Origin of Feeling

[Blackmail!]

SW,


You confuse instincts and feelings. But they are not the same things, they do not appear in the same areas of the brain. Most feelings are a byproduct of the neocortex, are you aware of that?

Anyway, what you're doing is absurdly tragic.

Human feelings evolved through socialization, not only competition, and this determined our brain growth to a very large extent (for instance, the ability to perceive a lie was critical). I fear we haven't time to make you a lecture about the contemporary theories of evolution, but concerning the origin of our intelligence, maybe you should look to Nash equilibria, that's just a hint to show you how complex can that subject be when so many factors are so deeply entangled.

 

[erm]

confuse instincts and feelings.

True, but in all fairness those two terms are vague.

 

[Blackmail!]

True, but in all fairness those two terms are vague.

Indeed.

We should strictly refer to the Jungian definition of Feeling, not the one SolitaryWalker has invented to justify his incongruous theories.

And here Feeling is basically a way to communicate, an essential part of the socialization process. Feelers can usually better analyze the mental state and the mood of the persons they are interacting with, and react accordingly. IMHO, it is the perfect complement of our abstract rationalization capacity (Thinking).

 

[Amargith]

Thank you for your contribution. Very eloquent! Profound insights that I did not even hope to have bestowed upon this thread! Come again soon please!

Thank you, I will. As for the essay itself, I'm a bit fuzzy as to when you see this transition from instinct to Feeling taking place. It seems that you state it's the logical next step for instinct. Instinct is something that even the most basic organisms are equipped with as it is part of the brainstem.


But the scientific community is still debating where the difference lies between instinct and actually experiencing emotions. If I remember correctly, our 'emotions' stem from a neurological response in the frontal lobe in the brain, and I know that in cats for instance, this portion of the brain is underdeveloped. It would appear that instinct and emotions or Feeling, are located in a different part, and hence not necessarily linked. Some species might have developed it, as we did, but I would have to say that only mammals would have the capacity, as they have somewhat the same brain we do.

With cats, the debate is still ongoing, as they have a smaller brain than we do, as to how they experience things,f or instance pain and which emotions it triggers, if any at all. People are prone to react with self-pity, fear, sadness and anger, during pain. We don't know what goes on inside the cat, but most cats just wait it out in a safe corner, making sure the world doesn't notice their pain, as this could jeopadize their safety.

Hence, I feel your essay isn't as solid as you would want it to be

Just my two cents
Amargith

 

[sade]

SW,


You confuse instincts and feelings. But they are not the same things, they do not appear in the same areas of the brain. Most feelings are a byproduct of the neocortex, are you aware of that?

Anyway, what you're doing is absurdly tragic.

Human feelings evolved through socialization, not only competition, and this determined our brain growth to a very large extent (for instance, the ability to perceive a lie was critical). I fear we haven't time to make you a lecture about the contemporary theories of evolution, but concerning the origin of our intelligence, maybe you should look to Nash equilibria, that's just a hint to show you how complex can that subject be when so many factors are so deeply entangled.

SW - The fittest survives is the principle on which evolution works by, but what you are arguing about is instincts.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

My point was that it's as easy to associate danger with non-living things as with living things. Feeling-wise it makes no difference if it's a force of nature or a creature pissed off at you, either way you run from it.

It was the intellect that caused anthropomorphism, since prior to it there was no need to distinguish between living and non-living. It was the intellects attempt to translate feelings that made it seem like everything was living.

That is not true, because animals do not exactly understand what non-living things are. For example, floods, hurricanes etc, those are highly complex things.

Nolla points out that fire is not one of those complex non-living things. It is a simple thing and a non-living thing. However, the simple non-living things are rare.

Most clear-cut, simple dangers animals perceive are other predators. On that note, animals must have intuited that fire is some kind of a decidedly disagreeable animal.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

SW,


You confuse instincts and feelings. But they are not the same things, they do not appear in the same areas of the brain. Most feelings are a byproduct of the neocortex, are you aware of that?

Anyway, what you're doing is absurdly tragic.

Human feelings evolved through socialization, not only competition, and this determined our brain growth to a very large extent (for instance, the ability to perceive a lie was critical). I fear we haven't time to make you a lecture about the contemporary theories of evolution, but concerning the origin of our intelligence, maybe you should look to Nash equilibria, that's just a hint to show you how complex can that subject be when so many factors are so deeply entangled.

Please explain the difference between a feeling and an instinct.


When I say ouch. Or awww. In one case I meant a feeling that is unpleasant and in the other case a feeling that is pleasant. What is that feeling, merely an instinct or an impulse that I find agreeable and the other that I find disagreeable.

You're right that our feelings (those that I call instincts) operate in a complex manner, as you point out socialization is very complex. That is all true, but not relevant to what we are discussing here. Furthermore, your claim concerning evolution of intelligence and Nash equillibrium are completely irrelevant, or so it seems to me.

Here we are talking about why animals and people tend to take a person-centered approach towards the world, and why they tend to anthropomoprhize non-living entities.

Thank you for your sincere attempt to bring clarity to this situation (no sarcasm this time). We are getting somewhere now.

SW - The fittest survives is the principle on which evolution works by, but what you are arguing about is instincts.

That did not make any sense. Try again.

Thank you, I will. As for the essay itself, I'm a bit fuzzy as to when you see this transition from instinct to Feeling taking place. It seems that you state it's the logical next step for instinct. Instinct is something that even the most basic organisms are equipped with as it is part of the brainstem.


But the scientific community is still debating where the difference lies between instinct and actually experiencing emotions. If I remember correctly, our 'emotions' stem from a neurological response in the frontal lobe in the brain, and I know that in cats for instance, this portion of the brain is underdeveloped. It would appear that instinct and emotions or Feeling, are located in a different part, and hence not necessarily linked. Some species might have developed it, as we did, but I would have to say that only mammals would have the capacity, as they have somewhat the same brain we do.

With cats, the debate is still ongoing, as they have a smaller brain than we do, as to how they experience things,f or instance pain and which emotions it triggers, if any at all. People are prone to react with self-pity, fear, sadness and anger, during pain. We don't know what goes on inside the cat, but most cats just wait it out in a safe corner, making sure the world doesn't notice their pain, as this could jeopadize their safety.



Hence, I feel your essay isn't as solid as you would want it to be

Just my two cents
Amargith

The question that I have for you is the same that I have posed to Blackmail.

What is the difference between an instinct and a feeling?

It seems to me that you're confusing emotion with emotional intelligence. What you seem to be thinking is people who have emotional intelligence tend to process emotions quickly and in a healthy manner as well as have a clear understanding of their state of mind.

What is going on there is logical analysis of emotions, and not the mere processing of emotion. The mere emoting or processing of emotion is instinctual or the same thing as instinct, analysis of emotion is another matter. That, as you and Blackmail have pointed out, must take part in another part of the brain than the cognitive process of emoting.

 

[proteanmix]

Moved to MBTI (tm), Enneagram, and other personality matrices.

Why do you all fall for this every single time?

 

[erm]

That is not true, because animals do not exactly understand what non-living things are. For example, floods, hurricanes etc, those are highly complex things.

Nolla points out that fire is not one of those complex non-living things. It is a simple thing and a non-living thing. However, the simple non-living things are rare.

Most clear-cut, simple dangers animals perceive are other predators. On that note, animals must have intuited that fire is some kind of a decidedly disagreeable animal.

Living creatures are less complex than large heights?

To instincts and feelings it's that tigers run at you, swipe and bite, hurricanes knock things over on you.

Both of these are simple. Whether you explain tigers as reincarnations of the dead, or hurricanes as god's wrath for some sin, they are both treated the same. The anthropomorphism is a random explanation to help understand, gorillas as dead souls (an actual example) is also a random explanation to help understand. There is no living/non-living distinction instinctually or feeling-wise.

Complexity and simplicity are merely descriptions of states of understanding, so you are arbitrarily saying living creatures are easier to understand than natural phenomenon. A living creature takes more time to understand than a hurricane, so in that sense is more complex. The effects of a living creature are also more complex in that sense.

 

[Amargith]

Please explain the difference between a feeling and an instinct.


When I say ouch. Or awww. In one case I meant a feeling that is unpleasant and in the other case a feeling that is pleasant. What is that feeling, merely an instinct or an impulse that I find agreeable and the other that I find disagreeable.

You're right that our feelings (those that I call instincts) operate in a complex manner, as you point out socialization is very complex. That is all true, but not relevant to what we are discussing here. Furthermore, your claim concerning evolution of intelligence and Nash equillibrium are completely irrelevant, or so it seems to me.

Here we are talking about why animals and people tend to take a person-centered approach towards the world, and why they tend to anthropomoprhize non-living entities.

Thank you for your sincere attempt to bring clarity to this situation (no sarcasm this time). We are getting somewhere now.





That did not make any sense. Try again.




The question that I have for you is the same that I have posed to Blackmail.

What is the difference between an instinct and a feeling?

It seems to me that you're confusing emotion with emotional intelligence. What you seem to be thinking is people who have emotional intelligence tend to process emotions quickly and in a healthy manner as well as have a clear understanding of their state of mind.

What is going on there is logical analysis of emotions, and not the mere processing of emotion. The mere emoting or processing of emotion is instinctual or the same thing as instinct, analysis of emotion is another matter. That, as you and Blackmail have pointed out, must take part in another part of the brain than the cognitive process of emoting.

In my example of pain with cats, you will find the list of emotions a person goes through. Amongst them is for instance self-pity. Wallowing in self-pity is hardly emotionally intelligent. But it is a feeling, that originates in the frontal lobe, an area underdevelopped with certain mammals and non-existent in others so we can somewhat assume they do not engage in self-pity. The same goes for guilt, disdain, vengefullness etc.

However, instinct is mainly there to ensure your survival. A stimulus enters your brain, for instance a predator, gets routed to your amygdala who then tries to identify the stimulus from previous experiences, and determines a the best course of action, to then send that reaction back, be it fight or flight. If in perceived imminent danger, the amygdala doesn't even compare experiences, and will just sent a flight/flight response, right away. This is why when you startle someone, they jump up or some even smack you. With pain, the amygdala doesn't even get to judge. Your body uses a reflex shortcut to avoid it immediately, and the stimulus only reaches your brain after you've already responded to it. Potential feelings only come afterwards and the scientific community is divided as to how much they have in common with instinct and how similar they are. I think that what you actually consider 'feeling' in this case is you experiencing the amount adrenalin, noradrenalin and all kinds of other stuff being dumped in your body to give you what you need in order to respond appropriately, be it fight or flight.


As for reacting to dangers, I feel you are ignoring transgenerational behavior and learning principles, though I'll grant you that certain phobias have been imprinted on us genetically and will invoke an instant flight-response. Again, this is instinct, the drive to survive. It it why so many humans have arachnophobia and why rabbits flee when you put their hands out to lift them up (it resembles the shape of a bird of prey and they're genetically programmed to run then).

I do hereby resign from this discussion, as I have no desire to be teaching basic animal ethology and neurology on this forum (at least not more than I already touched upon by now)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Living creatures are less complex than large heights?

To instincts and feelings it's that tigers run at you, swipe and bite, hurricanes knock things over on you.

Both of these are simple. Whether you explain tigers as reincarnations of the dead, or hurricanes as god's wrath for some sin, they are both treated the same. The anthropomorphism is a random explanation to help understand, gorillas as dead souls (an actual example) is also a random explanation to help understand. There is no living/non-living distinction instinctually or feeling-wise.

Complexity and simplicity are merely descriptions of states of understanding, so you are arbitrarily saying living creatures are easier to understand than natural phenomenon. A living creature takes more time to understand than a hurricane, so in that sense is more complex. The effects of a living creature are also more complex in that sense.

You seem to be missing my point. An animal is attacked by a flood. A flood is a complex things. An animal does not know what exactly this is. Flood is a non-living danger. An animal is attacked by a tiger, the animal sees the tiger and identifies the tiger as the sole threat. This is all that an animal needs to know; what a tiger looks like and that the tiger is bad.

The animal perceives the tiger as bad and therefore runs from the tiger. What about a flood or a hurricane. There is so much going on in a flood or hurricane (trees falling, the ground being washed away, other animals running and so on), the animal does not know what to think. In short living dangers present only one object of threat (for example, just the tiger) non-living dangers present many.

In my example of pain with cats, you will find the list of emotions a person goes through. Amongst them is for instance self-pity. Wallowing in self-pity is hardly emotionally intelligent. But it is a feeling, that originates in the frontal lobe, an area underdevelopped with certain mammals and non-existent in others so we can somewhat assume they do not engage in self-pity. The same goes for guilt, disdain, vengefullness etc.

However, instinct is mainly there to ensure your survival. A stimulus enters your brain, for instance a predator, gets routed to your amygdala who then tries to identify the stimulus from previous experiences, and determines a the best course of action, to then send that reaction back, be it fight or flight. If in perceived imminent danger, the amygdala doesn't even compare experiences, and will just sent a flight/flight response, right away. This is why when you startle someone, they jump up or some even smack you. With pain, the amygdala doesn't even get to judge. Your body uses a reflex shortcut to avoid it immediately, and the stimulus only reaches your brain after you've already responded to it. Potential feelings only come afterwards and the scientific community is divided as to how much they have in common with instinct and how similar they are. I think that what you actually consider 'feeling' in this case is you experiencing the amount adrenalin, noradrenalin and all kinds of other stuff being dumped in your body to give you what you need in order to respond appropriately, be it fight or flight.


As for reacting to dangers, I feel you are ignoring transgenerational behavior and learning principles, though I'll grant you that certain phobias have been imprinted on us genetically and will invoke an instant flight-response. Again, this is instinct, the drive to survive. It it why so many humans have arachnophobia and why rabbits flee when you put their hands out to lift them up (it resembles the shape of a bird of prey and they're genetically programmed to run then).

I do hereby resign from this discussion, as I have no desire to be teaching basic animal ethology and neurology on this forum (at least not more than I already touched upon by now)

You never answered my question!

What is the difference between an instinct and an emotion.

1)Define emotion.

2)Define instinct.

3)Show the difference between the two.

 

[Amargith]

You never answered my question!

What is the difference between an instinct and an emotion.

1)Define emotion.

2)Define instinct.

3)Show the difference between the two.

I did to the extent it is possible. Not my problem that it's not in the format you like so much. I don't particularly care for your style of defining either. They aren't clearly defined yet as we have yet to understand them fully.

For the third time: there is no concensus in the scientific community to what extent animals experience feelings. All we know for sure is that they have an instinct. That means that you assuming they are the same till proven otherwise is as incorrect as it would be for me to wanna prove you beyond contestation to you that they aren't. We simply do not know, and the general approach to this for now is to work with what we do know, namely instinct. I've seen several documentaries and read about some research that seems to indicate that Elephants and dolphins would rival our ability to feel. But it is still a very controverse topic for now. This also means that your essay is based on something that we just do not have enough data on.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I did to the extent it is possible. Not my problem that it's not in the format you like so much. I don't particularly care for your style of defining either. They aren't clearly defined yet as we have yet to understand them fully.

For the third time: there is no concensus in the scientific community to what extent animals experience feelings. All we know for sure is that they have an instinct. That means that you assuming they are the same till proven otherwise is as incorrect as it would be for me to wanna prove you beyond contestation to you that they aren't. We simply do not know, and the general approach to this for now is to work with what we do know, namely instinct. I've seen several documentaries and read about some research that seems to indicate that Elephants and dolphins would rival our ability to feel. But it is still a very controverse topic for now. This also means that your essay is based on something that we just do not have enough data on.

You do know that if something is not clearly defined, it is non-sense?

Its just like if we are trying to solve an equation that seems like 5x +2y=10, yet we do not know if the first number is 5 or a 2 (it only seems like a 5..) or if the second number is a 2 or a 3 and so on.

Defining the terms is a prerequisite to all meaningful discourse.

 

[erm]

You seem to be missing my point. An animal is attacked by a flood. A flood is a complex things. An animal does not know what exactly this is. Flood is a non-living danger. An animal is attacked by a tiger, the animal sees the tiger and identifies the tiger as the sole threat. This is all that an animal needs to know; what a tiger looks like and that the tiger is bad.

The animal perceives the tiger as bad and therefore runs from the tiger. What about a flood or a hurricane. There is so much going on in a flood or hurricane (trees falling, the ground being washed away, other animals running and so on), the animal does not know what to think. In short living dangers present only one object of threat (for example, just the tiger) non-living dangers present many.

If a cat sees a sleeping bear, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a blade, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a bear sprinted towards it, it becomes scared, if cat sees a blade moving towards it, it becomes scared.

Blade or bear, the cat won't note the difference. The only reason a cat wouldn't understand a hurricane is the same reason it wouldn't understand a kraken. Too large for it to comprehend.
In the case of humans, bears and hurricanes were both treated the same in mythology (random back stories, hence anthropomorphism).

Starvation, disease, falling rocks, corpses, fire etc, all non-living objects they can focus on and "think" about.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If a cat sees a sleeping bear, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a blade, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a bear sprinted towards it, it becomes scared, if cat sees a blade moving towards it, it becomes scared.

Blade or bear, the cat won't note the difference. The only reason a cat wouldn't understand a hurricane is the same reason it wouldn't understand a kraken. Too large for it to comprehend.
In the case of humans, bears and hurricanes were both treated the same in mythology (random back stories, hence anthropomorphism).

Starvation, disease, falling rocks, corpses, fire etc, all non-living objects they can focus on and "think" about.

How many animals were attacked by just a blade? Or an entity nearly as simple as that one? Most non-living threats were natural disasters (that were complex, like hurricanes or floods). I do not see the relevance of the sleeping bear comment. An animal learned to fear the bear only after a bear that was awake has attacked the animal. After that the animal will associate the danger with a bear and will therefore fear the bear whether the bear is asleep or awake.

 

[Tiltyred]

Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

This is nearly entirely irrelevant to our discussion, but thank you for the input anyways.

 

[Amargith]

Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

They have an interesting theory on that now, I saw recently. Some believe that animals can perceive the lowest sounds that the soundwave makes (which travels faster than the tsunami itself). And, because those low sounds are often used to establish dominance and in territorial disputes, some apparently believe that animals 'mistake' the sound for a highly dangerous animal.

 

[erm]

How many animals were attacked by just a blade? Or an entity nearly as simple as that one? Most non-living threats were natural disasters (that were complex, like hurricanes or floods). I do not see the relevance of the sleeping bear comment. An animal learned to fear the bear only after a bear that was awake has attacked the animal. After that the animal will associate the danger with a bear and will therefore fear the bear whether the bear is asleep or awake.

The cat would fear the sleeping bear like it fears the stationary blade. Avoid it.

Most non-living threats were the result of natural disasters, like falling sharp rocks, known as blades. The animal would not see the earthquakes or hurricane, it would see the dangers it produces, such as falling objects, which it sees the same way as it sees predators.

If it links the shaking ground or strong wind with the falling rocks, it is the same as linking the smell or roar of a bear with a bear.

Non-living and living are instinctually and emotionally the same. Both are scary, and both explained in the same way, which later became anthropomorphism when the intellect translated them.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The cat would fear the sleeping bear like it fears the stationary blade. Avoid it.

Most non-living threats were the result of natural disasters, like falling sharp rocks, known as blades. The animal would not see the earthquakes or hurricane, it would see the dangers it produces, such as falling objects, which it sees the same way as it sees predators.

If it links the shaking ground with the falling rocks, it is the same as linking the smell of a bear with a bear.

Non-living and living are instinctually and emotionally the same. Both are scary, and both explained in the same way, which later became anthropomorphism when the intellect translated them.

However, the living creatures, pursue the prey consistently. Whilst the non-living do not. Rocks fall for a certain period of time, than they stop. Yet a tiger chases the prey nearly every time a tiger is observed. Therefore a tiger is related more closely to a danger than a non-living object, because a tiger acts as a danger more frequently than a rock. Or any other object that the animal tends to regard as a threat.