emotions are static quality pre-intellectual exp is dynamic. emotions are psycho-somatic patterns registered in the wake of dq. emotions are not the immediately felt quality of the situation because they are defined, whereas the immediate felt quality is not. static/dynamic
--- On Sun, 26/10/08, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2008, 2:30 AM > dmb says: > I don't suppose you'd be interested in talking > about reductionism, would > you? If it's not clear to you what I mean by > reductionism, please review the > statements above. Your comments depict it exactly. > Obviously you do not see > this as a problem. Quite the opposite. You take my > complaints about it to be > the problem. Apparently, you think anti-reductionism is a > kind of > romanticism, as a kind of anti-scientific stance. This is > simply not the > case. The anti-reductionist does not oppose science. He > simply opposes > reductionism. There is a huge difference. The > anti-reductionist wants to > improve science and knowledge by removing the reductionism. > > [Krimel] > Whatever the relative arguments over reductionism might be, > what you have > presents is sheer chicanery. You simple define > "reductionism" as whatever > Krimel says and then run and hide under your security > blanket. I do define > that as romanticism and it is typical of your style. I > would add that there > have certainly been calls to change our understanding of > reductionism since > the 1930s and I embrace that. I am as against your strawman > as you are. The > fact remains that emotions are biological sources of value. > We are attracted > and repelled as a result of our emotional responses to > experience. There are > several reasons for coming to this conclusion. > > First as you your self have noted we share emotional > responses with other > species in fact most mammals. This can not be the result of > learning. It is > either inherited are derives from some supernatural agency. > > Second, emotional reactions are common to people everywhere > on earth. It is > a form of universal communication within our species. We > can recognize the > emotional states of people from nearly every other culture > on earth and they > can recognize ours. This is not learned; this is built in > and hardwired. > > Third, these emotional responses are physiologically based > and outside of > conscious control. We do not decide to feel sad or happy. > We can not > consciously control blushing or smiling, we can not > consciously suppress a > startle response or unless we are a bit psychotic, we can > not choose to > leave our asses burning on a hot stove. > > Fourth, like it or not there are regions of the brain that > when stimulated > produce emotional responses. Likewise when emotions are > produced these > regions light up under various kinds of brain imaging > scans. These same > regions are activated in other mammals as well. Any > account, reductionist or > not should be prepared to explain why this is so. > > Fifth, even in cases where brain damage disrupts the > conscious experience of > emotion, the physiological responses remain. > > To dismiss all of this on the basis of some imagined > philosophical > technicality it simply disingenuous. > > The real point is, all of this interferes with your > romantic conceptions of > pure experience. You seek to glorify the pre-intellectual > and what I have > been saying threatens your romantic conceptions. Let me > repeat: Emotions ARE > pre-intellectual. They ARE pre-verbal. They ARE "the > immediately felt > quality of the situation". They occur prior to > conscious evaluation. That is > not reductionism that is based on the everyday experiences > of everyman. > James actually took this a bit further in his paper > "What is an Emotion." > > [dmb] > Take, for example, the scientific paper you recently asked > me to read and > comment upon. You probably recall that it was about the > brain states of > meditators. And hopefully you remember that I said that was > all fine and > good because data are data but I also criticized your > reductionistic > interpretation of that study and suggested that their > findings need to be > supplemented by the perspective from within the meditative > state. > > [Krimel] > What exactly would have asked the meditaters? In the course > of the studies > they were told to exercise their usual practices. They were > asked what their > practices were and control subjects received instructions > on how to do the > same kind of thing. The reports of subjects were included > in the conclusion > of the study. The point of the study was to measure the > brain activity of > experienced versus non-experienced meditaters. It found > that the more > experienced meditaters have significantly different brain > activity than less > experienced meditaters. To me this suggests learning. As > meditaters practice > they get better at it. I can see where this interpretation > threatens your > world view but so be it. You seem to think that the verbal > reports of the > subjects would somehow alter the conclusion but the best > that one could say > about the subjects' description of these states is that > they have an opinion > about the meaning of those states. Nothing in these studies > could confirm or > deny the validity of the subjects' reports other than > to say that the states > are accompanied by this or that subjective report. > > [dmb] > ...the experience as it was had by the meditators > themselves rather than > JUST what the researchers observed from the outside. See, I > was not saying > that their findings are invalid or that they should be > dismissed but that > they are partial. And I mean they are "partial" > in both senses of the word, > which is to say they are biased and incomplete. That's > why they need to be > supplemented by other perspectives. And that's what > perspectivalism is all > about. It says we need to take on board all the various > perspectives and > sort of add them up. Otherwise you get.... you guessed it; > reductionism. > > [Krimel] > As noted above the subjects WERE asked about what they were > experiencing and > how they produced the experiences. The results of all such > studies are > partial; in this case because more research is needed. But > if we look at > partial in sense of biased then I suspect any bias was on > your touchy feely > side. The research was promoted by the Dalai Lama and the > researchers > conducting the study were selected by him. > > I have omitted the book report from your latest class. It > is certainly nice > have to support one's personal biases with the opinion > of someone else. But > you know as well as I do that such debates as > reductionism/antireductionism > or the various theories of truth are by no means settled. I > am sure that you > take great comfort in the fact that there are arguments > that support your > romantic notions but blanket labeling and strawman > arguments are cheap > tricks and fail utterly to address the issue I have been > raising. > > The argument I presented about Pirsig's failure to > understand the role of > emotion in science comes from Antonio Damasio's book > "Looking for Spinoza: > Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain". From this > perspective science could not > proceed if scientists had no emotions. They would have no > basis of deciding > what to ask, how to proceed or how to evaluate their > answers. Rather than > challenging Pirsig's position it points straight to the > source of Value: > pre-intellectual-emotional experience. > > [dmb] > I don't expect you to give up on your reductionism > because of this > explanation. But I do hope you'll at least start to see > what reductionism is > and why so many people might be against it. > > [Krimel] > What I see is you hiding under your blanket. You have an > emotional > commitment to these notions you cherish. You want the > pre-intellectual to be > something lofty and lovely but you know not what. You want > mystical > experiences to be some guide to Truth, with a big T and > meaning whatever > feels good to you. I think this is the road to a warm fuzzy > delusion. The > function of conscious intellectual processing is not to > eliminate emotions > but to augment them. Higher consciousness serves as a check > and balance > against unbridled and uncontrolled emotional responses. You > should try it > sometime. > > 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/ Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail 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/
