The words we think as opposed to what we experience

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:53 am

MozartLink wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:57 pm
Judaka wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:16 pm
You hide behind God to give your words a power they can't find through reason seemingly because you are tired of how others interpret the meaning of your experiences and emotions. Well if it makes you feel gratitude and optimism towards life then it's not so bad. You will have to deal with negative emotions again, however, if you can find a way to interact with them and convert those feelings into something positive and constructive then you may have a winning philosophy.

Best of luck.
Actually, this philosophy of mine is a big problem for me because life is often times not a happy place which makes positive emotions very fleeting things. I've also struggled much of my life with many miserable moments which means most of my life has been wasted away. But the only thing that can change my philosophy and give my life a whole new set of values would be if I had a new personal experience that would convince me that my intellect and character can somehow be the divine, holy, inner light (the experience of beauty, greatness, and joy in my life) rather than just my positive emotions.
A philosophy with no utility, that makes no sense and absolute refusal to consider it might be wrong. Why would you want to teach it to others? lol

Walker
Posts: 6564
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:31 am

The brain really doesn't remember pain, and tends to gloss over old anguish with the perspective of time-distance.

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:25 pm

Judaka wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:53 am
MozartLink wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:57 pm
Judaka wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:16 pm
You hide behind God to give your words a power they can't find through reason seemingly because you are tired of how others interpret the meaning of your experiences and emotions. Well if it makes you feel gratitude and optimism towards life then it's not so bad. You will have to deal with negative emotions again, however, if you can find a way to interact with them and convert those feelings into something positive and constructive then you may have a winning philosophy.

Best of luck.
Actually, this philosophy of mine is a big problem for me because life is often times not a happy place which makes positive emotions very fleeting things. I've also struggled much of my life with many miserable moments which means most of my life has been wasted away. But the only thing that can change my philosophy and give my life a whole new set of values would be if I had a new personal experience that would convince me that my intellect and character can somehow be the divine, holy, inner light (the experience of beauty, greatness, and joy in my life) rather than just my positive emotions.
A philosophy with no utility, that makes no sense and absolute refusal to consider it might be wrong. Why would you want to teach it to others? lol
To me, it makes perfect sense and my own personal experience supports the emotional perception theory of value (which would be that link I posted earlier). But, like I said, I am open minded to the possibility that my emotions aren't the only way I can experience things such as beauty, love, joy, hate, disgust, etc. I just have to obtain that new personal experience if it really does exist and, hopefully, other people aren't just deluding themselves into believing it exists.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:50 pm

I never made the claim that one can experience such things without emotions, I have no idea about that. It makes perfect sense to me that a highly intelligent AI might not feel such things. I am not prepared to use the word "emotions" but it's certainly true that we didn't create beauty, disgust and such but are biologically hardwired to experience such things and without that, we simply wouldn't experience those things. That was not your original claim though, it was that value can only be perceived through emotions which is wrong, you could argue that perception of value is only possible due to emotions and I might agree with that, again I think "emotions" is too limited of a word because of the other psychological aspects exist and assist us. Once again, it isn't obvious to me that a highly intelligent A.I. would "value" anything or even understand the concept of valuing something.

The spiritual aspect is just stuff you made up obviously, also you mischaracterised the view of others completely. If you asked can love or beauty or disgust be experienced with intellect alone, I'd agree it can't be.

Emotions is a really shallow term though, we understand things like fairness, dominance and so on, on such a deeply rooted psychological level and these things clearly also create the possibility or even necessity of valuing things.

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:01 pm

Judaka wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:50 pm
I never made the claim that one can experience such things without emotions, I have no idea about that. It makes perfect sense to me that a highly intelligent AI might not feel such things. I am not prepared to use the word "emotions" but it's certainly true that we didn't create beauty, disgust and such but are biologically hardwired to experience such things and without that, we simply wouldn't experience those things. That was not your original claim though, it was that value can only be perceived through emotions which is wrong, you could argue that perception of value is only possible due to emotions and I might agree with that, again I think "emotions" is too limited of a word because of the other psychological aspects exist and assist us. Once again, it isn't obvious to me that a highly intelligent A.I. would "value" anything or even understand the concept of valuing something.

The spiritual aspect is just stuff you made up obviously, also you mischaracterised the view of others completely. If you asked can love or beauty or disgust be experienced with intellect alone, I'd agree it can't be.

Emotions is a really shallow term though, we understand things like fairness, dominance and so on, on such a deeply rooted psychological level and these things clearly also create the possibility or even necessity of valuing things.
It makes no sense to me to say that emotions are necessary to experience value, but that the emotions themselves aren't the experience of value. It's like saying that the craving for food and liquids is necessary to experience hunger and thirst, but that these cravings aren't the real experience of hunger and thirst. Hunger and thirst is the same thing as the craving for food and liquids.

Likewise, emotions and the experience of value are the same thing. As I said before, only the positive emotions can allow us to experience the positive values such as beauty, greatness, joy, etc. and only negative emotions can allow us to experience the negative values such as horror, disgust, tragedy, etc. We should pursue the positive energies/emotions to make our lives beautiful and to avoid the negative ones. Even though positive emotions can lead us to harming us and others, we can still choose to not do so intellectually even though intellectual based values aren't real.
Last edited by MozartLink on Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:39 pm

I don't even understand your analogy but put simply, emotions by themselves, without interpretation, are insufficient for valuing something. It's like saying sperm is needed to create life but the problem is that it's insufficient to just have sperm and then create life, you need to fertilise an egg. Emotions (among other things) may be necessary for valuing something, at least I think intellect alone is insufficient, you need at least something like self-interest or a value structure.

If you take an example of a dog, for instance, he has many things he likes; his toys, treats and tummy rubs. Does he value those things? That's a philosophical question, don't you see that? You must say "Yes because he likes those things it MEANS he values them" which is by definition, an interpretation. That's a necessary step, you can't bypass it by adding spirituality or whatever.

As for "experiencing value", you'd have to explain what you are talking about, how does one experience value?

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:51 pm

Judaka wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:39 pm
I don't even understand your analogy but put simply, emotions by themselves, without interpretation, are insufficient for valuing something. It's like saying sperm is needed to create life but the problem is that it's insufficient to just have sperm and then create life, you need to fertilise an egg. Emotions (among other things) may be necessary for valuing something, at least I think intellect alone is insufficient, you need at least something like self-interest or a value structure.

If you take an example of a dog, for instance, he has many things he likes; his toys, treats and tummy rubs. Does he value those things? That's a philosophical question, don't you see that? You must say "Yes because he likes those things it MEANS he values them" which is by definition, an interpretation. That's a necessary step, you can't bypass it by adding spirituality or whatever.

As for "experiencing value", you'd have to explain what you are talking about, how does one experience value?
I've translated emotions into perceptions of value earlier when I said that emotions make things matter to you and that something mattering to you is the same thing as perceiving value. Read my opening post if you didn't catch it earlier. So, I think emotions alone are sufficient for perceiving value. Of course, we can perceive the types of value we think of. But only if said thought sends the signal to the areas of the brain that make us feel emotions.

For example, if you thought that your mother was very beautiful and that thought made you feel a positive emotion, then that positive emotion would allow you to perceive your mother as beautiful. By the way, positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain and you said liking was necessary to perceive value. So, that says right there positive emotions are the perception of value. As for what I meant when I said "experiencing value," that's the same thing as "perceiving value."

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Firstly we don't "perceive" or "experience" value in philosophy, it is an idea or belief about the importance or worth of something like an ideal. It's not about whether something "matters" to you or not, that's not the same thing as valuing something. You can interpret or infer that if something "matters to you" like for instance, your appearance, then you must value your appearance. Actually, that's not true, the person could value any number of things that result in their appearance mattering to them.

I also never said that "liking was necessary to perceive value" what I said was that someone might interpret liking something as meaning they value it. The "causal chain" of "you think your mother is beautiful + positive emotion = allowed to perceive your mother as beautiful" is just forced. If you think your mother is beautiful then you've already perceived that, why do you need a positive emotion to allow it a second time? Makes no sense.

Positive emotions are not rewards, that is an interpretation. You can do things that are completely undeserving of reward and still feel a positive emotion, unless you are making an evolutionary argument and not a philosophical one, in which case, I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to comment on that. It wouldn't make a difference though, people don't value based off of positive emotions alone, that can be effortlessly observed by anyone.

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:58 pm

Judaka wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:39 pm
Firstly we don't "perceive" or "experience" value in philosophy, it is an idea or belief about the importance or worth of something like an ideal. It's not about whether something "matters" to you or not, that's not the same thing as valuing something. You can interpret or infer that if something "matters to you" like for instance, your appearance, then you must value your appearance. Actually, that's not true, the person could value any number of things that result in their appearance mattering to them.

I also never said that "liking was necessary to perceive value" what I said was that someone might interpret liking something as meaning they value it. The "causal chain" of "you think your mother is beautiful + positive emotion = allowed to perceive your mother as beautiful" is just forced. If you think your mother is beautiful then you've already perceived that, why do you need a positive emotion to allow it a second time? Makes no sense.

Positive emotions are not rewards, that is an interpretation. You can do things that are completely undeserving of reward and still feel a positive emotion, unless you are making an evolutionary argument and not a philosophical one, in which case, I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to comment on that. It wouldn't make a difference though, people don't value based off of positive emotions alone, that can be effortlessly observed by anyone.
There's a difference between thought and perception though and I think we do perceive value. Perceiving value is the same thing as valuing something. So, we have to feel emotions about things in order to value said things because truly thinking that we value something isn't enough to value it. In other words, emotions are the only states of mind where we value things as beautiful, magnificent, disgusting, horrible, tragic, etc.

Just because people live their lives and act as though they value things intellectually doesn't make it so because you can still perform acts, tones, and expressions that don't match up with your state of mind. You could make the same argument about me and say that, just because I live my life and act as though my emotions allow me to value things, doesn't make it so. But who's right and who's wrong here? I personally think emotions are the only way we can value things.

Now, seeing (perceiving) the color red isn't the same thing as thinking of the word "red" in your mind. Words are just concepts or ideas and that's not the same thing as actual red. So, you would only be perceiving the word "red," but not any real red. Likewise, thinking of the words "This is horrible" or "This is beautiful" isn't the same thing as an actual value judgment and neither would you be perceiving real value. Rather, you would only be perceiving words.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:37 pm

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask, just how are you using the word value? Is it not a belief in the importance or worth of something?

You need to have the belief before you can "experience" or "perceive" it and this concept is not synonymous with saying something is beautiful or tragic. I'll give you a second attempt to explain how emotions make things beautiful or tragic, you fail to acknowledge the failure in your "mother is beautiful" example but I'm getting used to that, have another try.

There is no "state of mind" and emotions are not a "state of mind" and any contradiction between my beliefs and actions must be interpreted as ungenuine. I may simply lack conviction, discipline or clarity on what I must do.

Also nobody "thinks the words", why do you insist on that phrase? People understand the concept of beauty and what makes things beautiful, you don't need emotions to reaffirm that. Me thinking that a mother losing her child is tragic is wrong because I'm thinking it? Is it not actually tragic unless a child actually died? Did they have to die in front of me? I'll give you a shot at explaining yourself but as it stands, I'm not sure this discussion is going anywhere.

I am not convinced your replies are based on what I'm saying, instead seems like you are just reading my words as "he is not agreeing" and repeating the same arguments, do you even have a goal in talking to me? Your argument is here for all to see, there's no need to discuss if you are not interested in discussing.

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:45 pm

Judaka wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:37 pm
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask, just how are you using the word value? Is it not a belief in the importance or worth of something?

You need to have the belief before you can "experience" or "perceive" it and this concept is not synonymous with saying something is beautiful or tragic. I'll give you a second attempt to explain how emotions make things beautiful or tragic, you fail to acknowledge the failure in your "mother is beautiful" example but I'm getting used to that, have another try.

There is no "state of mind" and emotions are not a "state of mind" and any contradiction between my beliefs and actions must be interpreted as ungenuine. I may simply lack conviction, discipline or clarity on what I must do.

Also nobody "thinks the words", why do you insist on that phrase? People understand the concept of beauty and what makes things beautiful, you don't need emotions to reaffirm that. Me thinking that a mother losing her child is tragic is wrong because I'm thinking it? Is it not actually tragic unless a child actually died? Did they have to die in front of me? I'll give you a shot at explaining yourself but as it stands, I'm not sure this discussion is going anywhere.

I am not convinced your replies are based on what I'm saying, instead seems like you are just reading my words as "he is not agreeing" and repeating the same arguments, do you even have a goal in talking to me? Your argument is here for all to see, there's no need to discuss if you are not interested in discussing.
I'll just say this. I think you are wrong when you say valuing something as beautiful or horrible is not the same thing as that thing mattering to you. For example, if your mother or father died and their loss didn't matter to you, how could you say that you've truly valued their loss as horrible or tragic? When something matters to you, this means it's important to you which, in turn, means you value it.

If you were focused on two items (such as a toy and a jewel) and you said that the jewel was something you valued over the toy even though the toy mattered to you, then we would say that the jewel mattered to you more than the toy. From there, we would say that the toy was also something you valued since it mattered to you. But you would value it less than the jewel.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by Judaka » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:44 am

I feel like I have nothing to say that I haven't already said, I won't repeat myself since it wasn't responded to the first time anyway.

I'll wrap up my involvement in this thread here.

MozartLink
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by MozartLink » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:33 pm

Judaka wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:44 am
I feel like I have nothing to say that I haven't already said, I won't repeat myself since it wasn't responded to the first time anyway.

I'll wrap up my involvement in this thread here.
Let's pretend that you had the thought in your mind that nature is beautiful. That thought would be information going on in your brain. Once that thought makes you feel a positive emotion from nature, also pay attention to that emotion. You should come to realize that this emotional state isn't just an emotion. It, too, is information/a message going on in your brain that nature is beautiful.

This clearly shows that thought information gets transferred over to the emotional areas of our brains and takes on an emotional form. But, like I said before, the emotions are the real perception/experience of beauty or horror and not the thoughts. In other words, emotions are how we truly value things in life and not our thoughts or beliefs. As you can see here, this is why I describe positive emotions as being divine states or divine energy/information.

I will say another thing here as a reminder. The thought or belief of hunger, thirst, or physical pain isn't the same thing as experiencing actual hunger, thirst, or physical pain. The same rule applies to valuing things in our lives. The only way we can experience a mental state where we value things would be through our emotions and not our thoughts. Thoughts aren't the real things and are just ideas of said things. That's why thoughts aren't real value judgments and it can only be our emotions which are the real value judgments.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

commonsense
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The words we think as opposed to what we experience

Post by commonsense » Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:20 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:31 am
The brain really doesn't remember pain, and tends to gloss over old anguish with the perspective of time-distance.
Fair enough, but I don't think so.

Note--it can be argued that it is the mind, and not the brain, that has the capacity to remember. However, I will leave the mind/body problem for some other thread, and just take it that, as you have it, the brain does this.

The brain does indeed remember pain (as well as pleasure). For it isn't as important to have memory of a campfire being inspirational or beautiful, as it is to remember that a campfire burns flesh. In the case of the former, pleasure is attained and a life is enriched. In the latter instance, pain is avoided and a life is preserved, which is a necessary condition for the enrichment of a life. On the one hand, you have hedonism and on the other, an epicurean viewpoint.

(I agree that memories fade with time and distance, whether painful or pleasurable.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests