Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Emotions sense good and bad

  1. #1 Emotions sense good and bad 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    My personal insight as led me to this claim. I'm not sure if there is any way to test it out, but I wish to share it:

    When you, for example, look at nature, then all the information of the trees, rivers, etc. is flowing through your brain. The moment you get a positive emotion from nature, then that naturalistic information in the brain gets combined with that positive emotional state. Thus, producing a positive emotion that literally contains a naturalistic quality to it. The same thing would apply if you got a positive emotion from looking at something artificial such as a lit flashlight. The positive emotion would take on the artificial tone of that flashlight. So, instead of seeing the flashlight and all its qualities, you are actually feeling all of its qualities. It would be no different than tasting a sweet piece of candy.

    You could either look at the piece of candy and all its sweet and delicious attributes, or you can taste them. In a way, I guess you could consider our positive emotions to be the taste we get from life itself. This means that, as I explain later on here, emotions are a sense like taste, sight, hearing, etc. Now, here's where things get interesting. I established earlier that our positive emotions are like the sense of taste. This means that if we have a good value judgment from nature or a lit flashlight that makes us feel a positive emotion from these stimuli, then we are sensing something good in our lives. Likewise, when we have a bad value judgment that makes us feel a negative emotion, then we are sensing something bad in our lives. Therefore, our positive emotions are a sense like sight and hearing.

    Without them, then we can see nothing good in our lives because it would be no different than a blind person. No value judgment this blind person makes can allow him to see just as how no value judgment of our lives having good value to us can allow us to see any good value without our positive emotions. The same thing applies to negative emotions. By the way, many people make a distinction between two types of emotions. The first type they would describe as the "lower emotions." These emotions are euphoric or dysphoric states. For example, a state of euphoria would be what I've described earlier as being a state induced by the brain's biochemicals such as a feeling of excitement or joy from the idea of getting a new movie, a feeling of love, or a generalized feeling of well being (i.e. calmness and relaxation).

    As for the 2nd type of emotions, these are the higher impulses. They would be something such as choosing to help someone in need when you don't have the 1st type of positive emotions at all. I personally think these 2nd type of emotions aren't anything at all. They do not allow us to perceive our lives as having any value to us. So, I will be referring solely to the 1st type of emotions when I discuss my whole theory to you in this topic.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,761
    Quote Originally Posted by TranscendedRealms View Post
    When you, for example, look at nature, then all the information of the trees, rivers, etc. is flowing through your brain.
    ALL of the information?

    The moment you get a positive emotion from nature, then that naturalistic information in the brain gets combined with that positive emotional state.
    This seems to be tautological: you get a positive emotion if something causes positive emotions?

    Thus, producing a positive emotion that literally contains a naturalistic quality to it. ... The positive emotion would take on the artificial tone of that flashlight.
    What, specifically distinguishes a "naturalistic quality" of emotion from an "artificial" one? Other than, of course, the (again) tautological "one is caused by natural things and the other by artificial things". What does this "difference" mean in real terms?

    So, instead of seeing the flashlight and all its qualities, you are actually feeling all of its qualities.
    As opposed to feeling "all the information" when looking at a natural object/ scene?

    I established earlier that our positive emotions are like the sense of taste.
    No, you claimed it. Without showing that it is so.

    This means that if we have a good value judgment from nature or a lit flashlight that makes us feel a positive emotion from these stimuli, then we are sensing something good in our lives. Likewise, when we have a bad value judgment that makes us feel a negative emotion, then we are sensing something bad in our lives.
    This implies that the "good" and "bad" are inherent properties of whatever we're sensing. I doubt, very much, that this is the case (given that different people feel different emotions when seeing the same thing).

    Therefore, our positive emotions are a sense like sight and hearing.
    Your "therefore" isn't actually a "therefore", it's a supposition.

    By the way, many people make a distinction between two types of emotions.
    Citation needed.
    Psychology says the "two types of emotion" are one thing and, for example, the Dalai Lama/ Buddhism says is different again. Neither seem to agree with you as to what these "two types" are.

    So, I will be referring solely to the 1st type of emotions when I discuss my whole theory to you in this topic.
    Theory?


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    ALL of the information?
    Whatever sensory information is going through your brain when you witness a tree, river, etc.

    This seems to be tautological: you get a positive emotion if something causes positive emotions?
    It is, again, through a good value judgment of whatever stimulus that results in you feeling a positive emotion from said stimulus.

    What, specifically distinguishes a "naturalistic quality" of emotion from an "artificial" one? Other than, of course, the (again) tautological "one is caused by natural things and the other by artificial things". What does this "difference" mean in real terms?
    All I am saying is that the positive emotional state takes on the tone of whatever stimuli is going through your brain. You can clearly witness this yourself. If you feel a positive emotion from nature as opposed to feeling a positive emotion from a movie, then these feelings are clearly different. This is because the stimuli are different and, thus, the tone that the positive emotion takes on would be a naturalistic quality for the nature stimulus and the positive emotion would take on the tone of whatever atmosphere or character you have witnessed in the movie.

    This implies that the "good" and "bad" are inherent properties of whatever we're sensing. I doubt, very much, that this is the case (given that different people feel different emotions when seeing the same thing).
    Since I have established above that the positive emotions take on the tone of whatever stimuli you witness, then it would follow from here that a positive emotion would have to take on a good tone if you had a good value judgment (a thought). This is because a thought is information going through your brain. Based on this, I conclude that you would be sensing something good in your life and, therefore, positive emotions would have to be a sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,761
    Quote Originally Posted by TranscendedRealms View Post
    Whatever sensory information is going through your brain when you witness a tree, river, etc.
    Ah, okay. So NOT "all the information of the trees, rivers, etc" just whatever we actually sense.

    It is, again, through a good value judgment of whatever stimulus that results in you feeling a positive emotion from said stimulus.
    What?
    No. This - again - implies that positive emotions are engendered (through the use of "good value judgement - whatever that is) by an inherent quality of whatever is being perceived: i.e. that "good values judgement" lets us see that whatever we're looking at experience is actually, intrinsically "good".

    All I am saying is that the positive emotional state takes on the tone of whatever stimuli is going through your brain. You can clearly witness this yourself. If you feel a positive emotion from nature as opposed to feeling a positive emotion from a movie, then these feelings are clearly different.
    Are they different because a good film is not a "good natural view"?
    Wouldn't there be a difference between seeing a good film and good painting for example (both "artificial" but different objects "processed" in different ways for positive feelings engendered).
    Likewise can you show that the positive emotion resulting from seeing a picturesque view is the same as the positive feeling engendered by, say, watching a cute animal?
    Please show that the two "feelings are clearly different" - a claim doesn't cut it.

    This is because the stimuli are different and, thus, the tone that the positive emotion takes on would be a naturalistic quality for the nature stimulus and the positive emotion would take on the tone of whatever atmosphere or character you have witnessed in the movie.
    QED: and the stimuli for a picturesque view and a kitten are also different. But both "natural" thus your claim appears to not hold water.

    Since I have established above that the positive emotions take on the tone of whatever stimuli you witness, then it would follow from here that a positive emotion would have to take on a good tone if you had a good value judgment (a thought).
    No, you've claimed that this is so - a far cry from "establishing" it.
    And again the implication here is that the "goodness" is intrinsic to whatever we're looking at and is seen as "good" by anyone who has "good value judgement". In other words an implicit claim that, since not everyone finds pleasure in the same things then some people are don't have this "good value judgement". Which leads to "You don't get any pleasure from looking at views of mountains - which I find pleasurable - therefore your judgement is clearly faulty".

    I conclude that you would be sensing something good in your life and, therefore, positive emotions would have to be a sense.
    And again the implication that "goodness/ badness" is intrinsic to the thing being perceived.

    All you have so far is supposition, not a theory.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3
    What?
    No. This - again - implies that positive emotions are engendered (through the use of "good value judgement - whatever that is) by an inherent quality of whatever is being perceived: i.e. that "good values judgement" lets us see that whatever we're looking at experience is actually, intrinsically "good".
    All I am getting at with this was that you can have a thought such as: "Wow, what a good day this is to be alive!" This would be a good value judgment. This good value judgment results in you feeling a positive emotion.

    Are they different because a good film is not a "good natural view"?
    Wouldn't there be a difference between seeing a good film and good painting for example (both "artificial" but different objects "processed" in different ways for positive feelings engendered).
    Likewise can you show that the positive emotion resulting from seeing a picturesque view is the same as the positive feeling engendered by, say, watching a cute animal?
    Please show that the two "feelings are clearly different" - a claim doesn't cut it.
    Different stimuli will result in different positive emotions. They all clearly feel different. It's like taste. Different foods will yield different tastes. That's where I am getting at here. It was as simple as that and I apologize if I presented it in a confusing and incoherent fashion. If you felt a positive emotion from two stimuli which were different, but were both artificial, then they would just be two different positive emotions that possess two different artificial tones (qualities) to them. For example, the positive feeling you would get from a shiny robot would be different than the positive feeling you would get from another artificial object such as an artificial orb of light. But these feelings would still possess an inherent artificial quality to them.

    No, you've claimed that this is so - a far cry from "establishing" it.
    And again the implication here is that the "goodness" is intrinsic to whatever we're looking at and is seen as "good" by anyone who has "good value judgement". In other words an implicit claim that, since not everyone finds pleasure in the same things then some people are don't have this "good value judgement". Which leads to "You don't get any pleasure from looking at views of mountains - which I find pleasurable - therefore your judgement is clearly faulty".
    Certain people will have good value judgments in regards to a certain stimulus while another person would have bad value judgments in regards to that same stimulus. So, you are right when you say that certain people will feel positive emotions from that stimulus while another would feel negative emotions from that stimulus. But where I am getting at here is that, since the positive emotions take on different artificial tones for different artificial stimuli, then that means they take on different good tones through our good value judgments of said stimuli. So, our positive emotions would possess the intrinsic good quality that allows us to perceive a real quality of good value in our lives. Objects themselves do not possess the intrinsic goodness to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,761
    Quote Originally Posted by TranscendedRealms View Post
    All I am getting at with this was that you can have a thought such as: "Wow, what a good day this is to be alive!" This would be a good value judgment. This good value judgment results in you feeling a positive emotion.
    No. That would be just a value judgement.

    Different stimuli will result in different positive emotions. They all clearly feel different.
    Do they? It's not clear to me.
    Yet you won't/ can't SHOW that that "happiness" from one stimulus is any different than "happiness" from a different stimulus.

    It's like taste. Different foods will yield different tastes. That's where I am getting at here.
    The analogy is flawed.
    The taste of sweetness is still sweetness despite coming from different types of food.

    If you felt a positive emotion from two stimuli which were different, but were both artificial, then they would just be two different positive emotions that possess two different artificial tones (qualities) to them. For example, the positive feeling you would get from a shiny robot would be different than the positive feeling you would get from another artificial object such as an artificial orb of light. But these feelings would still possess an inherent artificial quality to them.
    You're still claiming rather than supporting these claims.

    Certain people will have good value judgments in regards to a certain stimulus while another person would have bad value judgments in regards to that same stimulus.
    In other words any goodness is NOT intrinsic to the stimulus.

    since the positive emotions take on different artificial tones for different artificial stimuli, then that means they take on different good tones through our good value judgments of said stimuli.
    Claim.

    So, our positive emotions would possess the intrinsic good quality that allows us to perceive a real quality of good value in our lives.
    This makes no sense.

    Objects themselves do not possess the intrinsic goodness to them.
    Then I suggest that you learn how to phrase your points better.

    Note: it's rather silly of you to start an identical thread on a different forum when a cursory glance at the posts there would have shown you that I also frequent that forum.
    Given that you - under the name you're using on the other forum - have previously been banned here (specifically for posts/ threads like this one) there's not much else to say, is there?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. GM food - Good or bad?
    By bk2020 in forum In the News
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: May 4th, 2014, 02:09 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 26th, 2010, 08:56 AM
  3. 'good' vs. 'bad' calories
    By gib65 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 1st, 2010, 03:09 PM
  4. Pollute so bad that its good.
    By miomaz in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 06:58 PM
  5. OS X - Bad or Good
    By sderenzi in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 30th, 2007, 05:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •