Those aren't your thoughts, they're your feelings

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I feel like you might feel differently if you think about it a little more...or maybe a little less. Not really sure there. I think that I feel confused.

 

[Mouthwash]

Conventionally, "ad hoc" describes something constructed for an immediate, usually relatively narrow purpose, to achieve a specific goal without regard for broader context or durability. Laying a plank across a ditch could be described as building an "ad hoc bridge", because the plank fulfils the immediate purpose of bridging the ditch. An "ad hoc hypothesis" describes an argument which is constructed in the moment to cover a particular shortcoming or respond to a particular criticism, but which was not well-developed or well-integrated into the theory. For example, if I say "fairies are real" and you respond that nobody has ever seen them, I might reply "that is because they are invisible", which would be an ad hoc argument because it was constructed for the specific purpose of preserving the original claim.

Oh, OK. I'm too humiliated to use the word "semantics" anymore even though I'm pretty sure I can use it accurately.

(I also noticed that my original post on this thread was been a bit more confrontational than I intended. So, sorry.)

 

[Kozmos]

People rationalize and hold countless sorts of biases because the brain has it's own agenda. Emotions are simply one of its tools. That said, you can't reason and feel at the same time.

 

[Narz]

People rationalize and hold countless sorts of biases because the brain has it's own agenda. Emotions are simply one of its tools. That said, you can't reason and feel at the same time.

How do you figure?

Feeling is everpresent so what you are really saying is no one can reason.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That said, you can't reason and feel at the same time.

This is simply not true at all.
I said before it was a trivial truth that one needs to try to not satisfy ones emotional urges when wanting to be open-minded. But one can be too open-minded, up to a point where one looses direction and orientation. This is what happens when you don't feel. And in consequence your reasoning will be horrendous. Since without feelings there is no actual meaning anymore, just a blur of meaningless facts.

This is in my experience as a brain-user how our brains functions and there are studies showing that memory and emotions are very strongly linked (we only keep in mind what has some emotional meaning to us) and that people who have their emotions destroyed by some cranial accident are also pretty bad at reasoning.
You need meaning to reason. Not academic meaningless meaning. Real meaning.
I think our puny consciousnesses are otherwise just hopelessly overburdened. They can't keep sight of all that dry fact. Can't organize it. They need some emotions to navigate. But that is also always a breeding ground for bias, so it is a treacherous necessity.

 

[Borachio]

Oh, OK. I'm too humiliated to use the word "semantics" anymore even though I'm pretty sure I can use it accurately.

(I also noticed that my original post on this thread was been a bit more confrontational than I intended. So, sorry.)

My word, Mr Wash, your "Theory of mind" is coming along very nicely, I see!



Honestly, I'm impressed. Or I feel like I am.

 

[Kozmos]

This is simply not true at all.
I said before it was a trivial truth that one needs to try to not satisfy ones emotional urges when wanting to be open-minded. But one can be too open-minded, up to a point where one looses direction and orientation. This is what happens when you don't feel. And in consequence your reasoning will be horrendous. Since without feelings there is no actual meaning anymore, just a blur of meaningless facts.

This is in my experience as a brain-user how our brains functions and there are studies showing that memory and emotions are very strongly linked (we only keep in mind what has some emotional meaning to us) and that people who have their emotions destroyed by some cranial accident are also pretty bad at reasoning.
You need meaning to reason. Not academic meaningless meaning. Real meaning.
I think our puny consciousnesses are otherwise just hopelessly overburdened. They can't keep sight of all that dry fact. Can't organize it. They need some emotions to navigate. But that is also always a breeding ground for bias, so it is a treacherous necessity.

Try making a reasonable decision when you are in love. Or overcome with sorrow and empathy. Look at stock markets on a sunny versus rainy days. It's a mess and really shouldn't work.

Brains are lazy, they will link certain memories with certain emotions. Less work. We can blab about meaning, but brains only really care about boning your genes on and securing the necessities. Your brain will rationalize to provide you with reasons for anything you do.

 

[Hygro]

The reason this matters is because if you believe you've thought something through, you're going to have a certain confidence in the issue. But if you know that what you thought were thoughts was sometimes really just a verbal manifestation and intrinsic justification of an emotion, it's easier to stay humble and open minded. It makes accessing more accurate and relevant truths easier in the long run.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Kozmos
Not sure what your point is, now? Certainly we don't need to argue weather emotions can and do negatively impact our ability to reason. It is just that at the same time we also need them to do so.
@Hygro
In case this was a response to my question, then it doesn't really answer my question, since that use is covered by the trivial truths I mentioned and I was wondering about the use of your specific way to present or understand those trivial truths.

 

[Hygro]

It's not that your emotions influence your thoughts, it's that you never had thought-thoughts in the first place but then had thought-thoughts that you did.

So it's not an issue of "hey man you're ideas are biased" it's "hey man you don't actually have ideas, just a response+feelings"

Maybe I'm not conveying the significance of this very well....

 

[Kozmos]

Not sure what your point is, now? Certainly we don't need to argue weather emotions can and do negatively impact our ability to reason. It is just that at the same time we also need them to do so.

I don't either. I live in a state of perpetual confusion more or less. Nothing seems real nowadays.

I was wondering why do ruthless business people with sociopath tendencies rise up often enough then? I mean they have emotions of a sort. Just maybe not in the foreground as neurotypicals. That thought exercise with the rolling cart, fat man and four random people on the rails keeps coming to mind.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's not that your emotions influence your thoughts, it's that you never had thought-thoughts in the first place but then had thought-thoughts that you did.

So it's not an issue of "hey man you're ideas are biased" it's "hey man you don't actually have ideas, just a response+feelings"

Maybe I'm not conveying the significance of this very well....

Okay so our emotions think for us and then we actually only think-think when we justify what our emotions came up with? And the thinking our emotions do for us is our "identity"? Do I get this right?

I was wondering why do ruthless business people with sociopath tendencies rise up often enough then?

Didn't mean to suggest that more emotions means more rationality and less emotions less rationality. It is more complicated than that, for sure. It is just that emotions have a role to play. And as you say, Socio-paths still have emotions. But I suppose their emotions can be more stream-lined / more specialized on nurturing rationals which are aimed at achieving things like rising up in the ranks.

 

[Narz]

So it's not an issue of "hey man you're ideas are biased" it's "hey man you don't actually have ideas, just a response+feelings"

That's rather insulting, don't you think?

"You studied something for 20 years & are presenting your comprehensive thoughts on the subject? That's nice you think you've thought about it "

Maybe I'm not conveying the significance of this very well....

It should be obvious to anyone over 30 who's observed themselves & their thoughts, feelings & actions.

Consistant actions/patterns can overcome emotions. I don't brush my teeth because of emotions. Likewise you can practice thinking patterns that take into account emotionality. To say everyones' "thoughts are their emotions" is just ridiculous to the point of the words losing their meaning.

 

[Borachio]

I brush my teeth because it makes me feel better to do so. And I don't want to feel, as a toothless old man, that I might have taken better care of my teeth.

There's a few other reasons. But I feel they can all be couched in terms of feelings.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Hygro's hinted at this idea before, and it's a strong theme in a lot of the stuff he's linked to over the last few months. Whatever you think of it, it's not "ad hoc".

I for one haven't been able to follow this development particularly closely, and would prefer a more in-depth argumentation.


Though, I think I've told myself that many of the things I think I've figured out are actually beliefs. A lot of that has to with the fact that I am not too well read up on the ideas I subscribe to, or much else, really.

I was going to say I've got math pretty well figured out, but upon some feeling I think I use quite a bit of faith going on in that field as well.