All, <snip> Krimel > dmb and gav, > I lay out a case and support it both empirically and rationally. gav > counters by spouting dogma. He concludes that since the facts don't match > the dogma the facts can't be. To gav I ask if emotion is not the cutting > edge of experience, what is? Sensation certainly precedes emotion but is > very fragmented. I suspect the emotion is the summation of sensation.
<snip> mel Please allow me to get very mechanistic for a moment. In the tripartite brain we have the primative 'reptile' brain clustered about the brain stem, the 'mamilian' brain encasing that and in turn surrounded by the neo-cortex. Just physically, the nerve impulses must travel from the deep connections outward through the brain and so it would seem that an inbuilt noise-to-signal delay exists as sensation precedes emotion precedes intellection (or cognition). Your correction (thank you for straightening me out, by the way) of mamillian as the center of emotions let me see this more clearly than I had earlier. That would be my hypothesis. Below I have snipped a part out of the argument, not to support either view so much as "unfold the blossom of the issue more completely." K > 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. m The inherited ability to feel the emotions is one thing, but the learned value of the emotions in application is indeed a part of an individual's learning in the world. (e.g. a young animal learns to fear the specific other animals or things that can harm it in its habitat.) >K > 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. > m You sandwiched the word 'nearly' into your third line. It implies exception. Thinking about it I must admit that physical expression of emotion is in some sense mediated or controllable. This is another case where there may be learned abilities that trump the expression through awareness. (e.g. Poker players supressing their 'tells,' The common reaction of Western Hemisphere 'Indians' of flat aspect in the presence of strong emotion.) K > 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. > m Our experience of emotions is heavily and profoundly physically. It does not follow, however, that they are restricted to only that. I believe that it can be shown that we CAN choose to feel at least some emotions. (e.g. Horror movies, romance novels, symphonies, arts in general) K > 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. m Sensation of an experience for us as corporeal beings will reflect in that wonderful nervous system that we have. It does not follow that the meaning of an emotion will remain 'locked' in just that location. Its experience and meaning will spread throughout the brain and emerge as motivation or 'richness' added to other functions of mind. >K > Fifth, even in cases where brain damage disrupts the conscious experience of > emotion, the physiological responses remain. > m Proof of the innate capacity and of the unfortunate conditions that can arise interfering with the synthesis and integration or ourselves as complex beings. Getting back to experience for a minute. I don't know what activities you may engage in physically, but in some of the recreation I've engaged in over the years there is a very mind-opening balance that can emerge that seems to at least rhyme with DQ. Skiing, climbing (years ago), swimming (attention to stroke), and kayaking (now), all share a place where you can suspend emotion or active thought and simply seek balance in the unfolding of the physical mixture of the "doing." It's the place where you let-it-go and "merge" with the activity. These points of suspended-balance-of-experience are brief and very clearly different from the ordinary when you are in them. I think "Emotion's Place" is bigger than our collective effort to elucidate it has been to date. I hope this helps expand things as we find the Static and see where the less static begins to depart (vector) from it. thanks--mel 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/
