What are emotions? What is an ‘emotion’?

[amicus]

What are emotions? What is an ‘emotion’?

From another thread that has nearly 200 posts, an initial assertion was made that ethics and morals are derived from axiomatic truths that exist in nature and serve as a foundation for an Universal code by which all men at all times can judge their actions,

The disagreement was in itself, universal, as everyone insisted that ethics and morality were individual choices based on individual emotions and were always subjective; or at best, social imposition of accepted standards.

If all morality is based on emotion(s) my question is, what are emotions? Where do they come from? What do they mean? How do emotions help us determine right and wrong, moral decisions? What does it mean to ‘feel’ that something is either right or wrong?






Cantdog: “…Kittyn gives us another testimony that ‘reason’, while necessary to its elaboration and use, ‘is not at the origin of ethics.’ That's been my experience, too…” Post #188

Dr. Mab, quoted in post #193: “…. a complete moral system based on logic and objective, deductive reasoning ‘(is impossible’ because) it is a case of scientific thinking not working in helping us make the moral decisions we all have to make. It's a misapplication, like trying to do science using theological reasoning…”

Selenakittyn Post #187 “…But there IS a place for logic within a moral system based in emotionality (and I would agree that ‘morals really aren't based in anything else’ at their core)...”

Dr. Mab again from #186 “…You misunderstand me. I'm not saying ‘emotion’ is all there is to morality. ‘I'm saying only that it's the source of morality’, and all springs from that. Once we feel something is wrong or right, we rationalize and explain our emotions and try to come up with a logical and rational system, but the task is often hopeless, or at least endless, because our emotions aren't rational….”

From the same post above: “…But I am saying you can forget the idea of erecting a complete moral system based on logic and objective, deductive reasoning…”

Dr. Mab again, Post #148 “…My point was that your logical system will simply not get you very far. It's simplistic to the point of uselessness….”

From Post #107 “…Quote:
Originally Posted by cantdog
. . . ethics are not rational in origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_mabeuse
. . . morality (is) an emotion we feel inside . . .


By SummerMorning Post #102 “…Ethics isn't a distant tablet in stone. Ethics isn't a Holy Judge of the Dead to fear. Ethics are used every day…”

From the same post: “…You have to have reason, ‘and you always need ‘ethics’, which are not rational in origin’. You proceed by using them together in the whole context of your life….”

(Put much better than I ever could!)

Ah…the above was posted by Cantdog, quoted by SummerMorning

From Post #78 by SeverusMax “…You're correct that some primate social organization existed. However, HUMAN society, in a conscious sense, is relatively new. Customs, laws, mores, etc. ‘The most basic ethics are derived from instincts’, not the arbitrary rules of society. Nature precedes society and is divine….”

SummerMorning Post #74 “…You've explained your project - the search for "general rules to help make things better" (paraphrasing most brutally). I would describe my project as - a probably quixotic attempt to get people to realise that ‘there may very well be no general rules applicable in all case and at all times…’ and that rather than pursuing RULES people should pursue a (self)critical and intelligent point of view that allows them to make reasonable and RESPONSIBLE choices in matters….”


ElSol Post #64 a partial definition quote from Wikipedia: “…In philosophy, ‘moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths’ but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth….”

From the same: “…In the end, the only absolute for me is....

"Will you stand up when your moral code becomes inconvenient or painful to live by?"

It's interesting to me how so many people believe moral relativism is a moral code when it's actually a philosophical stance about morality.

Sincerely,
ElSol…”

SummerMorning Post #63 “…’There is *no* natural way of enjoying life.’ Because you can only enjoy something through your cultural apparatus, particularly through your pleasure matrix (cf. psy. anthr.)….” (There is much more to Post #63, worth reading again)

Dr. Mab Post #61 “…I'm not sure what your point is though. If you're saying that we're more than our social conditioning, then you've certainly got my vote. If you're saying that you can go from those ‘two axioms’ into deriving morality that covers things like marital fidelity or child-rearing practices, I've got to wonder about that….”
(Of course Mab, that is the point)

Dr. Mab again, Post #57 “…’The roots of morality are emotional,’ and so it's possible to entirely moral without having an explicit "system of morality" at all, just guided by your own feelings….”’

KR Post #55 “…For example, self-interested behavior can be accepted and applauded if it leads to the betterment of society as a whole; the ultimate test rests not on acting in one's own self-interest, ‘but rather on whether society is improved as a result….”’ (This post is interesting, much larger than the excerpt and worthy of a read) (Rational self interest, by the nature of the concept, will benefit society as a whole without regards to the society)

Dr, Mab Post #53 “…No, I think of the Golden Rule as moral relativism because it admits that there may be more than one version of right and wrong and it's designed to let us operate in a world ‘where there are no absolutes.’ It refers the question of morality back to the individual's moral sense rather than to some ‘objective standard’ and assumes that what might be right for me might not be right for you. We can both be right and moral at the same time….” (this was taken out of context but the meaning is consistent with all of Dr. Mab’s posts)

Roxanne Appleby Post # 40 “…Absolutely, which is why I worded that carefully: "Africa was never glaciated."… (Actually, according to the ‘snowball earth’ theory, the entire globe, including Africa was under ice for many millions of years, this of course before humans appeared.)

SummerMorning Post #9 “…’Nature is a social concept.’ Seriously, try to envisage "nature" without recourse to everything you have received from your society. It's impossible. Not only are the words you think "nature" with a social phenomenon, the very colours you see nature in are "social" in that different societies "know" different colours….” (Just a reminder that ‘color’ is a part of the visible light spectrum which falls upon the human eye exactly the same one every healthy eye sees. The ‘words’ we use to describe the phenomenon are verbal symbols identifying an ‘existing’ aspect of reality. So that ‘Nature’ is not a social concept, it exists independent of single or group thought.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, in summation, most of the above seem to agree that reason and logic are not fundamental in identifying moral behaviour. They posit morality as, ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, and in one case, ‘instinct’.

I maintain that there is a ‘science of Ethics’, that it is a formal branch of formal philosophy and studied as a science would be.

Amicus…

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Emotions....

Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain to various stimuli....

 

[Guest]

What are emotions? What is an ‘emotion’?

Amicus…

Dear ami.

Certainly you know all about lust?

 

[amicus]

Lust? ah yes, I remember that(I think)

 

[amicus]

I received a new game for Christmas, actually, a week before as it was an early gift. Civilization Three; now I have been playing the original Civilization for years and pretty much conquered everything there was to beat, but this new one has been kicking my skinny ass for a good week.

However, I am learning, bit by bit; seems like if you approach a city with an overwhelming force, they go tits up and disappear.

The don't fight, they don't try to negotiate, just disappear.

Pretty much the same with the left wing advocates of relativistic morality. When faced with an overwhelming argument, they take their panties and run away.

Since the regular suspects fully realize that they cannot defend a concept of morality based on emotions, as they all seemed to as I pointed out in my original post, they just packed their collective tents and stole away into the night.

Thus, I find I must self proclaim victory dust the abandoned dildos off my lawn and proceed on to greener pastures.

(please imagine a 'teehee' type chuckle as amicus ambles away, whistling a merry tune)

 

[3113]

Since the regular suspects fully realize that they cannot defend a concept of morality based on emotions, as they all seemed to as I pointed out in my original post, they just packed their collective tents and stole away into the night.

This is called "defining yourself into victory" and as someone arguing logic, you should know better than to do that. You don't know why they haven't engaged you--perhaps they can defend themselves. They just don't think it worth the time to do so. Perhaps they haven't "packed up their tents"--they're just on holiday.

Perhaps you didn't make yourself clear as to what response you wanted. What your argument really is. Emotions are, indeed, chemical stimuli. Pleasure, pain, fear, anger. They help us to survive, help us to procreate. Morality, based on such things, then becomes a way of helping the larger group survive. That's all morals really are, a way of helping groups of people live with other people.

A tribe is a group of people who share similar likes and dislikes and/or who have been forced to exist in a certain way due to their enviornment (aka, desert dwellers verses forest dwellers). They have a certain way of doing things. Tribes create morals that force others to conform (or to leave) if they can't maintain that way of doing things.

These may be based on Logic. Our desert dwellers have morality based on the value of water which you just don't waste in the desert. But our forest dwellers haven't that same value system. Their morality is more focused on trees and animals.

Tribal survival morals can be pretty logical, like the biblical admonition of "don't kill each other," (which only applied to the Hebrews there--don't kill another Hebrew!) because, logically, the tribe must survive.

Other morals, however, are purely emotion based: "it's immoral for men to have sex with each other," isn't based on any logic. The Spartans proved quite nicely that men having regular sex with each other does not keep them from also having sex with women and maintining the tribe. Hence, there is no logical reason for men not to have sex with each other.

The "morality" that says men should not have sex with each other is based on emotion. We actually know this from tests done on homophobes--show homophobics gay porno and they get aroused. Meanwhile, men who are not homophobic (and not gay) do not get aroused when they see gay porno. Hence, feelings (in this case arousal) motivate them. They're aroused, they don't like being aroused, and so they take out their anger on what arouses them, namely, homosexuals.

Hence, Homosexuality is wrong! It's immoral!

We see the same with morality against women--women must stay covered head to foot lest they "arouse" men.

In the end, I really don't see what your argument is. Human being are a mix of reason and emotion. And morals are the same. What's the argument?

 

[Liar]

What's the argument?

That's kind of what crippled me from replying to.

Ami, there is a simple rule of thumb when trying to argue a point. First, you have to make people understand the base of your argument. Then they have to understand your reasoning. And then they have to agree with you. Only then have you won anything. Here you failed the first step. You might be totally right with your point. But I have no idea what it is.

 

[amicus]

3113, welcome to the fray. A well thought out piece you posted.

Perhaps you are correct concerning my usual opponents, but we have been jousting for nearly two years now and I have learned them a little, at least a little, and when they withdraw, there is usually a reason.

I think my point was clear to them, that being that emotions are secondary, we don't come equipped with them at birth, but must learn to love and hate and fear.

Almost all who are professionals in the field agree that man is born 'tabula rasa', with a 'blank slate'.

Ayn Rand describes emotions as, "automatic responses to previously made value judgments," That is a workable definition for me.

Part of your post was very interesting to me as I am working on volume two of a novel, 'The Chief, ' which deals with tribal people some 10,000 years ago. My quest is to present a fictional form illustrating how morality, a moral system, determining right and wrong actions, is rather discovered piecemeal, becomes custom and tradition before the written word was used.

It is true that forest dwellers, seaside dwellers and grassland dwellers, would place different values on different things. However, the differences are not contradictory, the are essential characteristics of a wider quest for a rational, real and absolute value system that identifies and classifies the various, 'good' things that benefit mankind, individuals and groups alike.

The underlying assertion on this forum is and always has been, denial of any rational base for morality, denial of any 'absolute concepts' concerning human actions.

I maintain that it is essential for the mental health and well being of individuals to have a complete and easily understood method of determining good from bad, right from wrong, one that holds true in all times and circumstances.

It is not an easy task as the worlds major philosophers have been dealing with the problem for thousands of years.

You example of homosexual behavior is an interesting one, but you confuse the issue by mixing the morality of the act with punishment for immoral acts.

At the very base of a rational moral system is the axiom that humans are driven to procreate, increase their numbers. Homosexual activity does not fulfill that basic drive and thus is viewed as an useless activity, thus immoral.

As some one pointed out on another thread, the DSM, the bible of the world of Psychiatry, deemed homosexuals as aberrant a generation ago, but the new version does not follow. Many see that move as an enlightening one approving homosexual activity as an acceptable, alternative life style.

Nature provided that only the coupling of a male and female, at least in homosapiens, could produce offspring.

To disagree with something you wrote, most people are tolerant of homosexual behavior and not threatened by it at all. The threat seems to be perceived as being when homosexuals attempt to extend that lifestyle upon the young and innocent in schools and churches.

Anyway, thank you for the response, I enjoyed the read.


amicus...

 

[Guest]

3113, welcome to the fray. A well thought out piece you posted.

Perhaps you are correct concerning my usual opponents, but we have been jousting for nearly two years now and I have learned them a little, at least a little, and when they withdraw, there is usually a reason.

amicus...

Oh, ami, stop it.

Nobody wished to engage in an illogical and pointless argument with you on this thread. THAT's the reason the "usual opponents" haven't been yanking your chain.

That, and some of them are over at my house for dinner. We're currently occupied.

 

[amicus]

Yeah, sure, sweets, I am sure your keen insight is once again right on the money, enjoy your dinner and do have a Happy New Year!

amicus...

 

[Guest]

Yeah, sure, sweets, I am sure your keen insight is once again right on the money, enjoy your dinner and do have a Happy New Year!

amicus...

There's no reason to be rude.

But - Happy New Year to you and yours, ami.

 

[Liar]

Perhaps you are correct concerning my usual opponents, but we have been jousting for nearly two years now and I have learned them a little, at least a little, and when they withdraw, there is usually a reason.

I think my point was clear to them, that being that emotions are secondary, we don't come equipped with them at birth, but must learn to love and hate and fear.

No, Ami. You point wasn't clear to me. If it was I wouldn't have said it wasn't. You point is a little bit clearer now. it's late though, and I don't have time not focus for an articulate answer.

I'm a little curious about your application of tabiula rasa to your argument though. Except for Aquino and other pre-modern days thinkers who were not familiar with the concept of psychological (or any) evolution I haven't read or heard of one so far that totally dismisses inherited instincts. Many a psychologist would say that for instance fear, as an instinct, we have. It's survival. Encoded patterns of behaviour that we or any other spieces would be extinct without. But what to fear (or rather, what not to fear) we learn. So is it then the emotion, or the application of the emotion that the tabula rasa is filled with?

 

[3113]

Almost all who are professionals in the field agree that man is born 'tabula rasa', with a 'blank slate'.

I'm certainly not going to get into any 2 year argument with you. I haven't the time or energy or desire. i also don't know which professionals you're talking about. As this comment of "tabula rasa" in regards to emotions makes no sense at all.

A baby cries when he feels bad, we are pretty much all born with the ability to smile, and we scream when afraid. Those emotions are in us, we have them almost automatically. Fight or flight is in our primal brains. Other emotions we may not have, or may need to develop, but babies are not born without "feelings."

Ayn Rand describes emotions as, "automatic responses to previously made value judgments," That is a workable definition for me.

I find very little of what Rand wrote workable for me. So if your a born-again Randian, we're not going to agree.

At the very base of a rational moral system is the axiom that humans are driven to procreate, increase their numbers. Homosexual activity does not fulfill that basic drive and thus is viewed as an useless activity, thus immoral.

But as I said, RATIONALLY it makes no sense. Because IF homosexuality really impinged on procration and therefore the survival of the species, then it would be pretty much outlawed in every society, everywhere. But this is not the case at all. In many societies, homosexuality, even transexuality, has been taken as a given. Greek society encouraged it. And the Greeks were a VERY rational society.

Many see that move as an enlightening one approving homosexual activity as an acceptable, alternative life style.

I see it as a realistic and rational and LOGICAL view given scientific evidence. It happens in nature. There seems to be homosexuality in a percentage of other mammals, not just humans. Likewise, studies are proving, more and more, that sexuality is a very complex thing--that even on a celluar level, we may not be completely "male" or "female." Hence, homosexuality is very likely produced not through lifestyle at all--as many a homosexual will attest as they insist that almost no one in this bigoted society--which still murders homosexuals--would chose to be one.

It's turning out that homosexuality is a lot like being left-handed. You're born with it. And so, it can't be abberant. Especially if it keeps appearing in at least 10% of the population. It's a normal "mutation" if you will that may well serve to keep a tribal population in balance.

Hence, it's quite RATIONAL, and Dawinistically speaking, fitting.

Nature provided that only the coupling of a male and female, at least in homosapiens, could produce offspring.

And your point is? Because, as I just said, nature has also made many animals, humans included, homosexuals. So, homosexuality is natural. Sex is natural. That doesn't stop humans from IRRATIONALLY making up MORALITY laws against sex--including laws against certain sexual positions or days when a person can or cannot have sex...or arguing that the HIGHEST, most MORAL people on earth...don't have sex at all!

If procration is the rational reason for being anti-homosexual, then why does one of the most popular religions on earth hold it as the HIGHEST moral imparitive to be celibate? There's Jesus Christ...and he never had sex with a woman. And people will crucify you if you dare to say he did.

And the highest leaders in one of his oldest churches are not suppose to have sex either. Stories of saints and holy people are ones who have not had sex!

Clearly...there's someting wrong with your logic. If being anti-homosexual is rational because they can't procreate, then, logically, societies should also hold celibacy as evil. But many don't. To the contrary. They hold it as holy and pure.

most people are tolerant of homosexual behavior and not threatened by it at all. The threat seems to be perceived as being when homosexuals attempt to extend that lifestyle upon the young and innocent in schools and churches.

I won't disagree that there is this perception. People will always attack others fearing that they will try to "convert" their children. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means that there's more than one reason for anti-homosexual bigotry--or any other bigotry for that matter.

MUST there be only one reason for anything? You should know better than that. We're complex creatures in a complex universe and there can be many reasons, changing reasons, both emotonal and rational for why we do things at any given time.

For example: Teenage boys don't have kids and are the least likely to feel protective of the "young and innocent." If they did, they wouldn't pick on the young and innocent. Yet teens are the ones who do the most beating up of homosexuals. Why? Because teens are trying to decide who they are and who is part of their tribe--anyone not part of their tribe gets picked on. AND if that homosexual is sexually arrousing a member of the tribe in any way, then the tribal member will beat up the fag so as to prove he is part of the tribe.

It seems to me, Animus, that you're not going to get people entering into any more discussions with you if you insist that there is only one SIDE to anything, one right answer, one prime mover. That's another logical fallacy, by the way, the answer isn't always "X'' or "Y" sometimes it can be neither or both...or "X, Y"...and "Z."

The more we learn, the more varied and rich and colorful the answers become.

 

[CharleyH]

What are emotions? What is an ‘emotion’?

From another thread that has nearly 200 posts, an initial assertion was made that ethics and morals are derived from axiomatic truths that exist in nature and serve as a foundation for an Universal code by which all men at all times can judge their actions,

The disagreement was in itself, universal, as everyone insisted that ethics and morality were individual choices based on individual emotions and were always subjective; or at best, social imposition of accepted standards.

If all morality is based on emotion(s) my question is, what are emotions? Where do they come from? What do they mean? How do emotions help us determine right and wrong, moral decisions? What does it mean to ‘feel’ that something is either right or wrong?

First off, there is no axonomatic truth unless you want to discuss semiotics. As you well know Amicus, all decisions and choices are subjective. Rules, ethics, laws and morality are made by man - men - culture = man-made. Emotions, huh? You ask a difficult question here, so I will posit that emotions have no affect on right and wrong - culture does, though.

Although I add that I see this as a very circular question: the chicken or the egg?

 

[amicus]

"...Originally Posted by amicus
Almost all who are professionals in the field agree that man is born 'tabula rasa', with a 'blank slate'.


I'm certainly not going to get into any 2 year argument with you. I haven't the time or energy or desire. i also don't know which professionals you're talking about. As this comment of "tabula rasa" in regards to emotions makes no sense at all..."

"...A baby cries when he feels bad, we are pretty much all born with the ability to smile, and we scream when afraid. Those emotions are in us, we have them almost automatically. Fight or flight is in our primal brains. Other emotions we may not have, or may need to develop, but babies are not born without "feelings..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

I assumed it was rather self evident to all that babies are born without any emotions. Infants have no fear of anything, although a loud sound will startle one, that is just a response to stimuli as would response to heat or cold or touch of any kind.

Babies have no fear of height or fire or broken glass or bleach in a bottle under the sink. They do not fear animals, would as well curl up with a warm lion or tiger or puppy and would pick up a rattlesnake or eat bugs if they could catch one.

Infants have no, repeat no, fears and no emotions.

Emotions are learned.

That is why when those such as Dr. Mabeuse, whom I quoted, make statements such as 'morality is based on emotions', I thought it necessary to ask each of those who made that statement to clarify what they mean by emotions.

My original post made no mention of homosexuality, but it is a 'moral' question, as is abortion. My contention is that an ethical system, a logical, rational one, can give you answers to moral questions that are dividing a nation.

Religious moralists, most of them, have pronounced that abortion and homosexuality are immoral. The secular humanists disagree but do not offer a moral proof, merely that morality is subjective, that there are no rights and no wrongs and that nothing is immoral, just culturally different.

I suspect it is the apprehension of being forced to make a moral judgment on these issues that keeps any concept of 'absolute' and rational moral systems at bay.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

No, Ami. You point wasn't clear to me. If it was I wouldn't have said it wasn't. You point is a little bit clearer now. it's late though, and I don't have time not focus for an articulate answer.

I'm a little curious about your application of tabiula rasa to your argument though. Except for Aquino and other pre-modern days thinkers who were not familiar with the concept of psychological (or any) evolution I haven't read or heard of one so far that totally dismisses inherited instincts. Many a psychologist would say that for instance fear, as an instinct, we have. It's survival. Encoded patterns of behaviour that we or any other spieces would be extinct without. But what to fear (or rather, what not to fear) we learn. So is it then the emotion, or the application of the emotion that the tabula rasa is filled with?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Let me make a bold statement: There is no such thing as 'instinct', in human beings and perhaps not even in animals.

It is amazing to learn of the development of Pacific Salmon. They are hatched from eggs in a small stream, sometimes quite distant from the ocean. They swim downstream to the ocean and into the ocean and live there for years and then return to the very stream they were born in to procreate.

For the longest time, this was presented as an example of 'instinct'. Turns out it is no such thing. Sensory perceptions in the fish, guide it, as magnetism guides migrating birds to make returns to favored places.

Instinct would have to be some sort of 'frozen intelligence' that would function when called upon. We have no such facility.

Thus again I restate, humans are born with a blank mind, no emotions, no instinct. You may of course, 'believe' whatever you wish, but if you wish to make an assertion to the contrary, please provide documentation.

thanks...


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Let me make a bold statement: There is no such thing as 'instinct', in human beings and perhaps not even in animals.

It is amazing to learn of the development of Pacific Salmon. They are hatched from eggs in a small stream, sometimes quite distant from the ocean. They swim downstream to the ocean and into the ocean and live there for years and then return to the very stream they were born in to procreate.

For the longest time, this was presented as an example of 'instinct'. Turns out it is no such thing. Sensory perceptions in the fish, guide it, as magnetism guides migrating birds to make returns to favored places.

Instinct would have to be some sort of 'frozen intelligence' that would function when called upon. We have no such facility.

Thus again I restate, humans are born with a blank mind, no emotions, no instinct. You may of course, 'believe' whatever you wish, but if you wish to make an assertion to the contrary, please provide documentation.

thanks...


amicus...

Hm - interesting. I, for one, need to think on this -first off - I am not sure I agree that there is no instinct in the animal world and second I am not certain that humans are born with a blank mind. Good questions, Ami

 

[amicus]

There is one anomaly to my position on instinct for which I have no answer.

That is something called a 'Weaver Bird', I think, that goes about weaving straw and grasses into a little hut like nest. They even kept a baby weaver bird away from other birds of its kind, to make certain it was not a 'learned' behavior and sure as hell, the little critter, when provided material, wove the exact same sort of nest.

I don't quite understand the mental mechanics of that.


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

There is one anomaly to my position on instinct for which I have no answer.

That is something called a 'Weaver Bird', I think, that goes about weaving straw and grasses into a little hut like nest. They even kept a baby weaver bird away from other birds of its kind, to make certain it was not a 'learned' behavior and sure as hell, the little critter, when provided material, wove the exact same sort of nest.

I don't quite understand the mental mechanics of that.


amicus...

lol - Happy New Year, Amicus.

 

[Liar]

Well, Ami, that sure is a bold statement. And other than your own self-proclaimed statement that almost everyone agrees with it, I have yet to see that it's so.


Sources? Common behavioral ecology for starters. It's high school or basic college level stuff, so it shouldn't confuse anybody.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/behavioral_ecology_and_evolution.htm

To inherit certain brain functions and psychologic pattern designs is no more strange than to inherit the design of your spleen.

Where are your sources then?

 

[cantdog]

I assumed it was rather self evident to all that babies are born without any emotions. Infants have no fear of anything, although a loud sound will startle one, that is just a response to stimuli as would response to heat or cold or touch of any kind.

Babies have no fear of height or fire or broken glass or bleach in a bottle under the sink. They do not fear animals, would as well curl up with a warm lion or tiger or puppy and would pick up a rattlesnake or eat bugs if they could catch one.

Infants have no, repeat no, fears and no emotions.

Emotions are learned.

That is why when those such as Dr. Mabeuse, whom I quoted, make statements such as 'morality is based on emotions', I thought it necessary to ask each of those who made that statement to clarify what they mean by emotions.

This post is such utter bullshit.

 

[amicus]

Hm - interesting. I, for one, need to think on this -first off - I am not sure I agree that there is no instinct in the animal world and second I am not certain that humans are born with a blank mind. Good questions, Ami

Happy New Years to you also, CharleyH...

Damn, I thought I quoted the other part of your post, gotta go copy it now...

"...First off, there is no axonomatic truth unless you want to discuss semiotics. As you well know Amicus, all decisions and choices are subjective. Rules, ethics, laws and morality are made by man - men - culture = man-made. Emotions, huh? You ask a difficult question here, so I will posit that emotions have no affect on right and wrong - culture does, though.

Although I add that I see this as a very circular question: the chicken or the egg?..."

Well, a lot of people seem to think there is such a word as 'axiom' it does have meaning outside geometry. Even the founding fathers seemed to think the phrase, "self evident truth" held some meaning.

That is what an axiom is, something to clearly self evident, obvious and obviously 'truth', that it need not be verified. Like, 'the sky is up', 'water is wet', and 'fire is hot.'

There are tons and tons of them.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well, Ami, that sure is a bold statement. And other than your own self-proclaimed statement that almost everyone agrees with it, I have yet to see that it's so.


Sources? Common behavioral ecology for starters. It's high school or basic college level stuff, so it shouldn't confuse anybody.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/behavioral_ecology_and_evolution.htm

To inherit certain brain functions and psychologic pattern designs is no more strange than to inherit the design of your spleen.

Where are your sources then?

The category 'instinct' on the link you provided did not function.

From Wikipedia:


"...Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular action. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overriden by intelligence, which is creative and hence far more versatile. Since instincts take generations to adapt, an intermediate position, or basis for action, is served by memory which provides individually stored successful reactions built upon experience. The particular actions performed may be influenced by learning, environment and natural principles. Generally, the term instinct is not used to describe an existing condition or established state.

Examples can more frequently be observed in the behavior of animals (most in the less intelligent species), which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are not based upon prior experience, such as reproduction, and feeding among insects. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, and internal escape functions.

It may be worth noting that no being is bound absolutely by instinct. Though instinct is what seems to come naturally or perhaps with heredity, general conditioning and environment surrounding a living being play a major role.

Instinct is pre-intellectual, while intuition is trans-intellectual...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They have rather redefined instinct to mean biological response to stimuli, which was my point anyway.

amicus...

 

[Liar]

This post is such utter bullshit.

Or rather, a little misfire in the logic cirquits of mr A.

Just because a child has not learned all about what it is supposed to fear and not, doesn't mean that it is born without emotions.

Like I said, Amicus, That a child does not fear fire says nothing, nada, zip, to prove your blank slate dogma. It only proves that the child does not know what fire is. The concept of danger and the appropriate reaction is instant. Once the child knows that fire equals danger, it will fear it.

The mechanism for fear is there. (Can you say Instinct? You know you wanna.) The intepretation of the world is not. And that is where the tabula rasa comes in.

 

[Liar]

They have rather redefined instinct to mean biological response to stimuli, which was my point anyway.

amicus...

Well, you've lost me again. Didn't you claim there are no instincts? And this very article talk of emotions. And specifically of fear. "internal escape functions". What do you think that is?