tadmjones Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said: Emotions. Sweet , fatty and salty foods produce pleasurable sensations , they taste 'good' their enjoyment elicit positive emotional experiences. Applying reason volitionally, one can come to the conclusion that the emotional response to indulging such pleasure can come to net negative consequences , so a rational response would/could be something along the lines " all things in moderation". Evolutionary biology suggests that the 'pleasurableness' of those taste categories are the result of natural selection. That those lineages whose members had a pleasurable response to those tastes were more successful overall by seeking out the foodstuffs that had the sensations incorporated in the experience of consuming them conferred more survival benefits eg higher amounts of energy , mineral nutrition, protein ect. Couldn't we say that the 'good' tasting food categories have been pre-identified and 'coded' or 'hardwired' into the make up of human beings , that we find them good or yummy instinctually? Emotions per O'ism (paraphrasing) are automated value judgements that operate subconsciously. Basically that emotions are results of applying reason to stimuli and assigning a value judgement , and the experience of an emotion percolates to the conscious realm for further evaluation about a particular, in this sense an emotion is a product of conscious thought .. because tabla rasa . Emotions are a result, or a product or even perhaps a reaction to some stimuli. But how does that account for the pleasurable effect of the 'taste' of 'sweet', it doesn't seem that the pleasurableness is a learned quality , it appears to be an inherent characteristic of the experience. What would account for that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 Our pleasure-pain mechanism is built in, but it does not control our actions or tell us exactly what to do. It is misleading to call it "instinct". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 18, 2022 Report Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) Humans have inherited characteristics that affect reactions to stimuli and condition certain behaviors that would be misleading to call instinct? Edited January 18, 2022 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 It is also misleading to say behaviors are conditioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 Misleading in that behaviors can’t be conditioned , or that behaviors aren’t or can’t be conditioned by “internal” biological processes? There does seem to be some kind of ‘feed back loop’ of sorts between the involuntary endocrinological functions and the conscious and or subconscious awareness of states of mind or mood , which can/do ‘work’ to affect action. No ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 23 hours ago, The Laws of Biology said: I stand in awe of the great accomplishments of Ayn Rand in philosophy. I stand by that, regardless of whatever else I may think. I know of no better way of living than the way of Objectivism. Thank you, Objectivists, for making knowledge of Objectivism available to me. Yeah, you're probably trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Morris Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 17 hours ago, tadmjones said: Misleading in that behaviors can’t be conditioned , or that behaviors aren’t or can’t be conditioned by “internal” biological processes? Behaviors can't be "conditioned". 17 hours ago, tadmjones said: There does seem to be some kind of ‘feed back loop’ of sorts between the involuntary endocrinological functions and the conscious and or subconscious awareness of states of mind or mood , which can/do ‘work’ to affect action. No ? Hormones enter into our emotions. We can and should use reason to decide what to think and do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 19, 2022 Report Share Posted January 19, 2022 I agree we can and should use reason to guide our actions, but there is a component of a conscious , volitional thought that works to 'counteract' or supress 'reacting' to emotional inputs. A lot of military training conditions your thought process to recognize things like the 'fight or flight ' response to stimuli and teaches strategies to override or supress what could be termed the 'natural response' . Fire /rescue personnel train themselves to be able to operate rationally in situations that 'normal' people would 'naturally' panic in. Big Tech/Social Media companies use research centered around dopamine responses to learn how to 'addict' their users, they are profitably 'hacking' a hackable 'system', no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.