Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Transcended Dimensions]

I said earlier that emotions themselves are also value judgments which means we have the rational value judgments and then we have the emotional value judgments which are the emotions themselves.  You are talking about the rational value judgments here.  But this is all still analogous with sight and hearing since the rational value judgments are not any real value judgments just as how the thought of hearing a certain sound or seeing colors is not any real heard sound or visualized colors in your life either.  It's also no different than needing light to see gold in a pitch black cave.  The light is our positive emotions and it is they that allow us to see (judge) the gold (good value).

Nope.  The values you are talking about aren't made available to us by our positive emotions: they are words ABOUT positive emotions.  I taste cake.  I feel pleasure.  I say, "Mmmmmmm, good cake."  My Korean friend eats squid jerky, which I find horrible, feels pleasure and says, "Mmmmmmmm, good cake."

There's really nothing magi-special here.  In the context you are talking about, one definition of good is "things that make me feel good."  It isn't really much of a discover to say that this kind of goodness wouldn't exist for you if you lacked the capacity to feel good.  Value, under that definition, would be meaningless.

But this isn't a statement about reality.  It's just one of the ways we use the word good.  It's also a particularly weak and useless method of evaluation.  "Mmmmm, good cake" almost never leads to lasting satisfaction, nor does "That ho gave great blowjobs" or "the way that girl's eyes bugged out when I strangled her reminded me of my childhood doll when it got run over by my drunken daddy."

Your view would be like saying that if a table lacked the quality of table-ness, we would never have a table, and then marveling at the existence of tables.  That should  be both immediately obvious and immediately uninteresting.

Now, emotional value judgments are real value judgments as pointed out by that neuroscientist/skeptic.  The emotional value judgments are value judgments that go beyond words.  The rational value judgments are the words while the emotional ones are beyond words (the emotions themselves).  Having real value in our lives is something profound and powerful and, thus, it would have to be something that goes beyond words.  Sure, I have used words in saying all of this.  But those words alone are, again, just thoughts of our emotions being the source of judging our lives as being good and bad while the rational value judgments themselves would still be no real value judgments.  Thinking of value is not the same thing as judging (seeing) value.  Lastly, here is the quote by that neuroscientist/skeptic who explains emotional value judgments:

Emotions are value judgments too. If they weren't, humanity would not be distinct from other mammals; we would be biological machines with no autonomy, acting purely on instinct. For example, if you are physically hurt, and the doctor treating you causes you pain during treatment, do you become angry and bite him? No, because you are able to override your instinctive anger and fear at someone causing you pain with your ability to reason that the treatment is necessary and the pain is temporary. But a dog can't reason, and will bite to stop the person causing the pain. Both the instinctive emotions AND the reasoned thoughts are value judgments.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I'm not so naive as to imagine that I can convince crazy of anything, TD, I'm simply trying to help you understand why you're having trouble convincing others -of- crazy.

But read this one:

In short, since positive biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of good value and since negative biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of bad value, then having no biochemical emotions (i.e. the rational value judgments themselves) would have to be no real value judgments since there is good, bad, and neutral (neither good nor bad, aka no value). Sure, you could have a positive or negative biochemical emotion present, but any rational value judgments mixed in with those emotions cannot be any real value judgments. You have positive, negative, and neutral just like you have a positive charge, a negative charge, and a neutral (no) charge.

Positive emotions (a good value judgment) would be analogous with a positive charge, negative emotions (a bad value judgment) would be analogous with a negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge. Therefore, that is why we can't have any real rational value judgments since they are analogous with no charge. Rational value judgments themselves cannot be any real emotions either because, again, positive emotions would be analogous with the positive charge, negative emotions would be analogous with the negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge which is why they can't be any real emotions.

[bennyboy]

Emotions are value judgments too. If they weren't, humanity would not be distinct from other mammals; we would be biological machines with no autonomy, acting purely on instinct. For example, if you are physically hurt, and the doctor treating you causes you pain during treatment, do you become angry and bite him? No, because you are able to override your instinctive anger and fear at someone causing you pain with your ability to reason that the treatment is necessary and the pain is temporary. But a dog can't reason, and will bite to stop the person causing the pain. Both the instinctive emotions AND the reasoned thoughts are value judgments.

Sounds like horseshit pseudo-science to me. Show me the source for this, please.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Sounds like horseshit pseudo-science to me.  Show me the source for this, please.

Well, I currently don't have any.  I just wanted to share that quote.  But let's pretend that this quote were true, then would what I have to say here have to follow as being true?  Here, I will explain:

In short, since positive biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of good value and since negative biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of bad value, then having no biochemical emotions (i.e. the rational value judgments themselves) would have to be no real value judgments since there is good, bad, and neutral (neither good nor bad, aka no value). Sure, you could have a positive or negative biochemical emotion present, but any rational value judgments mixed in with those emotions cannot be any real value judgments. You have positive, negative, and neutral just like you have a positive charge, a negative charge, and a neutral (no) charge.

Positive emotions (a good value judgment) would be analogous with a positive charge, negative emotions (a bad value judgment) would be analogous with a negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge. Therefore, that is why we can't have any real rational value judgments since they are analogous with no charge. Rational value judgments themselves cannot be any real emotions either because, again, positive emotions would be analogous with the positive charge, negative emotions would be analogous with the negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge which is why they can't be any real emotions.

[bennyboy]

Well, I currently don't have any.  I just wanted to share that quote.  But let's pretend that this quote were true,

No.

In short, since positive biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of good value

You are just stringing a bunch of words that you think sound cool together. What's an "emotional value judgment of good value?" I don't think the term means anything.

Positive emotions (a good value judgment) would be analogous with a positive charge, negative emotions (a bad value judgment) would be analogous with a negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge. Therefore, that is why we can't have any real rational value judgments since they are analogous with no charge. Rational value judgments themselves cannot be any real emotions either because, again, positive emotions would be analogous with the positive charge, negative emotions would be analogous with the negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge which is why they can't be any real emotions.

Why would you make this analogy?

[Transcended Dimensions]

Well, I currently don't have any.  I just wanted to share that quote.  But let's pretend that this quote were true,

No.

In short, since positive biochemical emotions are always emotional value judgments of good value

You are just stringing a bunch of words that you think sound cool together.  What's an "emotional value judgment of good value?"  I don't think the term means anything.

Positive emotions (a good value judgment) would be analogous with a positive charge, negative emotions (a bad value judgment) would be analogous with a negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge. Therefore, that is why we can't have any real rational value judgments since they are analogous with no charge. Rational value judgments themselves cannot be any real emotions either because, again, positive emotions would be analogous with the positive charge, negative emotions would be analogous with the negative charge, and rational value judgments themselves would be analogous with no charge which is why they can't be any real emotions.

Why would you make this analogy?

Never mind then.  I don't think you are getting it.  I think I've made myself perfectly clear, but if you still do not get it, then there is nothing more I can say.  By the way, an emotional value judgment of good value simply means the positive emotions themselves since, according to that skeptic, emotions themselves are value judgments.

Edit:  Actually, I think there is a way I can explain this analogy further.  Emotions are forms of motivation since we know this for a fact.  Positive emotions are positive forms of motivation which is analogous with a positive charge since motivation can be analogous with a "shock," negative emotions are negative forms of motivation which is analogous with a negative charge, and our rational value judgments themselves are no form of motivation since they are analogous with no charge.  That is why our rational value judgments cannot be any real emotions.  Continuing on from here, since positive emotions are the same thing as good value judgments and since negative emotions are the same thing as bad value judgments, then this means we cannot have any rational value judgments.  In short, positive emotion=good value judgment=positive charge, negative emotion=bad value judgment=negative charge, and no emotion (our rational value judgments)=no real value judgments=no charge.

[bennyboy]

Never mind then.  I don't think you are getting it.  I think I've made myself perfectly clear, but if you still do not get it, then there is nothing more I can say.  By the way, an emotional value judgment of good value simply means the positive emotions themselves since, according to that skeptic, emotions themselves are value judgments.

Who is that skeptic, and why do I care what he or she wants words to mean any more than I care what you want them to mean? I'm pretty sure this person is not a scientist, and probably is not a qualified psychologist either.

Edit:  Actually, I think there is a way I can explain this analogy further.  Emotions are forms of motivation since we know this for a fact.  Positive emotions are positive forms of motivation which is analogous with a positive charge since motivation can be analogous with a "shock," negative emotions are negative forms of motivation which is analogous with a negative charge, and our rational value judgments themselves are no form of motivation since they are analogous with no charge.  That is why our rational value judgments cannot be any real emotions.  Continuing on from here, since positive emotions are the same thing as good value judgments and since negative emotions are the same thing as bad value judgments, then this means we cannot have any rational value judgments.  In short, positive emotion=good value judgment=positive charge, negative emotion=bad value judgment=negative charge, and no emotion (our rational value judgments)=no real value judgments=no charge.

You keep saying that. I keep saying that's a goofy way of looking at emotions, goodness and badness, and "value judgments."

[brewer]

[Transcended Dimensions]

Never mind then.  I don't think you are getting it.  I think I've made myself perfectly clear, but if you still do not get it, then there is nothing more I can say.  By the way, an emotional value judgment of good value simply means the positive emotions themselves since, according to that skeptic, emotions themselves are value judgments.

Who is that skeptic, and why do I care what he or she wants words to mean any more than I care what you want them to mean?  I'm pretty sure this person is not a scientist, and probably is not a qualified psychologist either.

Edit:  Actually, I think there is a way I can explain this analogy further.  Emotions are forms of motivation since we know this for a fact.  Positive emotions are positive forms of motivation which is analogous with a positive charge since motivation can be analogous with a "shock," negative emotions are negative forms of motivation which is analogous with a negative charge, and our rational value judgments themselves are no form of motivation since they are analogous with no charge.  That is why our rational value judgments cannot be any real emotions.  Continuing on from here, since positive emotions are the same thing as good value judgments and since negative emotions are the same thing as bad value judgments, then this means we cannot have any rational value judgments.  In short, positive emotion=good value judgment=positive charge, negative emotion=bad value judgment=negative charge, and no emotion (our rational value judgments)=no real value judgments=no charge.

You keep saying that.  I keep saying that's a goofy way of looking at emotions, goodness and badness, and "value judgments."

Yes, it might be a goofy idea.  But that's not what's important here because plenty of ideas that sounded goofy or absurd were, in fact, true.  What's instead important here is if I have used sound logic here.  If our emotions themselves are really value judgments, then I just wish to know if what I have said would have to hold true.  If what I said there is flawed reasoning, then it wouldn't be true.  If I can find the evidence for what the skeptic said in regards to the existence of emotional value judgments in addition to rational value judgments, then that would also be evidence for what I said as well if what I said is true.

[bennyboy]

I think you are confusing logic with definitions, tbh. Since emotions lead to behaviors of avoidance or seeking, then you can see implied evaluations there. I love someone, I'm drawn to them, maybe procreate at some point. I've evaluated that person as lovable, and without the emotion of love, I couldn't do that. That's straight forward enough. It's so obvious, though, as to be almost unworth mentioning, or entrenching it as a philosophical meme.

Now, I don't want to be insulting, but if you are OCD / autistic, it may be that your feelings and motivations are a little different than mine, so what for me seems straight forward might for you be an important point to grasp. And certainly, it's possible that if you do think differently than the majority, you may see something we can't.

But based on the words you're saying, I really think you are weaving words together which are just different permeations of definition, and are not in fact stating a logical conclusion or even a new idea.