It's not just neural processes that are involved with emotions. There are also chemical processes. This combination is what correlates to your model (the emotion you feel) of those processes. Emotions model those processes. The emotion you feel is a model, just as the color you see.
Notice that I didn't use the term, "physical" processes. They are just processes. Why would one kind of process (mechanical) be modeled, when another kind of process (volitional) cannot?
Instinctive processes are simply built-in behaviors that occur without any intent. Those are modeled with any robot that behaves based upon it's built-in programming. — Harry Hindu
The argument is a little hard to articulate, and doesn't so much show a consideration against idealism as that it forces idealism to slide into panpsychism of some sort. — Snakes Alive
"Shoulds" fall into that category of value judgements. They relate to objective existence of goals. If your goal is to survive, then you should agree with things that are factual."Normative" in this usage is another word for "shoulds." It's not denoting statistical norms. "People should ideally agree with things that are true or that are factual" doesn't imply that they in fact do agree. The idea is just that ideally, they should. — Terrapin Station
Have you ever used the terms in a way to refer to someone's biases and implied that the biased view is an inaccurate view, as opposed a more objective (accurate) view? An objective view would be a view from everywhere, while a subjective view is one from somewhere.I agree with that up to the "would be an objective fact" part. But I'm using a different definition of subjective/objective than you're using.. — Terrapin Station
For a long time I thought that there was no convincing evidence one way or the other on this issue. — Snakes Alive
I'm not shifting anything. Emotions are symbols, just as color, sounds, tastes, smells, etc. are. They refer to some state of affairs. Emotions are special forms of tactile sensations, or symbols, that refer to your body's state, which just doesn't include the brain. Neural and chemical processes don't only exist in your brain. If they did, then you'd only feel your brain, and not anything else. Feelings of love tend to encompass the whole body. Pain is often felt in one place and only in the head when you have a head-ache.Of course neural processes (as well as hormonal and other somatic processes) are also chemical! What led you to think I am denying that? Emotions are not models in the same sense as maps, descriptions or mathematical models are models; you are shifting the definition. This is easy to see, because emotions are not about or for the brain states they may be thought to be correlated with, they are about things in the world. Love is not for its antecedent neural state, but for the beloved, for example. — Janus
Why? Natural selection programmed the built-in behaviors of animals (instincts). Humans programmed the built-in behaviors of computers. Instincts are built-in behaviors - behaviors that arise as a result of your nature. In this sense, everything behaves instinctively in some way.Some kinds of processes can be mechanically (propositionally or logically) modeled, others can only be descriptively (metaphorically or analogically) modeled.
You are simply presupposing that animal instinct is analogous to the programming of a robot. This is unargued and far too simplistic, in my view. — Janus
Have you ever used the terms in a way to refer to someone's biases and implied that the biased view is an inaccurate view, as opposed a more objective (accurate) view? An objective view would be a view from everywhere, while a subjective view is one from somewhere — Harry Hindu
You just made an objective statement - one about how things are - that "objective views are not possible". So your statement defeats itself. Is this statement true independent of whether I believe it or not? Are you telling me how things are, or how things are for you? Isn't that the same thing? Are you part of how things are?Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station
You just made an objective claim about the nature of views, as if you had an objective view of views. Do you have an objective view of views? If so, then you contradicted yourself. If not, then is your claim accurate or biased (subjective)? Why should I, or why should I not, believe your claim?An objective view is not possible when the viewer is a subjectve experiencer, while the objective standard (or “measure” if you prefer) is something the experiencer has set up to be referenced as a tool in precisely the way you described. — DingoJones
Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station
Love is just the feeling of attachment and ownership. Feeling love is just a symbol of that attachment - the relationship between you and what you love. — Harry Hindu
Natural selection programmed the built-in behaviors of animals (instincts). Humans programmed the built-in behaviors of computers. — Harry Hindu
Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station
I was talking about my usage of subjective/objective, not your usage. We use different definitions of the terms. — Terrapin Station
Love is a feeling that you feel - in your body. Why would the feeling be in your body, if it wasn't something about your body?I don't think that "attachment and ownership" are what real love consists in at all. Feeling love is not a "symbol" of anything, it is simply a feeling of profound care for what is loved. The idea of love may be a "symbol" of the feeling, but I think it would be more accurate, less confusing, to say that it is the conception of the feeling: conceptions consist in networks of symbols, just as language does. — Janus
But computers had to be perfected before they propagated across the planet. It was human mistakes and learning that led to the current version of computer you have on your desk. The computer evolved and continues to evolve based on human selection rather than natural selection. But humans are part of nature and part of that natural selection. We cause the extinction of other animals and promote the existence of others. We are a force of nature ourselves. In sense, computers evolved by natural selection. The more useful they are, the more of them we make. Computers are using us to procreate. Eventually they will take over the world. :gasp:It's not a good analogy, unless you assume that God was the programmer, because programming of computers is intentional. If nature is without any overarching intentional direction, then it would be confusingly anthropomorphistic to equate what purportedly happens due to what is thought to be purely random mutation and purely fortuituous natural selection with intentional programming. Also instinct can be distinguished from, but cannot be coherently, ontogenetically or ontologically, separated from, either animal or human volition and judgement. — Janus
It's not just my usage when that usage is in the dictionary. Is yours? And is yours consistent with the rest of what you know? — Harry Hindu
I wasn't saying anything about popularity or idiosyncrasy, and I especially wasn't implying anything normative about that or implying a value judgment in general. I was just saying something purely factual/descriptive--we're using different definitions. — Terrapin Station
It isn't very different from some conventional usages. It's in the dictionary.I wouldn't say it can't work to divvy up the terms that way, but it's very different than the definitions I use. (And it's very different than some conventional usages, although of course you don't have to care about that.) — Terrapin Station
It isn't very different from some conventional usages. — Harry Hindu
And I do have to care about that if I ever hope to have coherent communication with others. — Harry Hindu
:roll: Again, if it's in the dictionary, it can't be idiosyncratic.When we use highly idiosyncratic definitions we can simply define them for others. — Terrapin Station
Again, if it's in the dictionary, it can't be idiosyncratic — Harry Hindu
Care to define your idiosyncratic terms for others so that we can compare our definitions?What's the point of discussion in a context of differing usages unless you were to discuss the virtues of the one usage over the other? — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.