Hi Mel. 20 Oct. you wrote:
> As the functional physiology of the brain is described, the seat > of emotions is in the "reptile brain," the older portions of the brain > deeper within than the crenellated mass we are most fascinated with > most of the time: cerebral cortex. Since the emotional center is > deeper in the brain and part of an older structure we share with all > mammals, there must be a functional reason for it. After all it did > not suddenly evolve. d Mighty interesting observations and I don't doubt their validity ... from the S/O (body/mind) premises. You don't use the word "mind", yet the assertion that emotions' seat is the reptile brain conveys the psycho- physical parallelism, namely that every subjective ..whatever .. has a objective counterpart. The MOQ's level arrangement doesn't correspond to the body/mind one (the latter is confined to the 4th. level) every level raises the former level's value to a new "power" thus emotions aren't "mind" but the social level's "expression". These have their "seat" in biology - in the reptile brain by all means - but the sensations created there again have their origin in the inorganic level. I spoke about the "recklessness" that shows animals' lack of emotions, they sense (feel) and that's no small feat, the value of raising an inorganic compound to mean (f.ex) "pain" is as fantastic, but so is transforming pain into an emotion called "anxiety". Wild eyes and dilated nostrils means "fear" to a human, but an animal is just on top of alertness. > Your statement: "Animals wouldn't survive if they had emotions." is, > I believe exactly backwards. Animals survive because they have > emotions. You can see this in their behavior from the rearing of their > young to their 'social' behaviors, to how they meet their demise. "Your" emotions are "my" sensations (feelings) Back to my antelope example it's plain that they aren't afraid in the fear or anxiety sense or hate the lions, all such belong to the social level. The fact that some animals live in herds, even tribes and rear their young (mammals necessarily do that) may be some budding social patterns, but it's still in biology's service. > Animals possessing older forms, pre-emotional forms of > central nervous systems have a survival strategy of casting > high numbers of young out into the world and letting them fend > for themselves. The nurturing behaviors are more generally > found in animals with the emotional centers. Their young, as > individuals have a higher survival rate in an environment that > requires more complexity of behavior. > Emotions, far from being a paralyzing force are a motivating > force for the survival of not just the individual creature but the > herd. Again "your" emotions are everything from instincts to love & hate. Your view also seems to be the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" perhaps paired with Dawkins' genes. Anyway, animals can't well be paralyzed by fear, but the early humankind better be scared stiff of many things. > The aggression of ungulates towards predators is not fueled by some > bio-chemical instinct, but by emotion and a clear orientation to > protect as far as possible what is important--what the > buffalo/yak/elephant cares about, the young. "Aggression"? They may try to protect their young, but after a carnage they don't hate the predators. One more point. Domesticated animals may show signs of nerves - indicating a complex "mind" - but I guess that's due to their being prevented from following their primary impulses of flee or fight. > The difference in your example is that the antelope after it > has escaped the lion has nothing to worry about that is > any more important than feeding and surviving. Lions are > busy feeding on a kill that no longer is a part of the herd. > Humans, due to their own peculiar, extreme sense of > self-awareness, invent a horror by replaying the emotion > and perseverating on the original action, hence developing > phobias, post-traumatic stress, etc. You go directly from body mind, which means that you are on the intellectual level, but when discussing these things we must see things from the MOQ itself, i.e. outside of intellect. > Some people in traumatic events, say a plane crash, just > 'slide' past the emotional part as easily as the antelope > its near encounter with a lion. Other times people from > the same crash are devastated and never recover. Granted. People involved in such events drop (down from) intellect (reason) and society (emotions) and just try to survive, but they can't do this repeatedly like animals (without social or intellectual components) can. > Watch the way dogs try to manipulate people. They > don't use reasoned debate, they use something older, > and more direct, something they understand--emotion. > As a small child I had a dog. In my teen years the beast > was half-blind and largely deaf, but physically active. If > the dog wanted inside, even on a warm day, he would > shiver and yelp and make a show of how pitiful he was. > But if he didn't see or hear anyone in the house he'd simply > sit at the backdoor patiently waiting. Once he knew you > were there he gave all the physical signs of great distress. > Dogs know emotions well. Dogs are social animals in the said "society in biology's service sen" and uses many signals to communicate with their (originally) fellow wolves and use these to communicate with humans who are animals too and understand the signals. > Another of my dogs would meet me at the door and as soon > as we stepped inside we knew if she had done something > she knew we disapproved of. If, the moment after greeting us > her head dropped and tail went between her legs we knew > 9 out of 10 times she'd been in the garbage can. She > telegraphed her feeling of guilt. Dogs are intelligent too, something the MOQ can explain while SOM can't and must invoke mind or consciousness . > Extrapolating from that action, she knew enough about us to > know how we would feel about her rooting in the trash. That > is a pretty sophisticated modeling of human behavior by a dog, > when you think about it. She anticipated our reaction and her > communication was largely emotionally driven. > Any way, something to consider. We are in no disagreement if you just understand the MOQ/SOM difference and the new relationship after SOM has become the Q- intellectual level. The MOQ doesn't profess to present some better brain science it only dissolves intellect's body/mind enigma ...not to speak of its self-awareness, but that is another discussion. Bo Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
