Objective take on emotion (Test 2)
Posted by Wonky 11 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
See "Objective take on emotion (Test 1)" for more commentary.
-----------------------
Original post:
-----------------------
Premises:
1. Objectivism does not attempt to address or explain emotions
2. Emotions are generally considered to be subjective (supports 1)
3. Ayn Rand depicts emotions in her fiction, but does not attempt to explain them
4. Ayn Rand's looters and producers both have emotions
Propositions:
1. Emotions have value
2. Emotions arise from perceptual reality
3. Emotions can be objectively explained
4. Objectivism can be expanded to explain emotions
Anything wrong with the premises?
Would anyone enjoy contributing to a post that attempted to prove the propositions?
-----------------------
My last post:
-----------------------
I'll propose (more formally) later, that all emotions derive from pain and pleasure based on one's ability to comprehend perceptual data from his senses within a given context.
-----------------------
khalling cited "The Virtue of Selfishness" (excellent)
-----------------------
"Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. ..." - refer to the last post for more, or the book itself.
-----------------------
Now on to test 2 (possibly the last pending commentary)
-----------------------
A "stream" in computer programming is a sequential set of data. In a post entitled "Universe: Created or Eternal?" by j_IR1776wg, it was argued that time cannot be objectively proven to exist (I think the notion is silly, but I don't feel like debating it-- Ohhh whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa). "Sequence" is a prerequisite of causality, and as such, must exist near to the root of Objectivist epistemology. A stream of data must be transmitted and received in sequential order in order for computer networks to function properly. Anyone using this site must concede that sequence exists and that sequential streams of data must exist.
Sensory information is no different. More to the point, perceptual streams of sequential data are no different from sequential streams of binary data. (for the sake of levity, citing cgervasi's post entitled "Political Ideology and Word Choice", I could say "case closed", "end of discussion", "hey", "word", "yeah", or my personal favorite "Q.E.D. mofo's"-- even if Samuel Jackson hasn't said it onscreen yet).
Given that perceptions are steams of sequential information, all organisms must be capable or parsing those streams of sequential information to determine an appropriate course of action based on the fundamental needs of that organism at a particular point in time (ugh... at a particular point in the sequence of it's life for cgervasi's sake).
If an organism is successful in parsing the contents of it's sensory information streams, finds the data required to satisfy it's fundamental needs, and chooses to act on it's own behalf to avoid danger or approach sustenance, it stands to reason that it will have a greater chance at survival. Whether said organism has some sort of primitive, automatic pain-pleasure system or not, evolution could not have occurred if organisms did not utilize perceptions to act in the interest of their own survival (See the post "Did Rand believe in Romantic Loyalty?" by FlashGordon for some wacky comments on evolution-- you'll have to dig deep to find them).
Using the words "pleasure" and "pain" (not my choices, but better for consistency), I assert that humans not only derive pleasure from successfully understanding their perceptions, they also derive pleasure from "knowing" that they understood their perceptions. Likewise, pain comes not only from failing to understand perceptions, but from "knowing" that we failed to understand our perceptions. Further, through what are known as "mirror neurons", we witness all 4 of these pleasure and pain responses in other organisms that are sufficiently similar to humans.
I assert that joy comes from knowing that we understood the contents of our sensory information streams (perceptions), and suffering comes from knowing that we did not understand the contents of our sensory information streams (perceptions). Joy and suffering can be shared between any 2 humans and each can feel the opposite of the other regarding the same perceptions.
I further assert that all emotions can be traced back to the 8 possibilities-- known or unknown comprehension in self or other and known or unknown confusion in self or other.
Because I'm hitting my length limit, I'm forced to end with a final assertion that all of these assertions can be integrated with Objectivist epistemology without contradiction.
Respectfully and lovingly,
-Word Salad
(P.S. I could have typed 6 more characters)
-----------------------
Original post:
-----------------------
Premises:
1. Objectivism does not attempt to address or explain emotions
2. Emotions are generally considered to be subjective (supports 1)
3. Ayn Rand depicts emotions in her fiction, but does not attempt to explain them
4. Ayn Rand's looters and producers both have emotions
Propositions:
1. Emotions have value
2. Emotions arise from perceptual reality
3. Emotions can be objectively explained
4. Objectivism can be expanded to explain emotions
Anything wrong with the premises?
Would anyone enjoy contributing to a post that attempted to prove the propositions?
-----------------------
My last post:
-----------------------
I'll propose (more formally) later, that all emotions derive from pain and pleasure based on one's ability to comprehend perceptual data from his senses within a given context.
-----------------------
khalling cited "The Virtue of Selfishness" (excellent)
-----------------------
"Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. ..." - refer to the last post for more, or the book itself.
-----------------------
Now on to test 2 (possibly the last pending commentary)
-----------------------
A "stream" in computer programming is a sequential set of data. In a post entitled "Universe: Created or Eternal?" by j_IR1776wg, it was argued that time cannot be objectively proven to exist (I think the notion is silly, but I don't feel like debating it-- Ohhh whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa). "Sequence" is a prerequisite of causality, and as such, must exist near to the root of Objectivist epistemology. A stream of data must be transmitted and received in sequential order in order for computer networks to function properly. Anyone using this site must concede that sequence exists and that sequential streams of data must exist.
Sensory information is no different. More to the point, perceptual streams of sequential data are no different from sequential streams of binary data. (for the sake of levity, citing cgervasi's post entitled "Political Ideology and Word Choice", I could say "case closed", "end of discussion", "hey", "word", "yeah", or my personal favorite "Q.E.D. mofo's"-- even if Samuel Jackson hasn't said it onscreen yet).
Given that perceptions are steams of sequential information, all organisms must be capable or parsing those streams of sequential information to determine an appropriate course of action based on the fundamental needs of that organism at a particular point in time (ugh... at a particular point in the sequence of it's life for cgervasi's sake).
If an organism is successful in parsing the contents of it's sensory information streams, finds the data required to satisfy it's fundamental needs, and chooses to act on it's own behalf to avoid danger or approach sustenance, it stands to reason that it will have a greater chance at survival. Whether said organism has some sort of primitive, automatic pain-pleasure system or not, evolution could not have occurred if organisms did not utilize perceptions to act in the interest of their own survival (See the post "Did Rand believe in Romantic Loyalty?" by FlashGordon for some wacky comments on evolution-- you'll have to dig deep to find them).
Using the words "pleasure" and "pain" (not my choices, but better for consistency), I assert that humans not only derive pleasure from successfully understanding their perceptions, they also derive pleasure from "knowing" that they understood their perceptions. Likewise, pain comes not only from failing to understand perceptions, but from "knowing" that we failed to understand our perceptions. Further, through what are known as "mirror neurons", we witness all 4 of these pleasure and pain responses in other organisms that are sufficiently similar to humans.
I assert that joy comes from knowing that we understood the contents of our sensory information streams (perceptions), and suffering comes from knowing that we did not understand the contents of our sensory information streams (perceptions). Joy and suffering can be shared between any 2 humans and each can feel the opposite of the other regarding the same perceptions.
I further assert that all emotions can be traced back to the 8 possibilities-- known or unknown comprehension in self or other and known or unknown confusion in self or other.
Because I'm hitting my length limit, I'm forced to end with a final assertion that all of these assertions can be integrated with Objectivist epistemology without contradiction.
Respectfully and lovingly,
-Word Salad
(P.S. I could have typed 6 more characters)
As a rule I stop reading after 2500 characters unless there are pictures or ads. However, in this case, after the initial suffering of the length, I just started somewhere in the middle and experienced Joy at the 4 final paragraphs.
Good luck getting the keepers of Objectivism to read this, even if you edit
I "feel" a genuine affection for you. I believe this is because you make good points that I can, more often than not, understand. I also believe that it is because I understand your jokes and quips. I feel joy while reading your posts and comments.
On the other hand, some of your posts are confusing to me. In these cases, I feel selfconscious, and fear that I might be intellectually deficient in some way.
The utility of an objective approach to emotion is evident in the later.
If I feel a negative emotion, I can, in theory, trace it back to confusion or failure to understand. If I go through the exercise, I'll be less inclined to allow the negative emotion to take root and contribute to a fear of engagement.
I've already brushed off my confusion about your last sentence (yay me), but I am curious about who you think the keepers of Objectivism are, and why I would care if they read my post?
2. I guess I thought you might want your theory to something larger than this forum.
3. what do I say that's confusing?
2. Possibly, but for now, discussion is all I'm interested in
3. I don't know if you ever say anything inherently confusing, but I occasionally fail to grasp your meaning- my failure to understand, not your failure to make your point.
Maybe those are just low-brow versions of scientists liking to have hypotheses to test.
Maybe it's an intellectual version of liking having an itch to scratch or other biological urges to satiate. That points to your idea that joy comes from satiating the urge to know.
There's part of us, though, that likes the movie/book 2001 better than 2010.
BTW, you could have typed 10 more characters by omitting the apostrophes from "it's". There are plenty of characters left in Part 3. I hope you write one.
So, to the point, a couple of examples:
I could "feel" hurt that my poor grasp of the English language results in a failure to produce a high quality presentation that others can understand. I could then turn in into a complex and "feel" that I'm no good or that no one understands me (long term, unhealthy application of emotions to self denigration).
I could "feel" angry that you pointed out such a minor detail and turn it into a long term belief that people are just too picky to derive value from anything that's not perfect
On the other hand, I could look at it objectively and see that you got to experience the joy of objective understanding in spite of the flaws in the presentation. Even better, "we" get to experience a shared joy or excitement in what appears to be a successful interaction.
If this post sticks around for a while and gets good comments I imagine it will be a great journey of self discovery for me (and maybe others) as I trace my own emotions back to perceptual understanding/confusion.
cgervasi did not argue that time could not be objectively proven to existence, j_IR1776wg did in "Universe: Created or Eternal?"
"There is no objective evidence for the existance of time." -j_IR1776wg
My apologies cgervasi!
The correction would be: "...a particular point in time (ugh... at a particular point in the sequence of it's life for j_IR1776wg's sake)."
It was just a bit of silliness that didn't have anything to do with the spirit of the post, but I didn't want to let my putting words in the wrong mouth stand.