Total Posts:251|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Emotions

annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:59:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
I don't understand why emotions being chemical reactions makes them any less significant.

That's my problem. They are merely chemical reactions in our brains. What gives them significance other than years of glorifying them?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:05:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain.

Yea, chemical, electrical, electro-chemical etc etc.

There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains.

Well we would do wouldn't we, that would be our natural response. It's only as we have become more intelligent, more philosophical and more scientific that we would begin to question the 'truth' of our emotions. A 12th century theologian could be forgiven for believing that his guilt is the voice of God, his lust the voice of the devil.

Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

I agree, I don't get how there is any deeper level to emotions than that.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

My only objection is that, and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to suppress and deny emotion. I consider emotion very much one of the spices of life, and so therefore emotions do hold an important part in my life. They can even be useful. Obviously they can be taken too far, but one can accept their emotional side without being ruled by emotions.

Apart from that I don't see anything to object to.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:08:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:04:24 PM, nonentity wrote:
Because emotions are the reason we care about things and people like to be cared about.

Yip.

Anything you care about... You care about due to either Emotion... Or other Physical responses which you enjoy/dislike.

They're the root of significance.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:12:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

there's no need to do that... they are, at the end of the day, physical... this isn't any kind of problem for saying that they're related to valuations.

they're still what gives other things "significance"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:02:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:59:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
I don't understand why emotions being chemical reactions makes them any less significant.

That's my problem. They are merely chemical reactions in our brains. What gives them significance other than years of glorifying them?

We glorify them because they are significant. Even though they are merely chemical reactions, not always useful sometimes even detrimental and not the product of logic they are significant.

You can choose to try and ignore them, suppress them, embrace them etc etc, but they are still there, in your head.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:12:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:02:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:59:15 AM, nonentity wrote:
I don't understand why emotions being chemical reactions makes them any less significant.

That's my problem. They are merely chemical reactions in our brains. What gives them significance other than years of glorifying them?

We glorify them because they are significant. Even though they are merely chemical reactions, not always useful sometimes even detrimental and not the product of logic they are significant.

You can choose to try and ignore them, suppress them, embrace them etc etc, but they are still there, in your head.

and why choose to suppress them???

lol.. ONLY because you care to... PROBABLY because they make you feel uncomfortable for various reasons...

Your feelings themselves can be the only driving force behind your self-denial!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:04:24 PM, nonentity wrote:
Because emotions are the reason we care about things and people like to be cared about.

That doesn't give them any significance in their own right. You are basically saying, "Since we like the result of emotions, they are significant". You would have to justify why cares are such an important facet of our existence, that then emotions have significance because they are the source of our cares.

But that would lead us nowhere since what ever significance we ascribe to cares is another form of delusion for the purpose of comfort and the illusion, once again, of meaning. Even though we are ruled by our cares, and therefore emotions, I fail to see how that gives any significance to them. My arm is a vital limb in my daily life but I have ascribed no special importance to it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:18:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:15:13 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:04:24 PM, nonentity wrote:
Because emotions are the reason we care about things and people like to be cared about.

That doesn't give them any significance in their own right. You are basically saying, "Since we like the result of emotions, they are significant". You would have to justify why cares are such an important facet of our existence, that then emotions have significance because they are the source of our cares.

But that would lead us nowhere since what ever significance we ascribe to cares is another form of delusion for the purpose of comfort and the illusion, once again, of meaning. Even though we are ruled by our cares, and therefore emotions, I fail to see how that gives any significance to them. My arm is a vital limb in my daily life but I have ascribed no special importance to it.

no Objective "significance"...

there's no such thing.

Valuations... and "Significance" aren't Objective.

If you're asking for a description of why something's significant.. you can't Object that it's not objective...

Of course it's not "objectively significant"... There's no such thing!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:19:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:05:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains.

Well we would do wouldn't we, that would be our natural response. It's only as we have become more intelligent, more philosophical and more scientific that we would begin to question the 'truth' of our emotions. A 12th century theologian could be forgiven for believing that his guilt is the voice of God, his lust the voice of the devil.

What "truth" about our emotions?

My only objection is that, and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to suppress and deny emotion. I consider emotion very much one of the spices of life, and so therefore emotions do hold an important part in my life. They can even be useful. Obviously they can be taken too far, but one can accept their emotional side without being ruled by emotions.

I do not suppress or deny emotions -- unless I'm in an argument since appeals to emotion or emotional based argumentation is so weak and annoying. Emotions play a part in our daily life -- and for that reason, we have attempted to glorify them. I do not understand why though. If we reduced our reactions to chemical compounds and acknowledged that there wasn't any philosophical meaning to them, what would happen? Why must we follow these ideals of love or lust throughout our lives as though what we feel is divine? Lol.

Apart from that I don't see anything to object to.

Cool.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do chemicals **(and such)** cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.

I disagree. If chemicals caused your emotions, then outside effects would not.

There is no physical reason that someone calling you fat and ugly would alter your chemical balance, unless it first altered your emotions which then altered your chemicals.

Also, if chemicals were the cause, there would be no spiraling of depression, people who get depressed because they are depressed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:27:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:18:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:15:13 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:04:24 PM, nonentity wrote:
Because emotions are the reason we care about things and people like to be cared about.

That doesn't give them any significance in their own right. You are basically saying, "Since we like the result of emotions, they are significant". You would have to justify why cares are such an important facet of our existence, that then emotions have significance because they are the source of our cares.

But that would lead us nowhere since what ever significance we ascribe to cares is another form of delusion for the purpose of comfort and the illusion, once again, of meaning. Even though we are ruled by our cares, and therefore emotions, I fail to see how that gives any significance to them. My arm is a vital limb in my daily life but I have ascribed no special importance to it.

no Objective "significance"...

there's no such thing.

Valuations... and "Significance" aren't Objective.

If you're asking for a description of why something's significant.. you can't Object that it's not objective...

Of course it's not "objectively significant"... There's no such thing!

Though it's Subjectively objective!

I care.

It's true... that's the nature of things! Objective! (well... if you could study me properly I suppose... at least I know it's true)

so... Given that I care how things go... I'll try to make them go the way I care..

The emotions cause me to care...

they're the root of my goals and decisions... they are what determines what is significant for me.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:30:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:26:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.

I disagree. If chemicals caused your emotions, then outside effects would not.

There is no physical reason that someone calling you fat and ugly would alter your chemical balance, unless it first altered your emotions which then altered your chemicals.

People are rather complicated.... and it's not just a batch of liquid reacting in your head... your head connects with the outside world... and the nature of how the happenings in your head go about is Very complicated... and the Particular nature of your brain develops over time Concurrently with (and in part caused by) outside factors.

Also, if chemicals were the cause, there would be no spiraling of depression, people who get depressed because they are depressed.

Your nature, along with the nature of the world, can indeed cause such things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:19:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:05:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains.

Well we would do wouldn't we, that would be our natural response. It's only as we have become more intelligent, more philosophical and more scientific that we would begin to question the 'truth' of our emotions. A 12th century theologian could be forgiven for believing that his guilt is the voice of God, his lust the voice of the devil.

What "truth" about our emotions?

Exactly.

My only objection is that, and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to suppress and deny emotion. I consider emotion very much one of the spices of life, and so therefore emotions do hold an important part in my life. They can even be useful. Obviously they can be taken too far, but one can accept their emotional side without being ruled by emotions.

I do not suppress or deny emotions -- unless I'm in an argument since appeals to emotion or emotional based argumentation is so weak and annoying.

That is fair enough.

Emotions play a part in our daily life -- and for that reason, we have attempted to glorify them. I do not understand why though. If we reduced our reactions to chemical compounds and acknowledged that there wasn't any philosophical meaning to them, what would happen? Why must we follow these ideals of love or lust throughout our lives as though what we feel is divine? Lol.

Well in a way I've already addressed this, it is out natural response to assign such value to emotions. It is only thanks to the progression of civilisation, knowledge and maturity that we would question this. Primitive people, children, the uneducated and the downright thick do not have critical thinking skills. They do no question the natural assumptions that they make. They don't have logic against which to contrast emotions.

Love is a tricky one, we have utterly conditioned to believe in this concept of true love. Insecure teenage virgins believe that once they find their soulmate they will be complete and all problems will vanish. Or maybe thats just male nerds... or maybe that was just me.

To an extent though we have instinctive needs for friendship bonds and love bonds, in this way that are significant because such desires are hardwired.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:33:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.

It's a bit more complicated than that... If you come across a bear you don't feel afraid because you tremble. You label your trembling as fear because you appraise the situation as dangerous.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:33:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just chemical reactions, eh? Cool! I suppose if I really upset someone, instead of apologising, I should make it up to them by bunging them a few amitriptyline hydrochloride tablets!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Emotions matter somewhat because they are really fast.

This means they give you something to act on if you don't have time to reason things out. Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which. May as well go with the emotions in such a case.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:35:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:26:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.

I disagree. If chemicals caused your emotions, then outside effects would not.

Not true. The outside effects provoke the emotional reaction -- which is caused by chemicals being released.

There is no physical reason that someone calling you fat and ugly would alter your chemical balance, unless it first altered your emotions which then altered your chemicals.

If I understand that you just called me ugly, than yes that would in fact cause me to release adrenaline and noradrenaline which then is described as anger. We labeled these chemical reactions with emotions.

Also, if chemicals were the cause, there would be no spiraling of depression, people who get depressed because they are depressed.

Depression is caused by chemical imbalances within the brain.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Emotions matter somewhat because they are really fast.

This means they give you something to act on if you don't have time to reason things out. Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which. May as well go with the emotions in such a case.

That, too. Emotions can mean the difference between life and death. But I suppose Ann means in other situations...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:37:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which.

Reason NEVER tells you that it matters which.

it can only tell you That GIVEN that you have goals.... which are Necessarily Rooted in Emotion/physical feeling
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:38:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Emotions matter somewhat because they are really fast.

Wat.

This means they give you something to act on if you don't have time to reason things out. Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which. May as well go with the emotions in such a case.

So... go with emotions when you have nothing else to go with? Lol, that doesn't give them any significance Ragnar. That merely shows that they are your last resort too. :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:38:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:30:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:26:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:22:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:19:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:55:21 AM, annhasle wrote:
Apparently my attitude towards emotions is infamous now and on more than one occasion, it has been called BS. Now, I would love to hear why.

Here's my perspective: Emotions are chemical reactions within the brain. There is nothing deeper or intrinsically more meaningful than that. However, humans have attempted to glorify emotions to give an illusion that what we feel is more valuable or important than just a couple chemicals being released and mixed together within our brains. Any attempt at this glorification though is merely delusion -- the philosophical interpretations of love or any other emotion are for the sole purpose of trying to find something deep about the human condition. What's the point? We are ruled by chemical reactions. To think what we feel is anything other than that, is pointless and, like I said, delusional.

Take your shots. Where's the fault in that? What haven't I considered? Basically, prove to me that emotions are "deeper" than the chemicals that cause them.

the chicken or the egg.

Do chemicals cause the emotions, or do emotions cause the chemicals.

Chemicals cause emotions.

I disagree. If chemicals caused your emotions, then outside effects would not.

There is no physical reason that someone calling you fat and ugly would alter your chemical balance, unless it first altered your emotions which then altered your chemicals.

People are rather complicated.... and it's not just a batch of liquid reacting in your head... your head connects with the outside world... and the nature of how the happenings in your head go about is Very complicated... and the Particular nature of your brain develops over time Concurrently with (and in part caused by) outside factors.

Also, if chemicals were the cause, there would be no spiraling of depression, people who get depressed because they are depressed.

Your nature, along with the nature of the world, can indeed cause such things.

Yes, they can, through your emotions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:37:48 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which.

Reason NEVER tells you that it matters which.

it can only tell you That GIVEN that you have goals....
I always give it those goals, hence, it frequently tells me that it matters which.

which are Necessarily Rooted in Emotion/physical feeling
how did i avoid bleeding my heart out for bunnies and fetuses then? that's what emotion wants unchecked.

So... go with emotions when you have nothing else to go with? Lol, that doesn't give them any significance Ragnar. That merely shows that they are your last resort too. :)
A last resort is still a resort, therefore, significant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:40:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:37:48 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which.

Reason NEVER tells you that it matters which.

it can only tell you That GIVEN that you have goals.... which are Necessarily Rooted in Emotion/physical feeling

Or, perhaps... what's known colloquially as "Random Choice" though such choices Certainly aren't "reasonable"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 12:42:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 12:39:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:37:48 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/15/2011 12:34:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or if reason has nothing to say on an issue except that you must make some decision, it doesn't matter which.

Reason NEVER tells you that it matters which.

it can only tell you That GIVEN that you have goals....
I always give it those goals, hence, it frequently tells me that it matters which.

which are Necessarily Rooted in Emotion/physical feeling
how did i avoid bleeding my heart out for bunnies and fetuses then? that's what emotion wants unchecked.

perhaps you care a bit more for other things?? Stronger emotions??

Or you have a case of AnnHassle-itis... and simply deny them b/c for whatever reason you find yourself uncomfortable when you have such feelings :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."