The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: MobileDigit on April 03, 2007, 12:36:56 PM
-
I want to know your opinion.
-
I could see clinical depression as being sometimes irrational. You know, when you're sad and anxious all the time, even when there's no explainable reason for it. But generally, if you have a reason to be sad it's a rational behavior and/or feeling.
-
if you have a reason to be sad it's a rational behavior and/or feeling.
How does being sad help?
-
if you have a reason to be sad it's a rational behavior and/or feeling.
How does being sad help?
It's a natural reaction. Are you telling me that when I came home and found out my father was dead, that my sadness was wrong?
-
It creates empathy with others and gains support and charity to aid in solving said problem.
Why can't one communicate to achieve this?
Are you telling me that when I came home and found out my father was dead, that my sadness was wrong?
In that is does not accomplish anything.
-
As that would be sympathy
Exactly how are you distinguishing them?
emotional bonds are more powerful than mental bonds.
What makes you believe that?
Humans are emotional creatures after all.
Oh, I thought we were rational creatures.
-
Sympathy is a general understanding, empathy is deep personal attachment.
Why are you defining these terms this way?
what's the more effective motivator; Fear or the rational decision that it would be beneficial not to die.
I think it depends. Initially it might be fear, but if one realizes that the fear is irrational, it would not be a more effective motivator.
Oh, I thought we were rational creatures.
Not naturally
Then how does it come about initially?
have you ever seen a child act rationally?
If using reason to solve goals is acting rationally, then yes, I think they do so on their own.
We are taught rationality, we survive by instinct.
I don't think I could disagree more.
-
Since sadness is an emotion, isn't it, by definition, irrational? Or, are they wholly separate?
-
Since sadness is an emotion, isn't it, by definition, irrational?
You're right, but my question is what the benefit of sadness is.
-
It can be rational, or irrational, depending on the circumstances. If a loved one dies, it's reasonable to be saddened by the event. But, I read today about a couple that committed suicide due to depression because their dog died.
Over-emotion, or inappropriate emotion can be due to a brain chemical imbalance.
-
If a loved one dies, it's reasonable to be saddened by the event.
What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
-
Curiosity is any natural inquisitive behaviour, evident by observation in many animal species, and is the emotional aspect of living beings that engenders exploration, investigation, and learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity
I win, you lose. Your irrational interest in other peoples actions (creating these polls) shows you to be inquisitive, and thus proves emotional motivation.
-
Curiosity is any natural inquisitive behaviour, evident by observation in many animal species, and is the emotional aspect of living beings that engenders exploration, investigation, and learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity
I win, you lose. Your irrational interest in other peoples actions (creating these polls) shows you to be inquisitive, and thus proves emotional motivation.
pwn3d.
What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
Making you ask stupid fucking questions.
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
Obviously those of us with emotions are inferior. :roll: You make an excellent point, by the way.
-
Obviously those of us with emotions are inferior.
I'm happy to be emotionally inferior.
-
Me too. I feel good when I'm happy, and I feel good when the people I love are happy. So I don't really care if that makes me irrational or not. Who said irrationality was a bad thing?
-
I found a picture of MobileDigit floating around the internet:
(http://www.ravenna.com/~forbes/images/spock.jpg)
-
Hahahahaha. DO NOT WANT. :lol:
-
If a loved one dies, it's reasonable to be saddened by the event.
What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
Question: When you touch a hot stove and burn yourself, what does the pain it causes you accomplish? Your hand is still burned.
Answer: It's the lesson that it teaches us about the danger of hot stoves. It also protects us from damaging ourselves any further, by punishing us for doing that with pain.
Question: What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
Answer: It's the lesson that it teaches us about the virtue of protecting the people and things that we love and value. It also protects us from hurting the people and things that we love and value any further, by punishing us with grief and sadness when we attempt to do that.
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
My theory is that MobileDigit is finding that in order to fully embrace the notions of freedom he is encountering areas where he needs to actively suppress emotion. I've seen him say a couple times in threads that "emotional arguments won't work on me". I think he is trying to justify that it is OK to dismiss emotion as irrational and unproductive. He is on the journey.
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
He didn't need to make a new thread to prove that. :P
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
That kind of misses the point of MobileDigit
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
He didn't need to make a new thread to prove that. :P
Asking seemingly naive questions can serve the valuable purpose of causing us to reexamine the premises behind the beliefs that we take for granted, which can give us fresh insights about the world, or a more solid foundation for our already existing perspectives. Only a fool believes that there is such a thing as a foolish question. Sometimes the simplest questions are the most difficult to answer.
-
Your irrational interest in other peoples actions (creating these polls) shows you to be inquisitive, and thus proves emotional motivation.
It's not an irrational interest because the best way to fake something is to understand what a non-faker would do.
What's the point of this thread?
To stop people from being sad.
Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
Because people act because of them.
Question: What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
Answer: It's the lesson that it teaches us about the virtue of protecting the people and things that we love and value. It also protects us from hurting the people and things that we love and value any further, by punishing us with grief and sadness when we attempt to do that.
I don't think people should love others in and of themselves, I think others should be thought of as a means to an end.
In that case, there is no reason for grief, because you already want to maximize the end.
My theory is that MobileDigit is finding that in order to fully embrace the notions of freedom he is encountering areas where he needs to actively suppress emotion.
I don't suppress emotion, I logically determine it's validity.
I've seen him say a couple times in threads that "emotional arguments won't work on me".
I'm not making it up.
I think he is trying to justify that it is OK to dismiss emotion as irrational and unproductive.
I'm trying to understand why people believe otherwise.
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
Please define your term.
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
That kind of misses the point of MobileDigit
What does this mean?
Asking seemingly naive questions can serve the valuable purpose of causing us to reexamine the premises behind the beliefs that we take for granted, which can give us fresh insights about the world, or a more solid foundation for our already existing perspectives. Only a fool believes that there is such a thing as a foolish question. Sometimes the simplest questions are the most difficult to answer.
+1.
-
What's the point of this thread? Why does it matter if emotions are rational or not?
To prove that MobileDigit is a jackass?
That kind of misses the point of MobileDigit
What does this mean?
I dunno
-
Quote from: cliche on Today at 05:55:53 AM
I think he is trying to justify that it is OK to dismiss emotion as irrational and unproductive.
I'm trying to understand why people believe otherwise.
You're like the idiot who wants to legalize drunk driving because he thinks the drivers have control over their actions. You've never had an emotion you can't control? Why be happy either? It doesn't get you anything. You training to be a hitman or something?
-
If a loved one dies, it's reasonable to be saddened by the event.
What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
It's reasonable that people are helped, hindered, or otherwise effected by their emotions, as human beings are emotional creatures capable of reason. I think I agree with what I presume the point of the previous poster who asked if emotions are irrational behavior by definition. I guess it depends on what you're talking about specifically.
To answer your question, imho, what sadness might accomplish wouldn't be for the dead. I don't want to step on anyone's spiritual toes here, but these feelings are a natural response to a loss. The sadness, or any other emotion, is for the person feeling it. Perhaps it's so that we remember a defining, meaningful, influence in our life.
I read somewhere that women take in 7 times the emotional data that men do. If it's true, it makes sense to me because someone has to deal with a being that hasn't been taught anything, and empathy seems an efficient means to an end. We're capable of reason, but it's our cultural bank of knowledge that allows us to be as reasonable as we are. There's a good distance between 1 + 1 = 2, and spoken, and written language. In the time being, we only have our instincts, and our caregiver/s, to help us survive long enough to reason our way through some things, and we're capable enough to take care of ourselves. Perceivable emotional state would be a good asset for an infant. Though it's communication that doesn't require reason by the individual feeling it, it seems a reasonable evolutionary strength. An infant may cry the moment it feels hungry, or an object it was focused on falls out of sight. We, hopefully, don't cry when we feel hungry, because we know how to solve it ourselves. We also don't cry, again hopefully, when we lose our keys, but when we lose something that nothing else could prepare us for, like a parent, or sibling, or child, we're not quite as capable of staying rational. Perhaps it's just familiarity.. Maybe if one had a dozen kids, and lost ten of them, the tenth one lost wouldn't result in as much sadness.
We're social creatures. Even as adults, there are times when we rely on others. I imagine there is benefit there also for a perceivable sad state. We are capable of what we are capable of. Once we hit that stress threshhold, perhaps instead of failing, we invoke sympathy for assistance.
More specifically then "sadness", there are obvious benefits for fear, or regret, or shame, to a point. These emotions can keep you alive. They can severely limit you, too. With our reason, we can overcome any need for those feelings.
I'd like to pose a couple questions.. Would you think emotionless reason would be an advancement in evolution for human beings specifically? Wouldn't something like cancer, or intelligence on a computer, be the most reasonable, and efficient, form of life? If so, what would the point of that sort of life be? How much ambition would we have without emotion, and again, how valueable would that sort of life be?
Please excuse the rambling.. I started out thinking I was going to respond with about three sentences. :D
-
Question: What does being sad accomplish? The person is still dead.
Answer: It's the lesson that it teaches us about the virtue of protecting the people and things that we love and value. It also protects us from hurting the people and things that we love and value any further, by punishing us with grief and sadness when we attempt to do that.
I don't think people should love others in and of themselves, I think others should be thought of as a means to an end.
In that case, there is no reason for grief, because you already want to maximize the end.
I guess you didn't notice the analogy I made showing that the purpose of pain is analogous to the purpose of sadness.
My theory is that MobileDigit is finding that in order to fully embrace the notions of freedom he is encountering areas where he needs to actively suppress emotion.
I don't suppress emotion, I logically determine it's validity.
Emotions are based upon your beliefs and values. They automatically reflect your unconscious evaluation of a situation in light of these beliefs and values. The only thing that you can validate are your beliefs and values, not your emotions. When you change your mind, your emotional reactions to things will change to reflect that.
-
You're like the idiot who wants to legalize drunk driving because he thinks the drivers have control over their actions.
How?
You've never had an emotion you can't control?
Not that I can remember.
Why be happy either? It doesn't get you anything.
It is more productive than sadness.
It's reasonable that people are helped, hindered, or otherwise effected by their emotions, as human beings are emotional creatures capable of reason.
If humans were bang-hammers-on-one's-own-fingers' creatures, would you support the action?
I don't think you can legitimately use the argument that because it was helpful in the past it still is.
I think I agree with what I presume the point of the previous poster who asked if emotions are irrational behavior by definition. I guess it depends on what you're talking about specifically.
I am using the term irrational to mean an action that serves no purpose.
I don't want to step on anyone's spiritual toes here, but these feelings are a natural response to a loss.
The natural response does not make any sense.
Perhaps it's so that we remember a defining, meaningful, influence in our life.
Why not use reason to do this?
someone has to deal with a being that hasn't been taught anything, and empathy seems an efficient means to an end.
I don't think it is better than rationality.
Would you think emotionless reason would be an advancement in evolution for human beings specifically?
Yes.
Wouldn't something like cancer, or intelligence on a computer, be the most reasonable, and efficient, form of life?
No, because I'm not cancer or an intelligence on a computer. :P
How much ambition would we have without emotion, and again, how valueable would that sort of life be?
Why does one need emotion for ambition?
I guess you didn't notice the analogy I made showing that the purpose of pain is analogous to the purpose of sadness.
I guess you didn't notice my response:
I don't think people should love others in and of themselves, I think others should be thought of as a means to an end.
In that case, there is no reason for grief, because you already want to maximize the end.
Emotions are based upon your beliefs and values. They automatically reflect your unconscious evaluation of a situation in light of these beliefs and values. The only thing that you can validate are your beliefs and values, not your emotions. When you change your mind, your emotional reactions to things will change to reflect that.
Great, then I only need to stop people from emotionally caring about others.
-
No, because I'm not cancer or an intelligence on a computer. :P
He...he used an emoticon! He might be human after all!!
-
No, because I'm not cancer or an intelligence on a computer. :P
He...he used an emoticon! He might be human after all!!
ZOMFG!
(http://www.orlyowl.com/loldead.jpg)
-
I guess you didn't notice the analogy I made showing that the purpose of pain is analogous to the purpose of sadness.
I guess you didn't notice my response:
I don't think people should love others in and of themselves, I think others should be thought of as a means to an end.
In that case, there is no reason for grief, because you already want to maximize the end.
Emotions are based upon your beliefs and values. They automatically reflect your unconscious evaluation of a situation in light of these beliefs and values. The only thing that you can validate are your beliefs and values, not your emotions. When you change your mind, your emotional reactions to things will change to reflect that.
Great, then I only need to stop people from emotionally caring about others.
Feelings, including pleasure/pain and emotion, have a biological purpose, in that they are the rewards or punishments for the actions that promote or hinder our personal survival as well as the survival of our species, i.e., the purpose of feelings is the promotion of life.
From the perspective of the individual organism, the purpose of life is the experience of feelings, even the negative ones, for the relief, contrast and richness of complexity that they bring to the experience of the positive ones. From our subjective view point, the value of sadness and grief are the intensification of our appreciation of happiness and joy. In summary, the whole spectrum of feelings are our ultimate reward and purpose for living.
I've already explained to you the biological value of feelings that linger after the event or action has occurred. Since my explanations centered around sadness, grief and pain, I only want to add to that my line of reasoning applies equally to the purpose of post event positive feelings as the post event negative ones.
-
MobileDigit, you can't change the meaning of words to further your cause. Jesus Christ.
-
Emotions reflect the fact that we humans are able to react to situations through non-traditional means. Rational by definition means anything that happens in the mind, so yes emotions are rational, but sometimes pointless. Being sad that you're going to die is normal, or being mad that someone wronged you and you wish to have justice. Emotion is the 'tone' of the mental 'conversation' you are having, it's the total sum of your mental states, sometimes ones we're not fully willing to accept. That's its power, but never mistake it for a sixth sense or a license to be intellectually lazy.
-- Brede
-
Input = Senses.
Processor = Rational Thought.
Output = Emotions.
How we process what we experience results in how we feel about things.
Example:
Person X believes in God (Input is religious teachings.)
Person X believes that God created man, imbuing him with a soul.
Person X concludes that God imbues soul into embryo at moment of conception, and is therefore a living, rational being with feelings.
Person X concludes that destroying a fetus is functionally identical to murder.
Person X has a visceral negative emotional response to the concept of abortion. (Output)
Now, whether or not person X was right or wrong here is not the issue, nor is abortion. It's just the way emotions are derived from reason, even incorrect or evasive reason.
If you have a strong feeling about something, you have either thought about it and made conclusions, or you have chosen not to think about it and have a vague feeling of fear or unease.
Brains are pretty simple. (Kidding)
-
MobileDigit, you can't change the meaning of words to further your cause. Jesus Christ.
I LOL'd. Twice.
-
This question is all backwards.
Everything you do is based on your emotions. They are what you make your rational decisions based on. They are a premise, not a subject.
Will eating shit make me plus or minus (happy or sad; healthy or sick; etc)
eating shit is the subject.
the outcome (happiness or sadness) is the premise for making a decision.
Without a premise you can not be rational, you can only be factual.
factual: eating shit makes you sick
rational : it is bad to eat shit because it makes you sick and you do not want to be sick. Being sick would make you sad.
-
Sometimes emotions are the first step in creating functional and rational change for the better.
-
This question is all backwards.
Everything you do is based on your emotions. They are what you make your rational decisions based on. They are a premise, not a subject.
Will eating shit make me plus or minus (happy or sad; healthy or sick; etc)
eating shit is the subject.
the outcome (happiness or sadness) is the premise for making a decision.
Without a premise you can not be rational, you can only be factual.
factual: eating shit makes you sick
rational : it is bad to eat shit because it makes you sick and you do not want to be sick. Being sick would make you sad.
But being sad gets you nowhere. Eat the shit. You're irrational if you don't. :lol:
-
Everything you do is based on your emotions.
And everything you feel is based on what you know and think. You're the one who has it backwards. Actually, you just haven't followed the chain of reason to the source.
-
I think of them as simultaneous. I don't know, it's all relative. Fuck it, let's go bowling.
-
Everything you do is based on your emotions.
And everything you feel is based on what you know and think. You're the one who has it backwards. Actually, you just haven't followed the chain of reason to the source.
Sorry, emotions come before cognition. A baby cries for mommy (emotion) before it has rational knowledge of mommy.
-
But why does the baby cry? It's a response to perceptual events, thus some rational processing is going on, just not the kind we're use to defining as rational.
Perhaps then the term rational being equivocated with cognitive functioning is the problem. Consider the fact that your brain is 'thinking' everytime you flip a TV channel or walk, it's parsing all those perceptual events generated by your senses (with the help of the nervous system). It's basically 'thinking' automatically, but this type of thinking doesn't come with concepts, it comes with percepts (the integrated/composed form of perceptual events). Each percept triggers a different response depending on a number of factors: memory, genetic 'instinct', and natural response (evolutionary adaptations). So these responses could be complex, but not always so, in the case of the baby, it's simply crying. This response requires very few steps as the nervous systems and motor nerves are able to accuate each muscle required for the response, it simply 'issues' the 'command' to cry.
-- Brede
-
But why does the baby cry? It's a response to perceptual events, thus some rational processing is going on, just not the kind we're use to defining as rational.
Are gay people rationally proccessing something that gives them emotions for others of the same sex?
-
I don't understand people who aspire to become Vulcans. Lighten up.
-
Lighten up.
I'm advocating personal abolition of sadness, how is this not lightening up?
-
Lighten up.
I'm advocating personal abolition of sadness, how is this not lightening up?
It's an emotion. You're supposed to have emotions. Just go with the flow.
-
I wonder what would happen if MobileDigit's mom died in a fire like Vince McMahon. Except not fake. He'd be like "oh well, she was just my mom. I didn't love her anyway, because that would be irrational."
-
I wonder what would happen if MobileDigit's mom died in a fire like Vince McMahon. Except not fake. He'd be like "oh well, she was just my mom. I didn't love her anyway, because that would be irrational."
Actually I think he'd be all; "oh shit, who's gonna support me now!"
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Does this mean I have to move out of the basement :("
-
Fuck it, let's go bowling.
My thoughts exactly...
Emotions are what they are. Yes, you can control how you relate to them and how you react, but the emotion of sadness will still exist even if you choose not to react to it.
-
Fuck it, let's go bowling.
My thoughts exactly...
Emotions are what they are. Yes, you can control how you relate to them and how you react, but the emotion of sadness will still exist even if you choose not to react to it.
How fucking irrational.
-
Just take twelve prozac and then go on a shooting spree and ask yourself if feeling sad is any way important.
Better yet, get a copy of the movie "Equilibrium". Watch and learn.
That's all I have to say.