In respect to imagination (here broadly understood to not literally regard only images), I'd say very little if any. One can become thirsty (an interoception) by imagining oneself to so be just as one can become curious (not an interoception) by imagining oneself to so be. — javra

I should have been clearer in trying to point out that in using just imagination to become angry or envious the corresponding bodily stimuli are produced in the body. I imaging that curiosity, for example, corresponds to a bodily state of higher arousal. Whether that means a slightly higher heart rate or whatever I don't know, but there is an altered interoception.

I'm not denying the interlinked nature of mind and body, but am disagreeing with the physicalist-like notion - or predisposition of interpretation - that all cognition emerges from bodily states of being — javra

I don't believe that the theory of constructed emotion makes that claim or relies on such a notion.

Good point. I can't help thinking how inextricably interlinked the mind and body are, however.

While some emotions are commonly understood to be correlated to interoceptive stimuli – e.g. disgust with some degree of bodily nausea – other emotions hold no such correspondence whatsoever. Envy I think is a fairly common emotion – and is one such example of an emotion that is not gained via interoception. Unlike anger or sorrow, there is no set of bodily stimuli obtained via interoception that corresponds to envy. — javra

I could produce the bodily stimuli associated with anger using just my imagination and no external stimuli. I could do the same with envy. What's the difference?

I don't think lockdowns are a good idea for the simple reason it is never a good idea to destroy one's own economy. — NOS4A2

Are you willing to acknowledge that a pandemic would badly hurt the American economy (given its preparedness) regardless of how it's handled? I understand that Germany, for instance, is doing much better economically because it's in a better position to handle it.

The main reason for doing so was the fear that a surge would overwhelm the healthcare system, which largely hasn't happened, even in states with no stay-at-home restrictions like Wyoming, Iowa or South Dakota. — NOS4A2

Maybe it hasn't happened because of the measures taken???

It's becoming more apparent that treating the entire country as if it were New York City or Italy was a huge mistake. — NOS4A2

The entire country, like Hawaii for instance, that has 10 million people traveling through it a year. Arizona has four times that many tourists. Would Americans stop traveling on their own accord? I don't know.

In a pandemic, it would probably be a good idea to lockdown a relatively small area that gets 10 million people traveling through it a year regardless of what's happening in NY. Also, it speaks to the interconnectedness of the world in terms of travel.

Hawaii has 12 deaths but is on strict lockdown because of the state of affairs in New York. — NOS4A2

Last year Hawaii had a bit over 10 million visitors, ya nincompoop.

Would you settle for Dr. Maim?

Your writing is aesthetically pleasing though, I should add.

The concept of alone is meaningless except to the godless. — Hanover

I was surprised yesterday (earthday) in the godfearing-right's reaction towards the Pope and his indictment of humanity's failure to care for the planet, and I already had a low opinion of the godfearing. They certainly are together in their hatred.

A glaring example of religion taking a backseat to political "ideology," proving once again that it all amounts to tribalism.

Hopefully, the Pope won't condemn the lockdown protestors or the godfearing right will completely disown him.

That doesn’t even make sense, so still your playbook.

You ghoulishly mock the death of my grandmother because you have can’t muster any other argument. — NOS4A2

Working from your playbook... You're mocking the death of my poor grand?! She died alone! :groan:

We are in a sense at the mercy of our predictions, but we can endeavor to change our predictions or deliberately condition ourselves in particular ways.

I just cross referenced the post where his gran just died and he's been retired for a few years. Something doesn't compute. — Punshhh

Yeah, my gran just died too. She was infected by one of those lockdown protesters. Filthy bastards!

I did, and the blank was filled with: he's lying.
— praxis

I’m flattered you spent the time. — NOS4A2

Oh it wasn’t me, and I stopped paying my research team when this whole corona thing started.

Just cross-reference a couple of my posts and fill in the blanks. — NOS4A2

I did, and the blank was filled with he's lying.

All just fun and games, my friend.

Well, he better work on keeping the story straight or things won't go so well on employee review day. Do they still send nincompoops to the salt mines?

I retired from the Kremlin many years ago. — NOS4A2

I just did a search for 'retired' and 'NOS4A2':

I’m retired. Money is already earned, friend. Unfortunately that’s something they won’t teach you in certain circles. :wink: — NOS4A2

Money already earned but "not sure how long that can last." Either you didn't get taught in the right circle or within three months spent all your rubles on cheap vodka? I can't decide which is worse. In any case...

My own business has dried up so much that I’m living on my savings. I’m not sure how long that can last. — NOS4A2

I seem to recall you saying that you're retired. Not to suggest that you're incapable of lying.

"Associated public unrest"...huh.....like what? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How bout a little something like this...

I feel I'm in agreement with most of what Barrett says about emotions. There seems to be a hidden logic behind feelings - the "about-ness" you referred to - and, as far as I can tell, it boils down to survival, survival as an individual entity, as a social entity, as the thing one identifies as the self or as a integral part of that self. Emotions, on that view, is the logic of self-preservartion with a scope coextensive with what one thinks of as me and mine. — TheMadFool

It may be more accurate (or merely specific) to say that emotion is the logic of energy regulation, if I follow what you're saying correctly.

My feeling is if you feel slated as at risk then please stay home. If you feel vulnerable but aren't sick, stay at home. If you feel as though you are contributing by staying at home, please stay home. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The basic choice seems to be between contributing to the health of people or the health of the economy. This has to be, at least largely, a false dilemma. In any scenario, the economy will be badly affected. Who knows, maybe it would have been more harshly affected without the measures that have been taken. There could have been massive labor strikes and associated public unrest, an overtaxed healthcare system, and so on. The economy seemed ripe for a downturn anyway.

We get it, NOS, when the target demographic possesses the maturity of a three year old you have to advertise appropriately.

Remember when you guys got outraged at a sharpie mark on a map? Three years old. — NOS4A2

At least he didn’t use a crayon. That shows some maturity.

A sign the political season is going to be great this year. — NOS4A2

If you're three years old maybe.

"Let them eat ice cream" - Nancy Antoinette — Trump

I'll give Trump credit for being the master of fake news.

I'm tempted to encourage Trump supporters to attend anti-social distancing protests. The bigger, and more tightly packed, the better. — Relativist

A few red states are planning to loosen restrictions within about a week, so DJT might be deprived of some votes.



Her body, her choice... and she's voting for Trump?

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

ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENT
YOUR NARCISSIST PRESIDENT

The classical view of emotion holds that emotions are natural states which we simply 'feel' and then subsequently 'express': one feels, viscerally, anger, which one then expresses by stomping a foot, clenching a fist, or having a yell. This is a view of emotion which has begun to be challenged by recent studies, which instead posit that emotions - or at least specific emotions, like anger, shame, happiness, and sadness - are conceptual reterojections which we attribute or impute to bodily states which are not 'in-themselves', sad, happy, angry or whathaveyou. — StreetlightX

I had to reread How Emotions Are Made about three times in order to wrap my head around this new view.

I'm old school: assertions without argument can be dismissed without argument (Hitchens' Razor). Keep's the discussion moving productively, I think. — 180 Proof

The burden of proof should lie with claimant , I also think, but it can’t be completely dismissed until it’s invalidated. This may be important to keep in mind in order to help avoid the potential for confirmation bias.

I hope you'll explain a "Yes".

I'm probably overthinking it here; if other people are "feeling a bit dark", maybe they'd relate to it, and appreciate it, rather than feel pulled down by it. — Noble Dust

Yes, maybe even share in the catharsis, if that's what it is.

"to feel with", as in to feel concurrently what's happening in the world? — Noble Dust

Art as a means to share feeling, simply.

Might be this week, might be in 6 months. — Noble Dust

:lol: Your creativity is about as unpredictable as mine.

The first one with the four silhouetted figures is digital and the last two are oil paint.

About the dark ambient, I think the whole point is to feel with. Upload when finished.

You're too kind, Nils.

So it seems I'm the only one with enough extra free time in the lockdown to Get Creative.

I stumbled onto an article today that talked about the 'degrowth' movement. I was encouraged to learn about this movement, as it aims to promote the kind of development we've talked about, but also discouraged by the article itself. It was written by Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He grossly mischaracterizes the movement as "anti-growth, anti-people, anti-free enterprise and anti-prosperity." It's certainly anti-growth, in meaning against endless economic expansion. It's not anti-prosperity, however, it just has a different definition of prosperity, which centers on well-being and sustainability rather than the acquisition of materialistic wealth.

The thing is, Moore is not an idiot, I'm sure he understands what degrowth is about. He chooses to misrepresent it, as well as make it appear synonymous with "the left," which is also a misrepresentation. Why? I can only assume that he does this for personal gain and/or to support a political ideology. Either way, he's a cog in a wheel that forces him to mislead others. If he were committed to developing his character and refused to mislead others, I think he'd be a step closer to being free of that wheel. But then maybe he doesn't want to be free.

Just thinking out loud.

Do you have it? I hope your symptoms are not to bad. — Punshhh

No reply. Hmm :chin:

I agree, but believe it would be an empathetic form of independence, rather than a form of self-isolationism. Hoping that makes sense as expressed. — javra

Yes, as the Stoics would say, in accord with human nature, which is social and has the capacity of reason. Virtue/reason applied to social living.

It's just a new and kind of disturbing thought that human culture may generally have a natural tendency to devalue the development of virtue, and not just that particular cultures may have that tendency.

You can never be "the actual self" because it is exactly that which lies outside the bounds of the type of localized coherence which forms your folk self. True actualization would be a form of insanity, a separation from mother social super-organism. Just the opposite to fake Maslow self-actualization (a marrying to one of its narrow instantiations—your dream "role", whatever). — Baden

I believe that form of insanity is called nihilism.

I believe that once we get into discussing the very nature of outcomes such as self-respect and peace of mind, things can get very complicated and debate might be non-stop. But I again stipulate that a basic physical itch can amply suffice as counter-example to a pessimistic understanding of life as endless struggle without the possibility of lasting satisfaction: The obtainment of some goals manifests something within us which is of value in and of itself, which is held irrespective of other’s opinions, and which is lasting rather than fleeting (sometime to the effect that we take it to the grave). — javra

According to Stoicism, the development of virtue is one of the few things that we have control of and therefore is a worthwhile goal and something that will have lasting value.

A thought that comes to mind after reading the OP, the mention of West World, and this part of your response to it is that societies may have a tendency to devalue the development of virtue. American culture, for instance, doesn't train us to pursue well-being in the eudaimonic sense. It trains us to pursue a good career, wealth, status, etc. The fifth level felt rabit is heaven, nirvana, or whatever. All these dangling carrots are dependent on others, which isn't nessisarily a bad thing, but it does leave us open to West World-like manipulation. The development of virtue can be countercultural in the sense that it leads to independence.

The person I was responding to seemed to think that all maps have the same value. — Coben

Oddly, you're the one who seems to come closest to making this assumption. A map has the potential to have value in a variety of uses. It doesn't only have value, or depending on the circumstances and how it's used, even the best value used as a map. If someone were using a map of Paris to navigate London, wouldn't we need to assume that the map was providing some sort of value, even if we couldn't determine what their purpose was? They'd be aware of and consciously connected to whatever they were experiencing, regardless if they were what others would consider delusional.

Maybe a little more practical example will sell the point. Imagine someone from an alien culture who has no concept of money. If they were to witness you exchanging items that they considered highly valuable for a piece of paper money, they might think you were delusional, at least initially, before they came to understand the social construct. Does believing in the value of paper money make you less connected to reality? No.