The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

I do NOT lack the, so called, "balls" to tell you anything at all.

Good for you! In which case, can you tell me one thing that you believe?

[Lacewing]

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

I am just looking for people who are OPEN.

What then?

[Atla]

Here is ANOTHER accusation and claim of yours.

... BLA BLA BLA

Fact, not an accusation

[Skepdick]

But pleasure is not cognitive whereas anger takes an object of anger.

Both pleasure and anger are cognitive to me - I experience them. I recognise them as different emotions.

I might be pleased about the pretty spectrum because it's a helpful illustration, but this is not what I meant to say.

"What we mean to say" is the crux of "effective communication" as Claud Shannon conceptualises it.

Was the message received the message we wanted to send?

That's why I said it was a treat for my eyes , I was trying not to imply cognition.

I get you, but my point is that the emotional response that followed was in response to that which you observed. The emotional response was not part&parcel with the vision.

The causal chain/process might have been something like observe -> see light spectrum -> experience pleasure. All of those events are "part of cognition" as far as I am concerned.

I was not pleased about something . I doubt if nothing but colours could please me if the picture had been about some recognisable thing. True, the colours were ordered according to what I have learned is the proper order and that's no doubt partly why the experience was peaceful and harmonic.

Sure. And to that end we have the entire field of "aesthetics". But again - talking ABOUT what is aesthetically pleasing to us is an event after the fact.
It happens after the pleasure has taken place.

I can't be angry unless I there is something recognisably cognitive to be angry about, and this includes irrational anger due to some delusion. I might be 'mentally' ill and experience fear which is not rooted in cognition but is caused by some chemical imbalance. Anger is compounded of fear and cognition of the cause of the anger. For instance I might have looked at the picture of the spectrum and thought "That bloody sentimental rainbow again!"

I think at least those two, pleasure and fear, immediate objectless emotional reactions are genetic in origin although they require experience and especially linguistic experience(as explained by Flash Dangerpants and uwot) for the reaction to happen.

The language I use to distinguish between these two is "emotions" and "feelings". Emotions are physiological reactions - you can't control those. They happen in the brain (chemical reactions) outside of your control. You experience them whether you want to or not.

Feelings is the meaning you choose to assign to an emotion in the context of which you are experiencing it.

So for example:

color spectrum + positive emotion (endorphins)-> It feels pretty.
food + positive emotion -> It feels delicious

[Belinda]

But pleasure is not cognitive whereas anger takes an object of anger.

Both pleasure and anger are cognitive to me - I experience them. I recognise them as different emotions.

I might be pleased about the pretty spectrum because it's a helpful illustration, but this is not what I meant to say.

"What we mean to say" is the crux of "effective communication" as Claud Shannon conceptualises it.

Was the message received the message we wanted to send?

That's why I said it was a treat for my eyes , I was trying not to imply cognition.

I get you, but my point is that the emotional response that followed was in response to that which you observed. The emotional response was not part&parcel with the vision.

The causal chain/process might have been something like observe -> see light spectrum -> experience pleasure. All of those events are "part of cognition" as far as I am concerned.

I was not pleased about something . I doubt if nothing but colours could please me if the picture had been about some recognisable thing. True, the colours were ordered according to what I have learned is the proper order and that's no doubt partly why the experience was peaceful and harmonic.

Sure. And to that end we have the entire field of "aesthetics". But again - talking ABOUT what is aesthetically pleasing to us is an event after the fact.
It happens after the pleasure has taken place.

I can't be angry unless I there is something recognisably cognitive to be angry about, and this includes irrational anger due to some delusion. I might be 'mentally' ill and experience fear which is not rooted in cognition but is caused by some chemical imbalance. Anger is compounded of fear and cognition of the cause of the anger. For instance I might have looked at the picture of the spectrum and thought "That bloody sentimental rainbow again!"

I think at least those two, pleasure and fear, immediate objectless emotional reactions are genetic in origin although they require experience and especially linguistic experience(as explained by Flash Dangerpants and uwot) for the reaction to happen.

The language I use to distinguish between these two is "emotions" and "feelings". Emotions are physiological reactions - you can't control those. They happen in the brain (chemical reactions) outside of your control. You experience them whether you want to or not.

Feelings is the meaning you choose to assign to an emotion in the context of which you are experiencing it.

So for example:

color spectrum + positive emotion (endorphins)-> It feels pretty.
food + positive emotion -> It feels delicious

So do I,Spectrum ,use 'emotion' and 'feelings' exactly as you explain.

[Atla]

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

I am just looking for people who are OPEN.

What then?

He believes that we channel God/the universe when we are "open". Like together we could be the voice of God, except most humans are too dumb to participate. That's actually pretty funny.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

I am just looking for people who are OPEN.

What then?

He believes that we channel God/the universe when we are "open". Like together we could be the voice of God, except most humans are too dumb to participate. That's actually pretty funny.

How sad, he spent years dropping hints that he had all the answers to all the the questions and then it turns out his grand idea is boring and derivative.

[Atla]

What then?

He believes that we channel God/the universe when we are "open". Like together we could be the voice of God, except most humans are too dumb to participate. That's actually pretty funny.

How sad, he spent years dropping hints that he had all the answers to all the the questions and then it turns out his grand idea is boring and derivative.

I've been trying to talk him/her out of this all along, to no avail. I'm slightly curious why it can't be done

[surreptitious57]

I am just looking for people who are OPEN

I am detached rather than open because that way I dont have to have a position at all
I dont have the mental energy to decide on every single issue and so I just let them be
As I have said before I am an observer rather than a participant and so that is what I do

[Skepdick]

I am detached rather than open because that way I dont have to have a position at all
I dont have the mental energy to decide on every single issue and so I just let them be
As I have said before I am an observer rather than a participant and so that is what I do

You don't have to decide on every single issue. That's what we have specialisation for - it's not really your job/function.

An observer doesn't require a position on anything whatsoever.

[Age]

I do NOT lack the, so called, "balls" to tell you anything at all.

Good for you! In which case, can you tell me one thing that you believe?

Yes.

[Age]

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

I am just looking for people who are OPEN.

What then?

Then, just like you are creating here now, a discussion will begin.

[Age]

Here is ANOTHER accusation and claim of yours.

... BLA BLA BLA

Fact, not an accusation

What are you now claiming is a "fact"?

[Age]

But pleasure is not cognitive whereas anger takes an object of anger.

Both pleasure and anger are cognitive to me - I experience them. I recognise them as different emotions.

I might be pleased about the pretty spectrum because it's a helpful illustration, but this is not what I meant to say.

"What we mean to say" is the crux of "effective communication" as Claud Shannon conceptualises it.

Was the message received the message we wanted to send?

In my case, VERY RARELY.

That's why I said it was a treat for my eyes , I was trying not to imply cognition.

I get you, but my point is that the emotional response that followed was in response to that which you observed. The emotional response was not part&parcel with the vision.

The causal chain/process might have been something like observe -> see light spectrum -> experience pleasure. All of those events are "part of cognition" as far as I am concerned.

'Cognition' comes in, or arises, in between 'see light spectrum' and 'experience pleasure'.

I was not pleased about something . I doubt if nothing but colours could please me if the picture had been about some recognisable thing. True, the colours were ordered according to what I have learned is the proper order and that's no doubt partly why the experience was peaceful and harmonic.

Sure. And to that end we have the entire field of "aesthetics". But again - talking ABOUT what is aesthetically pleasing to us is an event after the fact.
It happens after the pleasure has taken place.

I can't be angry unless I there is something recognisably cognitive to be angry about, and this includes irrational anger due to some delusion. I might be 'mentally' ill and experience fear which is not rooted in cognition but is caused by some chemical imbalance. Anger is compounded of fear and cognition of the cause of the anger. For instance I might have looked at the picture of the spectrum and thought "That bloody sentimental rainbow again!"

I think at least those two, pleasure and fear, immediate objectless emotional reactions are genetic in origin although they require experience and especially linguistic experience(as explained by Flash Dangerpants and uwot) for the reaction to happen.

The language I use to distinguish between these two is "emotions" and "feelings". Emotions are physiological reactions - you can't control those. They happen in the brain (chemical reactions) outside of your control. You experience them whether you want to or not.

Feelings is the meaning you choose to assign to an emotion in the context of which you are experiencing it.

So for example:

color spectrum + positive emotion (endorphins)-> It feels pretty.
food + positive emotion -> It feels delicious

I see things completely different with just about all of this.

[Age]

I am NOT, and I repeat NOT, looking for someone who is OPEN to my ideas.

I am just looking for people who are OPEN.

What then?

He believes that we channel God/the universe when we are "open". Like together we could be the voice of God, except most humans are too dumb to participate. That's actually pretty funny.

I ABSOLUTELY and CERTAINLY do NOT believe this at all. What you said here could not be MORE FALSE, and therefore you could not be MORE WRONG.

What is actually hilarious is you actually assume that your own made up 'story' is actually true and right, and even funny still is you actually BELIEVE what you just said here is true and right?

And, what is the most humorous part of all of this is I have even told what thee Truth IS, but because you are so BLINDED by your assumptions and beliefs, you were, and still are, completely incapable of SEEING thee Truth of things.