I like this idea. I believe live is the result of the universe trying to understand itself as if to attain complete knowledge is the end and beginning of the universe (I know it sounds very hippy). It could be said that evolution is the increasing acquisition of knowledge (or truth) and that mutations that allow for this to happen become more common in a population, and it makes kind of sense. I think you should work more on that idea. — Daniel

I believe the universe is the result of pure possibility trying to understand itself, manifesting the difference that makes a difference: from the energy, direction and volume of the Big Bang, to the duration, value and meaning of all possible existence.

The ‘idea of God’ represents the development of our collaborative knowledge or ‘truth position’ in relation to pure possibility. Each of us is a possible manifestation - our capacity to ‘know’ or manifest the truth is limited by our awareness, connection and collaboration with all other possible manifestations.

Classical evolutionary theory explains how the success of ‘random’ mutation is limited through natural selection by available energy in relation to movement, size, lifespan, strength, etc. But as @Banno said, evolution doesn’t have a goal. What evolution doesn’t explain is the availability of energy and diversity of the mutations in the first place. They’re simply taken as given.

Democracy based on Greek and Roman classics is "collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves". The New World Order is "are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat". That is Hegel's the state is God and everyone should be made to conform to the state. However, we can all be as different as the aliens of outer space, as long as we obey policy. — Athena

But if we only obey policy, then we can’t really BE as different as the aliens of outer space. Our capacity for diversity is then limited by policy.

Individualism is a relative perspective. To be ‘individual’ is to be indivisible: an isolated and homogenous entity. As it suits us, we can conform to an individual state as God, or an individual interpretation of God, or an individual relation to God - but rarely simultaneously without contradiction. It is the diversity and relations between these structures (which are themselves relational) that reveal the illusion of individualistic perspective.

The ideal of democracy and of Greek and Roman classics is not the same as the reality of it. Greek and Roman societal structures excluded, isolated and ignored elements of diversity within themselves that failed to conform to their limited structural perspective of ‘the state as God’. They were certainly not above distinguishing themselves from an external threat.

I get that we increase our understanding of the diversity and relation between two ideas by applying them to our view of the world, but I think we need to be careful of the tendency to then individualise and evaluate the complexity of reality according to this idealised binary. It doesn’t take much effort in looking closer to see how reality transcends whatever labels we attribute to it or categories we separate it into.

About the war of the sexes. I am really not interested. What I care about is honoring the Mother and the caregivers and teachers and all the people who work in food production who do not have the means to stay healthy because we exploit them and keep them in poverty. I want mothers to be honored and supported in their honorable occupation of the very important task of rearing children. I will point out, rarely did Star Trek have anything to do with family. Talk to me about the value of the full-time homemaker, okay? What she did for the family and the community and what she has to do with liberty! As John Locke said of kings thinking of their masses as children, they are unlike parents who expect their children to become independent. There is a limit to how long we are under the authority of a parent, unlike living under the authority of policy that is different from the authority of a king, only because kings die, but the bureaucracy above us, does not die. — Athena

I get what you’re saying - as a mother, as a homemaker, as someone who promotes education and is married to a teacher. I understand the value of the full time homemaker, but I also understand that this value is not exclusive to the role of the full time homemaker. I understand how important and honourable the task of rearing children is, but the honour and support we give this task is not just for mothers. And I understand that we structure society on a gross misunderstanding about raising children: that it’s about the conflict between authority and independence.

The role of child rearing is often seen as a paring back of dependency in relation to developing autonomy. But the ancient ‘matriarchal’ view would suggest that autonomy and independence are illusions - we are all eternally interconnected and interdependent - and whatever power or influence that anyone thinks they possess comes from their relationships. To that end, we should raise our children neither to be independent and challenging authority nor to be dependent and submissive, but rather to have the courage to always increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world.

I’d like to be clear about what you mean by “potential” in potential information. (It seems to me you are giving it a double meaning, but I may be wrong.)

One sense would be information that is totally inaccessible but still theoretically knowable, like the location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843.

The second sense is potential as in not yet determinable.
I observe Peter’s shifty look and conclude that he will attack me tomorrow. Potential information = the truth value has not been realized yet, it belongs to the future.

If you mean the first sense, I agree that potential information is objective truth, but not if you mean the second sense since information about the future does not exist now. (Unless you include the possibility of supernatural clairvoyance, which you haven’t mentioned.) Indications about what might happen in the future does not objectively count as truth about the future. Oil prices have been falling lately and that seems to indicate that oil will be cheap next week. Strong indication, sure, but the truth value of next week’s cheap oil is in no way to be found inside the statement about recent oil prices. Even if the prediction for next week comes true and the causal connection between the two events is obvious, the two pieces of information would not be identical even in hindsight. — Congau

Potential: the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed, that has not yet been realised.
Information: what is conveyed by a particular arrangement or sequence of something.

Potential information has not yet fully realised what it has the capacity to convey by its particular arrangement or sequence. It is essentially an incomplete relational structure.

The location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843 is perceived by us as ‘inaccessible’, but if it is theoretically knowable, then it cannot be totally inaccessible, can it? It is, however, irrelevant information - we cannot use it to make predictions about future interactions, so there is insufficient value or meaning in us expending energy, effort or attention towards it. It remains potential information because we perceive negligible value in its particular arrangement or sequence.

‘Truth value’ is an interesting term. You’re referring to a process of collapsing potential information into what it conveys as a four-dimensional relation, and then determining how that relates to an objective view of truth. But the problem is that you can’t collapse potential information without the rest of the relational structure.

I observe Peter’s shifty look, and the potential information I may perceive is that he is likely to act destructively towards me at some point in the future. How likely, when it may occur and other details about the four-dimensional event are dependent on further potential information - some of which I already ‘know’, some I can find out before the event occurs, some will fall into place during the event, and some I may never know.

At this point, I am unable to determine the ‘truth value’ of a particular statement of fact or event (that he will attack me tomorrow), but I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event. I do this by imagining possibilities for the missing potential information that would give me a relational structure - a particular arrangement or sequence - to determine the ‘truth value’. Then I can test predictions in relation to collapsing these potential/possible relational structures I’ve imagined through language, actions and common experiences - all prior to any future event. In this way, it is possible for me to determine ways I can prevent (or reduce the potential ‘truth value’ of) the statement ‘that he will attack me tomorrow’.

But isn’t ‘truth value’ just a binary statement of absolute possibility?

Let's meet at the halfway point then. Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access - a positive feedback loop that leads to longer, fuller lives and an ever increasing knowledge bank.

All the above given due consideration, I still feel that, considering how knowledge is meaningless without life but the converse is false, it all boils down to survival - truths ultimately enhancing the quality and length of our lives, both as individuals and as a species. — TheMadFool

But truth isn’t just about the human understanding of information as ‘knowledge’. It’s about information in general, regardless of life. Life without information is false, but information without life is meaningful, and makes up the majority of the truth about our universe. This is what most concerns us about AI - that the truth about our universe is that its existence isn’t contingent upon our survival.

Well, things, ideas included, that don't contribute to the common "good" don't last very long do they? The common "good" that I refer to is that which promotes and sustains what evolution is basically about - survival. Morality, the usual referent of "good", is primarily geared towards a "harmonious" society, which is just another expression for more time to practice the Kama Sutra and whatever ensues thereof - presumably more babies that grow up to be expert Kama Sutra practitioners in their own right.

Aside from the above, truth, knowing it, using it, seems to have a strong positive impact on your lifespan. The more truths you know, the better you are at avoiding danger and getting through the day to see tomorrow's sunrise. This truth-survival nexus has ancient precedents in my opinion - knowledge of fruiting seasons, migratory paths of bison, habits of predators will, on the whole, add to your time in the land of the living. Don't you agree? — TheMadFool

That’s kind of like saying those that don’t survive don’t survive. My view is that we’ve got the cart before the horse. It only seems like knowing and using truth serves the pursuit of survival; but it’s the other way around. Avoiding danger and getting through the day serves the overall pursuit of truth. So does a harmonious society. This perception of the common ‘good’ as promoting and sustaining survival ultimately fails on both an individual and ‘species’ level: we don’t survive. Whatever ‘survives’ beyond my existence is not me - rather, it’s the truth about me. That’s the common ‘good’, in my view.

Maybe I will, but I expect to find as much difficulty with the idea of an emotion being a state as I do with emotion being an experience. I can be in an emotional state, but that doesn't entail emotions are states. — jkg20

Where does it say that emotions are states?

However, our rational minds throws a spanner in the works by, purportedly, putting truth above all else. Juxtapose what I said in the previous sentence with the provable and thus credible claim that sometimes believing/telling a blatant falsehood maybe more advantageous to survival than the truth. Belief in god, for instance, maybe precisely a kind of falsehood that aids in winning a mate and ensuring a progeny for those who believe. I'm not sure but the takeaway here is there's a new kid on the block - truth and its purveyor - and it seems to put evolutionary concerns in second place as far as human priorities are concerned. In other words, some ideas (rationality) trump evolution.

That said, the history of ideas probably suggests an effort, even if only half-successful, to align our ideas with the evolutionary principle of survival. — TheMadFool

What if it is evolutionary theory - the notion that whatever emerges from the process of natural selection is advantageous to survival - that is misguided? The priority and collective pursuit of truth may be an underlying impetus to the universe, tempered by natural selection as a limitation of available energy, effort and attention.

The old world order is family order. The new world order is Prussian military order applied to citizens. Family order was started by grandmothers thousands of years ago, but a modern Military-Industrial Complex(Eisenhower's term for New World Order) is far more powerful and some have argued we are like ants and this is our natural organization into a huge anthill. This is not the individuality you seem to value, and I think it is very male. I hope you have a glimmer into the possibility that there is something you are not aware of and it is much bigger than women's rights. What do you think is the ideal institution for rearing our children?

We were about family and community in a very human way that is now threatened. — Athena

Again with the old and the new...

My personal perspective certainly doesn’t value individuality - not sure where you got that from...

The ant colony analogy values surrendering consciousness to the organisation, which then strives for domination, autonomy and influence in relation to the external environment. To illustrate with cultural references, it’s similar to the difference between ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Arrival’: are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat, to survive as the dominant entity, or are we collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves?

And again, I don’t find it accurate to divide this along male-female lines. There are many women who are striving towards maximising or ‘restoring’ female domination, autonomy and influence by opposing male domination, autonomy and influence as a direct threat. I don’t see this as the answer - it’s just more of the same...

The best situation for our children is not an institution at all - it is an ongoing creative process that increases awareness, connection and collaboration, despite anticipating experiences of pain, humility and loss - for our children as well as ourselves. The ancient ‘grandmotherly’ concept of societal order corresponds to this, but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use.

I'm beginning to think that transcendental illusions are separate in character from the predictive errors spoken about in this approach; insofar as transcendental illusions are necessary failures of reason generated by its misapplication, I don't think they'd apply to the contingent error prone-ness of valuations. I'm not saying that there aren't transcendental illusions for emotion, but I can't see a neat way of linking the paper to the question I wrote to you (summarised: "Are there analogues of transcendental illusions in emotion?"). — fdrake

Barrett refers in her book to what she calls ‘affective realism’, which I understand to be a misapplication similar to transcendental illusion:

When you experience affect without knowing the cause, you are more likely to treat affect as information about the world, rather than your experience about the world...In these moments of affective realism, we experience affect as a property of an object or event in the outside world, rather than as our own experience. ‘I feel bad, therefore you must have done something bad. You are a bad person’. In my lab, when we manipulate people’s affect without their knowing, it influences whether they experience a stranger as trustworthy, competent, attractive, or likeable, and they even see the person’s face differently. — Barrett, “How Emotions Are Made’

The way I see it, man transcends his own subjectivity by constructing value and meaning beyond his own experience, from the interrelated uncertainty of potential and possible information, as one manifestation of objective possibility.

No, I haven’t really been talking about our actions at all. Our actions are irrelevant to existing objective truths, but I have never said that the opposite is the case. What we think is the objective truth certainly influences our actions. We act from the best of our judgment concerning what exists using any hint of information we deem relevant. If I imagine that Peter harbors negative thoughts about me that will change my behavior towards him, and since I live in a society, I have a lot more potential information to take into account than the lonely savage needs to consider. Granted.
But whatever we do, it will not change the truths that already exists or existed. Yesterday at noon Peter had positive or negative thoughts about me and nothing I do can change that now. How he will feel tomorrow is not the issue here because that is not an existing truth. — Congau

But I may have potential information related to how Peter will feel tomorrow that enables me to make a prediction, however uncertain, and act on that information. If I imagine that Peter harbours negative thoughts about me that may change his behaviour towards me, then I have a lot more potential information to take into account regarding my actions between now and when I see him at work tomorrow.

Potential information about future events exist now, and are available for us to perceive and to integrate into how we conceptualise an objective reality. This potential information also exists for us to share with each other consciously or unconsciously through language, actions and common experiences, enabling us to make predictions with varying certainty by relating it to other potential information, including potential information we already have from the past and present, of which we may be more certain. This is what we think is objective truth, what influences our actions. Objective truth therefore cannot exclude potential information about the past, present or future.

Objective truth exists. We don’t know it, but we keep guessing and those guesses result in action and thereby creation of new objective truths. But the truths that existed in the first place can never be changed simply because the past cannot be changed. Our actions (and thoughts) cannot change existing truths. The glass exists at noon. I can break it at one second after noon, but it is still true that it existed at noon. — Congau

It is also true that I can break the glass at one second after noon, even though it hasn’t happened yet. But I need to perceive that potential information as an existing truth in order to act.

You can't feel unaffected. To feel is to be affected. Yet, you can feel unaffected. — neonspectraltoast

No. Affect is a constant current. To have consciousness is to be affected. Even a completely neutral feeling is affect. Emotion is how you interpret that affect in relation to experience.

How would you characterize the paradigm shift? What was the old paradigm and what is the new? — csalisbury

Feldman Barrett refers to a ‘classical’ view of emotions:

The classical view of emotion holds that we have many emotion circuits in our brains, and each is said to cause a distinct set of changes, that is, a fingerprint. Perhaps an annoying coworker triggers your ‘anger neurons’, so your blood pressure rises; you scowl, yell, and feel the heat of fury. Or an alarming news story triggers your ‘fear neurons’, so your heart races; you freeze and feel a flash of dread. Because we experience anger, happiness, surprise, and other emotions as clear and identifiable states of being, it seems reasonable to assume that each emotion has a defining underlying pattern in the brain and body.
Our emotions, according to the classical view, are artifacts of evolution, having long ago been advantageous for survival, and are now a fixed component of our biological nature. As such, they are universal: people of every age, in every culture, in every part of the world should experience sadness more or less as you do - and more or less as did our hominin ancestors who roamed the African savanna a million years ago.
Emotions are thus thought to be a kind of brute reflex, very often at odds with our rationality. The primitive part of your brain wants you to tell your boss he’s an idiot, but your deliberative side knows that doing so would get you fired, so you restrain yourself. This kind of internal battle between emotion and reason is one of the great narratives of Western civilisation. It helps define you as human. Without rationality, you are merely an emotional beast — FB

.

The new paradigm shows that emotions are not universal or instinctive in themselves, but are mental concepts or predictions constructed from patterns of experience, including rationality, specifically in relation to affect.

With regard to the new:

If your brain operates by prediction and construction and rewires itself through experience, then it’s no overstatement to say that if you can change your current experiences today, you can change who you become tomorrow. — FB

All facts are potential information. There are just degrees of feelings of certainty coming from more or less convincing evidence. Peter’s thought at noon will probably never be revealed, but it’s not impossible. Maybe there exists a voice recording of a speech he made at the time or maybe some god will reveal his thoughts to you in a dream. What is actual information for you, the existence of the computer you think you are looking at right now for example, is just supported by stronger evidence. Close your eyes and you no longer have any information that the computer is there; it’s just potential information. — Congau

Potential information is still information, so you cannot say that I ‘no longer have any information’. What I don’t have is sufficient potential information to answer a specific question asked in relation to a specific experience: I am uncertain of the truth in my relation to the statement ‘that the computer is there’.

A wealth of possible information exists in relation to the objective truth of mine and the computer’s existence. My relative perspective is ignorant of much of this possible information, but more specifically I lack awareness, connection and collaboration with certain potential information in relation to ‘the computer’ and ‘there’ being in the same position relative to ‘me’ during the relative event ‘that my eyes are closed’.

A fact is just an answer to a specific question from a specific relational position; an interactive collapse of potential and possible information in relation to an observation/measurement. The objective truth defined by a fact is reduced by these relational specifics of the question asked.

I guess the older view was really embedded for me, plus I'm not too bright. — praxis

Being predisposed to her view makes it easier to follow - it’s a paradigm shift, in many ways. We’ve always ‘known’ that emotions are ‘inherently’ understood by those around us, but there is a fuzziness to the concepts that we also can’t deny. So much of the suffering we experience and cause in the world can be traced to affective realism and prediction errors in how we conceptualise emotions. Understanding that affect is not emotion enables us to interpret interoceptive changes more carefully, and be open to the value of prediction error in the scientific method, I think.

But I think the most valuable part of her theory is how concepts relate both to sensory information through neuron firing patterns, and to action through prediction.

I guess a central question to this, and something Hanover sort of touched on is the difference between affectivity and emotion. How is she using these terms differently? It seems a bit shoe-horned like there is indeed some core (innate?) reaction going on, and emotion is how to take this innate reaction and apply it to various contexts and situations by learning and socio-cultural cues. But then, this leaves affectivity itself to be explained, doesn't it? I guess this might be answered more clearly in understanding what her definition of affectivity is, and how that arises versus emotion. If it is more "innate" then, wouldn't that itself point to emotions automatically mapping to certain situations, that would almost "force it's hand" to always be used in certain contexts? In that case, the affectivity is pushing the learning, and not the other way around. Again, I could be mistaken based on her definition of affectivity. — schopenhauer1

This what Feldman Barrett has to say about affect.

Affect is the general sense of feeling that you experience throughout each day. It is not emotion but a much simpler feeling with two features. The first is how pleasant or unpleasant you feel, which scientists call valence. the pleasantness of the sun on your skin, the deliciousness of your favourite food, and the discomfort of a stomachache or a pinch are all examples of affective valence. The second feature of affect is how calm or agitated you feel, which is called arousal. The energised feeling of anticipating good news, the jittery feeling after drinking too much coffee, the fatigue after a long run, and the weariness from lack of sleep are examples of high and low arousal. Anytime you have an intuition that an investment is risky or profitable, or a gut feeling that someone is trustworthy or an asshole, that’s also affect. Even a completely neutral feeling is affect...
Affect...depends on interoception. That means affect is a constant current throughout your life, even when you are completely still or asleep. It does not turn on and off in response to events you experience as emotional. In this sense, affect is a fundamental aspect of consciousness, the brightness and loudness. When your brain represents wavelengths of light reflected from objects, you experience brightness and darkness. When your brain represents air pressure changes, you experience loudness and softness. And when your brain represents interoceptive changes, you experience pleasantness and unpleasantness, and agitation and calmness. Affect, brightness, and loudness all accompany you from birth to death. — FB - ‘How Emotions Are Made’

What does this miss? — csalisbury

Affect is not violent - it has intensity, but it is internal sensory information only.

You so remind me of my younger sister and a commercial that was popular in the 70tys. We are totally creatures of our cohort! The very clear split between my cohort and the following one is shockingly sharp. My cohort wanted careers, we just thought we should stay at home and raise our children first. My cohort's plan was to return to college and complete our degrees when the children were old enough to leave alone, then we would help finance the children through college, and we raised our daughters to get the college education and use it. :chin:

When it comes to being mothers, I don't think there is a big difference, but the timing of everything is different. Those who follow my cohort attempt to do it all like the woman in the commercial. :lol: And while you resent your mother's choice, did you rely on her to help with the children? Someone has to care for them and didn't you value your mother as that person? That is precisely the topic of this thread. Are you going to resent her or value her and honor her and appreciate her sacrifice as much as we appreciate those who give their lives war? Some of us think nothing is more important then prepare in the young in our family for life. The career is something individuals do for themselves. Caring for the family is not about ourselves, it is about FAMILY, and this the topic of this thread. You wouldn't be my sister, would you? :lol: — Athena

I wonder sometimes if you’re reading posts to understand the information they contain, or in order to personally respond. I am NOT your sister, and I suggest that you re-read what I’ve written and find the errors you’ve assumed about my situation based on your response to certain concepts such as ‘career’.

A career is not always about individual ‘success’ or doing something for yourself. Sometimes it’s about what we have to give to the world of ourselves. My greatest achievement in life is the children I’m raising, but that’s not all I can offer the world. Not everyone is going to be the mother that YOU think every woman should be. I wonder if you value your sister for who she is, or your daughter for how you raised her to value her potential beyond ‘domestic goddess’ - you do realise that your own anger at not having the career you wanted has contributed to your daughter’s ambition? Don’t continue to direct your anger at what she has achieved in compensation for the lack she felt in your life. That’s not fair. She has been the ying to your yang, but she’s a woman too, and as such is valuable for more than her mothering skills.

I get that you don’t feel validated. You’re still striving for domination, autonomy and accolades - you want it for women who care for children, but you seem to think you need to devalue everything else in relation to that individual ambition in order to achieve ‘success’. You don’t. You just need to recognise that value and potential is a complex, multi-dimensional structure, not a gradient between black and white. When my view differs from yours, that doesn’t mean I’m opposing you - my experience just differs in a particular aspect.

The only this I would alter somewhere with respect to what you've said is that yeah - one conceptualized fear as an emotion and then subsequently, one really does feel fear as a result. The conceptualization and the feeling are inseparably bound. — StreetlightX

This is where the language can get confusing. We say that we ‘feel’ the affect as well as the emotion, but they’re not identical - we interact with them in different ways, at different levels of awareness.

How early does she think that emotions are constructed? Is it something that is learned very young and then is relatively fixed, or in her view, is it something that we continually construct as we encounter new situations and compare it to what we have seen, causing rough patterns around emotional response? — schopenhauer1

Her view is that it’s something we continually construct as we encounter new situations - but that as adults we try to avoid prediction error, and in doing so avoid opportunities to refine our concepts.

She does go into a fair amount of detail in demonstrating how the infant brain efficiently constructs concepts similar to video optimisation for YouTube: separating similarities from differences in how it represents sensory information (as patterns of firing neurons).

For example, the visual system represents a straight line as a pattern of neurons firing in a primary visual cortex. Suppose that a second group of neurons fires to repent a second line at a ninety degree angle to the first line. A third group of neurons could summarise this statistical relationship between the two lines efficiently as a simple concept of ‘Angle’. The infant brain might encounter a hundred different pairs of intersecting line segments of varying lengths, thickness, and colour, but conceptually they are all instances of ‘Angle’, each of which gets efficiently summarised by some smaller group of neurons. These summaries eliminate redundancy. In this manner, the brain separates statistical similarities from sensory differences.
In the same manner, the instances of the concept ‘Angle’ are themselves part of other concepts. For example, an infant receives visual input about her mother’s face from many different vantage points: while nursing, while sitting face to face, in the morning and the evening. Her concept of ‘Angle’ will be part of her concept ‘Eye’ that summarises the continuously changing lines and contours of her mother’s eyes seen at different angles and in different luminance. Different groups of neurons fire to represent the various instances of the concept ‘Eye’, allowing the infant to recognise those eyes as her mother’s eyes each time, regardless of the sensory differences.
As we go from the very specific to increasingly general concepts (in this example, from line to angle to eye), the brain creates similarities that are progressively more efficient summaries of the information. For example, ‘Angle’ is an efficient summary with respect to lines but is a sensory detail with respect to eyes. the same logic works for the concepts ‘nose’ and ‘Ear’ and so on. Together, these concepts are part of the concept ‘Face’, whose instances are yet more efficient summaries of the sensory regularities in facial features. Eventually, the infant’s brain forms summary representations for enough visual concepts that she can see one stable object, despite incredible variation in low-level sensory details. Think about it: each of your eyes transmits millions of tiny pieces of information to your brain in a moment, and you simply see ‘a book’. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, “How Emotions Are Made”

"In a sense, a situated conceptualization, because it is designed for action, provides you with a script to guide your future behavior in a specific context or situation. For example, across varied situations, different situated conceptualizations of anger will be computed. Sometimes it works to yell, sometimes to pound your fist, sometimes to cry or walk away, sometimes to hit. During a given act of conceptualizing core affect, the simulation can shape a person’s behavior in line with what has been experienced before in that sort of situation (or one very much like it). As a result, situated conceptualizations deliver highly specific inferences tailored to particular situations regarding what actions to take" (from "Solving the Paradox"). — StreetlightX

Okay, I’m with you now. This also corresponds to @Coben’s issue. The internal affect is not the emotion: the conceptualisation is the emotion, which can just as easily be ‘evoked’ as such from actions and facial expressions as from interoception of affect. You’re not ‘feeling’ fear, you’re conceptualising fear as an emotion. The hypothesis is not that any body state can be freely interpreted - it’s that emotional concepts are not universally inherent or instinctual, but rather constructed from cultural experiences.

But it certainly does happen that people can think they are sad when they are angry - some women have this pattern, especially if they are in traditional subcultures. But here what happens is there is a conversion. The anger arises, it is suppressed and then in reaction to that process (which is habitual, rapid and nearly unconscious) the person feels sad. And can also get some relief from the suppression of emotion by expressing sadness. So in a sense they are not wrong, though they haven't really expressed or notice their initial emotional reaction.

That all said, I just don't buy the hypothesis yet. — Coben

I can relate to what you describe as ‘relief from suppression of emotion by expressing sadness’, but I disagree with your assessment. I’ve learned to recognise this seemingly involuntary flow of tears as a relief of tension (not suppression of emotion) - I’ve noticed that there is no negative affect associated with the reaction. I don’t ‘feel sad’ in these situations - although I used to think I felt sad because why else would I be crying - what I feel is relief. There is no ‘suppressed’ emotion - what you conceptualise as ‘anger’ can be a raised heart rate, flushed face and knotted stomach, which is the body readying to respond to an anticipated threat. That’s not necessarily an emotion that requires labelling, and it’s not necessarily ‘anger’ that needs to be expressed/suppressed.

Someone from this forum put me onto Feldman Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’, for which I am most grateful.

To address your two points:

(1) - Emotion is action-oriented. To be 'angry' is to have made an assessment - not entirely conscious, but not entirely non-conscious either - that anger is the appropriate/most-useful way to address a particular situation: yelling and displaying aggression might be useful as a response to a bully. — StreetlightX

I’d like to see a quote from Feldman Barrett that directly supports your reference to emotion as ‘action-oriented’, because this description seems different to my understanding of her theory on constructed emotions. We reduce an interoception of affect into values of intensity and valence, which contribute to how we conceptualise an experience and make predictions about the world - including naming our antagoniser as ‘a bully’ and our affect as ‘anger’, which in our mind then justifies a response of yelling and displaying aggression.

(2) The second interesting consequence - the one I'm most interested in here - is that emotions (qua concepts) are differential. Anger may be invoked (or evoked, rather) in a range of different situations, none of which may have anything in common. The concept - and emotion - 'anger' does not possess an 'essence' which is simply expressed univocally, but is instead a varied set of behaviours that can be 'used' for various purposes. In Barrett's words: Packets of conceptual knowledge about anger will vary within a person over instances as context and situated action demand. No single situated conceptualisation for anger need give a complete account of the category anger. There is not one script for anger, but many". One should hear in this Wittgenstein's idea that what defines any one thing is simply a set of 'family resemblances'. — StreetlightX

This one interests me as well. I have found the illustration of emotional concepts as amorphous relational structures of value differentials or ‘family resemblances’ to be relevant not just to emotions, but to many other concepts. That we construct, predict and test the majority of our concepts from infancy in relation to interoception of affect (consciously or subconsciously) also suggests the significance of perceived value and potential to our experience of reality, backed up by neuroscience.

Yes, I already allowed for our lives being more complex than a leaf's. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Wittgenstein, but I presumed his example is there to focus our thoughts on whether the following kind of statement expresses anything more than a commonplace:
The future may be predetermined, but it is that way partially due to choices I am making. — jkg20

Wittgenstein, as far as I understand it, saw the difference as more about temperament than facts. Even if we could ‘know’ all of the causal conditions which determine the direction we would take, the question of determinism/free will remains a ‘psychological’ rather than metaphysical one.

Personally, I think his attempt to isolate rational/logical thought from qualitative affect/temperament is misdirected, but he’s far from the only philosopher to do this. I agree that there is no way to prove or disprove free will from objective facts, but I think the uncertainty of both external perception and introspection are on par here as potential information. Together in completion (hypothetically), this information could enable us to structure potentiality such that we not only know all the causal conditions which determine the direction we could take, but also know the internal and external conditions under which we would initiate movement in one direction or the other. Inasmuch as we are aware of, connected to and collaborating with this potential information (both internal and external), our will is free - potentially, of course.

If one were to live an eternity and keep the body and genetic structure approximately the same, personality and character would take an infinity of forms / all forms of character and personality possible countless times, or at a certain point materialize into something eternal?
PS: this person will have infinite memory and free will. — Eugen

I think the potential is there for personality and character to eventually develop into something more stable. Either that, or the person would find some way to ‘opt out’ of their eternal life, choosing to ignore, isolate or exclude certain possibilities available to them, and then focus only on ‘enduring’ the limitations of their narrowly perceived life.

Wittgenstein had a nice example, I cannot remember where it is, perhaps the Philosophical Investigations, perhaps elsewhere. Imagine a leaf falling from a tall tree, gently tacking from side to side. Now personify that leaf as saying to itself "Now I'll go this way, now I'll go that way, now I'll go this way, now I'll go that way....". Our lives are of course more complicated than a leaf's, but does that make the situation regarding our choices any different from the leaf's?. — jkg20

The difference is in awareness of why I go this way or that. I can be aware not just of alternative directions (as a personified leaf), but also aware of, connected to and collaborating with potential causal conditions that would determine and initiate a change of direction. All this, without even being consciously aware of choice as such, makes our situation different from the leaf’s.

My focus is back to the Mother. An aesthetic or scientific appreciation of nature so not at all equal to having a relationship with our Mother. Our Mother has been presented to us as both remote and uncaring, such as Nut the Egyptian goddess mother, and as caring, the patron gods and goddesses were caring and emotional, and if things were going wrong s/he could be appeased. Loving our Mother the earth, or our Father in Heaven matters a lot. Insisting they are non-existant matters a lot. If we do not think our Mother is real and important, how much do we value the mother? What is the image of what we should be? What are the qualities of the ideal woman? — Athena

Their existence is not a separate entity, though. They point to the truth of our relation to all the possibility of existence. It’s not a matter of choosing either the ‘Mother’ or the ‘Father’ as the source of maximum value and potential. There is no objective image of what we should be, or qualitative definition of the ‘ideal woman’. The way I see it, all of this sanctions ignorance, isolation and exclusion to some extent.

Because you’ve generously shared so much of your story, I feel I should share a different perspective. I married young, straight out of university, and focused on establishing a career. After seven years, it became clear to me that full time work was slowly killing my creative spirit, so I returned to part time study for a brief time before taking the plunge into parenting and then moving my mother’s only grandchild three hours away. Throughout this, I kept my career - but the choices and support available to me I imagine were not available for you personally, and I’ve always questioned social ‘expectations’ anyway. Working part time from home with two young children wasn’t always easy without extended family nearby to pick up the slack, but my work was flexible, and I never opted for a stranger to raise my children. When they started school, I changed to a school-based job, and eventually managed to strike a personal balance between being a parent, a wife, a professional and a creative spirit.

I used to resent my mother’s choice to sacrifice her career and stay at home, because it seemed to cripple her sense of her own potential. After my father died a decade ago and I learned more about her devastating childhood, I realised that this traditional home bubble was her refuge, and for her it was worth everything she gave up. I also struggled to understand my sister’s choice to work full time and ‘raise’ kids in full time daycare. But her children have thrived in the environment, and the love both parents give them in the time they do spend at home is of such quality that I’ve learned not to judge another woman’s definition of personal balance according to my own experience.

I love your definition of the male/ female difference and mention that this difference is based on a division of labor. The traditional division of labor shaping our experience of life and self-esteem and a sense of personal power. Are we dependent or independent? What an incredible mix of concepts that make soups of many flavors out of basically the same concepts. I think this influences our left and right politics and the political crisis in the US we are experiencing. It also takes very special people to maintain this discussion. People here are not thinking in terms of black and white, but acknowledge all the shades of grey. — Athena

I hope that what you’re starting to picture here is not a male/female difference based on any one value in particular, but more ‘fuzzy’ conceptual structures consisting of many value-related aspects that interact differently for different people, and continue to change and shift with their experience. I recognise that black and white seems to be a cultural preference for the US (or is that red and blue?), so celebrate the shades of grey. But that’s only the beginning. It’s about acknowledging the rainbow of hues, with all their variety of saturation and brightness, as well.

But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.) — Congau

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actuality to a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else.

I think there is something about being competitive or cooperative in this. True as you say this is about how we value ourselves, and that happens in a culture. It seems to for the last several decades the focus has been on competitiveness, but old textbooks in the US focused on being cooperative and sharing. — Athena

Competitiveness doesn’t have to be about individual or even group-oriented domination and conflict, or about the influence of power, money or accolades. There is a deep connection between competition and cooperation that is too often ignored with particle thinking: the capacity we have to create shared meaning and possibility from an interaction of different, even opposing, perspectives. What drives us to maximise our potential and achieve more from healthy, sustainable competition is a focus on awareness, connection and collaboration, rather than individual domination and exclusion. Competitiveness isn’t about winning or losing, after all.

I understand that the universe is finite, but that the process which encapsulates it is eternal. When regressed to a point prior to the creation of space, I'm not so sure that there is not still movement within this primordial thing, i.e. time within the primordial as opposed to macrocosmic time which is the time that is observed external to us as change.

Maybe this is similar to this other dimension, or potentiality you are referring. — CorneliusCoburn

This is a common error when conceptualising dimensional shift: most sci-fi descriptions of four-dimensional shift assume an alternative space to the space that exists for us as physical reality.

It’s not an easy thing to conceptualise. Consider the dimensional shift from one to two dimensions: each point on the original line relates to each point on an additional plane as both a point and a line. From two to three dimensions, each point within the original shape relates to each point on an additional plane as a point, a line and a shape of its own. But that’s just mathematical space.

In reality, particles are positioned in relation to each other according to energy, direction, space, time, value and meaning, but the information each atom, molecule, object, event, organism or subject may have relative to each other is limited, and the variables are much more diverse.

It's a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff. — Banno

You’ll have to be more specific than that if you want to dismiss it. Talk about wibbly wobbly...

Consciousness and meaning (what people take something to mean) are also objective information that exists even though it is difficult or impossible to access it. No one knows what Peter is thinking right now and he himself may be confused about the meaning of his thoughts, but they are there and could theoretically be known, for example if telepathy were possible (Is that what you mean by potential information?) His thoughts are just more truths, more pieces of information about items existing in the world. If that is what you mean, we are in agreement, but I definitely object to any suggestion of Peter’s thoughts affecting truths that are foreign to them. His actions, yes, certainly, but not his mere thoughts. — Congau

I am fascinated by the way you process this and challenge my perspective. Yes, I think we are closer in understanding here, sort of. If your actions pertain only to yourself as an isolated individual, then it would be easy to disregard Peter’s unknown thoughts as irrelevant to your understanding of what the truth is regarding your potential to act. But if you recognise that there is potential information available to you regarding Peter’s thoughts (however uncertain), and that your potential actions are not isolated events in the world, but would matter to Peter as well as yourself, then you would relate the potential information available regarding Peter’s thoughts to your potential to act, prior to determining and initiating your actions.

I’m not talking about telepathy as such, but the assumptions that we make subconsciously everyday when we interact with the world through concepts. When you say that no one knows what Peter is thinking, that doesn’t mean that no one is making assumptions about those thoughts and acting on them - Peter included. When you talk about how you think and process objective truth as a conscious act, you invariably leave this part of it out, but we all do it, whether or not we are aware of it. We need to be more aware of this inevitable uncertainty in the information we base our actions on, both before and after we act.

You see, I don’t believe anyone (except perhaps those with autism) processes objective truth as simply as the ‘lonely savage’ - although some like to think that they do. As humans, our actions are always determined in relation to this perceived potential/value, most of which we relate to subconsciously. But we have the potential to be more conscious of it, if we consider it valuable.

This is where we differ. You seem to think that we discard this uncertain information as irrelevant prior to determining our actions, but my understanding is that we integrate this information into who we are - into our individual will or potential to act - prior to determining our actions. We position ourselves in relation to the world according to meaning and value, as well as time, space, direction and energy, with every interaction.

Conventions are shared meaning, I grant you that. They are not foreign to thought but identical to collective thought. Word have their meaning because enough people think they have that meaning, and when enough people change their mind about words, their meaning will change too. Culture, being collective habits, is also dependent on thought or shared meaning. But as objects of study, ideas are objective facts, and the student of ideas cannot change their meaning without making a mistake. — Congau

What you’re talking about here - conventions, collective habits and facts - is probability. We make mistakes, wrong assumptions and prediction errors every day. This is how we learn. As objects of study, ideas only point to objective truth. The student of ideas cannot approach truth in meaning without making a mistake, and being willing to explore the differences between what people think words mean, and how that relates to differences in subjective experiences, value systems and perceived potential.

If you could lay out your logic for us, we will be able to test it. I cannot speak for Banno, but I think I have sufficient knowlege of pure mathematics and the technical aspects of quantum mechanics to follow along and at least know at which points to start asking for clarifications. — jkg20

Oh, sorry - I didn’t mean ‘logic’ in the mathematical sense. My approach to this is intuitive (I’m an Arts major) so it’s likely you’ll have a good laugh if I attempt to ‘lay out’ any mathematical logic formulation.

The way I see it, all possibility exists in a relational structure that initially has no intelligence whatsoever. All possibility encompasses pure fantasy and unimaginable possibilities, beyond logic, rationality and probability. If all information means the same, then there is no intelligence, no understanding. For anything to matter at all, there must be a way to distinguish between all meaning - not to determine what doesn’t matter, but to understand what does matter.

Shannon describes information as ‘the difference that makes a difference’ - the manifestation of an interaction or relation between two physical systems. If there is no possible information about what matters, then one key difference that would make a difference to possibility is the existence of potential or value. So, it makes sense that the initial interaction of all possibility manifests a broad and unrealised potential for... something.

This maximum potential, too, has no information, no intelligence. If everything is only random potential, then the difference that would make a difference between interacting potential is action. So an interaction between random potentiality manifests a random release of what we understand as energy, force and attraction: the four-dimensional universe in action.

This is the beginning of time, as it were: an uninformed event, a single manifestation of potential. Interaction between random energy, force and gravitational events manifest random particles of this potential information: something that matters and has potential in a relational structure of space - a Big Bang, with particles differentiating in relation to potential expansion, and then velocity, and finally potential distance/energy: the foundation of atomic relational structure.

The actual, macro-level physical universe begins here, and strives to fulfil its potential - piecing together information regarding this 6D relational structure of energy, direction, space, time, value and meaning - through interaction. At each dimensional level of awareness, there is a minority of dynamic between the integrated information of a relatively stable system and the vague, developing awareness of potential information - that what really matters is somehow more.

Potentiality is a five-dimensional existence.
— Possibility

Really? Why? How do you know this? — Banno

I don’t. I’m not about to pretend I have any way of objectively proving the theory. It makes sense from my limited understanding of quantum field theory, in relation to my limited understanding of dimensional structure. I’m open to testing the logic, though.

So are we transferring the problem of infinite regression from a four dimensional spacetime continuum to an acausal continuum where there exists 'nothingness' between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes? — CorneliusCoburn

Well, there is no convincing evidence that either spacetime or the potential of our universe (in relation to energy, at least) is infinite. Rather, evidence suggests that both concepts are probably finite.

I have considered an infinite possibility or pure imagination/meaning as a sixth dimensional aspect of existence, to which we can only relate as possible manifestations in an amorphous ‘structure’ of perceived potential (ie. mind). But this is pure speculation at this level - and I’ll admit it’s an extremely flimsy notion. All I’m doing is proposing a relational structure, and then finding ways to test and refine it.

Causality is temporally-defined: a four-dimensional awareness of what are atemporal relations in potentiality. But we have no reason to assume an array of spatially distinct universes, separated by ‘nothingness’.

I think if we get away from assuming that all dimensional aspects of reality are primarily spatial in nature, then we may realise that they’re also not structured as simply as the nested hierarchy of physics-chemistry-biology suggests. Many relational structures of the universe are primarily chemical or qualitative in nature, including sensory phenomenon.

Different people, different cultural circumstances, different material circumstances etc. make a difference for how knowledge is approached or what kind of knowledge is valued, but it doesn’t affect the truth. The truth is there whether or not anyone knows it/believes it to be true. In different environments people will approach different truths, or value different truths. The savage is oblivious to rare stamp collections and the city dweller doesn’t care about rabbit tracks, but both the stamps and the tracks represent facts – are truths.

The practical mind values certainty, but the curious mind is attracted to uncertainty. Both types are probably represented both among “savages” and civilized people, but even if you are right that the lonely savage is overwhelmingly practical, it only reveals his approach to learning and says nothing about what there is to be learned – that is, truth. — Congau

I want to be clear here that I’ve been referring to the particular ‘lonely savage’ in the thought experiment you proposed, who hypothetically has zero opportunity to communicate, connect or collaborate in any way with alternative experiences. In reality, all humans have had this opportunity at some stage in their lives. I believe that even the most practical human mind can develop their curiosity, and learn to value uncertainty.

I also want to clarify another point. When you say ‘the truth’, I believe that you’re referring to only what actually exists in this moment, rather than what information exists. Awareness of, connection to and collaboration with different people, cultural and material circumstances, etc don’t affect what actually exists in this moment, but always affects how we relate to what actually exists - which affects what may actually exist in the next moment. Likewise, our ignorance, isolation or exclusion of different cultural and material circumstances, etc also affects (in a different way) how we interact with what actually exists, which affects what may actually exist in the next moment.

So, while I agree and sympathise with your assertion of what actually exists as ‘the truth’ in an isolated three-dimensional ‘slice’ of time, I disagree that this is an accurate and therefore practical description of objective truth. We cannot accurately define what actually exists as separate from this moment’s relation to both the past and the future, relative to our own awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion of the potential/value and possibility/meaning of surrounding circumstances. We are unable to consciously act on ‘the truth’ without integrating potential information in relation to our understanding of what matters: knowledge, belief, intention, desire, obligation, logic, etc. In fact, I would argue that if ‘objective truth’ is inclusive of consciousness and meaning (if they are there whether or not anyone knows what they are), then it must be inclusive of potential and possible information.

Any thoughts on how we shifted from turning to our earth mother for sustenance and comfort to the a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God? — Athena

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering.

In developing an understanding of our relationship with the world, we have throughout history and culture been torn between accepting that we are an integral but ultimately expendable part of a self-sustaining universe, and entering into a dialogue/conflict with a separate entity that is ultimately more dominant, autonomous and influential than ourselves. The interesting result of this is that, while the experience of men points them towards dialogue/conflict, the position of women - whose experience points them towards interconnectedness - must then be accounted for within this dialogue/conflict: absorbed into the identity of the ‘earth mother’ or of ‘mankind’.

Wow, that is an interesting argument- "theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race". A main reason for starting this thread is I do not believe it is human nature to war. There are peaceful cultures proving it is culture, not our nature, that leads to war. — Athena

Well, I’d warn that the existence of peaceful cultures is not a convincing argument against the capacity for war being part of our ‘nature’ - only that the capacity for peace is part of our nature as well. My main argument here is that in entertaining both capacities simultaneously and without judgement (moral, logical, rational or otherwise), we perceive a more objective truth about our ‘nature’.

Sorry. My bad. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. :smile: — TheMadFool

No problem.

This is a recognition that neither happiness nor pleasure is accurately reducible to a linear hierarchy of value.
— Possibility

Do you mean the pleasure of having sex is the same as the pleasure of saving a person's life and if given a choice between them, you'd not have a preference? — TheMadFool

I’m not sure how you got that from what I’ve written. That’s not what I mean at all.

Yes, there's happiness associated with both higher pleasures and lower pleasures but John Stuart Mill recommended a preference for the former that wasn't based on happiness. Quite odd, if you ask me. — TheMadFool

This is a recognition that neither happiness nor pleasure is accurately reducible to a linear hierarchy of value. Mill made a roughly dichotomous distinction between individual bodily pleasures and intellectual moral ones, but it’s fair to say that even the supposedly ‘lower’ pleasure derived from eating can be a complex, multi-dimensional structure of relations inclusive of all five senses, timing, atmosphere, as well as social values and potential.

Personally, I think the idea that happiness is potentially a maximum sustainable state in an individual or entity is false and misleading, and contributes to more suffering than happiness, overall. Mill’s understanding of utilitarianism and happiness was, after all, a more broadly universal aim than an individual one.