(August 6, 2012 at 9:17 am)genkaus Wrote: are biological, not emotional,

Is there any evidence for this distinction?

(August 6, 2012 at 9:17 am)genkaus Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 5:49 am)mralstoner Wrote: I classify feelings as foundational values because they are the end goals which motivate behaviour: all other behaviour is instrumental towards achieving those emotional goals.

If you go to the very foundations, you'll find that the goals our behavior is motivated towards are biological, not emotional, in nature. Hunger, physical comfort, safety - these are the goals we seek to fulfill at the most basic. The emotional goals come afterwards and thus cannot be considered foundational.

You are jumping from an assertion regarding what motivates an individual's behavior (i.e., their feelings) to an analysis of what that behavior serves (its biological needs). Therefore your remark has no bearing on mralstoner's assertion.

It would be surprising indeed if our feelings/emotions did not evolve to serve our biological needs. But there is a stark difference between acting in response to feelings and acting out of consideration of what is good for one.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 am)jonb Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 9:17 am)genkaus Wrote: are biological, not emotional,

Is there any evidence for this distinction?

The absence of any necessary emotional attachments to biological needs.

---

(August 6, 2012 at 12:23 pm)whateverist Wrote: You are jumping from an assertion regarding what motivates an individual's behavior (i.e., their feelings) to an analysis of what that behavior serves (its biological needs). Therefore your remark has no bearing on mralstoner's assertion.

It would be surprising indeed if our feelings/emotions did not evolve to serve our biological needs. But there is a stark difference between acting in response to feelings and acting out of consideration of what is good for one.

I'm jumping from the assertion regarding what motivates an individual's behavior at its very foundation. Fulfillment of needs (biological or emotional) serve as motivations for an organism's behavior. And since an individual at its very foundation is a biological entity - those foundational values would be biological, not emotional. Your statement regarding emotions evolving to serve biological needs suggests that even you'd accept that any emotional needs are derivative, not foundational.

(August 6, 2012 at 1:06 pm)genkaus Wrote: The absence of any necessary emotional attachments to biological needs.

Slogan or evidence?

(August 6, 2012 at 1:06 pm)genkaus Wrote: Your statement regarding emotions evolving to serve biological needs suggests that even you'd accept that any emotional needs are derivative, not foundational.

Except that the link is evolutionary and so practical, not logical. I don't think there are any foundational dictates in operation here except implicitly. I suspect it is the idea of a foundational basis which is derivative. Our analysis is ancillary and descriptive. It doesn't reveal functional links.

(August 6, 2012 at 1:14 pm)jonb Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 1:06 pm)genkaus Wrote: The absence of any necessary emotional attachments to biological needs.

Slogan or evidence?

Evidence.

---

(August 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm)whateverist Wrote: Except that the link is evolutionary and so practical, not logical. I don't think there are any foundational dictates in operation here except implicitly. I suspect it is the idea of a foundational basis which is derivative. Our analysis is ancillary and descriptive. It doesn't reveal functional links.

So, I guess we can establish that the emotional dictates, at the very least, are not foundational.

Genk, try emotions -as- heuristic. You may find common ground with Jon. Unreliable as it pertains to your metrics? Sure. Reliable as it pertains to our history as a species, yep...absolutely.

Shortcuts to "knowledge".

Please dont misunderstand me here, I'm not insinuating that emotion would be a better arbitrator of knowledge as we currently define it, but as a functional piece of humanity- they work pretty damned well. To take a line from you Genk - any sort of morality (for example) would take into account the "nature" of the species in question -in order to be objective and relevant-. Well, ignore emotion and you ignore large portion of what it means to be human. Those things which we "know" by emotional response are a large portion of what we "know", and assuming that your emotions do not play into what seems "self evident" to you, or what forms your "foundational beliefs" is probably an exercise in absurdity. You are not immune. At the very least, you feel satisfaction with your answers, regardless of whether or not you can justify them logically (as anything other than axioms). Yes?

(August 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Please dont misunderstand me here, I'm not insinuating that emotion would be a better arbitrator of knowledge as we currently define it, but as a functional piece of humanity- they work pretty damned well.

What has been placed on the table is emotion as foundation belief. That is, it is the best informant of action and ought to be treated thus. In humanities search for knowledge (true knowledge), emotion plays no part. Sure, it's a large part of what it means to be human, but that doesn't make it relevant. In fact, the only case in which emotion is ignored is in the search for foundational values, where intuition plays a large part as the crane by which humans survive when there is no need for or no possible use of emotion or logic. Foundationally, needs have the highest value in the information of behavior because they inform intuition and logic and emotion. Emotional goals can only be treated as valuable after survival is ensured.

---

Fulfillment of needs is clearly the foundational value which determines a person's actions. The Hierarchy of Needs is a good example of this, in which emotional needs are explicitly placed above survival. Emotions inform survival, a fundamental need above all needs. If emotions are a tool to achieve an end they cannot be fundamentally valuable and instead are valuable as a means to an end.

(August 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Genk, try emotions -as- heuristic. You may find common ground with Jon. Unreliable as it pertains to your metrics? Sure. Reliable as it pertains to our history as a species, yep...absolutely.

Shortcuts to "knowledge".

Please dont misunderstand me here, I'm not insinuating that emotion would be a better arbitrator of knowledge as we currently define it, but as a functional piece of humanity- they work pretty damned well. To take a line from you Genk - any sort of morality (for example) would take into account the "nature" of the species in question -in order to be objective and relevant-. Well, ignore emotion and you ignore large portion of what it means to be human. Those things which we "know" by emotional response are a large portion of what we "know", and assuming that your emotions do not play into what seems "self evident" to you, or what forms your "foundational beliefs" is probably an exercise in absurdity. You are not immune. At the very least, you feel satisfaction with your answers, regardless of whether or not you can justify them logically (as anything other than axioms). Yes?

And it is exactly at that point that the danger of including emotions to ascertain foundational beliefs becomes evident. Allowing your emotions - such as satisfaction or comfort - while determining those beliefs may lead you to answers you are most comfortable with - not answers that are logically justifiable. Attaching emotional values to those foundations would create an almost dogmatic adherence to them.

Immunity is not a requirement, but even if those "heuristics" are hard-wired into our system, we do know that it is possible to us act contrary or independently from them. And given the inherent unreliability of the heuristics (not just by my metrics, but even by the metrics of human history) we should certainly do so.

Both you and Jon are missing the same point here. The question here is not regarding the role of emotions in acquiring knowledge, it is regarding their role in establishing ay foundational beliefs upon which an individual's system of knowledge may be built.

(August 6, 2012 at 5:35 pm)genkaus Wrote: Both you and Jon are missing the same point here. The question here is not regarding the role of emotions in acquiring knowledge, it is regarding their role in establishing ay foundational beliefs upon which an individual's system of knowledge may be built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

What I am saying is the categories you use to divide, box and deliver knowledge, are so tightly tied into our emotions they still have not been unpicked. I can see why many academics would wish to set up a hierarchy from, reflexes, through emotions to the intellect, but these categories are to my mind imposed, and cannot be set with distinct boundaries. If you think that is so much nonsense, these categories must be true, as so much has been built up from them, look at colour, everyone knows there are seven colours in a rainbow, it is just that everybody is wrong.