiger. Or unsuccessfully identified a basketball. Or something. I screwed up, anyway, no matter how you phrase it. It's difficult to make running in terror from "Wilson" sound like an accomplishment.

So we seem to have agreed that the specific rule of thumb that "if it is orange and has stripes, it's dangerous" doesn't seem to be universally perfect. When I find something that is universally perfect and addresses a real-life problem, I'll let you know. In the meantime, we can also certainly agree that in some times and places, that rule may be close to perfect than others -- 1840's Indian jungle vs. 1960's Villanova University gymnasium, for example. The imperfection doesn't make the rule of thumb uninformative -- and it may still be correct enough to be useful. If I've seen five orange stripey things and they all turned out to be tigers, you may not feel like wandering into the sixth bush on the off-chance that I might be wrong this time.

[Belz...]

So you're really demanding quite a bit of "reason," aren't you? Most people would be quite happy to know that they had gotten away from a genuine threat.

Of course. They don't care why they got it right. If you roll a dice and say "FOUR" every time, you'll be right, on average, once every six rolls, but it doesn't mean you were right because you KNEW it was going to be 4.

[drkitten]

We're not talking about unconscious processing or unconscious pattern-matching.

Are you reading the same thread? I've been talking more or less about nothing else since my first posting here.

[Belz...]

You cannot separate emotion from rationality. Or you get a CPU. Without emotion there is no motivation, no valuation.

Irrelevant. What we're trying to determine is if our emotions contain any actual, useful data about the universe. I contend that they don't.

Beign affraid of closed spaces doesn't mean they are dangerous. Beign angry at Jews for their financial success doesn't mean you should be. Beign in love with someone doesn't mean that's the right person for you.

Although you're correct about humans beign a whole that includes emotions; when attempting to understand the nature of things, emotions don't help us one bit.

[Belz...]

Absolutely. And if someone is able to guess correctly often enough, that makes their guesses well worth paying attention to.

No, they don't. If I pick a number at random when rolling my die, and I happen to be right, and do so 15 times in a row, does that mean I have the ability to divine the result of dice rolls ? Of course not.

Absolutely. That's the point I was trying to make.

Uh-huh. But you're INVENTING your examples. It's a bit convenient to me.

Yup. I have just unsuccessfully identified a tiger. Or unsuccessfully identified a basketball. Or something. I screwed up, anyway, no matter how you phrase it. It's difficult to make running in terror from "Wilson" sound like an accomplishment.

The point was that your example assumed that the guy seeing stripes was going to be correct.

Here's another example.

- "Watch out! I think there's a tiger over there!"
- "A tiger? Why do you say that?"
- "Well, I saw something round and blue over there."
- "Round and blue ? That could be any number of things. I'll just go show you that there's nothing at all behind .... OH MY GOD!! IT HAS CLAWS AND FANGS AND..."
- "Yep. Tiger."

So you were right. Does that mean your "subconscious" spotted the tiger ? Or that you just happen to be right ?

Are you reading the same thread? I've been talking more or less about nothing else since my first posting here.

I know. That's the sad thing about it.

[drkitten]

Irrelevant. What we're trying to determine is if our emotions contain any actual, useful data about the universe. I contend that they don't.

And you're wrong. I gave you a very specific example where they do.



However, I do have to admire your argument from special cases.


Beign affraid of closed spaces doesn't mean they are dangerous. Beign angry at Jews for their financial success doesn't mean you should be. Beign in love with someone doesn't mean that's the right person for you.

Similarly, I can prove that no animals can fly. TIgers can't fly, lizards can't fly, bears can't fly, blue whales can't fly, sperm whales can't fly, killer whales can't fly....

Now let me show you an animal that can. A bat.

Now, let me show you an emotion that gives you actual, useful data about the universe. Subconscious emotional reactions based upon learned pattern recognition.


Oh, but


Here you are again, conflating terms. Those aren't "gut-feeling" evaluations. Those are trained reflex-like reactions BASED ON EXPERIENCE.

Yes. Again, conflating, hell; I'm forthrightly stating it. These are trained reflex-like emotional reactions based on experience.

And when a trained, experienced mining engineer tells me "drkitten, I'm getting a bad feeling about this tunnel. Let's get out of here, quickly...." and two hours later the tunnel collapses -- damn straight, his emotions gave me useful data about the universe. I used it to stay alive.

Because when a mining engineer tells me he's feeling claustrophobic, it might well be that the walls are closing in.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Irrelevant. What we're trying to determine is if our emotions contain any actual, useful data about the universe. I contend that they don't.

Beign affraid of closed spaces doesn't mean they are dangerous. Beign angry at Jews for their financial success doesn't mean you should be. Beign in love with someone doesn't mean that's the right person for you.

Although you're correct about humans beign a whole that includes emotions; when attempting to understand the nature of things, emotions don't help us one bit.

There is no value without emotion. There is no meaning without emotion. You cannot even speak of "useful" without emotion because the very notion of use and help are meaningless without meaning, without valuation, without a sense of purpose in the first place.

Without emotion it's all just stuff. Tiger coming. You can't even say, "interesting". There is no interesting without emotion.

There is a reason why we all love Spock and Data. They were the most emotional characters in all the Star Trek saga. Spock was at least a character with emotion trying to control it. The writers never wrote Data without emotion. Otherwise he would have sat at the controls and said. Look, big asteroid coming and gone off for some other programmed errand.

We cannot separate something that is so integral to us. There are people who cannot express emotion. They appear mean and angry. There are people who cannot understand emotion. They spend their lives completely confused in the human world. There are people who cannot integrate emotion with the rest of reason -- they cannot function in the real world. They cannot decide what is important and what is not. They cannot hold jobs, cannot keep relationships together, etc. There is a rare condition (can't recall the name) that results in bilateral calcification of the amygdalae. Such folks cannot learn to pair fear with actual events in the world. They can learn to avoid walking out into streets by using reason since they sort of know that death is bad and cars can mean death, but they cannot function well in the real world. The most dangerous animal always gets them. They cannot learn to fear it. Lotharios and Ponzi schemers love 'em.

Dark closet, dangerous. We define it so. If we find it is not dangerous later we amend our original definition. Danger has no definition without emotion. Life, ehh. Death, ehh. Without value you cannot have such conversations. Without emotion, there is no value.

And with that we come full circle.

ETA

The problem is that it's so much a part of you that you can't see outside it. Until you see others without it. Then it hits you. Weird, weird, very weird.

[Dark Jaguar]

I enjoy feeling emotions now and again. I've never really had much of a problem controlling them, as I'm generally one of those easy going types. I mean you know, there are times when I feel things more strongly than others, but generally speaking, as I said, I'm easy going and so it takes either me or some pretty strong stimulus to get a big emotion to come out of that brain. Generally, I'm fine with unattached calmness, my default state. All that said, I still have empathy.

Regarding the above post, I guess I never really considering motivation the same as emotion, but I guess they are similar. I think Spock and Data being emotionless isn't about them lacking motivation but rather the definition of emotion we all have, the ability to be "afraid" or "angry" and so on. I know I've done plenty of things without feeling much of anything during the process. I suppose the motivation could be called an emotion, but that's a semantics thing I think. We're mainly talking anger and such here.

Further, he's talking about gathering actual data from the universe with emotions, not weighting their value. I don't think he's saying they are pointless from a human perspective.

I think what is being asked is this: "Based on my being angry, is it true or false that this chemical has this reaction?" and I'm pretty sure that in such a case it's true or false regardless of the emotion. That's all that's being asked here.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I'm sending some "emoto-waves" to you right now. Are you getting them?
They don't work like that. But if we were in a room, and your body language said you didin't like me, feared me, or something like that, I can read it (see it) with the help of reflected light.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Um, perhaps there are many forms of the process we call conscious?

Fine, but there is a form having to do with the least amount of conscious knowledge, and the things done just below conscious knowledge. Why can't we just go with the word subconscious?

the brain makes up the information in the blind spot.
Fine, but it is an automatic function, something done below the conscious level.

Sounds with images, do you mean learned pattern recollection?
Okay.

Information can be carried by a wave form, that does not mean the information is waves.
Carried by is fine.


Huh?

Oh you mean OOOK!
No, I meant that our feelings can be transmitted through body language.

[Belz...]

And you're wrong. I gave you a very specific example where they do.

Yes. A very specific example where you specified the conclusion in advance.

However, I do have to admire your argument from special cases.

Oh ? And your cases aren't "special" ?

Whenever your "hunches" are correct, you have no way of knowing WHY they are correct. You ASSUME that it's because of pattern-matching, but as I said, it could just as easily be aspirin, indigestion, bad mood, or any number of other factors. Emotions are influenced by so many variables, I don't know how you can claim that they're so accurate.

Similarly, I can prove that no animals can fly. TIgers can't fly, lizards can't fly, bears can't fly, blue whales can't fly, sperm whales can't fly, killer whales can't fly....

Now let me show you an animal that can. A bat.

Didn't catch the point, did you ? I didn't say emotions were never right. I said they didn't contain useful information.

"Humm... well THAT equation feels better than this one !"

Now, let me show you an emotion that gives you actual, useful data about the universe. Subconscious emotional reactions based upon learned pattern recognition.

Nope. The emotion itself doesn't tell you why you're afraid. It doesn't contain any factual information and, as I explained in my first tiger scenario, it could just as easily be wrong.

Yes. Again, conflating, hell; I'm forthrightly stating it. These are trained reflex-like emotional reactions based on experience.

Well, it seems to you, not only is the fear that's making you flee an emotion, but the fleeing itself is an emotion, too. Good luck with those broad definitions.

In fact, I have to put those summer tires on my emotion next week.

And when a trained, experienced mining engineer tells me "drkitten, I'm getting a bad feeling about this tunnel. Let's get out of here, quickly...." and two hours later the tunnel collapses -- damn straight, his emotions gave me useful data about the universe. I used it to stay alive.

Again with the prefabricated examples that's supposed to prove, somehow, that this is what would happen. What about the times when you'd get a "bad feeling" about a tunnel and nothing happens ?


I notice you haven't adressed my questions about phobia. I'll chalk that up as evading, now.

[Belz...]

There is no value without emotion. There is no meaning without emotion. You cannot even speak of "useful" without emotion because the very notion of use and help are meaningless without meaning, without valuation, without a sense of purpose in the first place.

Without emotion it's all just stuff. Tiger coming. You can't even say, "interesting". There is no interesting without emotion.

I'm sorry. Not that I disagree, but how does this relate to the topic ?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sorry. Not that I disagree, but how does this relate to the topic ?

There are two issues at play here and I am trying to ensure that the one is not lost in the other.

I haven't been folowing the thread in question, but I assume this discussion arose because someone claimed to have knowledge of God or something else through a feeling. And I assume that your response was that you cannot use emotion or feeling to tell you anything about the real world.

I object slightly to the way such a sentence is worded because emotions can tell us something about the world -- they give us meaning. They largely constitute what we mean by "meaning". I don't want that lost in this discussion because someone will try to come by and say that this issue -- meaning -- is the real issue.

Now, the other issue -- what you are really speaking about -- is that we cannot use emotion as evidence in and of itself for what the real world is like. While emotion/feeling sits at the heart of what we mean by "meaning" there is this issue of using emotion itself as evidence. Feelings can be evidence for ideas (I have a feeling there is a tiger over there), but they are not sufficient evidence for what we call knowledge. We don't call gut feelings knowledge. Feeling/emotion can serve as a type of evidence but must be bolstered by other evidence for us to accept any proposition about the real world as true.

So, I am not agreeing with Lightoflife and disagreeing with you. I am merely trying to point out that we must be careful when speaking on this topic not to go overboard and say that emotion is worthless for understanding reality. It isn't worthless. We couldn't really understand reality without feelings (at least the way that we use the word "understand"), but feelings can never be used as sufficient evidence for anything in the world in terms of real knowledge.

[drkitten]

Whenever your "hunches" are correct, you have no way of knowing WHY they are correct. You ASSUME that it's because of pattern-matching, but as I said, it could just as easily be aspirin, indigestion, bad mood, or any number of other factors. Emotions are influenced by so many variables, I don't know how you can claim that they're so accurate.

Because they have, in my personal experience, a track record.






Didn't catch the point, did you ? I didn't say emotions were never right. I said they didn't contain useful information.

Yes, and you were wrong. Because a "right" hunch is an emotion that carries useful information.


Nope. The emotion itself doesn't tell you why you're afraid.

It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is to provide information sufficient to get me out of a dangerous situation.



I notice you haven't adressed my questions about phobia.

I haven't addressed them because they're obviously red herrings. Phobias, by definition, are irrational and baseless fears, and emotions that are by definition baseless are unlikely to have a useful basis.

So what? Dolphins don't fly, either. I dont' care how many examples you enumerate of things that don't carry useful information -- that doesn't negate the fundamental elephant-in-the-room that you're ignoring, which is that there are emotions that give useful information.

[Belz...]

I object slightly to the way such a sentence is worded because emotions can tell us something about the world -- they give us meaning. They largely constitute what we mean by "meaning". I don't want that lost in this discussion because someone will try to come by and say that this issue -- meaning -- is the real issue.

I guess it depends what you mean by "meaning" and "understanding". If you mean personal understanding, then fine, emotions have usefulness.

If you mean establishing the facts, then no, they don't. "I don't like the accused" is not a reason to declare him guilty.

[Belz...]

Because they have, in my personal experience, a track record.

Your personal experience is irrelevant. If I trusted my personal experiences, I'd believe in a certain amount of woo, myself.

Yes, and you were wrong. Because a "right" hunch is an emotion that carries useful information.

Patently false. Does someone who wins the lottery win because he guessed the right numbers based on information ? No, it was chance. But he was "right" anyway. By your reasoning it wasn't chance at all.

It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is to provide information sufficient to get me out of a dangerous situation.

But it doesn't do that. It tells you to run. Period. There is no information involved.

I haven't addressed them because they're obviously red herrings. Phobias, by definition, are irrational and baseless fears, and emotions that are by definition baseless are unlikely to have a useful basis.

Bolding mine. Please give me an example of a rational emotion.

Second, you've just redefined "emotion" to mean "emotions based on known, verifiable data." You've just ensured that your KittenEmotionstm are noticably more succesful at identifying real threats, for example, by excluding of your definition those who don't. Of COURSE you're going to be right when you rig the game.

So what? Dolphins don't fly, either. I dont' care how many examples you enumerate of things that don't carry useful information -- that doesn't negate the fundamental elephant-in-the-room that you're ignoring, which is that there are emotions that give useful information.

I smell a sneaky strawman. The counter-examples I gave were not intended to prove that emotions don't give useful information: they were intended to prove that your claim of near-100% accuracy is bunk.

[drkitten]

Bolding mine. Please give me an example of a rational emotion.

Already done.


Second, you've just redefined "emotion" to mean "emotions based on known, verifiable data."

Nope. I've just pointed out that "emotions based on known, verifiable data" are still "emotions, by definition.

You've just ensured that your KittenEmotionstm are noticably more succesful at identifying real threats,

... which is my central point.

by excluding of your definition those who don't.

Yes. In set theoretic terms, the set of emotions can be divided into the set of uninformative emotions and the set of informative emotions, in the same way we can get red and non-red jellybeans out of a bag. The ones I'm interested in are the red ones -- the informative ones.

You know, the ones "based on known, verifiable data."

Since that set is non-empty, by your own admission,] some emotions are informative.

they were intended to prove that your claim of near-100% accuracy is bunk.

Well, they did a very poor job. It might have helped if they had any passing relevance.

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you mean establishing the facts, then no, they don't. "I don't like the accused" is not a reason to declare him guilty.

No, that is why I made the distinction between the issue of emotion/feeling being the basis for "meaning" (not all of meaning, but one of the key components) and feling being insufficient grounds for what we call knowlege.

[Dancing David]

Fine, but there is a form having to do with the least amount of conscious knowledge, and the things done just below conscious knowledge. Why can't we just go with the word subconscious?

Due to freud's invention and use of the word it is fraught with the implication that it is like this other ego residing in the human brain. It serves no useful purpose to refer to it as such.

We can refer to all sorts of things like precognitive pattern recognition and it has greater meaning.

Consiousness entails a lot more than the verbal cognition usualy labeled as consciousness.


Fine, but it is an automatic function, something done below the conscious level.

And that is where the terminology is part of the rub, I would argue that while we classify perception as seperater from sensation and verbal cognition, it is an integral parts of consiousness. The perceptions are manufatured with the input of the sensations to generate all the perceptions that lead us to believe we exist. So perception is part of consciousness.


Okay.

Carried by is fine.


No, I meant that our feelings can be transmitted through body language.

I prefer the use of non-verbal cues to the interpretation of internal states of others. But body language is okay.

It is not so much a language because when someone engages in deliberate sending of body cues to another it is less of a language and more of a postural display. The usual reference of body language is in reading other people cues to interpret thier internal states.

[Belz...]

Nope. I've just pointed out that "emotions based on known, verifiable data" are still "emotions, by definition.

Of course, but you have

A) no way of knowing if they ARE based on actual data or not.

and because of it,

B) no way of knowing if they contain valuable information.

So why do you still claim that they do ?

It is specifically BECAUSE there's no way to tell, that they don't contain any useful information. It might as well be gas, instead of intuition.

You know, the ones "based on known, verifiable data."

Yes, and you assume that you've got a bag full of red jellybeans.

Since that set is non-empty, by your own admission,] some emotions are informative.

That would be true and I would agree, only if you could provide me with any good reason to assume that you can tell the difference, for one. Also, even if I were to agree, and I do, that some emotions can be based on factual information, it does not follow that the emotion itself carries said information. As I said, it is precisely because we can't tell that there is no useful information.

As far as the tiger analogy goes, it is flawed from the start, because the first speaker KNOWS that the fear is based on observation. To him, the fear itself has no useful information, either, because he already knows why the fear is there. And if he didn't it STILL wouldn't be useful.

Well, they did a very poor job. It might have helped if they had any passing relevance.

It was YOUR example. I just showed that it need not happen the way you see it.

[Dancing David]

Blez , earlier you stated something about the value of emotions to 'fell good' and you acted as though that was not useful information.

If you are uncomfortable in a relationship, why is it not useful to aknowledge that. I am not saying it is a mean of determing facts per se but that it is ameans of getting information.

many people exclude this information to thier detriment, and in particular overly intellectaul people do it.

So why do you discount the realm of inerpreting ones comfort level in a situation?

It is useful information to be aware of. the validity of it is questionable, but then validity is a seperate issue, I have met many a person on this board who claims that there logical and well reasoned thoughts should be taken at face value. they sometimes are not. Emotions are the same, one needs to examine the validity of thoughts and emotions.

To deny one's emotions is a very good way to have a train wreck life.

They are about as useful as any measurement, it is the calibration ansd context that give a measurement meaning.

[Belz...]

Blez

We're not in The Warlock. Saying my name backwards will not dispel me. ;)

, earlier you stated something about the value of emotions to 'fell good' and you acted as though that was not useful information.

If you are uncomfortable in a relationship, why is it not useful to aknowledge that. I am not saying it is a mean of determing facts per se but that it is ameans of getting information.

You are absolutely correct. However, this is not information about the world around you, which is what we're talking about. At the risk of splitting hairs, this is information about the way you feel, i.e. the emotion themselves.

To deny one's emotions is a very good way to have a train wreck life.

Of couse, because living isn't just a matter of data. But then that's not what I was saying.

[Dancing David]

We're not in The Warlock. Saying my name backwards will not dispel me. ;)


bubezlaaB?

Yeah i miisspeelleed it.




You are absolutely correct. However, this is not information about the world around you, which is what we're talking about. At the risk of splitting hairs, this is information about the way you feel, i.e. the emotion themselves.

fair enough, i will continue to say however that they are channel of information to be heeded with evaluation of the evidence.




Of couse, because living isn't just a matter of data. But then that's not what I was saying.


I am saying that sometimes our non-verbal consiousness responds faster than our verbal consiousness, with similar problems.

[Dancing David]

double bubble

[drkitten]

Yes, and you assume that you've got a bag full of red jellybeans.

Yes.

I assume -- a better word would be "conclude" -- that based on two observations.

First, that I have a bag of jellybeans, and second, that every jellybean I've drawn from that particular bag has observably been red.




That would be true and I would agree, only if you could provide me with any good reason to assume that you can tell the difference, for one.

You're suggesting that "three times the workload at two-thirds the pay" is a bad reason to assume that I can tell the difference?

It was YOUR example. I just showed that it need not happen the way you see it.

It needn't. The next bean drawn from the bag might be blue.

But it hasn't. You're trying to tell me that my observations are incorrect based on what I might have observed, but didn't.

To return to the tiger analogy -- you still don't understand the Holmesian distinction between "see" and "observe." A person can be afraid of a tiger that he has seen, but not observed. In this case, the very fact that the person is feeling fear can be informative, because without the fear, the person would not have any cause for consciously believing himself to be in danger.

Now, you're going to point out that people can be fearful for many reasons. And you are of course correct. But that doesn't mean that any individual person will be.

The emotion of fear can provide useful information that is not otherwise available for conscious processing.

[Belz...]

First, that I have a bag of jellybeans, and second, that every jellybean I've drawn from that particular bag has observably been red.

Well I'd say this makes you very special, and I'm sure it gives you a warm feeling inside. However, I seriously doubt that you perform better than other human beings in that respect. Otherwise, I'd like to see a demonstration.

You're suggesting that "three times the workload at two-thirds the pay" is a bad reason to assume that I can tell the difference?

I'm saying that "three times the workload at two-thirds the pay" is an information your conscious mind had access to and therefore it isn't part of the "hunch". Or are you saying the workload/pay ratio became known to you after the fact ?

It needn't. The next bean drawn from the bag might be blue.

Not according to you.

But it hasn't. You're trying to tell me that my observations are incorrect based on what I might have observed, but didn't.

No, I'm telling you that your observations are incorrect because you're fudging your statistics.

To return to the tiger analogy -- you still don't understand the Holmesian distinction between "see" and "observe."

Yes I do. Clearly you don't know what I understand.

A person can be afraid of a tiger that he has seen, but not observed.

That wasn't your example. Yours was a conversation. Obviously, "signs" of the tiger were seen AND observed.

In this case, the very fact that the person is feeling fear can be informative, because without the fear, the person would not have any cause for consciously believing himself to be in danger.

True. But the sheer number of factors that can cause that fear makes the fear itself a non-information. Unless you actually check out the source of the fear, all you know is the fear itself.

The emotion of fear can provide useful information that is not otherwise available for conscious processing.

Nope. The fear tells you "hey, your body's telling you something". Fine, but you have no clue whether said fear is due to a chemical imbalance in your brain, or something spotted unconsciously (and, if I may, I think you're giving too much importance to unconscious perceptions.) If you DID observe this information, you wouldn't need your fear to tell you to back away from the tiger. In fact your fear may be giving you the false course of action.

[drkitten]

I'm saying that "three times the workload at two-thirds the pay" is an information your conscious mind had access to and therefore it isn't part of the "hunch". Or are you saying the workload/pay ratio became known to you after the fact ?

Re-read for comprehension and get back to me. This question has already been asked and answered.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Due to freud's invention and use of the word it is fraught with the implication that it is like this other ego residing in the human brain. It serves no useful purpose to refer to it as such.
I think dreams give a view of workings below consciousness. The dreamers are said to cycle through three stages of sleep, but it is the deepest sleep stage where they get the most rest. That is the stage where the conscious is unconscious. On its way towards waking though, the conscious mind appears to run into its own mind at work, and a dream begins about what it "sees," which is why the eyes begin to move. I thought this showed the limited memory of the conscious, the longer term memory of the subconscious, and a line between the two.


It is not so much a language because when someone engages in deliberate sending of body cues to another it is less of a language and more of a postural display. The usual reference of body language is in reading other people cues to interpret thier internal states.
I thought how they postured, did show their internal state. Especially when the person "reading" sees something below the display that the sender did not intend.

And body language can still apply to unconscious sending, like universal language of things like "bared teeth"

[Belz...]

Re-read for comprehension and get back to me. This question has already been asked and answered.

That's your retort ?

Hell, I keep repeating myself and _I_ don't complain.

So, how can I interpret the fact that you didn't answer the rest of my post ? Bored ? Unable to reply ? Or did you just not think it worth answering ?

[Dancing David]

I think dreams give a view of workings below consciousness. The dreamers are said to cycle through three stages of sleep, but it is the deepest sleep stage where they get the most rest. That is the stage where the conscious is unconscious. On its way towards waking though, the conscious mind appears to run into its own mind at work, and a dream begins about what it "sees," which is why the eyes begin to move. I thought this showed the limited memory of the conscious, the longer term memory of the subconscious, and a line between the two.

I would say that the line is an arbitary dualistic definition. The brain is the mind, consciousness is consciousness. There are forms of association which are not verbal cognition or problem solving, the things usualy ascribed to consiousness. But the brain functions are all active. It just takes training to recognise them.

memory is memory and the long term effects are not related to anything other than memory and recal, wether one can verbaly identify the reasons for a triggered memory is a result of verbal cognition. recall and recognition are seperate processes.



I thought how they postured, did show their internal state. Especially when the person "reading" sees something below the display that the sender did not intend.


But it is not communicative the way language.


And body language can still apply to unconscious sending, like universal language of things like "bared teeth"

Okay, I just don't like no behavioral language. the reciever as it were, reads cues and uses past behaviors, asssociation, abstarction and generalization to interpret the cues.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I would say that the line is an arbitary dualistic definition. The brain is the mind, consciousness is consciousness.
The brain is the physical organ, the mind is its workings. There is a conscious, but there is are also workings below it, study requires lines to be drawn.

But it is not communicative the way language.
Verbal language, came out of body language.

[skeptifem]

sorry i got back to this thread a bit late!


I disagree. I think rational thoughts are an integral part of ethics.

I do agree with your point on empathy, however.

You can think rationally and say 'if i did x, it would hurt so and so's feelings' and think it but without actually feeling something comparable in your life its hard to truly understand the magnitude of hurtful actions.



Aren't you just voicing your opinion on the subject, now ?

no i just picked something off the top of my head to use as an example.

If it's based on emotion, how do you know it's the correct choice ?

because i know how i have felt when bad things happen, and that most peoples emotional responses to some events (death of family, rape, etc) are more alike than different. Excluding some personality disorder everyone will feel some negetive emotions about certain life events, and so i know its wrong to allow such events if i can stop them or cause those events.

[skeptifem]

What the hell? Are you saying that there are no logical, ethical reasons to save the planet?


No, but if you dont consider the feelings of people who have a real love for the world and nature and ignore the feelings of people if the planet did get destoryed, its harder and harder to care about the here and now. unless you have those feelings yourself anyway. I think ethics sprout from having empathy anyway, so i dont see too much of a difference. Its all about making sure things are right so the least amount of people get hurt.


I just think that the reason we know that things are wrong is because of the experience of our own feelings. If youve never felt bad or hurt how would you know its wrong to hurt someone else?

[Belz...]

because i know how i have felt when bad things happen, and that most peoples emotional responses to some events (death of family, rape, etc) are more alike than different. Excluding some personality disorder everyone will feel some negetive emotions about certain life events, and so i know its wrong to allow such events if i can stop them or cause those events.

It becomes murkier, however, when two competing interests and feelings are involved.


I'd still like to point out, however, that my original statement was about knowledge of the world, not about oneself.

[Dancing David]

The brain is the physical organ, the mind is its workings. There is a conscious, but there is are also workings below it, study requires lines to be drawn.

True, however, precognitive and non-verbal cognition might be highly more useful than 'subconscious' especialy given the psychodynamic conotations.


Verbal language, came out of body language.

I kind of doubt that, the visual procesing area is in the back of the brain, the language strip is in the motor and temporal area near the auditory. (I might be mis-speaking , it has been a while), I would think that if language developed feom the visual processing of postural clues to internal sates then it would be in a different place. It would be very hard to do other than speculate on the postural nature of language.

[Dancing David]

It becomes murkier, however, when two competing interests and feelings are involved.


I'd still like to point out, however, that my original statement was about knowledge of the world, not about oneself.

Perhaps oneself is part of the world and processing sensations, the emotional response seems to be faster than the verbal cognitive. And fraught with the same errors.

Perhaps the issue is the process by which one determines knowledge that has observational validity?

[RandFan]

This thread is based on Belz's comment in lightcreatedlife's epic thread of nonsense that "emotions are WORTHLESS for understanding reality."I haven't read anyother posts so please forgive if I'm going over old ground.

Understanding is linked to emotion. It is our ability to sense in an emotive way or feel that gives us the ability to understand to the degree that we do.

I agree otherwise with Belz. That emotion is a basis for understanding does not mean that we should arrive at conclusions based on emotional response.

[Belz...]

Perhaps oneself is part of the world and processing sensations, the emotional response seems to be faster than the verbal cognitive. And fraught with the same errors.

Sure, but I prefer when doctors don't une "hunches" about their "oneself" to save my life !! :p

[Dancing David]

Sure, but I prefer when doctors don't une "hunches" about their "oneself" to save my life !! :p

Maybe but they do anyhow! And especialy the good ones, then they make rationalizations after the fact.

:p

[jimbob]

On the subject of hunches,

Our brains have evolved to be very good at spotting patterns indeed that is possibly all thay are really good at. The downside is some of the patterbs are false and tend to lead to superstious behaviour; but some aren't. Obviously the downside of touching wood is worth the upside of guessing where to catch fish...

Are huntches emotions? Maybe not, but they might manifest themselves in uncomfortable feelings.

Predicting human behaviour must be a hugely complex computational task. We do this and tailor our responses by emotions. Sometimes they can be wrong, but often they are surprisingly good.

O/T Digression

I only realise how good most people are at this when I see someone who is socially inept (as I am a semiconductor engineer, there are many colleagues to choose from).

I do sometimes wonder if some of the less worldly academics end up where they are because they have devoted too much of their pattern recognition skills to the inherently less complex tasks of higher mathematics...

Is this what happens with autistic-savants? These people obviously struggle with reading emotional cues, which points to poor pattern-recognition skills. However the savants (by definition) do have extreme understanding (mastery) in certain areas that they concentrate in. I wonder if this is compensating for finding social interactions so difficult to understand?


Jim

[slingblade]

I'm just going to take the thread title and answer that.

Are emotions worthless for understanding reality?

They are not worthless. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to understand reality without one's emotions.

[Belz...]

Depends what you mean by "understand", then.

How do emotions help understand ? Other than providing personal significance, that is.