View Full Version : Can we have cognition without emotion?


mildadhd
04-16-15, 12:33 AM
Can we have cognition without emotion?




P

Fortune
04-16-15, 01:40 AM
We can have cognition. However, lacking emotion creates a severe impairment in decision-making. Imagine trying to decide what you want to eat for dinner when you can't feel any kind of "want" at all.

There's been a lot of research on this, and not having emotions is a huge impairment.

Abi
04-16-15, 06:01 AM
As an AI researcher I vote Yes.

stef
04-16-15, 06:08 AM
Yes , from AI point of view i think so too
lots of excelllent Sci-fi based on this issue!

mildadhd
04-16-15, 08:52 AM
We can have cognition. However, lacking emotion creates a severe impairment in decision-making. Imagine trying to decide what you want to eat for dinner when you can't feel any kind of "want" at all.

There's been a lot of research on this, and not having emotions is a huge impairment.

My understanding is it would be impossible to have cognition without emotion.

Cognition is "built" upon emotion.

No emotional consciousness, no cognitive consciousness.






P

Tmoney
04-16-15, 09:26 AM
I voted no based on me. Not only do I have emotion, but I have too much emotion and that has a tendency to cause issues for me.

I have learned to control it to a point, but I have yet to ponder without lots of emotion being involved!

TheChemicals
04-16-15, 09:55 AM
If u mean we as in ourselves then no. Everything is based on emotion and we try oh so hard to not be that way....be ourselves....

Fortune
04-16-15, 07:40 PM
My understanding is it would be impossible to have cognition without emotion.

Cognition is "built" upon emotion.

No emotional consciousness, no cognitive consciousness.

P

There are real people alive today who do not experience emotion but still experience cognition - they just have an extremely difficult time making decisions and getting things done.

mildadhd
04-16-15, 09:05 PM
There are real people alive today who do not experience emotion but still experience cognition - they just have an extremely difficult time making decisions and getting things done.



What do they self-regulate?



P

Lunacie
04-16-15, 10:12 PM
What do they self-regulate?



P

Self regulation involves many things besides emotions.

Sometimes, we just can't get what we need right away. We must endure the discomfort related to exhaustion, hunger, thirst, or fear. Learning to tolerate this distress, to correctly label the uncomfortable sensations, and to develop appropriate, mature ways to respond to these signals is central to healthy development.

... and ...

Many children have difficulty with self-regulation. Their stress-response systems are poorly organized and hyper-reactive. This could be related to many factors, including genetic predisposition, developmental insults (such as lack of oxygen in utero), or exposure to chaos, threats, and violence

more at: http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/self_regulation.htm

The above article seems to indicate that self regulation can be impaired but
still allow cognition, although making choices may be poorly regulated.

Fortune
04-16-15, 10:24 PM
What do they self-regulate?



P

I can't answer a lot of questions about this, but here's an article on the topic. (http://intentionalworkplace.com/2012/03/15/how-emotion-shapes-decision-making/)

It talks about a man named Elliott who - due to brain surgery - lacked emotion, and the impact that had on his ability to make decisions. I don't know if that will answer your question about self-regulation, however.

mildadhd
04-16-15, 10:28 PM
Self regulation involves many things besides emotions.



more at: http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/self_regulation.htm

The above article seems to indicate that self regulation can be impaired but
still allow cognition, although making choices may be poorly regulated.

The people in your example have emotions.


P

Fortune
04-16-15, 10:34 PM
The people in your example have emotions.


P

Here are some google search results talking about the loss of emotions due to brain damage. (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=loss+of+emotion+brain+damage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

These people are real, they do exist. It is possible to live and have cognitive function without emotions, it is just that loss of emotion is also a significant cognitive impairment.

mildadhd
04-16-15, 11:54 PM
Here are some google search results talking about the loss of emotions due to brain damage. (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=loss+of+emotion+brain+damage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

These people are real, they do exist. It is possible to live and have cognitive function without emotions, it is just that loss of emotion is also a significant cognitive impairment.


The last two posts you referenced Dr. Damasio (1994)

Below is a quote from Dr. Damasio's newest book, "Self Comes To Mind", (2010), where he writes, "Brains begin building conscious minds not at the level of the cerebral cortex but rather at the level of the brain stem."

The man in the previous link had cancer in the frontal lobe.

Emotional-affective consciousness does not originate in the frontal lobe, emotional-affective consciousness originates at the primary level of control.(deeply subcortical)

Some dopaminergic pathways that extend from the brain stem area to the frontal lobe may have been damaged by having cancer, interfering with both emotion (motivation, etc) and cognition (decision making, etc)

But if this man did not have conscious primary emotional response systems, he would loose all consciousness.


"Brains begin building conscious minds not at the level of the cerebral cortex but rather at the level of the brain stem.

Primordial feelings are not only the first images generated by the brain but also immediate manifestations of sentience.

They are the protoself foundation for more complex levels of self.

These ideas run counter to widely accepted views, although Jaak Panksepp (cited earlier) has defended a comparable position and so has Rodolfo Llinas..



Antonio Damasio, "Self Comes To Mind", "Constructing The Conscious Brain", (Chapter: "Awakenings", A Preview of Main Ideas) p 23.


P

mildadhd
04-17-15, 12:47 AM
..Human beings have a much bigger neocortex, but the core emotions aren't located in the neocortex.

They're in the lower-down part of the brain.


-Temple Grandin & Catherine Johnson: "Animals Make Us Human", (Chapter 1, What Do Animals Need?), P 5.



P

Fortune
04-17-15, 03:25 AM
But if this man did not have conscious primary emotional response systems, he would loose all consciousness.

I don't think you can conclude that. Whether people are severed from their emotions or lose access to them some other way, they do not experience emotions and they do not lose all consciousness. They lose a lot of functionality because the lack of emotion is a significant hindrance. You're parsing things very finely to claim they still have emotion when they do not in fact have emotion.

Here's an example: Say you have a hard drive in your computer. It works, it does what it is supposed to, but it's not actually connected to anything else in your computer. You might as well not have that hard drive because it is inaccessible. Connections in the brain can be severed like this, although it is a much more complex thing than any computer.

SB_UK
04-17-15, 07:43 AM
As you know - my basic argument is to be human is

the goal of mind -> construction of a mind which knows morality -> when moral to feel good
the goal of mind -> to see immorality -> to feel bad

Without emotions there's no carrot/stick which permits the mind to control behaviour.

And as you know - I think that the major reason people're sick (diseases of Western living) is from the emotional turmoil cause by people with minds who're forced to engage in immoral acts / see immorality on a daily basis eg do anything with money (intrinsically immoral), watch the news and see the remarkable level of conflict we have currently (of course war is immoral) ... ...

So - immersion in immorality in the presence of a half decent mind -> [emotional] distress [loss of sensitivity to cortisol] -> disease.

This is the ref we've covered years ago -
http://chriskresser.com/rhr-chronic-stress-cortisol-resistance-and-modern-disease

SB_UK
04-17-15, 07:52 AM
Incidentally - we've just hosted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Boyle_%28Moneyless_Man%29

When asked what did you do when you became sick ?

His answer over the entire period (several years) that he went moneyless - he didn't become sick once.

It's anecdotal but powerful evidence which just came out in the Q and As.

SB_UK
04-17-15, 08:04 AM
The process of building mind.
Education.

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_stress) or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

The goal is (starting from nothing) to get to a mind which knows (unequivocally) morality.

Cognitive dissonance (as learning takes place) prunes immoral understanding and replaces it with moral understanding.

The idea is that contradictory ideas battle.

Not sure if this point is made - but the battle is between ideas for the best (most scientific idea) - but the key point to be made is that the best idea (when the mind attains a state of wisdom) will be enforcedly and fixedly moral.

We can't say that the mind will know anything particular about some subatomic particle or the workings of a toilet, the ubiquity of some chemical element, metabolic state of some random cell in his body or number of chemical particles being inhaled every second ie these very valid aspects which arise from science and technology are neither here nor there - what's important is that the state of morality is attained through learning.

The actual information stored within the mind can be different from mind to mind - what's important is that the information has resulted in the individual attaining morality.

Can cognitive dissonance occur in the absence of moral considerations ?
Yes.

But a car can be used to drive you to a bike shop or off a cliff ... ... some understanding of what we're meant to doing with the mind helps us into an understanding which prevents us from using it to hasten our own demise.

SB_UK
04-17-15, 08:10 AM
The human disease is that we're using our minds to make us happy by the wrong definition eg producing consumer throwaway products which give us a hit of dopamine each time we buy them - where we're required to buy them every so often to feed the need for reward.
Shop oholic
Alc oholic
Choc oholic

We're building mind to improve the shop oholic, alc oholic, choc oholic experience
- employing cognitive dissonance to produce the best possible way of getting people to shop, access alcohol + chocolate

- ie are building the mind in the wrong way - and in the process trapping ourselves in addiction - where the goal of life is to be happy by the correct definition.

The correct definition is to build a mind through cognitive dissonance of morality and not just a mind through cognitive dissonace which supplies those addictions which produce transient and addictive hits of reward.

Little Missy
04-17-15, 08:47 AM
Oh yeah.

mildadhd
04-17-15, 08:49 AM
I don't think you can conclude that. Whether people are severed from their emotions or lose access to them some other way, they do not experience emotions and they do not lose all consciousness. They lose a lot of functionality because the lack of emotion is a significant hindrance. You're parsing things very finely to claim they still have emotion when they do not in fact have emotion.

Here's an example: Say you have a hard drive in your computer. It works, it does what it is supposed to, but it's not actually connected to anything else in your computer. You might as well not have that hard drive because it is inaccessible. Connections in the brain can be severed like this, although it is a much more complex thing than any computer.

How do you conclude that the man had no emotions?

Infants born without a neocortex still have primary emotions, even if they can't think about emotion.

Emotions don't originate in the neocortex.

If the man who had cancer did not have primary emotions (deeply subcortical) he would not have consciousness.





P

TygerSan
04-17-15, 09:04 AM
There is both a physiological response to a stimulus as well as a cognitive response to a stimulus. Psychologists really don't agree on how those two responses come together to produce what we consider an emotional response. In fact, there are five different theories (http://brainblogger.com/2014/10/22/comparing-the-5-theories-of-emotion/) as to how the brain processes information to come up with an emotion.

The same physiological response can be interpreted/labeled (via cognition) as very different emotional states depending on circumstance.

One of the best examples of this I've seen is a study by Harriet DeWitt. Participants in the study either got amphetamine or placebo (sugar pill) and then sat in an office for an hour or so as the drug took effect. Amphetamine increases arousal levels.

Half of the people were told, correctly, whether they'd gotten amphetamine or not. The other half were lied to. (Told that they were getting a placebo instead of amphetamine).

Those who had gotten amphetamine and knew it felt energized and happy, perhaps even a little bit euphoric. Those who had gotten amphetamine and thought they had gotten a placebo were jittery and anxious. They had nothing to attribute their increased levels of arousal to, and so instead of feeling energized and euphoric, they attributed the increase arousal level to increased anxiety.

I have a great video that shows the participants in the above study, but unfortunately, it's not online anywhere, and I can't share due to copyright. :( It's pretty powerful.

Another funny example of how a physiological state of arousal can affect emotional response was a study that was done in the field. The experimeters had an attractive female experimeter stand at the end of either a scary, swinging suspension bridge, or a safer, solidly built bridge that crossed the same canyon. They approached men who had just crossed one or the other bridges, and asked them to fill out a survey. They also gave the participants their phone number in case the participants had any questions.

Presumably, those who had just crossed the scarier bridge had hearts that were racing a bit more than those who had just crossed the safer bridge. Funnily enough, the woman was called more by those who crossed the scary bridge than the safe bridge. The experimenters concluded that those who had crossed the scary bridge found the woman more attractive because they were misattributing (http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Misattribution_of_Arousal_Paradigm)the arousal they felt crossing the scary bridge with attraction towards the female experimenter.

Fuzzy12
04-17-15, 09:26 AM
Another funny example of how a physiological state of arousal can affect emotional response was a study that was done in the field. The experimeters had an attractive female experimeter stand at the end of either a scary, swinging suspension bridge, or a safer, solidly built bridge that crossed the same canyon. They approached men who had just crossed one or the other bridges, and asked them to fill out a survey. They also gave the participants their phone number in case the participants had any questions.

Presumably, those who had just crossed the scarier bridge had hearts that were racing a bit more than those who had just crossed the safer bridge. Funnily enough, the woman was called more by those who crossed the scary bridge than the safe bridge. The experimenters concluded that those who had crossed the scary bridge found the woman more attractive because they were misattributing (http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Misattribution_of_Arousal_Paradigm)the arousal they felt crossing the scary bridge with attraction towards the female experimenter.

That's really fascinating. Did they ask the participants what made them call the attractive experimenter?They've probably accounted for this in their research but I'm curious to know if it isn't possible that crossing the bridge aroused feelings in them that made them more likely to call (rather than their misattribution to what caused the arousal). For instance, maybe managing to cross the scary bridge made them feel more confident about themselves or maybe remembering the fear they experienced while crossing made the difficulty associated with making the call appear less or maybe they were more interested in the research because of their more intense emotional experience..:scratch:

TygerSan
04-17-15, 09:36 AM
That's really fascinating. Did they ask the participants what made them call the attractive experimenter?They've probably accounted for this in their research but I'm curious to know if it isn't possible that crossing the bridge aroused feelings in them that made them more likely to call (rather than their misattribution to what caused the arousal). For instance, maybe managing to cross the scary bridge made them feel more confident about themselves or maybe remembering the fear they experienced while crossing made the difficulty associated with making the call appear less or maybe they were more interested in the research because of their more intense emotional experience..:scratch:

It is a rather controversial study, admittedly, and others have failed to replicate as indicated (the wiki article I linked to makes reference to this). When you're doing an experiment in the field, it's always less controlled than in the lab. Another criticism of this particular study is that, because the experimenters approach the men after they've crossed the bridge, the people who choose to cross the rickety bridge may be more confident than those who choose the safer option. I believe that this was controlled for somehow, but I don't know for certain, or how they navigated this particular potential confound.

Lunacie
04-17-15, 11:46 AM
The people in your example have emotions.


P

That was not the question I was trying to answer.
You asked whether self-regulation applies to anything else than emotions.
Yes, it does.


As to the original question ...
There is a difference between primary and secondary emotions.
Lack of cognition might preclude secondary emotions.

Just as everything about us humans seems to be,
emotions are also on a spectrum.

Some of us are over-emotional, some have what is called 'flat effect' and
display no emotions, although they could still feel primary emotions.

Fortune
04-17-15, 06:30 PM
How do you conclude that the man had no emotions?

I concluded it on the basis that he was described as experiencing no emotions, and that this was the basis for significant impairment.

Infants born without a neocortex still have primary emotions, even if they can't think about emotion.

Emotions don't originate in the neocortex.

If the man who had cancer did not have primary emotions (deeply subcortical) he would not have consciousness.


You're shifting the goalposts. You asked a question, I answered. If that's not good enough, I am sorry.

mildadhd
04-18-15, 12:05 AM
I concluded it on the basis that he was described as experiencing no emotions, and that this was the basis for significant impairment.



You're shifting the goalposts. You asked a question, I answered. If that's not good enough, I am sorry.

I am not shifting anything.

Why don't you consider the primary emotional response systems, "emotion"?

P

mildadhd
04-18-15, 12:49 AM
There is both a physiological response to a stimulus as well as a cognitive response to a stimulus. Psychologists really don't agree on how those two responses come together to produce what we consider an emotional response. In fact, there are five different theories (http://brainblogger.com/2014/10/22/comparing-the-5-theories-of-emotion/) as to how the brain processes information to come up with an emotion.



Do any of the 5 theories consider the biology of primary emotional response systems?



P

mildadhd
04-18-15, 08:37 AM
Doesn't anybody else feel or think it is an enormous error, not to include the actual primary emotional response systems when considering both emotion and cognition?





P

mildadhd
04-18-15, 09:37 AM
1) Tertiary Affects and Neocortical ‘Awareness’ Functions

i) Cognitive Executive Functions: Thoughts & Planning (frontal cortex)
ii) Emotional Ruminations & Regulations (medial frontal regions)
iii) ‘Free Will’ (higher working memory functions — Intention-to-Act)

2) Secondary-Process Affective Memories (Learning via Basal Ganglia)

i) Classical Conditioning (e.g. FEAR via basolateral & central amygdala)
ii) Instrumental & Operant Conditioning (SEEKING via nucleus
accumbens)
iii) Behavioural & Emotional Habits (largely unconscious — dorsal
striatum)

3) Primary-Process, Basic-Primordial Affective States (Sub-Neocortical)

i) Sensory Affects (exteroceptive-sensory triggered pleasurable and unpleasurable/disgusting feelings)
ii) Homeostatic Affects (brain-body interoceptors: hunger, thirst, etc.)
iii) Emotional Affects (emotion action systems — Intentions-in-Actions)


Table 1. Brain 1) Tertiary Cognitive, 2) Secondary Learning & Memory, and 3) Primary Emotional-Affective Processing Systems.


The Philosophical Implications of Affective Neuroscience Cognitive Science Society (CogSci10)
Portland, Oregon, 12 August 2010
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachments/109303/jcs-articlefinal.pdf)


P

Lunacie
04-18-15, 11:31 AM
Doesn't anybody else feel or think it is an enormous error, not to include the actual primary emotional response systems when considering both emotion and cognition?





P

You seem to have missed post 26.

mildadhd
04-18-15, 11:42 AM
That was not the question I was trying to answer.
You asked whether self-regulation applies to anything else than emotions.
Yes, it does.




If a person does not have primary emotional-affective consciousness, the person will not have tertiary awareness and self-regulation.

It would be like a chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone, without the cone.





P

mildadhd
04-18-15, 12:05 PM
The chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone representing the whole brain.

The chocolate dip representing the tertiary level of control (neocortex)

The vanilla ice cream representing the secondary level of control (upper limbic)

The cone representing the primary level of control. (deeply subcortical)


The order of development of a chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone, begins from the bottom-up with the cone, then the vanilla ice cream, then the chocolate dip.

Right?


P

Lunacie
04-18-15, 12:11 PM
You seem to have missed post 26.

*le sigh*

mildadhd
04-18-15, 12:40 PM
As to the original question ...
There is a difference between primary and secondary emotions.
Lack of cognition might preclude secondary emotions.

Just as everything about us humans seems to be,
emotions are also on a spectrum.

Some of us are over-emotional, some have what is called 'flat effect' and
display no emotions, although they could still feel primary emotions.

If a person feels primary emotions they have "emotion".

Right?

P

Lunacie
04-18-15, 01:29 PM
If a person feels primary emotions they have "emotion".

Right?

P

As Fortune pointed out earlier having few emotions, or only primary emotions,
creates a severe impairment, especially in decision making.

So, yeah, we have ''cognition" but it's impaired cognition. Right?

mildadhd
04-18-15, 01:47 PM
As Fortune pointed out earlier having few emotions, or only primary emotions,
creates a severe impairment, especially in decision making.

So, yeah, we have ''cognition" but it's impaired cognition. Right?

No, emotions don't originate in the tertiary processes, they originate in the primary processes.

The question is...

"Can we have cognition without emotion"?

If we did not have primary emotional response systems, we would not have secondary emotional processes or tertiary cognition.

There would be no cognitive consciousness, without emotional-affective consciousness.

P

Lunacie
04-18-15, 01:55 PM
No, that is not right, emotions don't originate in the tertiary processes, they originate in the primary processes.

The question is...

"Can we we gave cognition without emotion".

If we don't have primary emotional response systems, we would not haveery secondary emotion or cognition.

There would be no cognitive consciousness, without emotional-affective consciousness.

P

I have no idea what you're arguing about here.

Of course emotions originate in the primary process.
Doesn't everything originate in the primary process?

Some people are impaired in the higher processes.
They do have cognition, but it's impaired in comparison
to those who have properly developed higher processes.

mildadhd
04-18-15, 02:03 PM
I have no idea what you're arguing about here.

Of course emotions originate in the primary process.
Doesn't everything originate in the primary process?

Some people are impaired in the higher processes.
They do have cognition, but it's impaired in comparison
to those who have properly developed higher processes.


Do you see the thread title/opening post question?

Do you have a reply to that question?



P

Lunacie
04-18-15, 02:58 PM
Do you see the thread title/opening post question?

Do you have a reply to that question?



P

It's a very simple question, so the very simple answer is "yes."

What Fortune wrote and I expanded on is the bigger picture.

In some cases where emotion is extremely limited,
it would follow that cognition would also be somewhat limited.

And vice versa, of course. In cases where cognition is limited
by birth defect or trauma the emotions could be inhibited.

mildadhd
04-18-15, 03:31 PM
It's a very simple question, so the very simple answer is "yes."

What Fortune wrote and I expanded on is the bigger picture.

In some cases where emotion is extremely limited,
it would follow that cognition would also be somewhat limited.

And vice versa, of course. In cases where cognition is limited
by birth defect or trauma the emotions could be inhibited.


?

Why do you not consider primary emotional response systems, emotion?

But do consider secondary and tertiary emotional processes, emotion?

Especially since emotions orginate in the primary processes, not the secondary or tertiary processes?

P

Abi
04-18-15, 03:32 PM
Thread temporarily closed for staff review.

Abi
04-19-15, 09:57 AM
Mod Reccomendation

If a members mind appears to be made up, there comes a point where further attempts to influence them are futile.

Thread reopened.

Little Missy
04-19-15, 01:02 PM
I give up, what is the correct answer?

Abi
04-19-15, 01:34 PM
:lol: I guess it depends on who you ask :lol:

Lunacie
04-19-15, 06:10 PM
?

Why do you not consider primary emotional response systems, emotion?

But do consider secondary and tertiary emotional processes, emotion?

Especially since emotions orginate in the primary processes, not the secondary or tertiary processes?

P

I said very plainly (I thought) that emotions originate in the primary process.
They develop further in the higher processes.

Primary emotions are unthinking, instinctive responses that we have.
One can have primary emotions without true cognition or thinking.

mildadhd
04-19-15, 08:28 PM
Children born without a neocortex (cognitive) still have consciousness.

Children born without a subcortex (emotional-affective) will never have any consciousness.

Subcortex emotional-affective consciousness is required for neocortex awareness.

Neocortex cognitive awareness is not required for subcortex emotional-affective consciousness.


P

mildadhd
04-19-15, 08:35 PM
Recognition of changes in the emotional-affective consciousness/cognitive consciousness reciprocal is extremely important in these types of discussions.

Affective (implicit) consciousness, primary level of control (more before the age of 4*)

Cognitive (explicit) consciousness, tertiary level of control (become more after the age of 4*)


(*give or take)

P

SB_UK
04-20-15, 08:20 AM
If the point in life is to be happy which means to feel good.
Then emotions are the go to people of 'mind' (thought).

More simply - ask someone if they'd rather be able to store and regurgitate the whole of wikipedia vs be happy

- and if 'be happy' actually means feeling happy - then I think I'd be surprised if anybody were to respond with the desire to lodge wikipedia between their ears.

In any case - mobile internet is about to ensure that all available info is ours wherever we go - and is already to those jolly rich people with mobile phones ... ... and they're not happy just by virtue of having one.

Just listening to: ''He's got this dream about buying some land
He's gonna give up the booze and the one-night stands
And then he'll settle down
In some quiet little town
And forget about everything"

There's some connection not between storing all available info between yer earholes - but binning it.

Or 'I know that I know nothing' - which is a formal statement of the desire to field a mind which has made sense of everything within it.

-*-

So yes- feeling is the prime mover for mind - and when the mind iscomplete (wisdom) - a tap to happiness is opened.

It manifests itself as earth shattering joy immersed in the sun someplace pretty.

Back to the garden.

You never were apart from it - it's just that eyes which can see are only opened through a mind which understands.

someothertime
04-20-15, 11:56 AM
Picturing this conjures exactly that... the perfect robot..... futurists worldwide live on this cusp of artificial intelligence crossing over into learned emotion....

I believe to be human is to have cognition with some emotional attachment... i believe metacognition largely stabilises and separates this in what are seen as NT individuals...

Special forces personnel are "broken" for this reason... to allow them to operate in a realm where routine response and experience is "non-human".... ( of note. the flow on reverb from this to ones future emotional phsyche ~cement or jelly~ )


so, yes..... and no....

mildadhd
04-20-15, 09:53 PM
While I agree that top-down cognitive function is a human specialty.

Ground-up affective function is a mammalian specialty. (Including humans)


Primary control has functional primacy over secondary control.

http://jpkc.ecnu.edu.cn/fzxlx/pdf/a%20life%20span%20theory%20of%20control.pdf



P

mildadhd
04-20-15, 11:35 PM
Humans, Dog, Cats and other mammalian family members have primary emotional-affective consciousness.

(Bottom-up consciousness is "Bigger" in early human life before the age of 4*, and after the age of 4* top- down cognitive consciousness begins to self-regulate bottom-up consciousness)

Top-down emotional self-regulation develops before the age of 4*, from the bottom-up. ( see chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone analogy)

The chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone representing the whole brain.

The chocolate dip representing the tertiary level of control (neocortex, awareness and emotional self-regulation)

The vanilla ice cream representing the secondary level of control (upper limbic, emotional learning and emotional memory)

The cone representing the primary level of control. (deeply subcortical, primary emotional response systems)


The order of development of a chocolate dip vanilla ice cream cone, begins from the bottom-up with the cone, then the vanilla ice cream, then the chocolate dip.



All mammals have very similar SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY , instinctual primary unconditioned emotional response systems.

Like Lunacie pointed out, secondary level of control (learning and memory) and tertiary level of control (awareness and emotional self-regulation) develop/mature on top of the primary emotional-affective level of control.

What i find really neat is...psychologically all humans have the same basic 7 unconditioned emotional-affective response systems in common, even before individual experiences occur.




P

TheChemicals
04-20-15, 11:41 PM
can we have zero emotion? Man i am just so smartz. Yesh, i can do multiplication up to my x12's by memory! I should really get some sleep.

SB_UK
04-22-15, 09:15 AM
While I agree that top-down cognitive function is a human specialty.

Ground-up affective function is a mammalian specialty. (Including humans)




P


Cake -> Emotion (pleasure - addictive)
Thought (bad) -> Set up supply chain so all people can access cake evreywhere

Thought (bad) -> supports -> Pleasure (addictive)

Thought (good) -> development/application of morality -> supports -> enlightenment (freedom from the need for pleasure (addictive)) ie one finds happiness / feels happy without condition.

mildadhd
04-22-15, 11:17 PM
Cake -> Emotion (pleasure - addictive)
Thought (bad) -> Set up supply chain so all people can access cake evreywhere

Thought (bad) -> supports -> Pleasure (addictive)

Thought (good) -> development/application of morality -> supports -> enlightenment (freedom from the need for pleasure (addictive)) ie one finds happiness / feels happy without condition.

If I understand correctly..

..the tasty (cake) feeling is a sensory affect.

..the thirsty feeling is a homeostatic affect.

..the fear feeling is a emotional affect.

(side note: all 3 emotional, homeostatic and sensory affective systems, "healthy goals", separately and as a whole is/are homeostasis.)

Layman (leave room for learning and more discussion, still thinking about addiction.)

Thoughts so far?

(first few minutes of video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ICY6-7hJo



P

SB_UK
04-23-15, 11:15 AM
If I understand correctly..

..the tasty (cake) feeling is a sensory affect.

..the thirsty feeling is a homeostatic affect.

..the fear feeling is a emotional affect.

(side note: all 3 emotional, homeostatic and sensory affective systems, "healthy goals", separately and as a whole is/are homeostasis.)

Layman (leave room for learning and more discussion, still thinking about addiction.)

Thoughts so far?

(first few minutes of video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ICY6-7hJo



P

..the tasty (cake) feeling is a sensory affect.

..the thirsty feeling is a homeostatic affect.

..the fear feeling is a emotional affect.


Aren't all 3 all 3

so eg
..the tasty (cake) feeling is a sensory affect.
motivation to eat cake might be hunger like thirst - homeostatic
motivation to eat food - fear of death

? sensory, homeostatic, emotional motivation to everything

what is stress ?
sensory eg loud bang
homeostatic eg loud bang -> stress hormone/stress neurotransmitters that ready fight/flight
emotional eg loud bang -> readiness for flight/fight -> fear,rage

There's some strong element of sensory, homeostatic and emotional being tied.

Sensory - informational world eg light waves
Homeostatic - material world eg particles
emotion - ? middle ground

Wave / Particle duality
------^
------|
.....emotion

Meaning ? emotion -> wave -> particle -> emotion [eg boson]

'glue' which keeps us all in place is a fundamental substance from which we all arise.

-*-

Question - the nature of emotion as 'evolved' boson ?

Haven't thought about this (bit above) - but certainly - the idea is that on enlightenment - the individual is in a state of resonant synchrony with fundamental substance - ie feels good without requirement for action -

- and this is the effective meaning of life.

Emotion thereby becomes of much greater importance than we normally credit it - and cognition (the stuff we know) gets a hard kicking from prime importance to 'just a stage we were going through'.

Q - would you rather have a clever person (somebody who knows a considerable amount about something you've never heard of) or a piece of music which you find uplifting as a gift for 30 mins.

More so - so irritating is mind that people 'd rather have a guaranteed lifetime without the clever person above rather than the piece of uplifting music -
the pain which comes from mind (people talking nonsense) makes the ear bleed.

Where talking nonsense should be considered nonsense even if the person talking is making sense - what matters is that anybody talking doesn't bother until they've some mechanism of being sure that the intended message is being relayed.

Often the intended message (if relayed on as intended) is nonsense also too.

-*-

So what's worth understanding.

That the point of life is to be happy where the correct definition of happiness is attained.

That's attained through knowledge and application of morality alongside cultivation of 'reward' through making 'things' generally better - be it the soil, your dog or your next door neighbour.

SB_UK
04-23-15, 11:21 AM
Emotion as the boson of life ie the 'social impulse' ?

SB_UK
04-23-15, 11:37 AM
Try and break that idea

sensory
homeostatic
emotional

What I really want to do is suggest that

life in sun via melanin/neuromelanin transduces acetate molecules which can be built into butyrate which can feed the gut biome to generate all that we need -> eliminates the need for food to survive
- carries with it ie alongside perfect homeostatic balance - emotional (happy) and sensory (the natural sensory informational flow through the eyes/ears).

-*-

Nearly there - thing is that there's something very special about the sun which I've never felt before - it's wonderful.

Anyway the mechanism exists -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus
just a case of seeing whether we can do it.

Would select (evolutionarily) !!