Hmm, every coordinate system has opposites right? East and West, Up and Down, Love and hate?

Does this imply that Love and Hate are two relative extremes of a multi-dimensional coordinate system? Could it be possible for one to define all the poles of human emotions or futher, of the human experience such that they might be simulated, manipulated or exterminated (okay, the last one was just for the rhyme). Thoughts? Oh, and I'm not using multi-dimensional incorrectly. I'm thinking somewhat in terms of an altered form of matrices like a "contuous" matrix rather than a discrete matrix where m and n are (m x n matrix) integers... in a continuous matrix, they (m and n) could be rational numbers. For instance in between any two polar emotions there could exist a point anywhere in between 1 and -1 representing the place on the continuum from of 1 to -1 that is the relationship between the poles being experienced (or remembered).

HEHEHE.. oh man that confused ME.. I bet it doesn't make ANY sense to anyone else. Pardon.

Seems logical to me.

Do you think it's possible to come up with a list of all human emotions? I ponder if emotions even in and of themselves, or a side dish to thought... which would be empty to describe alone.

GAH! It's too integrated of a problem. Every time I think I'm onto something I realize a whole bunch of other shit plays into it. For instance is boredom an emotion? Kind of, but it has a "state of mind" component to it. Can the emotional aspect of boredom be described without the "state of mind" part? Maybe we don't really have the words/concepts to accurately describe the human experience eh? Hmm.. I wonder if anyone has done any work in that area.

Hmm, every coordinate system has opposites right? East and West, Up and Down, Love and hate?

If that 's true ...How did you manage to end up with two from the same end....

Dumb and Dumber....... :p

Originally posted by TheVisitor
Hmm, every coordinate system has opposites right? East and West, Up and Down, Love and hate?

If that 's true ...How did you manage to end up with two from the same end....

Dumb and Dumber....... :p

Please, it's obvious that you're an idiot. I don't need further convincing, but thank you for your efforts I suppose... however misguided they are.

"hate isn't the opposite of love. indifference is"

just little something i heard to consider.

Interesting point, but is indifference an emotion?

i think i understand what you're originally saying, Wesmorris, and i had a theory once that the whole breadth of emotions operated on a kind of mental pedulumn. not sure if that makes any sense. but the amount of love you feel swings your internal pedulum in one direction and when a feeling like hate comes along, you have the ability to feel that with equal intensity.

i guess indifference would be when the pendulum would be still and perpendicular. eh, seems logical in the head.

Originally posted by Eris
i guess indifference would be when the pendulum would be still and perpendicular. eh, seems logical in the head.

Indeed. In the case I described above it would be respresented by the zero value, thusly my question "is indifference really an emotion". Technically, it's a lack of emotion and is thusly disqualified from consideration... unless of course this is an oversimplification of the relationship between emotions. Maybe there are no poles.. it's a series of independent states.. maybe there are multi-polar relationships.. like x, y and z all required for a particular emotional continuum. This is the kind of thing I'm wanting to explore. It really has to be somewhat understood before a reasonable simulation can be constructed. That is the level of understanding I'm shooting for.

Originally posted by magicman
I think you all need to get laid...badly

note my indifference or apathy to this thread.

:o :p

Hehe, I'm married.. so you know... I'm not allowed to get laid. :)

(just kidding if you're watching sweetie... ha. haha. *runs away*)

I'm sorry for that. Just having a little fun.

It would be nice to be able to discuss this topic further but I am not educated to a university level.

I would have to say though that apathy or indifference should not be construed as hate. There is a big difference. We human beings are cursed with conflicting emotions pulling your "inner mental pendulam" in different ways. I myself have just experienced contentment for my last post and was violently swayed towards guilt, wes morris, because you were so nice about it.

weird how the psyche works.

I feel like going off to learn about physcology.

:D

Some good posts WesMorris. However I think there is one problem with bi-polar emotions. It assumes that there are limits to emotions i.e. there is a 1 and a -1. Emotions could be limitless. If not, then what happens when someone reaches 1 or -1?? Maybe nothing. Love and hate could even be human constructs themselves. they have been placed on opposing ends of a scale but who says that they are (or should be). It is quite possible that concepts such as love and hate have been misconstrued over the generations, however this does not really relate to what you were saying. :rolleyes:

...continuum from of 1 to -1 A continuem wouldn't have a 1 or a -1. It would be infinite with infinite variations and variables. (I think :rolleyes: ).Indifference...Technically, it's a lack of emotion and is thusly disqualified from consideration This is true! Indifference is a void of emotion (in my understanding at least)....maybe there are multi-polar relationships... Quite likely, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Charles Fleming
Some good posts WesMorris. However I think there is one problem with bi-polar emotions. It assumes that there are limits to emotions i.e. there is a 1 and a -1. Emotions could be limitless.

Interesting point, but would 1 not represent a subjective maximim? Maybe.. oh.. what about if the value of 1 changes subjectively over time.. now there's your humdinger right there... oh, and that value could potentially ride on any other value or combination of values that you'd like.. for instance have a maximum possible value of all subjectively evaluated emotion at any time T, then let all of those emotions maximum value change based on the total available emotion at the time.. for instance I'm I'm overwhelmed by awe, my max potential value of love could increase or decrease based on the appropriate relationship with "awe" and the other emotions being felt at that time. Okay maybe that's flaky but I'm sure that there's a bit of something interesting in there.
Originally posted by Charles Fleming

If not, then what happens when someone reaches 1 or -1?? Maybe nothing. Love and hate could even be human constructs themselves.

I've thought about that long and hard and wonder if actually they are fundamental properties of the abstract space of consciousness (in some form or another)... or sure maybe they're just inconsequential chemical reactions..
Originally posted by Charles Fleming

they have been placed on opposing ends of a scale but who says that they are (or should be).

exactly the point of this debate.. that's what I'm asking? do you think it possible to represent them that way....
Originally posted by Charles Fleming

It is quite possible that concepts such as love and hate have been misconstrued over the generations, however this does not really relate to what you were saying. :rolleyes:

A continuem wouldn't have a 1 or a -1. It would be infinite with infinite variations and variables. (I think :rolleyes: ).

Not infinite variables, but yes.. infinite values of the variable in question... hence infinite resolution.. as with any continuous system (but our ability to measure the value is often a limitation).
Originally posted by Charles Fleming

This is true! Indifference is a void of emotion (in my understanding at least). Quite likely, in my opinion.

I believe that's the definition of indifference..

A very interesting subject , but first several things must be cleared up ?


is indifference an emotion?


What is an emotion :it is a (logical/unlogical) reaction of the body understood/identified by the mind

Now this something like : indifference" cannot be an emotion , since there is no reaction that has taken place . Indifference is not a "something" , it is "lack of something" , namely a lack of emotion .


Indifference is a void of emotion

yup

So its not an emotion at all , rather the opposite in its meaning .

However , that doesnt make this following to be false :
"hate isn't the opposite of love. indifference is"

U see , it is an opposite , just in a different system , not in the emotional system as following implies :

Does this imply that Love and Hate are two relative extremes of a multi-dimensional coordinate system?

Indifference in Love would be Not-Loving .
But thats not an indifference IN emotion , but OF emotion
Love-Not Love
Emotion-No Emotion

In the emotional system , there is no place for indifference , since its not emotion by definition .

This is so because , an emotion implies a "caring for" , weither it would be in a negative or positive way , an emotion "cares for something" . Indifference , whitch is defined by NON-caring , cant be an emotion therefor .

So what IS the opposite of love , if love would be 1 , what would be -1 , it would most definetly be Hate .
Hate is Love's equal when it comes to emotional opposite , i couldnt see any possible arguments that would refute such a statement .
Why ?
because Love = Max + caring , while Hate is max - caring , whitch is different than not caring , thats 0 .
In that sense perhaps more emotions fit between the +1 and -1 .
But perhaps there are more systems than the one in whitch love and fits , although i couldnt imagine a more important or relevant one , IF one exists in the first place . Ud have to make a list , and i am lazy , but whoever feels bored enough to make such a list , feel free , i encourage it mostly .

Now the +1 and -1 being finit , while emotional quantity in a certain quality might not be . But who cares ? we'll just make it +x and -x , as long as it isnt 0 , the abscense of emotion .

Love and hate could even be human constructs themselves.

They are ofcourse , but isnt any chemical reaction of the body ?
Een if its psychological , whats the difference , or relevance for that matter ?

they have been placed on opposing ends of a scale but who says that they are (or should be).

I do
Love=max caring for +
Hate=max caring for -

And with max i ofcourse dont actually mean max in the sense that its only Love when the care is at maximum , it is love when the care has reached a MAXIMUM CATEGORY .

What im curious for is wheither
A)The love-hate system are the only system emotions fit in

An interesting point is the close-ness of Love and Hate . Logically U would say that it takes a while to get from +100 to -100 , for instance , whuile it would be a lot easier to go from 1 to 100 .
Why are Love and Hate so extremely close to oneanother , while there can be no doubt they are extremes in relation to at least eachother .

The answer , whitch i cant really defend , i thats its a complete cipher , as in the circle completes with the 2 extremes bocomng one , like when u have a line , and u take the ends of it and make it into a circle .

relating emotions to 1's an 0's?
you think like i do :D

just on the whole indifference idea. maybe it sounds better if you say that in both love and hate there is a great deal of care. indifference is like not caring. wich is an active emotion. at least in my opinion. you can be activly indifferent. like if you see some one who needs help and you are indifferent towards their suffering.

ever heard the phrase "he loves to hate them" or vice versa. almost implying that such strong emotions can go together. i guess both love and hate could lead to similar behavior. in both cases you may obsess over the object of your emotion and go to great lengths to let that person know how you feel. I can see how love and hate are very similar, and yet still almost opposite.

it's quite the paradox:bugeye:

You forget that many of the chemicals believed to cause "love" are also implied in the emotion of "hate".

Fuck. I do know English, I do I do I do.

It's a cliche that there's a thin line between love and hate, that there's no hate like love to hatred turned, etc. The problem with viewing emotions as if they're on a Cartesian coordinate system is that, well, they aren't. For example, romantic love is linked with sex, which is linked with violence (at least, in terms of the areas of the brain they are "located in")...thus love and violence are linked.

I'm trying to say that there are no real "opposite" emotions.

you can be activly indifferent. like if you see some one who needs help and you are indifferent towards their suffering.

Indifference is not about being activly involved , it means having an active emotion . How can u have an emotion that indicates u r emtionless on the subject ?

not caring. wich is an active emotion

C i cant agree on that , not caring is simply the absense of care , care can be positive or negative . Not caring is neither , its 0
I care for u to live +1
i dont care what happens to you = 0
I care for u to die - 1

ever heard the phrase "he loves to hate them"
Sure , and here love implies care...she cares alot to hate him
What about it ? It could just as well be , she hates to love him ?
Again..because hate is caring as well , this is simply cares a lot to love him .
word-tricks do not change the ontology of emotions , really......

almost implying that such strong emotions can go together

Ofcours they can , thats not so strange , since they imply a measurement of caring . But whats strange is , that u can go from +100 to -100 alot faster than from 0 to -100 , for instance ....

I can see how love and hate are very similar, and yet still almost opposite.

they are opposite

it's quite the paradox

and there the cipher comes in .

You forget that many of the chemicals believed to cause "love" are also implied in the emotion of "hate".

i did not know this , but would it matter for the theory ? It doesnt have to be different chemicals does it ?

Fuck. I do know English, I do I do I do.

LMAO

For example, romantic love is linked with sex, which is linked with violence (at least, in terms of the areas of the brain they are "located in")...thus love and violence are linked.

No they are not , the part of sex that is linked with violence is not the same part of sex that is linked with love .

It's a cliche that there's a thin line between love and hate, that there's no hate like love to hatred turned, etc. The problem with viewing emotions as if they're on a Cartesian coordinate system is that, well, they aren't

so this cant be rpoved by previous example .
I do believe they are on a system .

I'm trying to say that there are no real "opposite" emotions.

This implies a very anarchy like thing , systemless , randomreactions and stuff . I believe there IS a complex logical system that arranges and creates(logic or illogic ) reactions called emotions .
Emotion is the entire reason man is active , it is the only reason man reproduces , its safe to say man depends on emotion .
This cant be just left "undone" just like that , it has to be arranged in order to create a beneficious situation when it comes to survival .

What if one would not enjoy sex ?
What if one would not love his children ?
Shit would fall apart i tell u , and extintion would be done in 100 years .

In conclusion , there has to be a system , and a system implies perfect opposites , otherwise it would be illogical and couldnt be called a system .

i did not know this , but would it matter for the theory ? It doesnt have to be different chemicals does it ?

It just proves that there is no strict liminality between love and hate.

No they are not , the part of sex that is linked with violence is not the same part of sex that is linked with love .

Prove this assertion, given the existence of the sadistic impulse.

This implies a very anarchy like thing , systemless , randomreactions and stuff . I believe there IS a complex logical system that arranges and creates(logic or illogic ) reactions called emotions .

You believe. In science, convictions have no rights of citizenship.


Emotion is the entire reason man is active , it is the only reason man reproduces , its safe to say man depends on emotion .

No. This is false - emotion is by no means the reason humans reproduce.

This cant be just left "undone" just like that , it has to be arranged in order to create a beneficious situation when it comes to survival .

Prove this assertion.

What if one would not enjoy sex ?
What if one would not love his children ?
Shit would fall apart i tell u , and extintion would be done in 100 years .

This proves only that our anarchic emotional reactions are controlled by the structure of the brain.

In conclusion , there has to be a system , and a system implies perfect opposites , otherwise it would be illogical and couldnt be called a system .

No, a system does not imply perfect opposites. And no, there does not have to be a system. Your logic is very flawed.

It just proves that there is no strict liminality between love and hate.

And no liminality means what , relevance ?
why should all chemicals have to be different ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No they are not , the part of sex that is linked with violence is not the same part of sex that is linked with love .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove this assertion, given the existence of the sadistic impulse.

u know i couldnt prove u such a thing

I could only describe

love-tendersex-roughsex-violence

actually.....this is pretty interesting , U c something is missing . Its supposed to be linked with lust , and lust is linked with violence :

love-tendersex-roughsex-lust-violence

there u go


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This implies a very anarchy like thing , systemless , randomreactions and stuff . I believe there IS a complex logical system that arranges and creates(logic or illogic ) reactions called emotions .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe. In science, convictions have no rights of citizenship.


In science ,ad hominum arguments have no rights of citizenship .

U got my point with what i said on the complex logical system in whitch emotions are arranged , please be civilized and offer a logical refutation .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emotion is the entire reason man is active , it is the only reason man reproduces , its safe to say man depends on emotion .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. This is false - emotion is by no means the reason humans reproduce.


Is it not ? No it isnt the ultimate reason , as in purpose=reason .
But im sure thats not what u meant , nevertheless ill explain u the complexity . Surival is the reason man reproduces , emotion is the reason man actively involves himself (consciously even) in the system of reproduction . Ofocurse social bla bla arguments can also be of importance , but when broken down to 0 , its emotion that remains .
So please tell me why im wrong , and dont just contradict me .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cant be just left "undone" just like that , it has to be arranged in order to create a beneficious situation when it comes to survival .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prove this assertion.


What is mans purpose ? it is survival
What imprtance has mans purpose in man ? maximum importance
would it make ANY sense to you , to evolve into a complex system of walking straight etcetera , while there isnt even a proper system that "makes sure" through emotions that u get layd and make some kids , the purpose of your whole being here .
Or is it like ...nah , ill do that stuff tomorrow , lets work on the nosehairs first .

U ask me prove this prove that , u couldnt prove me ur own existence . What is scientifical proof ? It is logical probabillity


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if one would not enjoy sex ?
What if one would not love his children ?
Shit would fall apart i tell u , and extintion would be done in 100 years .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proves only that our anarchic emotional reactions are controlled by the structure of the brain.


why do argue with me then ?
did i ever say that the emotions themself are logical(non-anarchy)
No i have not , i have only said the system they are in ISNT
I believe that would be what u call the brain .

So u actually telling me right here i gave u proof , whoohoo



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion , there has to be a system , and a system implies perfect opposites , otherwise it would be illogical and couldnt be called a system .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, a system does not imply perfect opposites. And no, there does not have to be a system. Your logic is very flawed.


U r contradicting yourself

u just said :
This proves only that our anarchic emotional reactions are controlled by the structure of the brain.

thats your system right there mister , or is the entire brain one anarchic mass of ignorance ?
And how does a system not imply having perfect opposites .
Stop asking for proof like some mad professor and start providing backup for your contradictions .

Why are Love and Hate so extremely close to oneanother , while there can be no doubt they are extremes in relation to at least eachother .

The answer , whitch i cant really defend , i thats its a complete cipher , as in the circle completes with the 2 extremes bocomng one , like when u have a line , and u take the ends of it and make it into a circle. This is what I was hinting at here:they have been placed on opposing ends of a scale but who says that they are (or should be). humanity has constructed them on a scale, which might not even be a scale. It could be circular, but we view emotions as bipolar. I'm trying to say that there are no real "opposite" emotions. This could be possible but how can this be?? and there the cipher comes in . Really?? Can you elaborate please??

humanity has constructed them on a scale, which might not even be a scale. It could be circular, but we view emotions as bipolar.


U can break down the circle and have the bipolar result .
Instead of taking to ends connecting to be a circle , u cut in between love and hate .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to say that there are no real "opposite" emotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could be possible but how can this be??


Im not seeing how this couold be an option .
A system implies values , any value has its opposite value .
If u have sad u have joyfull.....u cant have sad and just mildly amused .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and there the cipher comes in .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?? Can you elaborate please??


I cant actually , i would have not one clue how i would have to prove such a thing .....its just that the switch between love and hate could be very minimal , that they'r really more the same than an extreme .
Same thing u were hinting on as u said .
perhaps there is a relation in the cipher being perfectly complete and the development of one's emotional system , perhaps not all are ciphers , perhaps the cipher is just the aim for them , for love and hate to become one .
I suggest a difference in system-proces . The two lines are take and connected , but this proces is along one , some people have them closer to cipher than others .

And no liminality means what , relevance ?
why should all chemicals have to be different ?

Liminality - strict dichotomy. There is none.
The chemicals are NOT different. That's my point.

actually.....this is pretty interesting , U c something is missing . Its supposed to be linked with lust , and lust is linked with violence :

love-tendersex-roughsex-lust-violence

there u go

Thus love and violence are linked. Thank you.

In science ,ad hominum arguments have no rights of citizenship .

That was by no means an ad hominem argument. I simply asked you to prove an assertion.

U got my point with what i said on the complex logical system in whitch emotions are arranged , please be civilized and offer a logical refutation .

No, you don't assert and demand refutation. You provide evidence for your assertions.

And you've shown no evidence for your assertions.

"thats your system right there mister , or is the entire brain one anarchic mass of ignorance ? And how does a system not imply having perfect opposites"

so this means that all emotions have perfect opposites. Can anyone give me a list of the emotions and their perfect opposties?

i'm guessing no, considering pychologist haven't even agreed to what all the human emotions are.

that doesn't bode well for the emotions as coordinate points idea.

While this is all quite interesting and boy I love seeing those brains doing their things, I do have to add a comment that really just occurred to me .. oh, and to say that Xev has an excellent point. First, it occured to me that there will be no way to really even rationally attempt to qualify or measure emotions until they can be accurately measured from a third party with high accuracy. I'd imagine any test that can currently be given can gauge physiological responses or the response of the subject as interpreted by the subject. I don't know how much could be accurately inferred from newer techniqes of monitering the brain.. but I doubt as of yet much can really be said for sure.

You can't trust what the subject says they're feeling because in the act of interpretation, content is lost.. more or less depending on the person.. and there's no real way to sort out the people such that people who are "really in touch" would be your subjects.. even if you could there's nothing saying how accurate they are either. Thus, you gotta be able to measure it.

By measuring it you'd have some real data to start to fit theories to. I suppose we can still discuss it.. but looking at it from the perspective of opposites is likely too simplistic considering that I can love to hate someone eh? It's gonna take a different line of thinking that a typical cartesian coordinate system.. I think it can be done.. but it's got to be weirder people, WEIRDER. Now come on, let's get funky.

Nah, you're doing a good job of keeping it weird. I'll think about more and get back to you.

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
What is an emotion :it is a (logical/unlogical) reaction of the body understood/identified by the mind

Hmm... I don't agree. While you've probably covered an aspect of it, I think the definition has to really be worked on here. Let's see... my perspective on emotion is that it's a survival tool designed by nature to control behavior through feedback. In other words, it's better for the species if you love your children since then you'll likely not eat them. It's better for the species if you hate your enemy because that way you WILL kill them hence facilitating your further survival. Maybe that's about the extent of it, but intermingling that aspect of consciousness with the brain's representation to itself of time, or memory complicates it in such an intense manner (subjectively) that it becomes the plethora of human experience we label "emotion". How about all that there?

That's good shit right?

Can something have an opposite that isn't mutually exclusive of its opposite? In other words, if hate and love are opposites, does that mean you can feel them at the same time about the same thing? I don't think it does. If you check my "Paradox" thread I discuss the nature of paradox in terms of "that which is abstract" ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19402 ). Basically, I think you could effectively hold opposite emotions in place at the same time about the same thing because there is nothing about the conscious experience or "subjective activity in abstract space" that demands consistency.

Maybe that's about the extent of it, but intermingling that aspect of consciousness with the brain's representation to itself of time, or memory complicates it in such an intense manner (subjectively) that it becomes the plethora of human experience we entitle "emotion". How about all that there?

Could it be said that emotion, like consciousness, is another emergent property of the mind?

I don't agree. While most of the posters here seem to think of emotion as something alien, something nonessential to human life, I do not. While I find my own emotions to be confusing and inexplicable, I do not see them as something other.

Emotion is not static, as a matrix theory would imply. Rather, it is reactional and based not only on the neurological makeup of the individual, but on the situations that that individual encounters.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Hmm... I don't agree. While you've probably covered an aspect of it, I think the definition has to really be worked on here. Let's see... my perspective on emotion is that it's a survival tool designed by nature to control behavior through feedback. In other words, it's better for the species if you love your children since then you'll likely not eat them. It's better for the species if you hate your enemy because that way you WILL kill them hence facilitating your further survival. Maybe that's about the extent of it, but intermingling that aspect of consciousness with the brain's representation to itself of time, or memory complicates it in such an intense manner (subjectively) that it becomes the plethora of human experience we label "emotion". How about all that there?

That's good shit right?

EDIT: Oh, and by "designed by nature" I mean, "reached by whatever means nature reached that occurence".

The chemicals are NOT different. That's my point


And my question was weither THAT was relevant or not




Thus love and violence are linked. Thank you.


sure.......this way i could link u to usama bin laden even .


That was by no means an ad hominem argument. I simply asked you to prove an assertion.


Oh no ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This implies a very anarchy like thing , systemless , randomreactions and stuff . I believe there IS a complex logical system that arranges and creates(logic or illogic ) reactions called emotions .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe. In science, convictions have no rights of citizenship.


I would say u criticize my statement on the based on wheither I believe . id say thats ad hominum


No, you don't assert and demand refutation. You provide evidence for your assertions.


Oh please......on every damn sentence i write u asked for proof , what proof do u want ?
I say why dont u start proving me that u want proof .Can you do that ?


And you've shown no evidence for your assertions.


Oh please........show me my flaw , stop saying , NO without saying WHY not .


so this means that all emotions have perfect opposites. Can anyone give me a list of the emotions and their perfect opposties?


LMAO thats what i asked for as well , but nobody seems to care to write out a list of emotions so that we can categorize them


that doesn't bode well for the emotions as coordinate points idea.


A good thing that ontology of emotions doesnt depend on how psycholoigsts feel about it .

wesmorris , u spak of empirical measurement , am i right ?
The empirical approach in psychology has been the greatest problem , psychology demands a philosophical solution , not an empirical one . Measuring people wont show u anything , if u would be able to make accurate measurements even .

Perhaps the physical reaction of the emotion can be accuratly meaured , concluson wouldnt be easily drawn from them this way .


Hmm... I don't agree. While you've probably covered an aspect of it, I think the definition has to really be worked on here. Let's see... my perspective on emotion is that it's a survival tool designed by nature to control behavior through feedback. In other words, it's better for the species if you love your children since then you'll likely not eat them. It's better for the species if you hate your enemy because that way you WILL kill them hence facilitating your further survival. Maybe that's about the extent of it, but intermingling that aspect of consciousness with the brain's representation to itself of time, or memory complicates it in such an intense manner (subjectively) that it becomes the plethora of human experience we label "emotion". How about all that there?


I completely agree on your idea of emotion ,but i dont see why you would have to define it in a more complicated manner .
And the obvious evolutionairy benefits emotion is ment for , i already described .

Allahs_Mathematics:
First, please make some sort of attempt to communicate. Plowing through:

Oh please......on every damn sentence i write u asked for proof , what proof do u want ?
I say why dont u start proving me that u want proof .Can you do that ?

Is enough to drive one insane.

Now, I'm not sure if you wanted to actually understand this stuff, or simply to compensate for your deep-rooted feelings of inferiourity by insulting those who know their shit, BUT I am assuming the former.

I would say u criticize my statement on the based on wheither I believe . id say thats ad hominum

No.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, you presented your beliefs. I very politely pointed out that "convictions have no rights of citizenship".

In conclusion, fuck yourself.

Oh please......on every damn sentence i write u asked for proof , what proof do u want ?


I ask for evidence. Being on a science board, I'd suggest that you get used to such requests.

I say why dont u start proving me that u want proof .Can you do that ?

That was beyond inane. I'm done wasting time on you.

Allahs_Mathematics:
First, please make some sort of attempt to communicate. Plowing through:

Oh please......on every damn sentence i write u asked for proof , what proof do u want ?
I say why dont u start proving me that u want proof .Can you do that ?

Is enough to drive one insane.

Now, I'm not sure if you wanted to actually understand this stuff, or simply to compensate for your deep-rooted feelings of inferiourity by insulting those who know their shit, BUT I am assuming the former.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say u criticize my statement on the based on wheither I believe . id say thats ad hominum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...ad-hominem.html

Now, you presented your beliefs. I very politely pointed out that "convictions have no rights of citizenship".

In conclusion, fuck yourself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please......on every damn sentence i write u asked for proof , what proof do u want ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I ask for evidence. Being on a science board, I'd suggest that you get used to such requests.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say why dont u start proving me that u want proof .Can you do that ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That was beyond inane. I'm done wasting time on you.


good for u

Originally posted by Xev
Could it be said that emotion, like consciousness, is another emergent property of the mind?

No I don't think so, emotion is an aspect of consciousness don't you think? Maybe i'm off.
Originally posted by Xev

I don't agree. While most of the posters here seem to think of emotion as something alien, something nonessential to human life, I do not.

I guess I haven't read them close enough, I didn't get that impression. My impression is that the discussion is directed towards a way of describing an aspect of the human experience in a manner where one might see important relationships.
Originally posted by Xev

While I find my own emotions to be confusing and inexplicable, I do not see them as something other.

I'm with you there.
Originally posted by Xev

Emotion is not static, as a matrix theory would imply. Rather, it is reactional and based not only on the neurological makeup of the individual, but on the situations that that individual encounters.

A matrix theory doesn't imply anything about anything being static. A matrix would simply be a way of presenting and organizing dynamic data.

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
wesmorris , u spak of empirical measurement , am i right ?
The empirical approach in psychology has been the greatest problem , psychology demands a philosophical solution , not an empirical one . Measuring people wont show u anything , if u would be able to make accurate measurements even.

I don't understand how you could say "measuring won't show you anything". Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention, but I would in fact think that data would most likely show you something important, and that's certainly where a scientific approach would normally beging, were there a chance in hell of actually getting that data... which I do believe will be attainable within the next 20 to 50 years. You don't HAVE to start there, but it would definately be the most logical place given the option. Since we don't have that option, we just have to make shit up and blah blah like we're doing.. but I was just saying.. anyway.. moving on.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

Perhaps the physical reaction of the emotion can be accuratly meaured , concluson wouldnt be easily drawn from them this way .

I agree with you there, I don't think the physical reaction will tell you much. I meant, really really measuring the emotion itself... whatever it is. You'd probably have to be able to "see" into someones consciousness without affecting it to do so.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

I completely agree on your idea of emotion ,but i dont see why you would have to define it in a more complicated manner .

Because in order to understand the nature of something you have to be able to describe it accurately... and it seemed to me that yours didn't quite do that. It may just be that I don't relate to your way of describing it as well as I do my own. I can't tell.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

And the obvious evolutionairy benefits emotion is ment for , i already described .

Yes, but I'm saying that the benefits are the thing... emotions are a fully dynamic, self-regulated way of "greasing the behavioral wheels" in real time.

No I don't think so, emotion is an aspect of consciousness don't you think? Maybe i'm off.

Perhaps an aspect, but it is seperate from consciousness.

However, does feeling emotion require consciousness? I'd think so.

A matrix theory doesn't imply anything about anything being static. A matrix would simply be a way of presenting and organizing dynamic data.

Very well, but implying a strict dichotomy between emotions does imply that they are statically experienced. If love is the opposite of hatred, then it is impossible to feel both towards the same object.

I don't believe that human experience is that static.

Originally posted by Xev
Perhaps an aspect, but it is seperate from consciousness.

However, does feeling emotion require consciousness? I'd think so.

I agree. "feeling" directly implies consciousness I believe.
Originally posted by Xev

Very well, but implying a strict dichotomy between emotions does imply that they are statically experienced.

No, it only implies that you're taking a "snapshot". such as "in the present" or at any time T.
Originally posted by Xev

If love is the opposite of hatred, then it is impossible to feel both towards the same object.

Again, I disagree, I don't think there is anything in the mind that keeps both from being true simultaneously though, which is exactly what I would call "internal conflict" I guess. Certainly you've felt both at the same time about someone Xev. :)

Hate can be viewed as a strategic adaptation. Like most adaptive behaviors it is often mal-adaptive (more often then not to be sure). We choose to hate on some subconscious level because on some unconscious level, we believe through our hate, we can effect the focus of our hate even in some small way. If on some subconscious level we decide we will never be able to do anything about the thing we are deciding weather or not to hate -- we will not hate, and in fact we may develop learned helplessness, or better yet -- we will use another adaptive behavior. This is not to be confused with having hate as the only adaptive behavior. It is one of a myriad of adaptive behaviors.

Unfortunately, hate works sometimes. It scares people, and it is politically powerful. We MUST understand hate, much like one must know ones enemy.


Deep down we know we have weak sales resistence. - Seinfeld on why men are so homophobic

first - let me say that I always look for your posts, because I think you're very smart, and very funny.

2. I'm not sure I agree with this statement:

"However, does feeling emotion require consciousness? I'd think so."

Do we not have emotion in dreams? Isn't this by definition an unconscious state?


"Do you know how bad evolution is going? Me. I'm alergic to bread". "Every time I tell somebody that - I have to go through this: "How about cake? Can you eat cake? - Can you eat bread sticks? If you were Superman and you were fighting the Thing - and he had a bread stick, who would win?" - Eric something or other

I don't understand how you could say "measuring won't show you anything". Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention, but I would in fact think that data would most likely show you something important, and that's certainly where a scientific approach would normally beging, were there a chance in hell of actually getting that data... which I do believe will be attainable within the next 20 to 50 years. You don't HAVE to start there, but it would definately be the most logical place given the option. Since we don't have that option, we just have to make shit up and blah blah like we're doing.. but I was just saying.. anyway.. moving on.


Ok , assuming we do indeed not have such an option right now , we could have one in couple of years yes . My point was rather aimed at this "empirical" approach to psychology , whitch i dont really agree with , BECAUSE we dont have data as such . Still in psychology empricism is very often used , so when u referred to data , i assumed (wrongly) that you reffered to the data coming out of today's empirical science called psychology .

All i'm saying is dont start counting things u cant c , thats what i meant with not measuring . And when you confirm this by saying we should do it in the future since today there's no data , i agree .
There isnt data , yet there are all kinds of crap measuring things like "intelligence", "emotions" etc . (Iq-Eq) , and thats why i was saying a philosophical approach where theoretic logics count and not some crappy data like "a hates b because we saw him getting upset 25 times in one day at b , and when people reach 25 they start hating" .....cuz its that kind of dumb data today's psychology has .

Thats all im saying


Yes, but I'm saying that the benefits are the thing... emotions are a fully dynamic, self-regulated way of "greasing the behavioral wheels" in real time.


As in : Their purpose is survival ? Isnt that why they grease those behavioural wheels


Hate can be viewed as a strategic adaptation. Like most adaptive behaviors it is often mal-adaptive (more often then not to be sure). We choose to hate on some subconscious level because on some unconscious level, we believe through our hate, we can effect the focus of our hate even in some small way. If on some subconscious level we decide we will never be able to do anything about the thing we are deciding weather or not to hate -- we will not hate, and in fact we may develop learned helplessness, or better yet -- we will use another adaptive behavior. This is not to be confused with having hate as the only adaptive behavior. It is one of a myriad of adaptive behaviors.

Unfortunately, hate works sometimes. It scares people, and it is politically powerful. We MUST understand hate, much like one must know ones enemy.


I agree that hate might work as a strategic adaption , but both conscious and unconscious . I believe anything that can work unconscious can work(be applied) conscious , when we speak of human consciousness . But i do not agree that possibility of hate would have to do with the solvability of the problem or situation , and that is because of the conscious aspect of hate . Why couldnt one not consciously hate while knowing the situation is hopeless , and thus not turning to for example the helplesness stage . Perhaps unconsciously hate could indeed be born only when there is hope , consciously this hasnt got to be the case .

But what is most interesting is this strategic adaption , your theory doesnt show what exactly the purpose of this hate is .
I would say its purpose lies on motivating the result one wish to achieves , and that brings us back to your "hope" situation .
Indeed , unconsciously , hate would only be usefull if there's a chance in solving , since hate should motivate to solve the problem . It would be a waste of energy if the purpose of hate wouldnt be achieved , or another purpose must be found .

Consciously , i believe one can make something with use into something useless .

U speak of hate as an enemy , as if it is hate that causes a problem . But isnt hate simply a the deduction , relying on a premis ? Repression would be attacking hate , solving would be attacking the cause of hate , oftenly that causes comes along with ignorance on many people , but always are traumatic and negative situations the premis for such hate , probably situations created by ignorance(the subjects or others) as well .

Id say lets do something about ignorance first , perhaps everything solves itself after that .


:m:

The palistinians? They use hate to great success. In essence they are saying: Give me land and money, or I'm going to hate you so bad, and my family will hate you so bad that we may even blow ourselves up and kill some of you because our hate for you is so intense. - Much more effective for them then actually fighting a war in which they would certainly lose. Hate does work sometimes I can give you many examples. Does that mean it's a good thing? Certainly not. It's a horrible thing - But we need to understand horrible things.


When I was a very young man, I was dating a homeless girl. It was great- because after sex I could just drop her off anywhere. -unknown comedian

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
Ok , assuming we do indeed not have such an option right now , we could have one in couple of years yes . My point was rather aimed at this "empirical" approach to psychology , whitch i dont really agree with , BECAUSE we dont have data as such . Still in psychology empricism is very often used , so when u referred to data , i assumed (wrongly) that you reffered to the data coming out of today's empirical science called psychology .

Well as you can probably tell I completely agree. I think empricism is probably the best thing going mind you, it's just that there does not yet exist a sophisticated way to really peer into thought. It's coming along nicely though and I fully expect that almost all aspects of the brain will be very well understood in a relatively short amount of time (under 100 years from now almost for sure).
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

All i'm saying is dont start counting things u cant c , thats what i meant with not measuring . And when you confirm this by saying we should do it in the future since today there's no data , i agree .
There isnt data , yet there are all kinds of crap measuring things like "intelligence", "emotions" etc . (Iq-Eq) , and thats why i was saying a philosophical approach where theoretic logics count and not some crappy data like "a hates b because we saw him getting upset 25 times in one day at b , and when people reach 25 they start hating" .....cuz its that kind of dumb data today's psychology has .

Oh man, I'm so with you.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

Thats all im saying

You're preaching to the choir.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

As in : Their purpose is survival ? Isnt that why they grease those behavioural wheels.

Yes, I'd say that they uhm... promote survival in a social species and thusly were not selected out when the mutation first happened. Actually it seems to me that having emotions provides a significant survival advantage: motivation.. hmm.. maybe they're just a sophisticated manifestation of the "survival instinct". Seems like that's pretty close... what do you think?
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

I agree that hate might work as a strategic adaption , but both conscious and unconscious . I believe anything that can work unconscious can work(be applied) conscious , when we speak of human consciousness . But i do not agree that possibility of hate would have to do with the solvability of the problem or situation , and that is because of the conscious aspect of hate . Why couldnt one not consciously hate while knowing the situation is hopeless , and thus not turning to for example the helplesness stage . Perhaps unconsciously hate could indeed be born only when there is hope , consciously this hasnt got to be the case .

Hmm.. again I think hate is a sophisticated manifestation of the concept of a survival instinct (adapted today into social survival on top of its initial purpose). Maybe hate is a format for anger over time, or sustained anger. If a competing tribe steals your food many times, you learn to hate them.. ah, yes.. it's nature holding place for remembering who fucked you over... or at least, who you think fucked you over. Okay, so I really think that is the reasoning behind the fact that we have it. Pardon if that's slightly off topic, I'm figuring shit out on the fly here.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

But what is most interesting is this strategic adaption , your theory doesnt show what exactly the purpose of this hate is .

Does what I was saying apply here (I realize you weren't talking to me)? Hate is a survival tool so you can remember something you percieve as a threat, without having to remember all the details. In a sense I'd bet that it helps organize the associated memories when you're accessing your memory about what has happened to you in your life.
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

I would say its purpose lies on motivating the result one wish to achieves , and that brings us back to your "hope" situation .
Indeed , unconsciously , hate would only be usefull if there's a chance in solving , since hate should motivate to solve the problem . It would be a waste of energy if the purpose of hate wouldnt be achieved , or another purpose must be found .

I think fundamentally hate motivates you to avoid, eliminate or minimize a threat... through any means your brain deems acceptable risk in terms of survival. Survival of course being much more complex than simply not dying. An aspect of survival in the context I'm trying to establish, might be "improving the brain's self conception of its status quo (conditions it deems "acceptable" or "comfortable").
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

Consciously, i believe one can make something with use into something useless.

I think that's true regardless of the context in which you were estabishing it. It's a matter of the persons "lens on reality", which is completely unique to them, formed by the brain's reaction to perception. The brain adapts itself to understand its context in the apparent objective world, and the world that it creates in the form of memories, thoughts and expectations.

Maybe we should try to answer: How do we qualify or quantify... or maybe "in what context can we find" hate as the opposite of love. I mean, we wouldn't be so inclined to think as such if there weren't at least a smidge of validity. For instance, both are considered "strong" emotions. Both are "how much you care" in a sense. Both seem "fundamental" to me in the sense that they can be overpowering... but so can fear. Do fear and love have a direct relationship? I guess I should figure out if hate and love do first. Hehe okay, I've confused myself. Moving on.

Shawn34m

What about
The palistinians? They use hate to great success. In essence they are saying: Give me land and money, or I'm going to hate you so bad, and my family will hate you so bad that we may even blow ourselves up and kill some of you because our hate for you is so intense. - Much more effective for them then actually fighting a war in which they would certainly lose. Hate does work sometimes I can give you many examples. Does that mean it's a good thing? Certainly not. It's a horrible thing - But we need to understand horrible things.


Ur talking rubbish , and are completely incorrect on the entire proces of hate when it comes to the palestinian-jewish question .
And why do you call hate a horrible thing , why are we getting into ethics here ?
You bring in politics and ethics , both incorrectly and one more irellevant to the subject then the other , so id say stop importing , it aint helping .

And whats those quotes u use , are they just meaningless to the subject or do i not coprehend them ?

wesmorris

Well as you can probably tell I completely agree. I think empricism is probably the best thing going mind you, it's just that there does not yet exist a sophisticated way to really peer into thought. It's coming along nicely though and I fully expect that almost all aspects of the brain will be very well understood in a relatively short amount of time (under 100 years from now almost for sure).


Yup , and till we get some serious data lets stick to logical theorizing .


Yes, I'd say that they uhm... promote survival in a social species and thusly were not selected out when the mutation first happened. Actually it seems to me that having emotions provides a significant survival advantage: motivation.. hmm.. maybe they're just a sophisticated manifestation of the "survival instinct". Seems like that's pretty close... what do you think?


Actually i have an entire ethical(actually its more than just ethics) theory that deals with this shit , but since thats not the point here i'll stick to survival-emotions .
If we would at survival in a more evolutionairy way , so not just one life but at the bigger picture , which brings us to reproduction . I mean reproduction is surviving on the long run , correct ? Now if whats needed to reproduce ? Sex .
Link that with emotion , en u end up with lust . But if you think in reproductionairy terms , you'll end up with love . It is with a person one loves , one decides to have children with . And thats when part to comes in , after the birth . Again love is that what guarantees taking care of this child , ensuring your reproduction to have a future , so that your long-term survival (of the species) is a succes .
Love(emotion) motivates the action , whitch has the purpose of survival in the long run . Now if we bring it back to what you suggested , the individual survival (whitch is necesarry for survival on the long run . As you bring in a bgger picture(emotions in stead of love) , we c the same thing . Emotion is needed for some action . Hobbes or Mill or somebody included this aspect in his ethical theory......the deal was to show wheither an action is motivated by emotion or reason . It was like ...I go to the fridge means , I go because i am thirsty(emotional) , to the fridge because i know there's drink there (reasonal) . Perhaps i improved it a bit , i believe originally it was only i go to the fridge cuz im thirsty . Either way , emotion is that whitch creates motive for the individual to act out something .
This brings us back with what was sayd here before , how hate is allowed only when uncosnciously (as i put it) knowing(or believing?) of possible good results , otherwise there would be no purpose in hating thus no motive .


Hmm.. again I think hate is a sophisticated manifestation of the concept of a survival instinct (adapted today into social survival on top of its initial purpose). Maybe hate is a format for anger over time, or sustained anger. If a competing tribe steals your food many times, you learn to hate them.. ah, yes.. it's nature holding place for remembering who fucked you over... or at least, who you think fucked you over. Okay, so I really think that is the reasoning behind the fact that we have it. Pardon if that's slightly off topic, I'm figuring shit out on the fly here.


I agree that is manifested by survival instict , in the sense that hate is used for survival , but i think all emotions are in a sense , and if we would believe that evolution shakes off useless things (perhaps this isnt so i dunno) , and use is simply survival there's no other relevant use if it doesnt go there .
The idea of hate being anger+anger+anger i pretty much agree with . The idea that hate has a function of simply trading the memory all stuff that caused anger for the concept of hate , I agree with as well . Something like.....instead of A did this that , eventually concluding ammount of anger towards a , traded for I hate A . Very practical .


Does what I was saying apply here (I realize you weren't talking to me)? Hate is a survival tool so you can remember something you percieve as a threat, without having to remember all the details. In a sense I'd bet that it helps organize the associated memories when you're accessing your memory about what has happened to you in your life.


I agree , u can just go I hate u instead of u did bla bla bla .
But i think there's more to hate then just that . How about a sort of extra motivator to correct errors ? I mean lets say that anger A gives u 5x , Angry B 6X and Hate concept 100X . So first U get angry A couple of times at this person , then u get angry B couple of times.....but when the time has come for some radical solution somehow , hate is being applied whitch brings along an amazing ammount of progression in quantity . But another theory might be that its not a quantity difference but a quality difference , as in hate being of totally different levels no ammount of anger can achieve.....just makin up some shit , i dunno
As a categorizer hate is pretty interesting , i mean when associated with the word hate a category appears . This is much better then lets say a category of anger , all different in quantity or quality(i cant figure out whitch one it is)......whitch u gotta figure out whats hate and whats anger .
Hate as a seperate category is a very good possibility .
So here's a question......whats the difference with anger hate , is it quality or quantity and how ? Ofcourse this shit brings us back weither all emotions are between the same 1 and -1 or between different qualities of 1 and -1 .


I think fundamentally hate motivates you to avoid, eliminate or minimize a threat... through any means your brain deems acceptable risk in terms of survival. Survival of course being much more complex than simply not dying. An aspect of survival in the context I'm trying to establish, might be "improving the brain's self conception of its status quo (conditions it deems "acceptable" or "comfortable").


Eliminate or minimize I agree with , but I associate avoid with fear (when it comes to emotionally deciding) rather than with hate . But then again , i can link hate and fear just as easily , so that brings me nothing .
The reason i do try create a way out is simply because instead of avoiding i directly link hate with confronting , as in unconventional problem solving . Say.....some dude kills a family member , another person comes telling you ..... isnt hate the motive for a possible confrontation and elimination of the person causing u to hate ?
I agree the survival concept is bigger then not dying in the physical way , and afterwards getting buried or cremated , but i do hold on to the fact that it IS not dying if not dying is viewed in a greater context , as an entire world (internally(psyche)and externally) of + and - , where the + is living and the - is dying . I agree that some sort of improvement of self conception of its status quo is indeed surviving , thus not dying . I mean its not just staying alive , its staying alive the best way possible , each lesser way is dying a bit......till the end .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

Consciously, i believe one can make something with use into something useless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that's true regardless of the context in which you were estabishing it. It's a matter of the persons "lens on reality", which is completely unique to them, formed by the brain's reaction to perception. The brain adapts itself to understand its context in the apparent objective world, and the world that it creates in the form of memories, thoughts and expectations.


I actually wanted to associate it with ignorance . Because the consciousness might be/is ignorant (less capable) compared to unconsciousness .
Here's an example of what i mean , might clear it up .
Lets say u suddenly gain consciousness (and thus conscious controll) of each and every muscle activity in your legs ......i bet walking is gonna become a big problem , and you might never be able to walk again ....there goes the use of all those muscles in ur legs and ur entire legs themselves .
But im getting way off topic .


Maybe we should try to answer: How do we qualify or quantify... or maybe "in what context can we find" hate as the opposite of love. I mean, we wouldn't be so inclined to think as such if there weren't at least a smidge of validity. For instance, both are considered "strong" emotions. Both are "how much you care" in a sense. Both seem "fundamental" to me in the sense that they can be overpowering... but so can fear. Do fear and love have a direct relationship? I guess I should figure out if hate and love do first. Hehe okay, I've confused myself. Moving on.


Id say we better decide first whitch one its is , a quality difference or a quantity difference . Al emotions seem so different , but i bet ull end op with an attempt to + an an avoid of - , at least thats their purpose . Perhaps love and hate are not the hardest one', becuase of there extermeness and apparent opposite .
Lets say "care" = quality , and then the max quantity of this quality in + is love , and max quantity of this quality in - is hate .
Thus , love and hate are the maximal quanties (in opposite direction to eachother) in the quality of "care".
Now fear is problematic , but i do can link it both with hate and love , so its in some relation to them , just not in the care quality . Fear can be a reason for hate for instance (i mentioned a relation previously) , and love can be feared not to have or to lose , for instance .
Id say fear goes in some "lose/gain" quality .........nah , man im all confused now .
Shit i dunno , but there is a relation , maybe i shouldnt apply love/hating being qualities as they are in the relation to quality "care" . Perhaps fear is the quantity in the relation to love , as in fearing X for losing/not having love , so love is the quality here .

But back to love hate . they both max quantity(referring to ur fundamental here) , and they both with quality of caring (in whitch they are oppiste).

What is till dont gate is how to opposites within this quality , and bothe tyhe maximum opposites in quantity in this quality.....ahum , still u can switch from one to another just like that . Love-Hate are the closest and the farest ......cipher ?
Assuming they are ciphering , what emotions have the same relation , it might help figuring out how this cipher exactly works .

Anyone.......a list of all emotions , please ?
who's bored enough to make one , i really dont wanna .

perhaps u shawn....u feel like importing shit , import a list of emotions .

Quote: "And why do you call hate a horrible thing"


Now how can I argue with that? You must be the only person I have ever heard of that does not think hate is a horrible thing. But since you're so confident that you are so smart, I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt here and say "you're right". I'm going to have to re - think everything now. Thanks for opening my eyes.

And wow that was a long post!
I've been listening to this crap-O thon for 2 hours now.

The Germans weren't as bad, all dressed in neat uniforms - they'ld say "If you want to fight us, we'll be over here in this square" That was nice. At least taking over the world was an IDEA. The only thing these MENTAL DEFECTIVES have come up with is "Haayy... Let's blow ourselves up!!" -Seinfeld

Why Hate is not a horrible thing :

To answer this question , we must first know what hate is . As far is we have concluded thisfar , Hate is the opposite of love in a caring quality , which can be defined as emotion .

Is emotion horrible or great ? It neither , becaus eit is not an ethical thing to judge upon . Only an ethical subject can be good or bad , horrible or great etc , emotion is not an ethical subject , thus , not good nor bad .

Now for illogical reasons you seem to disagree . Isnt it so that you have some sort of negative feeling with hate , and some sort of positive feeling with love ? I believe that covers the intellect part you speak of as well .

Is that why hate is a horrible thing ? Or do you have other reasons , which refute this assertion : Hate aint half bad even , and i dont mean by saying : isnt .

Man , if u dont know anybody who says this , ur in the wrong crowd i can tell you shawn .
But hey Shawn , why dont you type up a list of emotions , perhaps others will make the list longer untill all emotions are .....oh nevermind .

Hey........thats Jerry
:eek:

I DO plan to participate more, I simply haven't had the time or want to tackle that huge post of yours yet. It will come.

I guess I took it for granted that hate is the evil side of human nature because that is the emotion we use to justify all of the horrible things we cannot justify otherwise. I never thought of hate as not being bad (this double negative being appropriate)- I have always tried NOT to have hate in my heart. I really don't see your point. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough to see your side. I've just never considered it I guess.
But in all honesty, if we can't agree that hate is bad, I don't think you and I can agree on anything unfortunately.

According to the latest survey, 70% of the time men initiate sex, and 30% of the time, they beg for it- SNL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
[B]
Actually i have an entire ethical(actually its more than just ethics) theory that deals with this shit , but since thats not the point here i'll stick to survival-emotions.

/Care to elaborate a bit? I think it would be most relevant if it envelopes the topic. I've got my own comprehensive theory of stuff. I've presented the basics here before but didn't get much reaction.

If we would at survival in a more evolutionairy way , so not just one life but at the bigger picture , which brings us to reproduction . I mean reproduction is surviving on the long run , correct ? Now if whats needed to reproduce ? Sex .
Link that with emotion , en u end up with lust . But if you think in reproductionairy terms , you'll end up with love .

/That is precisely the route by which I reached my conclusions.

It is with a person one loves , one decides to have children with . And thats when part to comes in , after the birth . Again love is that what guarantees taking care of this child , ensuring your reproduction to have a future , so that your long-term survival (of the species) is a succes .
Love(emotion) motivates the action , whitch has the purpose of survival in the long run . Now if we bring it back to what you suggested , the individual survival (whitch is necesarry for survival on the long run . As you bring in a bgger picture(emotions in stead of love) , we c the same thing . Emotion is needed for some action . Hobbes or Mill or somebody included this aspect in his ethical theory......the deal was to show wheither an action is motivated by emotion or reason . It was like ...I go to the fridge means , I go because i am thirsty(emotional) , to the fridge because i know there's drink there (reasonal) . Perhaps i improved it a bit , i believe originally it was only i go to the fridge cuz im thirsty . Either way , emotion is that whitch creates motive for the individual to act out something .
This brings us back with what was sayd here before , how hate is allowed only when uncosnciously (as i put it) knowing(or believing?) of possible good results , otherwise there would be no purpose in hating thus no motive .

/On a side note: You are one of very few people I've met as of yet that can intelligently converse with me on this type of topic. I'm always very impressed when this happens. This will sound very arrogant, and I'm not sure how much of a statement it is... but I've never met anyone who is as good as it as I am (just this little niche of on the fly reasoning, I'm not nearly as good at math). Now I can sense that I have. Impressive.

You have said exactly what I was thinking as I typed my last post. It freaks me out a little that our understanding here seems almost identical. I had not however taken it to the point of breaking it down at the end into the stages. It makes me wonder if there is a perpetual cycle of input-> emotion-> thought ->action <-> feeback and repeat.

I agree that is manifested by survival instict , in the sense that hate is used for survival , but i think all emotions are in a sense , and if we would believe that evolution shakes off useless things (perhaps this isnt so i dunno) ,

/Those that remain would likely be random when looked at individually but likely would be selected out to a degree as the overall integrated subsystems of the body did or did not required them. In other words.. unknows integrating factors would probably be revealed over time as to why a certain feature would or wouldn't be selected out and effect the randomness of useless things that remain after selection. In other other words... my guess would be that selection has a tendency to select out useless junk, but it won't be know fully for some time to come.

and use is simply survival there's no other relevant use if it doesnt go there .
The idea of hate being anger+anger+anger i pretty much agree with . The idea that hate has a function of simply trading the memory all stuff that caused anger for the concept of hate , I agree with as well . Something like.....instead of A did this that , eventually concluding ammount of anger towards a , traded for I hate A . Very practical .

/I'm saying something even more subtle as well.. something about consciousness and perstence of the present. If you'll note... hate is a way to perpetuate anger over time.. which ties into a way which is and alters memories in real time (in the present). Hate and/or Love are ways that evolution found to increase our survival probability by ensuring that when something bad happens, now will be the same as later - or 'you'll remember it'. emotion provides the memory's strength and context over a period of successive "nows" or "this is the present time"s (not sure how to say that right) separated by time and altered continually through the feedback cycle cited above. In this manner, we can ensure our survival since we have access to multiple "nows" or "presents" in the present. THAT is some powerful shit which I believe simulateously indicates something interesting about time in terms of physics (the nature of time or at least how we percieve it). Are you following? In terms of organization (at least concerning the subjective perspective of the model) you are experiencing MORE TIME at ONE TIME than JUST THAT TIME. Maybe? Hehe... I believe that's the way one attempting to model the phenomena must view it, at least for the initial attempts at really understanding the sysem.

I agree , u can just go I hate u instead of u did bla bla bla .
But i think there's more to hate then just that . How about a sort of extra motivator to correct errors ? I mean lets say that anger A gives u 5x , Angry B 6X and Hate concept 100X . So first U get angry A couple of times at this person , then u get angry B couple of times.....but when the time has come for some radical solution somehow , hate is being applied whitch brings along an amazing ammount of progression in quantity . But another theory might be that its not a quantity difference but a quality difference , as in hate being of totally different levels no ammount of anger can achieve.....just makin up some shit , i dunno

/I think that all would have to be played with. You'd have to somehow look at the higher level. I'm sure your representation is somewhat off, but good for describing your concept without having to get bogged down. It's very difficult for me to understand exactly what you're saying as well, as it is particularly heavy. I think your general idea is right but we really need to hash it out a bit more clearly and decide on the fundies. For instance I'm sure there is a geometricish matrixish kind of way one could represent all this, but one really have to have a good theoretical model together which to test (like you don't know that, pardon.. I'm filtering my thoughts through my fingers) Gah... I can't see it at the moment, that last paragraph took it out of me. Maybe what we need to do is figure out a simple model of how emotions change over time. At least a sketch on the board so to speak. What causes the transition? THere is so much bullshit to take into account. For instance the sleep cycle and the associated nuerotransmitters that tell you when to be tired. As you tire the way you interpret your feedback and input changes. I'd imagine that there are related nuerochemical processes. Ya think there are like a 10000 other independent nuerochemical processes? See, this is the interesting thing.. I wonder if our memories/thoughts/concepts/minds/souls/whatever are the experienced results of the ability to see an "average" or weighted average or whatever of all of those independent processes as interpreted through the "lense" (shaped by initial conditions and experience) that is consciousness reflecting on itself. Wow what a crock of shit. Did that make ANY sense? Insightful at all?

As a categorizer hate is pretty interesting , i mean when associated with the word hate a category appears . This is much better then lets say a category of anger , all different in quantity or quality(i cant figure out whitch one it is)......whitch u gotta figure out whats hate and whats anger .

Hate as a seperate category is a very good possibility .
So here's a question......whats the difference with anger hate , is it quality or quantity and how ? Ofcourse this shit brings us back weither all emotions are between the same 1 and -1 or between different qualities of 1 and -1 .

/I think hate is what results from enough anger to remember that you should be angry the next time whatever it is happens or reminds you of whatever. In other words, hate is what perpetuates anger, facilitates that anger is not forgotten. Of course hate is subject to the process of will and thought, but this is part of the feedback loop I keep mentioning so really just keep in mind the principles of a highly integrated system (small changes can have large and/or unexpected effects).

Eliminate or minimize I agree with , but I associate avoid with fear (when it comes to emotionally deciding) rather than with hate . But then again , i can link hate and fear just as easily , so that brings me nothing .

/Maybe emotions are an array of functions. Actually, the the context of my crazy theories, I've alway thought that if you imagine a "continuum of thought" that is finite (like in your head at any given time) and represent it in kidn of a geometric tubish kind of shape, emotions would be like the stresses and strains in the walls of the shape.. pulling the thoughts inside in a direction point to by itself.. like a wave kind of, but with a will of it's own. Well it made sense to me when I typed it, but I'm only mostly sure how to say it, because it's all just a silly halfassed theory.


The reason i do try create a way out is simply because instead of avoiding i directly link hate with confronting , as in unconventional problem solving . Say.....some dude kills a family member , another person comes telling you ..... isnt hate the motive for a possible confrontation and elimination of the person causing u to hate ?

/It can be I suppose, but I think it's secondary to hates function of perpetuating a perspective over time, such that the perspective does not bit you in the ass again. Again, it kind of has a life of it's own and is a distorting weight in thought (like a sink or - pole in electricity). It can thereby fester into somethink competely unreasonable, depending of the overall strength, health and constitution of the mental system of the individual. Same thing love does, but different.. as we discussed earlier.

I agree the survival concept is bigger then not dying in the physical way , and afterwards getting buried or cremated , but i do hold on to the fact that it IS not dying if not dying is viewed in a greater context , as an entire world (internally(psyche)and externally) of + and - , where the + is living and the - is dying .

/That's an interesting addition. I'll have to contemplate on that a bit.

I agree that some sort of improvement of self conception of its status quo is indeed surviving , thus not dying . I mean its not just staying alive , its staying alive the best way possible , each lesser way is dying a bit......till the end .

/Exactly what I was trying to say in the last post and I guess a bit of this one as well.

I actually wanted to associate it with ignorance . Because the consciousness might be/is ignorant (less capable) compared to unconsciousness .

Here's an example of what i mean , might clear it up .
Lets say u suddenly gain consciousness (and thus conscious controll) of each and every muscle activity in your legs ......i bet walking is gonna become a big problem , and you might never be able to walk again ....there goes the use of all those muscles in ur legs and ur entire legs themselves.

/I'm not sure if you were using an analogy or an example. Th/e scenario you describe is only likely in the case of brain damage as far as I'm aware. I can't remember the right labels, but there is a type of memory "muscle memory" that is kind of an "underconsciousness" in a sense because even if you have no short term memory (like that guy in the movie "memento") you can still remember how to walk. You can still lean new skill as well but only through intense repetition, and it's can't need "informational memory" or however you properly describe it. If that's not what you meand I'm not sure what you meant.
But im getting way off topic .

Id say we better decide first whitch one its is , a quality difference or a quantity difference .

/I think it's sort of a related functional difference, whereby one can be recovered from the other. In terms of mathematics.. almost like hate is an integral of anger.. but not exactly of course.

Al emotions seem so different , but i bet ull end op with an attempt to + an an avoid of - , at least thats their purpose . Perhaps love and hate are not the hardest one', becuase of there extermeness and apparent opposite .

/Do you think what I said above has relevance? You could say they are all motivating factors.. facts that weigh thought in a particular manner. They often fail as thoughts themselves, but serve as a "weight" as to our experience of the present (of course they can also be experienced as the result of a memory.. in the present)

Lets say "care" = quality , and then the max quantity of this quality in + is love , and max quantity of this quality in - is hate .
Thus , love and hate are the maximal quanties (in opposite direction to eachother) in the quality of "care".

/Where care has to do with your wishes/expectations toward/from the person in question? Something like that.. though there is a whole conversation or ten in that aspect of it.

Now fear is problematic , but i do can link it both with hate and love , so its in some relation to them , just not in the care quality . Fear can be a reason for hate for instance (i mentioned a relation previously) , and love can be feared not to have or to lose , for instance.

/Maybe fear is alertness gone awry... it's that avoiding part from before. Maybe it's like an "adrenaline" for awareness that has effect is dramatically impacted by the "shape" of the "lense" of consciousness (the "shape by which" the combination of thoughts/emotions/feedback/etc feeds into itself in real time)

But back to love hate . they both max quantity(referring to ur fundamental here) , and they both with quality of caring (in whitch they are oppiste).

/I think that's a pretty good description. I'd say their more like the terms "positive" and "negative" though, in that they describe opposite polaritys of an imporant quality.

What is till dont gate is how to opposites within this quality , and bothe tyhe maximum opposites in quantity in this quality.....ahum , still u can switch from one to another just like that.

/Indeed, as with many feedback systems.. the state can changed dramatically based on the inputs (one of which is itself).

Love-Hate are the closest and the farest ......cipher ?
Assuming they are ciphering , what emotions have the same relation , it might help figuring out how this cipher exactly works .

/YOu mean like love and hate are encoding information or adding weight to something else? :) Hehe, we think a lot alike?

Anyone.......a list of all emotions , please ?
who's bored enough to make one , i really dont wanna .

/Hmm... hehe.. too lazy. :) Maybe I'll check it sometime. You don't have a dicationary where you can search the definitions do you? Seems like you could search for "emotion" and make the task of listing them a lot easier.

This was a random thought in the middle of all that shit above:

What is survival afterall (in a simplistic sense) but persistence in time? Throw entropy in the mix and it becomes interesting.

One can only be as comfortable as that which one imagines;

One cannot be aware of Love without awakening the opposite pole of hate - the appent duality of life is simply due to consciousness itself, which IS awareness of polarity.

H-[||]

Originally posted by Hilarion
One can only be as comfortable as that which one imagines;

One cannot be aware of Love without awakening the opposite pole of hate - the appent duality of life is simply due to consciousness itself, which IS awareness of polarity.

H-[||]

I can buy that for the most part, but what's your analysis regarding the nature of emotion and it's role in consciousness?

Originally posted by Shawn34m
I guess I took it for granted that hate is the evil side of human nature because that is the emotion we use to justify all of the horrible things we cannot justify otherwise. I never thought of hate as not being bad (this double negative being appropriate)- I have always tried NOT to have hate in my heart. I really don't see your point. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough to see your side. I've just never considered it I guess.
But in all honesty, if we can't agree that hate is bad, I don't think you and I can agree on anything unfortunately.

The only problem is that you're personalizing it. For the purposes of this analysis, Hate is neither good nor bad. It is a placeholder. A way to perpetuate an emotional state which is experienced in the present, to a present that is later.

ok, but at the end of the day after make - believe time is over - and we bend our minds back to anything that matters: Yes I'm speaking of the real world - Hate is bad. Hate kills, and hate destroys people and families.
Now if you want to be cerebral and not make any judgments at all -- go right ahead. I live in the real world and think in the real world. You could also do a mental exercise to say that no violent crime is bad too. But you are bending reality for the sake of a different perspective. Fine more power to you. But when you come back to reality you have to make certain judgments. Certain assumptions. But hey if you are making some sort of progress -- by all means Hate is good or neutral if that gives you some sort of insight.

Originally posted by Shawn34m
ok, but at the end of the day after make - believe time is over - and we bend our minds back to anything that matters: Yes I'm speaking of the real world - Hate is bad.

You're trying to make rules because they are to your taste, not because that's how things are. I agree with you that as a general statement "hate is bad" is true, but analysis of the statement tends to raise questions. What if hate saved my life? Bad implies a "to whom" and that makes it far more complicated than your blanket statement "hate is bad". Dont you think?
Originally posted by Shawn34m

Hate kills, and hate destroys people and families.

Sure, but who knows what else happens as a result of hate. For instance, I hated being poor. I really fucking hated it. Argh. That motivated me to get educated. Now I love being not poor, and hope to be moreso some day. It's not completely black and while.
Originally posted by Shawn34m

Now if you want to be cerebral and not make any judgments at all -- go right ahead.

We'll never gain any real understanding if we just assume that "hate is bad". One must be able to back it up in such a manner that is irrifutable, which as I've demonstrated is difficult to do in the case of your statement.
Originally posted by Shawn34m

I live in the real world and think in the real world.

You're sure? Maybe you think in some other world altogether. Maybe the matrix has you. Maybe you just haven't really thought it all the way through as you previously mentioned. No big deal, we all had (or have) to do it if we want to know anything about it. But for the sake of a realistic analysis, we have to throw out irrational assumptions. (in this case, the goal of discerning the dynamic of emotion in consciousness is impeded by accepting your statement, even though in every day life it applies as a generalization)
Originally posted by Shawn34m

You could also do a mental exercise to say that no violent crime is bad too.

Yeah, but that wouldn't tell you much about the goal desribed above.
Originally posted by Shawn34m

But you are bending reality for the sake of a different perspective.

And for the sake of a different motive.
Originally posted by Shawn34m

Fine more power to you.

Thanks.
Originally posted by Shawn34m

But when you come back to reality you have to make certain judgments.

Maybe by my attempt at an unbiased analysis, I'll have gained more than you, who apparently isn't willing to contemplate that which he doesn't deem applicable to his thought pattern? *shrug* No biggie, just making the observation. Have you?
Originally posted by Shawn34m

Certain assumptions. But hey if you are making some sort of progress -- by all means Hate is good or neutral if that gives you some sort of insight.

It might, I think it has. *shrug* I have certainly gained a little insight from this conversation. You see, putting forth the effort to really analyze it forever shapes your brain such that it is now an experience, as in a literal impression in your head. Thusly for me the excercise of thinking about the problem has changed me, I hope it to be for the better.

It doesn't really seem like you're focused on the real issue here. You want to debate your assumptions more? You have anything to say about the analysis? You said AM was right about everything.. elaborate. Maybe we can all figure out something cool together. Maybe not. It'll be fun to try. Go ahead.. give it a go now!

Wes , the emotion analysis has to wait for a second .

Shawn . Let me ask you a question , you who has all these ethical concepts all mixed in with emotional concepts etc .

Why does a person hate ?

I assume it has a reason , lets say person X hates because of A .
Now , who is bad here . Is it X , is it Hate , or is it A ?

Another question for you . What is Bad exactly ?

It seems that our worlds and conceptions of "real life" are so extremely different , i am quite curious how u exactly constructed your opinion . Sure i can take a "wild" guess......but lets elaborate on it for a minute .

Why is hate bad ?

Or better put , lets play this nice little game . For every answer you give , I will ask you why . Now since I aint gonna ask u a million times , you just say : Hat is bad , and imagine me saying why . Type this process if u wish , so we can share the way you conclude Hate to be bad .

Now wes already agreed with you "in general" hate is bad , i dont . I dont think hate has anything to do with "bad" one bit .

So please , explain matters to me Shawn .

Care to elaborate a bit? I think it would be most relevant if it envelopes the topic. I've got my own comprehensive theory of stuff. I've presented the basics here before but didn't get much reaction.


Well , ethics is the system of good and bad right ? So to determine this system first we must know what we are dealing with . Now it would take more a book or at least an essay to eleborate on the whole thing , the deal is basically we feel something to be positive to us in some way , our psychology creates the concept of bad or good out of it . Its a combination of psychological egoism and the basic that good nor bad exists . It is mankind that feels negative or positve towards a situation in some way because of some reason . Based on this i have absolutely no ethical problems in lets say slaying 400 m people.....in the sense i do not believe it to be "bad" . So the root if this misconception on "bad" , brings us to misconceptions such as "wrong" , or even "evil" . Sure some person can have the feeling something to be bad , or an actual fact even can be wrong , real evil simply does not exist . Except for some mad people , all evil comes from ignorance .....if there is evil , whitch there isnt . There is just some person feeling bad/good about this or that , claiming wrong/right to this or that .
Now the question , why do people feel in this way , why does this bad thing accur , why does their psyche fool them with these silly cocnepts of ignorance ? Id say easy....for the purpose of our being , which is continue to be , in other words , survival . And there the good comes in , good as that whitch promotes survival according to the human psyche (as the psyche experiences survival(good-bad)) . So if want to deal these illusions of good and bad.....whitch have become out of controll if u ask me , i mean....bad used to be not having food .......now its all sorts of fabricated imaginary bullshit that doesnt even have to do with actual physical survival , but survival of the psyche . The body would die caring about some "feelings" .
So now to the system of these good bad survival bull , it brings us pretty much of the uselessness of all this shit . Why dont we all just kill ourselves , one might ask .... Now perhaps it is my psyche that is biased for a moment , when i say.....the only thing more useless than living , is changing it to something that has lost all the potence of use , death . Weither existing is useless or not , surely non-existing MUST be useless , since ur not there to create use......assuming that nothing is nowhere , or everything is everywhere .

Good & Bad are worthless emotional concepts . Emotions should be studied in order to create a system with reason , so that emotions ca be handled properly , at the command/wish of the person in controll of them . Its definetly dumb to let emotions decide what is right or wrong , just because u feel bad about it . So with reasonal calculations of the wrong and the right according to ohysical and psychological demands of all people of this planet (i mean it is the entire survival of man we should think of ) , to each the best according to him (up to a point) , whitch brings us to utilitarianism .

The only good and bad you will ever find , is a positive effect or negative effect of some kind on some person , according to some person . All that is physical first , emotional second , creating psychological bullshit .


On a side note: You are one of very few people I've met as of yet that can intelligently converse with me on this type of topic. I'm always very impressed when this happens. This will sound very arrogant, and I'm not sure how much of a statement it is... but I've never met anyone who is as good as it as I am (just this little niche of on the fly reasoning, I'm not nearly as good at math). Now I can sense that I have. Impressive.


Thank you , and not to be arrogant either , you can be sure you have . The Mathematics of Allah are not just your ordinary average pseudosophical mumbo jumbo about some trees or something .


. I had not however taken it to the point of breaking it down at the end into the stages. It makes me wonder if there is a perpetual cycle of input-> emotion-> thought ->action <-> feeback and repeat


I would say this is how it works . Something happened or is going to happen or is happening , which affects the survival of the creauture , on multiple levels . Now this creature coprehends the suffering conscious or non-conscious . Either way an emotion is created , which gives the creature an understanding of some concept of right and wrong , created in order to self survive (IF its intelligent,i mean only a dumb system would create something surely with no purpose) . So that emotion gives together with the psyche creates this conception , and shit gets out......actions perhaps ? Each action has re-action etc......such a reaction is anothers input of all this bullshit all over .


Those that remain would likely be random when looked at individually but likely would be selected out to a degree as the overall integrated subsystems of the body did or did not required them. In other words.. unknows integrating factors would probably be revealed over time as to why a certain feature would or wouldn't be selected out and effect the randomness of useless things that remain after selection. In other other words... my guess would be that selection has a tendency to select out useless junk, but it won't be know fully for some time to come.


A thing that speaks in favor of at least taking to loose stuff a long time , is the complexity and mass of our brains . We know major functions can be dione by minuscule thingies.....of whitch we have plenty . Why are we developed this , could it not be that we once used more.....and are now loosing parts of that brain....? I dunno . But id say I agree on the tendency of sorting out , because the survival system and thus natural selection , doesnt just appear with creatures like us , but with every single cel in our bodies . Everywhere there is this same surviving proces , and that would definetly implie the dying of the useless , and natural selection non-dead stuff.....


In terms of organization (at least concerning the subjective perspective of the model) you are experiencing MORE TIME at ONE TIME than JUST THAT TIME. Maybe?


I agree....again this implies only a quantity difference between hate and anger , it could be very possible . But I do believe hate to have a more complicated relation than just + , but when the hate is taking place , I agree it is multiple anger happening at once .
This way we can include anger most definetly to come between the hate and love , being tied to caring .
So : Ontologic state of
Love = max care for +
Hate = max care for -
Anger=not max care for - .

Again I am saying max , but thats an entire level of max right there , its not like its a formula and max is all the same .


It's very difficult for me to understand exactly what you're saying as well, as it is particularly heavy. I think your general idea is right but we really need to hash it out a bit more clearly and decide on the fundies. For instance I'm sure there is a geometricish matrixish kind of way one could represent all this, but one really have to have a good theoretical model together which to test (like you don't know that, pardon.. I'm filtering my thoughts through my fingers) Gah... I can't see it at the moment, that last paragraph took it out of me. Maybe what we need to do is figure out a simple model of how emotions change over time. At least a sketch on the board so to speak. What causes the transition? THere is so much bullshit to take into account. For instance the sleep cycle and the associated nuerotransmitters that tell you when to be tired. As you tire the way you interpret your feedback and input changes. I'd imagine that there are related nuerochemical processes. Ya think there are like a 10000 other independent nuerochemical processes? See, this is the interesting thing.. I wonder if our memories/thoughts/concepts/minds/souls/whatever are the experienced results of the ability to see an "average" or weighted average or whatever of all of those independent processes as interpreted through the "lense" (shaped by initial conditions and experience) that is consciousness reflecting on itself. Wow what a crock of shit. Did that make ANY sense? Insightful at all?


And a crock of shit it was , i couldnt understand one single fuck u were saying about those neurowhatevers . U speak of a measuring system , well thats not gonna happen that fast , man id say we first create a map of emotions . And since we are pretty much progressing with love-hate (we already got anger too) , lets make a map out of that .
What other emotions are there that fit in this picture of care ?

Or we can do what u suggest first , and find out exactly what processes are walked through . Lets take hate :D and build a model of how it comes into being . Lets wait with this cycle of sleep , its way to comlicated , lets see how anger is being created as anfgera and why . I know there are many things we should account , so lets start at the beginning .

Id say lets take an example that brings us from anger to hate , lets take the Palestinian example Shawn spoke of earlier , it might be interesting for him as well to see how his little analysis of Palestinian hate was kind of simplistic and false as well .
I invite you wes to make a little model of how that hate is created , you might re-develop ur horrible political insights because of it :D .


I think hate is what results from enough anger to remember that you should be angry the next time whatever it is happens or reminds you of whatever. In other words, hate is what perpetuates anger, facilitates that anger is not forgotten. Of course hate is subject to the process of will and thought, but this is part of the feedback loop I keep mentioning so really just keep in mind the principles of a highly integrated system (small changes can have large and/or unexpected effects).


Here's some progress , you accuratly link hate with memory . How about this : Hate is a less potential when memory capacity of a person (or averge usage ) is less . Lets not forget the psyche is the controller of the mind-machine . Id say thats a thing we should take a long , the subjectivity of the psychological systems .


It can thereby fester into somethink competely unreasonable, depending of the overall strength, health and constitution of the mental system of the individual. Same thing love does, but different.. as we discussed earlier.


I agree it can . But have you ever considered possibility of reasonable hate just as reasonable love (al though the first seems more understandable) . I do agree that the usual path can become living itself , and controll the already sad psyche completely .


I'm not sure if you were using an analogy or an example. Th/e scenario you describe is only likely in the case of brain damage as far as I'm aware. I can't remember the right labels, but there is a type of memory "muscle memory" that is kind of an "underconsciousness" in a sense because even if you have no short term memory (like that guy in the movie "memento") you can still remember how to walk. You can still lean new skill as well but only through intense repetition, and it's can't need "informational memory" or however you properly describe it. If that's not what you meand I'm not sure what you meant.
But im getting way off topic .


Im not even sure of the difference between the 2 . But anyways , its not about braindamage i am talking about , and its not about forgetting how to do something . I mean , lets be honest here , do u know how u walk ? I sure have no damn clue , it just works when i wanna move my leg i just somehow do.......but i have absolutely no consciousness of the process . Now my point was , what if u gain such a amazing consciousness , all of a sudden u know exactly how/why u walk , that would take so much energy , id say forget about operating the system . Cuz thats all we can do now , operate , we have no clue how but we do . That operating will become a big problem , when u coprehend the hole system . Compare it to a some guy who knows how to drive a car , and some chemist who has no clue how to drive , but knows exatcly all the energy/burning processes and how he can create force and make the car move , but he couldnt even find where to put the key .

My point was , it would prove that consciousness can be useless , although i have no idea why i wanted to make such a point , id have to reread it and thats not gonna hapopen today anyways .


I think it's sort of a related functional difference, whereby one can be recovered from the other. In terms of mathematics.. almost like hate is an integral of anger.. but not exactly of course.


I wouldnt know , can u explain a bit ?


Do you think what I said above has relevance? You could say they are all motivating factors.. facts that weigh thought in a particular manner. They often fail as thoughts themselves, but serve as a "weight" as to our experience of the present (of course they can also be experienced as the result of a memory.. in the present


They are the very basics of motivation . If there were no emotions we would all just die , for real .


Lets say "care" = quality , and then the max quantity of this quality in + is love , and max quantity of this quality in - is hate .
Thus , love and hate are the maximal quanties (in opposite direction to eachother) in the quality of "care".

/Where care has to do with your wishes/expectations toward/from the person in question? Something like that.. though there is a whole conversation or ten in that aspect of it.


Yes , care is ofcourse caring for something about(or completely) person X . I say in the line of caring love and hate find in eachother the opposite .


/Maybe fear is alertness gone awry... it's that avoiding part from before. Maybe it's like an "adrenaline" for awareness that has effect is dramatically impacted by the "shape" of the "lense" of consciousness (the "shape by which" the combination of thoughts/emotions/feedback/etc feeds into itself in real time)


Fear is the feeling that appears when the intention is warning of danger of something to happen (gain or loose) .
Id say its gain of the hated that causes fear , while its loss of the loved that causes fear as well .


I think that's a pretty good description. I'd say their more like the terms "positive" and "negative" though, in that they describe opposite polaritys of an imporant quality.


But directly i can only find them in caring .max +care is love ,max -care is hate . Indirect , i think i showed their oppoisteness within the relation of fear . Im sure there are more ways to analyze love-hate as opposites , u know of anyother ?


YOu mean like love and hate are encoding information or adding weight to something else?


with ciphering i actually ment that the 2 opposites are took and a full circle is created , but this would imply the very same essence of this love and hate . Id say such a research would only bring us closer to the reason of why the switch between love and hate is onligically easy . As if the strength of the emotion is creating equality , instead of the road it is heading according the - or + .
Im not sure what u mean when u say encoding information . About adding weight , they are adding weight to the psyche , in the sense that this weight is needed somehow for survival of the psyche itself in the first place .


What is survival afterall (in a simplistic sense) but persistence in time?


Can u imagine the uselessness of it when even in time there is no persistence , as in death (assumingly) . And how useless must the switch between useless and useless not be ? If ur alive , dont get killed , if ur dead , dont get born .
We should all study some Taoism ...... change is useless .

Ill take that advise of urs according to the dictionairy , pretty stupid i havent been thinking of that myself . Well , since im pretty sure of my intellect , im just trying to imagine even the lazyness in my psyche if even a thought is to hard to pick up , when the thought implies physical efford .

:m:

Gan Jah . Food for God .

Wes:
Again, I disagree, I don't think there is anything in the mind that keeps both from being true simultaneously though, which is exactly what I would call "internal conflict" I guess.

Exactly my point. I see what you mean - opposites can exist simultaneously in a system.

However, I do not see the two as opposites. It's a truism that sexual passion outwardly resembles hatred - or at least anger. It's also a truism that there's a thin line between love and hate.

To love is to make oneself vulnerable. For this reason, we must have a healthy fear of our lover -not to fear them would be madness. Fear, however, is closely linked to hatred.

I admire your attempt to fit emotions into a matrix. To an extent, they are in such a structure - namely the brain. However, classifying emotions so rigidly strikes me as an error.

What are emotions, after all? Neurochemical states.
Now I'm not an expert on this, but I don't see how those states could be strictly different.

Shawn:
Do we not ha