"EMOTIONS"---theory

Great Debates
1

Emotions evolved as “fitness indicators” for Darwinian
Sexual Selection. Language evolved and “hides” negative
emotions and “flaunts” the positive emotion of Joy.

This theory does not imply that Evolution has a “purpose”.

Can personal emotional experiences be used to demonstrate
that the theory has merit, or demonstrate that the
theory has no merit?

“Sexual Jealousy” (negative emotion)

JAY: (young mistress) (speaking with smirkey irritation):
“Jesse, why can’t I invite Mack over, I also need a
sexual fix?”

JESSE: (senior citizen sugar daddy) (speaking with a
painful smile): “Jay, I like Mack, I just don’t like him
staying for three or four hours.”

Comments, Debate, Personal Experiences, anyone?

jesse (ISRE applicant)

2

Emotions are cognitions on their most basic level. You know everything that you do know because you feel it to be so.

We have a great tool in this thing called language; it enables us to organize beautiful structures of analytical thought, without which we could never make as much sense of the world as we do. Our language lets us represent complex notions with symbols, and join those symbols together to express yet more complex material.

But the notions themselves, at the very bottom, are feelings. Emotions and sensations.

And once within the structure of what we can build with language, using logic and intellect and analysis, depending on empirical data and inductive reasoning and characteristics as they apply to classes of categorical objects and so forth, the little decisions to accept a thing as making sense in this way or that way, or accepting an explanation as representing a true and accurate summary of the data…all those little decisions are, at the smallest levels, just feelings about what fits right against the backdrop of what we know.

That’s what emotions are. You want more detail, read your Pirsig.

What’s an ISRE applicant?

3

Hi AHunter3,

I guess no one is interested in debating the evolution
of emotions and language, except the two of us.

ISRE = “International Society for the Research of Emotions”

I read some Zen stuff about 10 years ago, could not
integrate it. I have read 40 books by J. Krishnamurti,
and have read most of Michio Kuchi (Macrobiotics).
I am not sure if those books are in any way related
to Zen.

I was a primal patient at “Arthur Janov’s Primal Institute”
in Venice, California for one year. I used to hang out
at a Osho commune called THE NOW. I used to talk
to this Zen Monk that also hung around. I was always
questioning him about emotions (since I was in Primal
Scream Therapy), especially negative emotions. His
answers would always be in “Zen Talk”, which I could
never understand.

I have read your reply to my thread five times, and
have no idea about it’s meaning. I have read Candace
Pert’s book “Molecules of Emotion”, and understand it
completely.

With all respect, would you please explain your reply?

jesse

4

Stealing from my own work…

Using the example of seeing a tree, Pirsig notes that

At the cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual
awareness, called awareness of Quality. You can’t be aware that you’ve seen a tree until after you’ve seen
the tree, and between the instant of vision and instant of awareness there must be a time lag…Quality is
shapeless, formless, indescribable. To see shapes and forms is to intellectualize.
(Pirsig 1974, pp. 221, 224)

…Pirsig is saying there is nothing compellingly meaningful about those visual sensory impressions that automatically tells the person that its source is a tree. If you have seen trees before, you have past experiences with similar visual sensory impressions which are cross-indexed with other experiences, sensory impressions, concepts, social attitudes, and so forth, all of which taken together represent “treeness” to you. But before these sensory impressions can be cross-referenced and interpreted, they have to be felt. This experience, which is nonverbal, nonanalytical, nonconceptual, is entirely located in the present moment, and consciousness consists of “feelings” in both senses of the word-sensation (in this case, visual sensations) and emotion…

This experiencing of self-in-relation-to-tree, which is the romantic mode of knowing as opposed to the classical mode, is also preverbal and preanalytical. A classical analytical response, in its simplest form, is necessary to distinguish between self and tree. Analytical categorization identifies the tree as a tree and assigns objectivity to it, identifies the emotional-preverbal impressions as subjective reactions to the tree, makes separate observations about the appearance of the bark and the length of the branches and color of the leaves or needles, and given sufficient familiarity with trees perhaps makes the determination that the tree is a pine tree; or, for that matter, that it is a seventeen-to- eighteen-year-old Ponderosa pine with a mild case of tree blight.

The newborn infant would not only be incapable of identifying the object in her field of visions as a tree, she would be incapable of knowing immediately that these strange new sensory sensations have something to do with an object that she could touch if she could move in the direction her head is pointed, or even that visual impressions of a certain sort imply the existence of an object in her line of vision.

5

PS – don’t put hard returns when you post. Let the software wrap your lines for you.

6

Hi AHunter3,

I remember seeing this picture of Krishnamurti and a
student. They were separated by a tree, and K was
pointing to the tree and he was saying “the root of
all evil—separation.”

Is Zen a meme? Check out my thread (“MEME WARS”).

Did human emotions preceed memes?

“DECEPTION”

Cave Man: “Need sex”.

Caveless Woman: “Need food”.

Cave Man: “Inside cave”

(fade out)

Caveless Woman: “Where food?”

Cave Man: “Come back next moon.”

jesse

7

jesse morrison wrote, it the first sentence of the OP:

There is a theory going around that human cognitive power evolved as dramatically as it did because it is a Fitness Indicator. Good brain development is an indicator of general genetic fitness, and thus, someone who can be creative and witty probably has good brain development, and thus probably has genes that are free from deformities. In this theory, the survival advantage of toolmaking, predicting seasonal variations, cunningly tracking prey, etc., all took a back seat to the “peacock’s tail” of cognitive display.

However, as should be obvious, strong emotions would have had to have existed long before cognitive ability began to be selected for. The survival advantage of, say, the fear of falling and of sudden loud noises, is so great that these same emotions exist in species for whom cognitive ability is not even an issue.

8

Hi Tracer,

I think we are on the same page. I should have defined
“proximate cause” and “ultimate cause”.

I believe you are saying that my “sexual jealousy” falls
under proximate cause.

I think you would be correct if my mistress had been
“sexually attracted” to my competitors “mind”.

I think my competitors “peacock tail” was of a physical
nature, rather than a “mind” nature.

Can we say that there are two types of sexual jealousy?

  1. Proximate-----competitor has “better” memes.
  2. Ultimate------competitor has “better” genes, and/or
    younger genes.

jesse

p.s. Have you studied “The Mating Mind”, “The Meme
Machine”, and “The Handicap Principle”? I would be
interested in your thoughts on how they may relate
to emotions.

9

AHunter3 wrote:

Heed AHunter3’s words well, jesse morrison. Your posts all look like free-form poetry.

10

jesse morrison wrote:

Hmmm … from what little I could infer from your rather obsucurely-worded OP, that does sound right.

However, there are just as many women who can be “charmed” by poetry or a sense of humor.

:confused: What the heck are you talking about this time? Proximate and ultimate jealousy?! Huh?!? You’re going to have to be a lot more coherent than this if you want to have a rational discussion about … um … about whatever it is you want to have a rational discussion about. :confused:

11

“CLARIFICATION OF ORIGINAL POST”—by request

My thought is that theories are somewhat like “Laws”—
A narrow statement, with broad interpretations.

“CAUSE”—In both the vernacular sense and the scientific
sense, cause is defined as “that” without which an effect
or a phenomenon would not exist.

Biologists study two levels of causation, PROXIMATE
and ULTIMATE.

Proximate explanations have to do with “HOW” developmental
or physiological mechanisms cause something to happen.

Ultimate explanations have to do with “WHY” particular
proximate mechanisms exist.

Proximate and ultimate explanations are complements, not
alternatives.

At this point I do not think it is necessary to debate
proximate and ultimate causes of emotions (perhaps
later).

In my example of a personal negative fitness indicator
(sexual jealousy), it seems we will have to place
ourselves into the “shoes” of each player.

If my theory has merit, then Jay would have to perceive
my emotion as a negative fitness indicator and possibly
look for a new sugar daddy that is “less” sexually
jealous by using Mack as a test instrument.

If I fear that Jay may be using me for future comparisons,
then it would be to my advantage to attempt and “hide”
my negative fitness indicator with deceptive language.

Of course Mack is “flaunting” his positive fitness
indicator (joy) by asking Jay “Who’s next?”

David Buss has a different theory (book “Jealousy: The
Dangerous Passion”). He theorizes that sexual jealousy
evolved as a “mate bonding” mechanism. I am speculating
that his reasoning has to do with “reproductive advantage”.

I am questioning David Buss’s Mate Bonding Theory.

jesse

12

Emotions require a far simpler brain than rational thought does. My theory is that emotions are survival mechanisms. Some protohuman species were not capable of logic, or abstract thought. But, they had emotions. They were incapable of thinking “That large animal is a carnovore. If I remain here, there is a strong likelihood it will kill me.”. However, they could respond with curiosity “What is that thing?” and fear “Aaah! Run away!”. Lust is necessary for the survival of our species. Jealousy is a mechanism that: causes males to seperate their mate from other males and thus ensure that she bears only his children and that his genes are passed on, causes females to seperate their mate from other females and ensure that the male has children only with her and that he remains to provide for her and those children. Anger provides a rush of adrenaline and other hormones, temporarily increasing strength and resistance to pain-very useful things to have in a combat situation.

13

Excellent! And the intellectual, rational version is really no more than a highly refined comprehension of what your feelings are telling you. The ability to manipulate symbols in your mind (language) enables you to move from “??? …Aaaaag, run away!” to “That animal is a carnivore”, or even “That animal is a carnivore that runs fast uphill but is too heavy to climb slender trees; and unless it is unusually hungry or I anger it, it won’t stick around once I climb out of reach”

As DocCathode says (if I may state it inversely), rational thought requires a far more complex brain than emotions do. But they are “thoughts”, or “cognitions” if you prefer, in their own right. Our version–rational, intellectual, based in language–is still ultimately based on emotion, on top of which the other structures sit.

14

I agree with most of what’s been said. I believe “rational” thought is just a complicated aggregation of emotions… problem is in most cases there’s an irreducible complexity (i love that term), that doesn’t allow you to reduce the rational thoughts back to their constituent emotions.

I would ask one question though… Why is it that lust is necessary for animals with complex brains? I mean its not just humans, dolphins, primates, hell dogs hump legs… And yet less complex animals just kinda… do it… So is it that with animals with very few emotions (which are very straightforward, evolutionary/survival oriented) simply listen to each emotion that comes around without giving them any “thought” and without making any particular one vastly more important than another… kinda a simplistic unrestraint?.. Whereas other higher animals with more complicated brains can’t listen to every emotion because there’s just too many of them, so if a sexual thought were to come around that wasn’t inherently of more value than the others, we might be too overwhelmed by other emotions to get around to that dirty deed.

Just a thought… nothing especially scientific

15

You might be interested in reading How the Mind Works by Stephen Pinker. He suggests dividing emotions into two categories: those directed toward the world, and those directed toward other people. Those directed toward the world tend to have obvious evolutionary value. (Fear and disgust, for example.) Those directed toward other people are a bit harder to explain.

The key to Pinker’s explanation of these human-centered emotions is the fact that relinquishing control of a situation can often (paradoxically) increase your power. One example of this is when protesters chain themselves to a railroad track. By demonstrably removing free will from the equation they can strengthen their position – the engineer can no longer try to call their bluff and steam ahead in the hope that they will jump aside at the last moment.

Pinker suggests that emotions like anger and love evolved because sometimes irrationality is a more powerful force than reason. When we become angry we are chaining ourselves to the railroad track – we are immune to the lies and tricks and arguments (both good and bad) of the conscious mind because we can’t hear them anymore. That can be a very powerful position to be in.

The same is true of love. When you love someone you set aside your rational calculus of their good and bad points. You love them as they are, irrationally, perhaps even stupidly. If love were rational then any attachment would always be broken by the appearance of a more attractive alternative. When a suitor demonstrates that his attraction is irrational and out of his conscious (scheming) control, he makes himself a more stable (and therefore more attractive) mate.

16

Kaje
IANA biologist, ecologist but the difference seems
not to be brain complexity but individual estrus cycles vs
a mating season. A horny male human, chimp, etc constantly seek sex becuase females are (essentially) constantly fertile. Male robins seek sex only during the short time females are fertile. On a side note, why do you assume that certain animals do not feel lust? Watch a few documentaries. Considering the amount of effort males go through to find and attract females (Males of some species of moth can smell a fertile female from literally miles away. The male Black Widow often brings a web bundle containing dead insects as a present for the female. This assures that the female will have nourishment ready immediately after fertilization. It also serves to distract the female long enough for the male to mate with her and escape alive).

Re Rational Thought and Logic
  Yes, many rational thoughts are essentially built from simpler emotions. But logic and rationality are also the ability to act in ways contrary to instinct and  emotion. The odious show Fear Factor comes to  mind. Put yourself in a situation that your instincts and feelings tell you to avoid-for the sake of winning an object of no intrinsic value but which is accepted in exchange for tangible goods and services. Who I vote for may be a rational decision based on emotional reactions EG I vote for canidate A because he supports keeping chocolate legal and I love chocolate. But other decisions are made when logic overrides emotion EG I will drink this truly repulsive medicine because I know that it will cure me.

Re Language
Humans are capable of abstract symbolic thought. This is impossible to express without an invented language. You can say “Bear! Run!” without words, just push everyone in the right direction and scream in fear. You cannot say “The question of free will versus predistination has been debated by great minds for centuries.” without language. While, obviously, language can convey emotion, it is not needed when actually talking to someone. Facial expressions, posture, and many other cues can be used to determine some ones emotional state. OTOH make all the facial expressions and gestures you want, without language no one will ever get the message “AA+BB=CC”. Language does enter into demonstrations of fitness to potential mates but not as a tool for hiding emotion. Language allows a male to prove that he is intelectually fit, and thus possesses good genes and the ability to provide. Without language, Einstein and Hawkings are inferior males. Only through words and the language of mathematics can they demonstrate their great minds.

17

Hi, Doc! Yes, I agree, but I would not describe the resultant scenario as one in which logic (or rationality) override emotion so much as one in which you are able to assemble more complicated constructs in your mind to have feelings about. You end up having strong feelings about Candidate B because Candidate B’s political philosophy is more in keeping with your own regarding the role of government in the marketplace, an issue you have strong feelings about because of how you perceive the principles of the free market and the effects of governmental intervention, which in turn are a set of perceptions that just kinda “ring right and true” for you as good summaries of the data available about social circumstances and economic trends and class and social stratification and so on…you FEEL that certain social theories are good ones and you FEEL that certain political approaches are therefore best suited for guiding government policies and practices.

Ultimately, you end up having strong feelings about right and wrong, justice, and political righteousness.

You could not have those feelings were you not able to conceptualize the nouns to which they apply; and that requires logic and rationality.

But feelings they are, nevertheless, and it is THEY, and not the logic and rationality itself, that causes you to vote for Candidate B even though Candidate A makes a lot of chocolate promises.

[Homer]
Mmm, chocolate
[/Homer]

:wink:

18

Respectfully, I find it strange that I am the only one
that has given a (true) personal experience of a negative
emotion (Sexual Jealousy) even though it is considered
a universal emotion.

I sincerely think it would be a more productive debate
if we “looked” at the emotion “inside” it’s context,
instead of looking at it abstractly.

Let me try another one.

“SCHADENFREUDE” (pleasurable negative emotion)

JAY: “Jesse, Mack just left a few minutes ago, right
before you got home. He lost his job yesterday. It
seems to be causing him some sexual problems.”

JESSE: (speaking with compassion) “I’m sorry to hear
that Jay. Should I take him down to the food stamp
office?”

  1. Why did I feel pleasure, or was it relief from pain?

  2. Why did I try and hide my pleasure?

BTW Researchers in Robotics are using stuff like this
to “teach” robots how to “imitate” human emotions.
If interested see “Human in the loop” using google
search engine.

jesse

19

It isn’t universal. In fact it seems damn stupid and almost incomprehensible to me. I’ve never understood sexual possessiveness and I don’t tolerate it well in others.

The * schadenfreude* thing…maybe it is a combination of “gee I’m glad that horrid thing happened to you and not me” plus the usual baggage of unexpressed targetless rage that many folks carry around with them that tends sometimes to come out as “good, someone other than me is suffering and I hope to hell it’s someone responsible in some way for my suffering, serves 'em right if it is”.

What do you feel about these feelings? What interpretations seem to clear up what you feel overall? What interpretations seem to cause the world to make a little more sense when you consider them?

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AHunter3 *
**

quote by AHeadhunter3

It isn’t universal. In fact it seems damn stupid and almost incomprehensible to me. I’ve never understood sexual possessiveness and I don’t tolerate it well in others.

Hi,

David Buss, in his book “Jealousy: The Dangerous Passion”,
wrote something similar to your last two
sentences (but not your first sentence), when he was
talking about his youth. He said every thing changed
after he got his first girl friend. He wrote, that it
was at this time that he first felt the painful emotion
of Sexual Jealousy. Although he does not go into his
own sexual jealousy scenario, he does go into one where
he was the “victor”.

David Buss is considered the leading researcher on mating.
He has done many cross cultural studies (37 cultures).
As far as I know, he has never discovered a culture
that did not have a word for the emotion of sexual
jealousy. I consider that to be universal, however;
I am sure there may be individuals suchas yourself,
that have never experienced this emotion.

I can only say that I envy your apparant enlightenment.
My first personal experience example was true,
unfortunately, my second example was fictional.

About a year ago, while living in Santa Fe, NM, I decided
to test David Buss’s Theory of Sexual Jealousy being a
“Mate Bonding” mechanism. I became my own subject of
study, and set up the experiment without my mistress,
Jay, knowing that she and I were experimental subjects. I
sufferred six months of the worst pain that I have ever
experienced in my life.

My take is that sexual jealousy is all about male-male
competition. We use females as the object to compete
over. If we win, we feel Joy, if we lose, we feel pain.

So, I am asking most respectfully (if you are a male),
is ZEN enlightenment, or avoidance?
jesse