What is an emotion?

That’s the order of conscious engagement I experience, my baseline is made up of emotions that are not always recognizable to me at any given time until a thought exposes them by trying to influence them. My emotions muddy my thoughts, not the other way around. I don’t deny that there is play between emotions and thoughts affecting one another, I’m simply stating that thoughts do not register without an emotional impetus whether we understand that impetus is another story. Often, when emotions pool under the surface of our daily experiences, we will not understand why we feel the way we do and our thoughts will at times be counter productive or moot in regards to figuring out the state we’re in, for those thoughts did not inspire our underlying feelings ie. the thoughts don’t jibe with our baseline emotions which may be called negatively angst or positively hopefulness.

Am I making sense here…at all?

Here is a model that I am working with where mind is a separate thing to brain, emotion and reality. The mind, in red, is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Logic is in what we commonly refer to as grey matter(even though it is more complicated than this). Our mind is connected to the brain through imagination and thinking. Most of the functions of the brain are memory based. Emotion seems to present a problem to memory based architecture.

We do not always feel the same set of emotions which tells me that while there is a problem with memory based emotion because of flow that the emotions are still outside of the mind. This is just for starters - there are all sorts of problems with the logic of emotions.

WendyDarling

I sense that we actually agree on a lot of things in an around about way - just that we have different ways of describing what it is that is in our respective heads.

Thoughts to me are a part of how the mind works - that is how the mind and the brain interface - a thought requires a memory state to function - this memory state is a complex state that is made up of many memories - imagination it seems is an ongoing process that can be interrupted by intention - in this case your baseline, I would imagine is made up of a complex memory state and your conscious state(which is ever changing). Now I have shortened the process here a little but if I were to expand then it would seem that each person is a universe unto their own.

Where emotions fit into this baseline is difficult to nail down because we don’t seem to remember the emotion as it was - we remember perhaps its essence of what it was for want of better words to help me explain. They are not recognizable because there is an energy build up based on states and some emotions are in the world with their own strategic agendas(perhaps going off track now). Emotions muddy your thoughts because you can release a new energy state into the mix based on old emotions.

I am glad to hear this and what you state is true it seems - but how do we explain it or elaborate on it - it being the emotional impetus. I do not believe we understand that impetus the way we would like to because it never matches our rational states or the states we would prefer to be in and these states are numerous.

It is funny how we keep thinking of an ideal state when if we were to be honest there are many states that we would choose from.

I am not sure whether it is the emotions that are pooling or it is the mood that pools - emotions are more like a stone being thrown into that pool that ripple the pools surface and sink to the bottom of that pool that we call mood. The combined set of emotions are perhaps the mood at any given moment and I think that more goes into the mood than just emotions alone. If you were to reword what you have to account for mood then I totally agree with what you are saying.

You are making perfect sense by the way - I figured it would be a woman who would make sense of this and so far so good.

Emotion is one of the hardest things for a man to put into words - I think it has to do with culture more than anything though. I feel the man is also capable of expressing what emotion is just that he is tainted through some bullshit cultural components that we could all do without.

Am I making sense here…at all?

I will begin with your question - yes, Wendy, you are making sense.

Unless I am not comprehending your deeper meaning here, it would appear to me that you are agreeing with me that emotions affect thought just as much as thoughts affect emotion…well, perhaps not just as much. That might depend on the individual. That would be my human experience. Emotions do have a way of fogging up our so-called lenses of perception.

I kind of look at the dynamic between thought and emotion as a teeter totter. When all is well and still, the teeter totter is in balance, equilibrium has been achieved. Otherwise, one rules the other - depending on your perspective. Higher or lower could be both more negative or more positive - if that made sense.

I think that there is a guide here. It is somewhere below the conscious level where that little Buddha (I will call it) sits by the river in stillness until it sees and hears the river’s agitation and churning.
It is capable of making itself known through intuition or in this case through sensing and observing things which we are not quite aware of or deeply aware of in our conscious level. I think that it comes to people who are more aware and pay closer attention on that level. It is capable of whispering to us “Be Still”. It stands between thought and emotion, soothingly whispering “Shhhhhhh”.

Perhaps if we can often imagine and place ourselves as the little Buddhas deep within who are sitting by that river unaffected or unprovoked by that which lies above or around, we can even without commanding it to, affect the river’s movement back to stillness.

Listen to the Buddha’s Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I wonder just how much that answered the question - what is an emotion? lol

Arcturus Descending

It is always fun talking to you - I will make the usual suggestion that you take what I have to say lightly and mess around with it a bit.

We are indeed speaking of emotions here - we are trying to get to the bottom of what they are - I am saying that the emotions are external to the mind and not necessarily to brain - for me there is a huge difference. I was asking you whether emotions affect what is within. What is within you may ask? The mind.

I am assuming you mean emotions are within the mind so lets go with that, at least for now. It is like there are two personalities the way you describe it - interesting, a rational personality and an emotional personality - I can imagine the conflict going on under these circumstances.

I don’t believe you can separate a human from his/her emotions.

I don’t know what to say :laughing:

I can easily work with the way you view emotions - I only need to remember that it is you that I am talking to and how could I forget that :wink:

Hmm . . . everything is connected somehow . . . we can not separate ourselves from that which surrounds us. What would be interesting for me, would be if somebody could prove(absolutely that is) that these objects(I assume you look at them that way) do not carry emotions.

What I can say with a fair amount of certainty is that there are things that work well and things that do not work so well and it took us(humans that is) a long time to work out what does work well and that the mind explosion has slowed quite considerably in recent times and now we are left dealing with mistakes that go back a couple of centuries or more - which leads me to the question . . . do we really know how to do things super well?

You might be interested in the following on neural correlates:

This might help you understand my standpoint a little clearer.

:smiley:

An emotion is a specific neurological response to a given situation. That situation could be an internal mental state or an external physical state
Emotions are very important because they cannot be switched off. And this is why I think negative ones should be contained as much as possible
A neutral emotional state however is preferable to a positive one as it is easier to maintain and is probably more beneficial from a psychological
perspective. For the mind like the body needs to be healthy in order to function and emotional neutrality would seem to be the most ideal state
I have found that containing both negative and positive emotions so allowing neither to dominate is the optimum state for my own mind to be in

There is a valid distinction between an instinctive response and an emotional response. The instinctive responses are more fundamental and initiate the more complex emotive responses. Emotions are more within the “mental realm”/“software” than the more physiological instincts, “hardware and firmware”. It is merely a categorical issue.

Where does motivation fit into all of this? Is it an instinctive drive or an emotional drive or both? Surely motivation is a categorical issue too. I mean we cant get too chaotic when defining categories and you yourself have been minimal in your description and yet it makes sense to me. The problem I see is that some of these “things” fit into multiple categories.

I think motivation is a mental process which has to exist to make any goals achievable which is a physical process
So therefore without sufficient motivation no goals can be achieved and so one is definitely a driver of the other

Much like PtA vs Affect, Potential Energy vs Energy, and Hope vs Joy, Motivation refers to a situation that brings about emotion and/or action. The motivation is not the emotion itself.

And always keep in mind that throughout the language, commonly used categories for things are often not well defined. Then because of that and the lack of detailed education, concept category boundaries can drift from generation to generation. So when looking to get things extremely well organized, one might have to examine very closely or perhaps even declare more exact concept distinctions than what is commonly used. Ontology is a choice.

James

I find your answers to be most rational and have only found one thing that I would change to fit my perspective and that could be classed as a categorical concern. I separate the mind from the brain for study and I do this on purpose. This of course would lead to me needing to provide a definition of mind as I see it - which at this point I see as unnecessary to achieve a fulfilling conversation with you.

I like you do believe that instinctive response and emotional response are two different things. I would however say that emotions affect the mental realm(that being of the mind) and are logically placed in the brain as an input and output system. I agree that it could merely be a categorical issue.

Moving along and to quote myself:

To which you responded with:

Unlike PtA, Motivation is not bound to the conceptual realm as it pertains to common knowledge, yet still I can see what you mean and perhaps it is a better way to present it(the way you have). You present a great example of poorly defined categories. I will lastly add that motivation must have correlates in the physical realm.

In essence I am agreeing with you.

encode_decode,

Getting to the bottom? Does that mean to you completely understanding them?

I could probably say that the emotions are internal to the brain - it is the brain which manufacturers them.

External to the mind? I may be wrong here but I think that that is just a matter of perspective - how people will view things.

The mind to me proceeds from the brain - one is material and the other is immaterial - kind of like how the scent of the rose proceeds from the rose.
It is counter-intuitive to me to say that the emotions are external to the mind.
If what you mean to say is that we can observe the play of the mind on the emotions through our behavior ~~ then yes, I can see what you mean by the emotions being external to the mind but I would not say it like that.

Then again, perhaps there does not actually have to be that separation of brain and mind.

Yes, the mind is within. But our emotions also affect our body functions and organs.
The way i look at it, they are all inter-dependent on one another ~~ brain, mind organs, bodily functions and affect each other.
Yes, emotions affect what is within even our deepest repressed memories and human experiences which we have not yet come to terms with. The patterns which have become etched and embedded within our minds and continue to are not that easily erased.

Never assume, encode_decode. :evilfun:
If one really wants to think out of the box, one may say that the emotions are actually flowing like a river throughout more than just the mind so I am going with more than just the mind - as i said previously.

No, I personally wouldn’t use the word personalities here. There is one mind with perhaps thoughts and emotions being in conflict. There is a rational part of us and an emotional part to us and it just depends on what part of the brain we call forth to control the other.

You have just said it! I still stand by the idea that the emotions are within and what we see are the results of them in our behavior. Just as we see the results of what is within or beneath the river by its movements. I think that the problem lies with language.

Oh, I might just disagree with you here. Better to forget who you are having this discussion with and remain as impartial as you can.

True. At the same time, time and observation does prove us wrong.

For instance? Give me an example or two of those mistakes?

Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, for some and no for others, is my response to you.
Humans are not perfect and we do not have all of the answers but at some time into the future more answers and more reality comes to us.
So, based on what we had to work with in the past, I could say yes in a sense we know how to do things super well, based on what we knew then.
It all just depends on whether we view our glass as being half full or half empty.
We are not perfect creatures but at times we strive for perfection.

You might be interested in the following on neural correlates:

If you try to put this in lay-persons’ terms, I might be able to respond to it.
Have you forgotten how important language is, encode_decode?
I have enough intellectual humility to admit that this might more or less be like Greek to me.

But I fully appreciate your attempt to shine your light on something by dimming those lights. :evilfun:

Hi encode (Aaron),

I’m on your side here, not James’. I too believe emotions can’t just be sensations of physiological change in the body. Otherwise if you numb the body with an anesthetic, you would cease to feel emotions (does this happen?).

I’m also curious as to why you separate shock into a different category–you mean shock as in surprise or alarm?

I would define emotion as a certain kind of perception of reality characterized by the apprehension of value–the value of a situation, a person, an event, etc. And by value I mean an assessment of good or bad.

Why should an emotion not be a kind of an affect?

Emotions are very complex. But if they were not based upon physiological things and changes, thus at last upon physical things and changes, then we would not know anything about their natural/materialistic origin and perhaps believe in magic again.


To me, a basic polarity of emotion(s) is the thymos-eros-polarity. It is not mentioned in the figure above, but likely could be found in the “rage” realm (see in the figure above) and “love” between two realms (see in the figure above). So, to me, thymos and eros could be two of more or just the two emotionally basic constitutions.

Just guessing, I suspect that Aaron is more interested in the actual cause and construct of emotion within a system (either human or AI system). That is a topic rarely touched and a bit sensitive.

My 2cents from back in the 1980’s:
Despite the films depicting an “emotion chip” that makes the android suddenly feel love, anger, depression, and whatever, emotions do not come about due to programming them.

Emotion within complex systems is the result of overtaxing the system decision making resources.

In a complex intelligence system, multitasking is the norm. Multitasking requires prioritizing efforts and resources. And choosing the best balance, regardless of the intelligence involved, is always a guess, a probability calculation.

In ye-ole standard CPU, tasks are controlled by priority interrupt signals. Applications are not allowed to argue over which tasks get more CPU time. But if they were allowed to enter the realm of “I calculate that my task is more relevant than yours”, emotions would “naturally” emerge.

Emotions are the result of a type of competition between subtask priorities.

The operation of a complex mind is very similar to the operation of the US Congress (even with all of its flaws). What is called “emotion” in a mind is what is called a “activism” in politics. As representatives of varied activist groups debate which version of which bill shall be passed to the Senate, they are choosing which “motion” shall emerge. When they pass the final House of Representatives version of a bill, they are urging the Senate to take an action. They are “emoting” the mind of government.

Across the world, the USA is known for being schizoid because different political factions gain control (different motivations and system-emotions) and alter the attitudes that the USA uses when dealing in foreign affairs.

The intelligence issue is simply that each subtask concern has limited and task specific information to use when vying for priority attention. In Congress, those in favor of one way of doing things have a different set of information than others who prefer a different way of doing things. It is not merely an issue of being bias or “self-valuing”.

It is an issue of being intellectually limited and yet still responsible for competitively getting the task done.

And that is why the more intelligent and knowledgeable concerning how the world works people are, the less prone to emotion they are. When people can see why things must work this way or that, they lose the urge (the emotion) to attempt futile effort and are left with internal agreement as to the only sensible course of action. They become more rational. But the trick is that the inner mind must see how things work, not merely the conscious (the activist groups and representatives, not merely the Senate).

When the entire mind agrees on an action, emotion is not felt, but rather merely put into action (the bill becomes law without contest). Only if inquired, the conscious mind, through reflection, later deduces why it is doing what it is doing. For emotion to be felt, it must be opposed in some manner, perhaps merely by contest with the persons physical situation. The truly “holy man” feels no emotion, fore there is no competition within him, merely a continuum of resolved choices.

Fractured minds (the normal), usually due to medical/physiological corruption of the brain, are more susceptible to emotional swings and sways. Which emotion set is most active depends upon which faction of the mind has gained priority. Often this is seen as a personality shift, “bi-polar”, “schizoid”, or even “schizophrenia”, depending on more detailed nuances. As discussed in another thread, such shifting is caused by the corruption and limitation of memory vector associations and established pathways.

AI systems are subject to all of these same concerns.

Animals developed the condition of being emotional because their inherent task of dealing with nature in an effort to survive required more than their brains could handle. Stress in people leading to emotional swings is an obvious example of this effect. Simplicity in life reduces the symptom. If you want to see emotion from an AI, simply give it an extremely complex, changing, and challenging task, such as “survive at all cost” along with an ability to compete within for subtask priority, a structure similar to the US Congress. And then stand back … far back. And don’t do it again.

How could it not be?

All of that complexity and yet all stemming from merely PHT, the Perception of Hope and Threat - applied with limited vision and relating to a great many concerns, all at once. What to do, what to do. And life strives on.

The concept of the “perception of hope and threat” is similar to my concept of the “ellipse with thymos and love as its two focal points”.

Don’t anyone respond to this but emotion feels like-it coming.from the heart. I know that’s based on old adage but maybe it displaces other neural systems or at least emphasing. cortical circuits by a bypass of automatic nervous channels.

From myocardial ischarpemia and the cardiac nervous system -cardiovascular research volume 41 issue 1.1 January 1999 pages 41-54

"Research indicates data collected over the past two decades indicate that processing occurs within different neurons local circuitry - interconnecting neurons- as well as both sympathetic and parasympathetic neuron channels. (In the heart)

An empirical report claims that upon heart transplant young children reported feelings not experienced by them prior to surgery.

In addition certain practices using the places located on the cerebral-spinal continuum place the focal emphasis on the heart.

As a result the idea that the heart is the very seat of the soul cannot be discounted and therefore the feeling that emotions have their seat in the heart cannot as well be ignored.

Yes. I had thought of mentioning that. :sunglasses:

It is also analogous to the increasing and decreasing of PtA being at the root of all physical existence.

It seems that all of reality stands on 3 legs:

  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

Threat/Fear/Negative scatters
Hope/Love/Positive gathers
Everything else stands around and watches.
8-[

And “from the heart” means high priority or important.

I think this is right, and this shows how emotions follow from other emotions & how emotions follow directly from chemical stimuli.
The Daoist 5 pointed star medicine school agrees.

Thoughts are embedded on emotions.
Our emotions determine the kind of thoughts that we can physically sustain.

This is a taboo subject.