My reply presents facts on common usage of words. I don't need a philosophical argument to show that you are ignoring these common usages.
So since you can not provide evidence against my statement, we have concluded
that Believing is the act of accepting a claim either on blind faith (without evidence) or based on knowledge(facts and evidence).

-"I would only accept claims of others, if I was looking for some confirmation on something. I would also consider accepting the claims only after considerable debates and discussions, and if the claim based on the conclusion of the debates or discussions were reasonable to accept."
-Ok we have established that your use of the word "accept" is not in agreement with most common usages of the term.

-"So, it is a very special case, when claims and acceptances are relevant to beliefs, faiths or knowledge."
-Every online dictionary disagrees with your claim...so I don't accept your claim.

-"Differences between faiths and beliefs, it is mainly a semantic difference. When you say your faith to a religion, that means that you are following the religion. "
- Well wrong. To have faith to a religion means to accept its dogma even if it isn't based on knowledge or evidence. By "following" we identify "Active members". I know Christians who don't follow their churches or even their official dogma by letter.


-" It has nothing to do with belief. "
-Again words have common usages..... the word "faith" is used to define the nature of a belief: "Fact based vs Faith based belief".

-" You are a faithful religious man. Your faith to your religion, faith here means simply you are a follower of the religion. It doesn't tell us if you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, it doesn't tell us if you believed in the creation of the world in 7 days. It doesn't say anything in details of what you believe or not."
-Of course it does....lol If you say that you are a faithful christian you know that you are have faith to the christian dogma.


Why don't you use your internet connection to check the common usages of word?

-"But when you say, you have faith in God's benevolence to humans. The faith here is similar to belief. You believe in God that he is benevolent to humans."
-Nice so you see that the word faith has more than one common usage.


-"So, you see, faith in some contexts has nothing to do with belief, but in some other contexts it is very similar to belief. They are not simply all the same thing, or totally different things. "
-Sure but the usage of the word faith is IRRELEVANT to my position.(btw your
So lets return back to my main claim!
Belief can either be justified (knowledge evidence facts) or unjustified (faith, intuition) .
So focus on the role "faith" has a qualifier to a belief...not what people "try" claim their faith to be (trust-confidence etc). In any case to trust and have confidence to the doctrine of your religions, means that you believe in it and you accept it as true.
You just CAN'T go around the act of "believing" no matter how much you try to distort the meaning of faith sir.

-""Accept" is not a relevant concept in this topic, and that is my point."
-The definitions I quoted shows that your point is wrong.

-"Please read my earlier posts. I said that there are different types of beliefs and knowledge, and faith too."
-And how are they different. My position is that a belief can either be based on knowledge or faith(rational and irrational).
What other type of beliefs are there?

hmmm....you didn't acknowledge the common usage of the term "accept" I quoted....that is suspicious behavior.

-"Faith and belief are closely related. Some textbooks define faith as a type of belief. Read my reply to... "
-Again My statement was that Faith is a type of Belief (that which is not based on good reason)
Since you replied to my posts why don't you address my position ?

It always amazes me why people confuse good and bad with a moral or immoral act!
Its possible that a bad act might be the moral thing to do for your society.

Whether "murder" is a moral or an immoral act(good or bad if you prefer it depends on the consequences in a group. Our societies have left behind absolute evaluations since they do not serve the goal of morality.
To be clear calling the act of "killing an other human" murder is cheating.
Its better to take a generic act (killing other humans)and apply the legal term after we have found his act to be immoral.
Not all killings are immoral.

This fallacious question (poisoning the well fallacy) is a great example on why we should never attempt to do Philosophy by skipping science (the second fundamental step of the philosophical method).
The answer is that all social animals display moral judgments and inform their actions in their groups.

Well I never expressed such an idea. Of course that doesn't mean that ideas aren't "forced" by our social circles, education and peers.
The idea of learning about the rules principles and criteria of Logic is to form your beliefs based on knowledge and valid reasoning.

-"Faith is different in that it is supported by the emotional side of mental state. When one has faith in something, someone or in God, one does not need rational evidence for verifying his faith. Faith is also on the whole system, entity, act or body of something, which is wider scope, such as I have faith in her for her ability or my faith in the system, I can rely on it etc. It is abstract and non conditional."
-Why are you explaining the obvious differences between a faith based belief and a knowledge based belief???????
How do you think that the distinction renders faith not a belief?

-"Sure. You simply believe something or don't. You don't get forced to believe in something. That is why I couldn't understand what you were talking about, when you were talking about claim and accept."
- Why...what is difficult about the term "accept"? Other you accept a claim or not. If you accept it ...its your belief.

-"When you have to accept something, you are forced."
-You are cheating there. I never said that you "HAVE TO" accept. Have you never used the term accept without the qualifier "have to" in front????
I can either accept or reject a statement without being forced by anyone other my own beliefs.

-"The analogy from the court system, and having to accept the judgments, making decisions on false alibis which caused false beliefs ... is all about accepting claims, which has nothing to do with beliefs,"
-Yes your example was irrelevant to the framework of belief since you are using an irrelevant common usage of the word "accept."
Words have more than one common usages.

-"You simply believe or know something or don't."
-So you can point to a claim that you know it is true but you don't believe it?
If you can then your arguments is "yours".

-"You don't accept some claims from someone's belief or knowledge. It is not a matter of acceptance."
-Do you accept my claim that there is a god named Osiris? If you don't accept it then you don't believe in this god, if you do accept my claim as true than you believe in that god.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you.
In Philosophical discussions we constantly ask our interlocutors on whether they accept our presumptions or principles before we proceed to the next premise. Have you ever had a philosophical discussion before?

-" Acceptance is either forced or you are doing some favour to someone."
-of course not! You do understand that you can google the meaning of words ???
I quote the most popular definitions :
accept
/əkˈsɛpt/
1.
consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
"he accepted a pen as a present"

2. believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.

-" Knowledge or belief offered? - sorry never heard of that. You yourself know or believe something someone or not. "
-Now you have!

I forgot to acknowledge that you never did state that knowledge should be absolute and knowledge claims aren't subject to change.
I only stated that aspect of knowledge since it is a common assumption of people. People tend to mix the aspect of knowledge as an absolute goal to its real use as a tentative evaluation term of claims.

-"Knowledge is just verified belief, and belief is just unverified knowledge. "
-So knowledge, as you just stated, is used as a qualifier(evaluation term) for a belief that is verified(justified).(a belief that is verified is called Knowledge)
Now you will need a second qualifier for a belief that is unverified...that is faith. The term "belief" IS the umbrella term and the qualifier changes with its status of verification.
Do we agree on that?

-"I am not sure if claim and acceptance of knowledge is relevant here."
-I don't know how you can do without those.

-" People must accept court decisions even if they don't agree with,"
-A belief is by definition something that we agree and accept without force.

-"sometime judges accept the claims based on false alibis by mistakes...."
-The judiciary system demands from Judges and jury to make a decision based on objective facts not on what they. The act of forceful accept due to law or peer pressure doesn't change the fact that people CAN willingly accept claims and statements without being forced.
I don't know how this objection changes anything.

-". If one trusts the claims and acceptance in truths and knowledge on public basis, I feel that it is too naive, loose and simple a view."
-Again "believe in" describes the act of willingly accepting a claim as reasonable or true. I really can not understand why the word describing the act is a taboo for you!
None of the other applications of forceful acceptance of an order or claim changes the act of people believing /accepting a claim as true or reasonable and as their personal position/belief.

Well, knowledge is nothing more than claims or statements that explain facts of reality and carry instrumental value.
From what I understand ,correct me if I am wrong, like most people in here, you view Knowledge as an absolute idealistic "goal" of our intellectual endeavors.
That is one aspect of the concept but its not what the one that we are limited in real life.
In real life we are forced to come up with knowledge claims based on current available observations and facts.

So as with any claim, we either accept it or reject it (believe in it)based on the standards we hold valuable.
If our standards of valuation are Objective independent verification(good evidence) then we accept/believe a knowledge claim. If not (bad evidence or lack of it) then we accept/believe a faith claim.

-"Can you elaborate on this with more detail and some examples? Thanks.
-Sure. Knowledge claim is that which is supported by Objective evidence and can be used either as information or produce further knowledge or testable predictions or technical applications.
Different methods of producing knowledge are the scientific, any empirical (every day knowledge, production of technology like car industry, experience) and reasoning (i.e. deductive or inductive reasoning).

"In short, knowledge, true knowledge is an illusion;"
-No it isn't. Knowledge is a claim that is in agreement with current available facts and has an instrumental value.
The problem with most positions in this thread is with people's obsession with "absolute" concepts.
We need to use a concept based on its real life use.
Since a knowledge claim is based on our current available facts, this means that new facts in the future might change the knowledge value of that same claim!

Again we need to understand that our concepts SHOULD describe the value of our claims (fact, knowledge, true) within our current limitations as empirical agents and our methods of investigation.
We should avoid contaminating our definitions with Absolute concepts.
If a claim conveys info with epistemic connectedness, instrumental value and in agreement with what we observe in nature...that is by definition Knowledge tentative in nature like all our claims.

so you have a knowledge based belief in the claim" the earth is a sphere.

-"It is not that simple. There are different type of knowledge and belief. "
-How is this statement relevant? Knowledge is just one reason why people accept a claim.
Btw there is one standard for identifying a claim as knowledge but many ways to produce knowledge claims.

-"You had said believe "in". I'll take it that was a mistake."
-Why? "Believe in" doesn't change the fact that we can accept claims either on good or bad evidence.


"If you want to choose to discuss the sense of "believing" as in accepting, that's fine,"
-You can NOT say that I believe a statement without accepting it!

but it is not the only sense of belief. And we also say "I believe you", that is: accepting what they say without evidence, on faith, as in trusting the person enough not to question the claim (their authority, our relationship, etc.)
-Again as you sad, "Accepting what they say" You can believe someone either on faith or as a true authority or because you already know something but you were not sure.

This changes nothing on how we believe/accept. Either our belief is justified (based on knowledge and evidence) or it isn't (blind faith or fallacious reasoning).


-" Again, if you want to limit things to make it easy, that's fine, but it doesn't make it a complete picture."
-No, I am not limiting anything. This is how things are by default. Humans believe/accept claims rationally or irrationally. Either they have access to objective evidence or they don't.Even when they believe an other individual, in reality they believe/accept what they it says.

ITs a simple acknowledgment. True or not true is just an evaluation term that can only be applied on statements that are in agreement or not with current known facts.

Oxford university Logic 101 ;""belief", "True", "fact", "knowledge", Only claims premises and arguments can be true or not true and communicate facts and faith based or knowledge based beliefs.
...and then its the idealistic aspect of those terms that are philosophically useless.

You are equating faith with belief. Belief is the act of accepting a claim. Faith defines the reasons (bad reasons) why we accept a claim. Those two words communicate two different aspects of the act of "accepting".
Under this definition we avoid an "absolute" meaning nothing is absolute , not even knowledge. Even Science (methodological naturalism) that ALL our frameworks are our tentative positions(knowledge claims) based on our current available evidence.
So we believe claims either on evidence, bad evidence or no evidence at all.
The believe that is based on good evidence is labeled knowledge.
All beliefs are beliefs in claims about the world, us ...everything. We accept/believe narratives/theories about facts, descriptions or hypotheses. All those are claims(premises) we make about reality.
Your examples seem to be a bit off of what I am saying so I can not really address them (god, politics".)

Knowledge is a subset of belief. People accept/believe or reject/disbelieve knowledge claims. Knowledge IS a belief based on facts and objective evidence. Sure, we can say "I just know it" but knowing something just informs us about the reasons we believe/accept a claim
We can not go around it. Knowledge used to be defined as "justified true belief"(classical/traditional definition).

As I just responded to others...belief is the umbrella term. Under it we will find Knowledge and faith.
We believe things either on faith or knowledge(without or with evidence). We can not say that we "know" something but we don't believe in it.
So we need to distinguish beliefs that are knowledge based and claims claims that are faith based.

Not really belief means to "accept a claim". Whether it is knowledge or blind faith that only makes a belief founded or not.
So knowledge is one of the reasons why we accept/believe a claim. You can not "Know" something and not believe/accept it!

Belief is the act of accepting a claim as a personal position(thesis). Belief is the general umbrella term. Under it we can find two types of claims Knowledge based beliefs and faith based beliefs. Those that are based on good reasons (knowledge, evidence etc) and those who are based on bad reasons (faith, fallacies etc).

Sure ! This scientist argues about a specific aspect of the concept. Claims that convey data about facts of the physical world are valued as information. Since science can only investigate physical phenomena.....information can only "be physical". So he is arguing on the physical nature of the content of an "information".
This thread addresses the nature of "information" from a different aspect...as if the abstract concept of information has some kind of an idealistic ontology(whatever that means).
So this is a begging the question fallacy. The empirical way is the only way we can collect information and the objective standard is the only way we can verify it. Even our reasoning in order to be logical(thus to be used as information) it needs to be based or tested empirically.

I never said its complex. Far from it. Andronicus of Rhodes made it really simple for us. While classifying Aristotle's work, Andronicus realized that the philosophy in the books following the work on "PHYSIKA"( physics aka modern science) Aristotle's speculations and hypothesis were based on what he realized while doing his "physics".
So metaphysics in science is nothing more than constructing testable hypotheses based on our current available data.

-"However, I think that even scientific evidence is often swayed by the intention of the researcher and biases exist on so many levels."
-Sure, this is human nature...and this is why we came up with a method to monitor and prevent that behavior. Its known as....science and it comes with high standards and a self correcting mechanism.
This is why bad science doesn't survive long(usually is put down before peer reviewing) and when it does manage to sneak in our epistemology is good science that brings it down.
This is why meta analysis and objective independent verification are so valuable tools.

-"Again, emotions arent the only thing humans have."
-I agree and this is why I never said that!

-"Using logic also works. And i dont know about you, but humans for centuries have used logic to evaluate situations. So, no, emotions arent necessary for evaluation."
-Again without emotions informing us for our basic needs and drives we would have been extinct.
I think you are confusing "sensationalized feelings" with the foundational role of emotions in human survival.

And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you. — Nickolasgaspar

"Wouldnt, unable.
2 negatives, meaning you do agree that evaluation can be made.
But i know thats not what you meant."
-So you reason and find a meaning to what I said. Try that in an algorithm...lol!

"Also, we arent evaluating it from the inside perspective anyways, as a world without emotions wouldnt have a reference of emotions to evaluate it from that perspective."
-Well you literally wrote , I quote "And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality."
So you are trying to make an evaluation from a different perspective......and what perspective would that be? I think this is the more important point we can discuss....define and analyze that perspective!

-"Duh.
Do you think there is a way to make humans stop showing emotions, peacefully?
As long as emotions exist, logic can be cast away. As long as logic can be cast away, peace cant be true.The only exception is if every human only showcases good emotions only.
But we both know that wont happen."
-I don't even know a way to remove emotions and still have human beings.
You can not have human reasoning without emotion because after a day or two you won't have any humans left. This is the foundation behind human conscious states where reasoning "lives".
How humans will survive from dehydration if they don't have the ability of producing the homeostatic emotion of thirst????
I can see your argument making some sense if you were referring to feelings but not with emotions.

-"This statement is just factually incorrect. Emotions arent necessary in our mental functions as humans.
I wrote a lot here, but it got deleted and I am bored, so I will shorten it.
Computers can do stuff better than us without emotions."
-Emotions are the driving force for our conscious states. This is what science tells today.
Try listening to Mark Solms lectures on the new Theory of Consciousness and what mechanisms are responsible for the flow of thoughts in human brain.
Mark Solms is the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and the author of a groundbreaking paper on understanding the mechanism of dreams.

-"Since emotions don't exists in our 'hypothetical', we have nothing to scan."
-Correct without emotions, you won't be able to know that your environment doesn't provide food and shelter for you and you would die on the spot. So Again this hypothetical is scientific ignorant and useless. In fact you are talking about a reality without sentient beings....and without sentient thinking beings evaluation judgments do not exist. So my objection is on your hypothetical. Its pseudo philosophical in my opinion.


-"My brain left the chat while reading this.
I dont know where you learned about AI from, but its literally about re-creating biological intelligence.
Both work on the same principles."
-Yes I have heard that arrogant claim before. The principles are the "same", the way we make reason and make decisions is different. We assign meaning to everything, while algorithms are executed based on the set goals.

-"What you call 'algorithms' for computers, is what exists inside our brain as well."
-Sure I can agree with that, the different though is on how you make decisions...through meaning.

-"What you call 'defined goals' is also taken from humans. As organisms, our brain doesnt work to satisy our emotions, it works to reach a defined goal."
-Yes this is what Homeostasis and Thirst(emotion) do. But then you have reasoning telling "I will have a coffee, but it is late and the caffeine will keep me up all night, but Annie will be here this evening and se loves that brand of coffee...." and in human reasoning things "bubble" really easy and most if not all are fueled by reasoning our emotions and finding meaning in our actions.


-" Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion. — Nickolasgaspar
Bruh, did you even read this before sending?
Starts with - "Without emotions", Ends with - "Address that emotion""
-I really don't know why this is so difficult for you ! Stimuli(organic or environmental) produce Emotions. Emotions are addressed by the center of symbolic thinking and reasoning where concepts emerge and we make sense of the stimuli through our mental models(memory, pattern recognition etc) that we have been constructing since we were infants and as thinking agents we decide how to address that stimuli/emotion....usually irrationally, by trying to find a quick fix.

-"Where did emotion come from?
You were supposed to assume they dont exist."
-They do exist and we can not get rid off them. This is why I believe this hypothetical is scientifically ignorant on the role of emotions as foundation for human cognition...so we are just practicing pseudo philosophy by talking about it.

-"If there is no emotions, they is nothing to address, thus, nothing to understand about them."
-...and without emotions we wouldn't be alive since we wouldn't be able to address our essential needs! lol So I can not see the value of making a scenario of a sentient beings without emotions and talk about reasonable behavior. If we really want to see a world without emotions...just look at the moon!

-"Also, I have already said this before that this discussion has been closed.
Please look for another discussion or open one of your own if you want to further discuss it with people. "
-What do you mean "I have already said that this discussion has been closed". what does it MEAN?
Is this thread under North Korean type of rules? What happen to our democratic western societies?
Is this a general rule of this platform that when the guy who opens the thread call it off everybody should stop posting their opinions?
I really don't get the "meaning" of your statement sir. Pls educate me if this is indeed a rule of this platform and I will unsubscribe at once!

-"I guess you didnt read the entire discussion word by word properly, cuz we are assuming that a world without emotions exists. And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality."
-In order to evaluate whether that "world" would be better or worse without emotions....you need to use your feelings to see why it would be better or worse than this reality. And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you.
I am saying that the question is non sequitur.

-"Information can be appied to a physical sysstem. It is a number (the entropy) that we can calculate".
-This is what we usually do with "information" either when they are numbers or a statement of fact, we apply them on physical systems and thus produce further knowledge.

-" It's an inherent property though it can be argues it's just a subjective number, as all numbers are."
-Information can describe inherent properties by using subjective numbers which we have agreed to projected on them an objective meaning.

Information is an abstract concept , a value we project on available claims with specific instrumental value. Those claims describe facts of our world.
So the question doesn't really makes much sense. Does information has an empirical foundation?..sure it does like any other similar concept (Logic, Calculation, Freedom,Knowledge, consciousness Etc).
Information "doesn't exist" in nature as an ultimate "entity" or whatever ontology one might prefer.
We as observers value claims that are based on facts and they can be used to inform our thoughts and actions.

Metaphysics IS a tool of Natural Philosophy a.k.a Science.
Just because Science split from the rest of the Academia and acquired a wide set of empirical methodologies to test our epistemology that doesn't mean that Science stopped being, In principle, a Philosophical Category.
Science and Philosophy both attempt to explain the world through Theoretical models.
The theories that aren't verified yet (beyond our current knowledge) are Metaphysics for both fields.
Scientists are still awarded with PhDs (Doctor of Philosophy).
So metaphysics is an intrinsic part of Science and science is the best way to do philosophy when data are available.
Metaphysics is what scientists do when they form Hypotheses.

-"So don't look! Really, this is a bit silly, isn't it? "
-No it only sounds to you silly because you are missing the scientific observation by which the definition of chaos comes from.
I quote...again:
Chaos: "Dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions."

Chaos theory IS the study of apparently random or unpredictable behaviour in systems governed by deterministic laws.

-"You reject what can be observed in favour of what we would observe if....according to the theory you are trying to demonstrate the truth of."
-Wrong.Theories are not used to demonstrate truths but to describe causal roles and relation within a system. The systematic and methodical observations of science has provided information on the underlying deterministic laws governing these dynamic systems. Technology(new super computers) has allow us to go deeper in those systems and verify our "suspicions".

-"Not very scientific or logical, I fear."
-Yes, but I would say that for your objection... not the scientific definitions and field of study of Chaos and I hope after reading the above definitions you'll agree and understand.

-" But I have no problem anyway with noticing that the laws of physics do not impose any particular universal order, and are mainly statistical in nature - as witness the gas laws for instance."
-Sure, they can describe rules displayed by specific processes within the universal process.

-" On the contrary, it is the laws of nature themselves that produce the conditions of stability of the wave at sea AND the chaotic dissipation of the wave energy at the shoreline. "
-if by "laws of natures" you mean the rules we observe emerging in the interactions of different elements of matter with different properties then yes. Everything you see is undermined by those rules. THe difference between ordered and chaotic systems is that in the case of the later we don't have access to the initial conditions and non local variables that affect the systems... making themr appear random and disordered.

-"No, the opening statement should be are 'emotions' necessary. You just explained what feelings are. Feelings are results or answer or conclusion. Emotions are the source. I was asking if that source is necessary."
-I don't think that we have a choice.....They come with the biological body we rock..lol
This is why I took the liberty and changed "emotion" with "feelings" because although we can not switch our reasoning of emotions completely of, we know that humans can be tried to either ignore them or dumb them down.
i.e. solders through training and combat can do things that emotionally would be impossible for many others. Also we see western women mourning the death of their only child for the rest of their lives while women in third world countries, lose a child and they keep on with their lives.
At least its the only question I find applicable to a real world scenario....since we can not have mental function without emotions.

-"Yes, it is like trying to ignoring the attempt to understand emotions.
And I am all for that. I dont want to know about emotions, and I dont see how they will help, since we are talking about a world without emotions..... A world without 'emotions', wont have 'emotions'. So, there is nothing to understand about them. Since, they dont exist. Do you understand"
-I guess you are making a "what if" hypothetical question...right?
Since emotions are currently accepted as fundamental for triggering any conscious state we have, I guess the answer to your initial question is no. Emotions are necessary in our mental functions as humans (and in animals). We even discovered primitive "emotions" in flies guiding their behavior.

-"According to you doing so removes 'meaning' from our thoughts and behaviour.
First of all, this assumes that you know the meaning to thoughts and behaviour and life and basically everything."
-No I didn't use that word in that specific meaning!. What I was saying is , we feel an emotion and we reasoning it in to a feeling. i.e. We are thirsty. So we find meaning in going out and buying a soda!
an other example. We feel an attraction to a person. Our behavior to approach and "win" her affection makes sense to us(is meaningful) if our goal is to satisfy that initial emotion(attraction). So "meaning" is what we "scan" our emotions for and "meaning" is what we see in our acts to satisfy it.
I.e. its not meaningful to eat when we are thirsty because the emotion will still be there after having a lunch.

This is the huge difference between AI and Biological intelligence. The first is guided by algorithms that are updated( try and error) with the intention to reach the defined goals set by the code, while the second guides an organism to select a behavior that makes senses(meaning) in relation to satisfying a specific emotion.

-"Thirdly, even if we take your subjective meaning of 'meaning', i totally disagree that removing emotions will remove meaning, as you are assuming that emotions are the only part of human thought. "
-Emotions trigger human conscious thought, they are not the only part of human thought. They are foundational (according to Neuropsychoanalysis) . Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion.
Almost all of our thoughts that pop in our brains an emotional underlying cause. From how we did last night at the bar, to being hungry, bored tired, nostalgic, happy, sad, anxious, responsible for a problem...etc etc.

Methodological Naturalism is the only honest philosophical position we have. ITs principles and assumptions are easily observable and verifiable and they functions as epistemic limitations to our theoretical interpretations. It acts as guard, keeping away fallacious arguments from becoming "explanations" and hence polluting our body of knowledge.
I will create a thread just for people to learn why MN is a superior position IF our goal is to accept Knowledge claims that are supported by currently available facts of reality.
It doesn't guide to absolute knowledge but it ensures that our epistemology is free of fallacious artifacts and in line with all the Basic Rules of Logic.

it breaks and the movement becomes chaotic. — unenlightened

It appears chaotic to the observer. If we had the technology to track every single interaction we would observe that none of the interactions defy the laws of nature.
After all this was the definition someone (I don't remember who) gave about "chaos".

if by "vested interest" you mean surviving and flourishing by having access to the most accurate mental model of reality...then sure I will agree! MN provides the best view to observe, study, test and evaluate our frameworks that attempt to describe the reality of our Raw Cataleptic Impressions.
Objectivism is and insturmentalism are important values for Methodological Naturalism. We can easily verify they are not as you said "a little much to claim" by just watching the standards of Science (objective independent verification) and the produced outcome (Testable predictions and technical applications). For those you don't know, MN is the philosophical backbone of Science.
So none of the rest of our philosophical worldviews have the power to fuel our epistemology like MN has been doing the last ~500 years.
With those facts in mind I can point out that your objections are unfounded but I am willing to challenge this conclusion if you are able to provide Objective, Empirical evidence for this not being the case.

Well, anything that demands the calculation of statistical possibilities is related to each other in a degree.
This "background of chaos" you are referring has to do with our inability to know initial conditions and non local variables in most of the quantum systems we try to measure. So again we don't really deal with "chaos" in a colloquial sense(chaos behind order) but probably with limits in our nature and methods of investigation.

And this leads us to your agreement with apokrisis on Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism(MN) doesn't have a "problematic nature". A problematic nature would be if it was based in arbitrary metaphysical principles (like many worldviews) that in turn produced unfalsifiable metaphysical speculations.
MN is NOT a metaphysical worldview. Its an Epistemic Acknowledgement of our Limits as empirical beings based on the rules principles and criteria of Logic.
MN identifies our limits on verifying or falsifying claims free of fallacies or assumptions and doesn't accept unverifiable causal agents in any of our Descriptions.
In short MN's limits are based on human limits to produce absolute proofs or to investigate hypothesized and unfalsifiable realms or agents.
MN's principles are not based on arbitrary philosophical principles but on Pragmatic Necessity of our limits in observing, testing and verifying our theoretical frameworks.

Every mental concepts needs a "piece of theory" and in the case of MN it begins by accepting metaphysical presuppositions based on direct observations (we share a common reality,this reality displays mental and physical properties with a specific contingency, by making objective evaluations we can produce credible knowledge claims etc).
Those presuppositions may be unprovable but they are not arbitrary, they are objectively verified every single time we use them and most importantly they have predictive and practical value (instrumental value).

So we need to understand that the "problematic nature" is our intellectual and methodological limitations..MN just acknowledges that problems, works with anything available and produces the best job compared to any philosophical set of principles out there.

Yes. Emotions are how our organism inform us for its urges and needs and "feelings" are the interpreted result helping us to identify our goals. I am not sure that the oversimplification of emotions in to "unformed" sensations" describes the actual phenomenon.
Cognition is a separate mind property responsible for the interpretation of affects and emotions. This is what connects the dots and interprets our emotions.
i.e. You may have a serious misunderstanding with two ndividuals but just because you know one of them has different mental capacity your emotional expressions are dumb down in his case.
Using the similar names to interpret different experiences i.e. feeling disgust when dealing with a really dirty public W.C or a dishonest lying interlocutor, shows the overarching role of cognition in the interpretation of our emotions.

No I haven't followed Barrett's work on Affective science, but it sounds interesting and in agreement with how Neuropsychoanalysis approach.

-"What I think is most valuable in them is their understanding of feeling in terms of prediction of events."
-So I think it is in line with our understanding of the brain that predictive machine?(Anil Seth).

Now unfortunately I am allergic to "isms" so I will skip that part. That has nothing to do with you but I scientific descriptions than philosophical interpretations.

-"I am disputing the idea that an emotion prior to an interpretive construal is a coherent notion. "
-So you agree with me that an emotion needs to be processed in order for us to interpret and define an "upset" under a specific feeling ?