Emotions

[iudas]

Humans are the only species capable of [unexplainable] emotions: love, hatred, irritation, ambition, trust, grief, guilt and many others. This, aside from our superior intelligence, separates us from beasts. If we were to build intelligent robots, they wouldn't have feelings, unless we programmed them to do so; why would we? Would it increase their effectiveness?

Bugs don't have emotions. Dogs have very primitive ones. Humans have extremely complex ones. I see a pattern emerging here. We know evolution is meant to toughen creatures, to increase their survivability. How, then, are emotions helping us? Even at our fullest determination, we can only work and think so much. Grief and hatred weaken us more often than not.

Can anyone provide a quasi-scientific explanation?

[Vilhjalmr]

I advise you to check your facts, mate.

I'm too tired to provide sources right now, but off the top of my head...

Humans are the only species capable of emotions: love, hatred, irritation, ambition, trust, grief, guilt and many others.

... This is incorrect...

Bugs don't have emotions. Dogs have very primitive ones. Humans have extremely complex ones.

... And I'm not 100% on this but I don't think the divide between the complexity of the emotions of humans and the other animals on this planet is that big, if it's even really there at all. How do you even go about measuring the "complexity of emotions" anyway? :hmmm:

EDIT: And doesn't your statement about dogs totally contradict your first statement?

We know evolution is meant to toughen creatures, to increase their survivability.

And certain things about this statement strike me as odd, but whatever.

[iudas]

... This is incorrect...

Why?

... And I'm not 100% on this but I don't think the divide between the complexity of the emotions of humans and the other animals on this planet is that big, if it's even really there at all. How do you even go about measuring the "complexity of emotions" anyway? :hmmm:

Measuring? Just comparing.

EDIT: And doesn't your statement about dogs totally contradict your first statement?

Hmmm, yeah, I'll edit.

[Valentin the II]

Why?

It is a proven scientific fact that many animals have quite complex emotions.
Your statement was just rediculous.

[iudas]

Bwahahahahahaha.
And the earth is a 1000 years old.

It is a proven scientific fact that many animals have quite complex emotions.
Your statement was just rediculous.

*cough*

Can anyone provide a quasi-scientific explanation?

[Valentin the II]

Humans are the only species capable of emotions: love, hatred, irritation, ambition, trust, grief, guilt and many others.

Bwahahahahahaha.
And the earth is a 1000 years old.

[Chaigidel]

well emotions are the places between perception and input I think--- needless to say they are merely chemical reactions that can be easily altered using any host of chemicals--- they are entirely malleable.

for instance I could go into your brain and chemically or surgically remove your ability to love or form bonds of love.

[gsoxx]

Humans are the only species capable of [unexplainable] emotions.

Did you ever own a dog, cat...

If yes, I don't understand how you come to this conclusion.

[Chaigidel]

you have to give paladin this most animals only love you for the food(cats dogs pets etc---but they have more complex emotions I think; just I dunno its probably about the brain -- I would say elephants and whales probably have more complex concepts of emotion dolphins too even)

[gsoxx]

you have to give paladin this most animals only love you for the food

those hypocrites

[Valentin the II]

There were a siries of documanteries about it on National Geographic.
And some articles in thir magazeene.

Here's a wiki article: LINK
A small article: LINK 2
A better article: LIN 3

Also, sins emotions are just chemical reactions in our brains, its preatty easy to emagine animals have them.
Everyone agrees that animals can feel fear, so why not other emotions?
Friendship and comradery is very usefull for pack hunters for instance.
Large animals that live in groups also tend to get atached to their comrades, so we see many apes, elephants, dolphins, etc.... Expreasing grieph.
Emotions are a usefull tool in the wild, it would be foolish to think that onely wee can have them.

Heres a great vid:

[removeduser_426582376423734]

You've stumbled on a massive part of Darwinism that sets itself apart from the common urban legend that Darwinism is a cruel process. This part of Darwinism is called society.

Society is essentially the best way to describe 'survival of the fittest'. It is quite obvious when you look at the world that a leopard might be able to survive but its spots and its speed won't help his brother survive. Society, however, does, and its not an absurd leap to go from societical advantages to emotional ones.

Seeing a dying African child brings heavy emotion to me. I want to help that child survive, through emotions like compassion, empathy, etc. It is merely Darwinian that I want to do so, because it is our advanced evolution that has brought about this change, to help the collective human race.

[Maverick]

You've stumbled on a massive part of Darwinism that sets itself apart from the common urban legend that Darwinism is a cruel process. This part of Darwinism is called society.

Society is essentially the best way to describe 'survival of the fittest'. It is quite obvious when you look at the world that a leopard might be able to survive but its spots and its speed won't help his brother survive. Society, however, does, and its not an absurd leap to go from societical advantages to emotional ones.

Seeing a dying African child brings heavy emotion to me. I want to help that child survive, through emotions like compassion, empathy, etc. It is merely Darwinian that I want to do so, because it is our advanced evolution that has brought about this change, to help the collective human race.

Ah.. but to what extent do you go to actually help that child? I think it all comes down to the pleasure principle, your emotions aren't ends but means or incentive to achieve some end, like putting gasoline in a car. Maybe the amount of compassion, empathy etc. that you feel can be quantified, obviously you feel those emotions but there's a reason why some people are in Africa doing something about it while the rest of us don't take action. Either way it all comes down to self-gratification, when you see a dying African it triggers your compassion and empathy but you don't literally feel bad for the person, you feel good feeling bad for the person. That doesn't make you a bad person however, the cathartic release from pitying someone is the release of guilt which is mostly felt by decent people in the first place. I think the person who goes to Africa simply has more guilt and consequently gets more of an emotional release out of helping those people. That's where the quantifiable part comes in, maybe it's possible to measure emotions or at least the body's chemical response to emotions so that a person could calculate that they need to feel x compassion before they experience y self-satisfaction as a result.

I don't see how this helps the human race however. As long as we blindly gratify our desires, even those desires to help others we are still acting like automatons and we don't learn anything from it or better ourselves in the process.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Ah.. but to what extent do you go to actually help that child? I think it all comes down to the pleasure principle, your emotions aren't ends but means or incentive to achieve some end, like putting gasoline in a car. Maybe the amount of compassion, empathy etc. that you feel can be quantified, obviously you feel those emotions but there's a reason why some people are in Africa doing something about it while the rest of us don't take action. Either way it all comes down to self-gratification, when you see a dying African it triggers your compassion and empathy but you don't literally feel bad for the person, you feel good feeling bad for the person. That doesn't make you a bad person however, the cathartic release from pitying someone is the release of guilt which is mostly felt by decent people in the first place. I think the person who goes to Africa simply has more guilt and consequently gets more of an emotional release out of helping those people. That's where the quantifiable part comes in, maybe it's possible to measure emotions or at least the body's chemical response to emotions so that a person could calculate that they need to feel x compassion before they experience y self-satisfaction as a result.

I don't see how this helps the human race however. As long as we blindly gratify our desires, even those desires to help others we are still acting like automatons and we don't learn anything from it or better ourselves in the process.

I think we're taking my example too literally. If I change it to, say, a guy falling over and hitting his head. You feel empathy and you help him. This could save his life and the result would be his genes having more chance of survival in the gene pool.

I understand this is a very limited view of natural selection but anyone who isn't a biologist has a limited view so I don't care.

[Axeman]

If this was a word association game my first response would be Women.....

[Chaigidel]

but with the modern age it is far more efficient to either let the child die; or ignore it altogether-- we have no need to sustain the life of any humans we reproduce enough to replace any flesh that is lost.

[gsoxx]

but with the modern age it is far more efficient to either let the child die; or ignore it altogether-- we have no need to sustain the life of any humans we reproduce enough to replace any flesh that is lost.

Can't you see it? The human race has pretty much conquered this planet, not despite of its feelings or emotions, but because of it.
We are without a doubt the most successful race/entity on this planet. And our ability of social networking is an essentiell part of it. Our complex feelings and emotions evolved in a long evolutionary process and is our recipe for success.
What you mentioned is merely the luxury of the winner.

We can afford to abort children, so what.
We can afford to conduct horrible crimes against humanity.
We can afford to wage ruinous wars.

We've made it, 6 billion of humans, with an ever rising tendency despite all this .

[Tankbuster]

Can't you see it? The human race has pretty much conquered this planet, not despite of its feelings or emotions, but because of it.
We are without a doubt the most successful race/entity on this planet. And our ability of social networking is an essentiell part of it. Our complex feelings and emotions evolved in a long evolutionary process and is our recipe for success.
What you mentioned is merely the luxury of the winner.

We can afford to abort children, so what.
We can afford to conduct horrible crimes against humanity.
We can afford to wage ruinous wars.

We've made it, 6 billion of humans, with an ever rising tendency despite all this .

The price for most succesful race on the planet goes, without doubt, to the cockroach, my friend We've only been around for a couple of millions years at best.

War is in our genes, since it's probably an evolutionairy mechanism we inherited from our ape-ancestors (chimpansees have this mechanism as well).
Dito with raping.

But you are right, our emotions have helped us a lot during our conquest of the world. Think chimpansees again. They have quite a complex society, where they help each other, so they have to remember who they owe stuff to, who owes them, etc... And the human species is even more complex, enabling us to have even more complex emotions.

I think we're taking my example too literally. If I change it to, say, a guy falling over and hitting his head. You feel empathy and you help him. This could save his life and the result would be his genes having more chance of survival in the gene pool.

I understand this is a very limited view of natural selection but anyone who isn't a biologist has a limited view so I don't care.

I think that's a pretty good example. Our emotions will cause us to help the man, thus it's a mechanism to protect our species.
On the other hand, when we would be in danger if we helped, we have a tendency NOT to help the victim. Self-preservation goes first. As we can expect from an evolved being

[Ruin]

Can't you see it? The human race has pretty much conquered this planet, not despite of its feelings or emotions, but because of it.

No we haven't. We populate it, that is all.

We are without a doubt the most successful race/entity on this planet.

Wrong, that prize would go to an insect. Most likely the cockroach, ant or termite.

And our ability of social networking is an essentiell part of it. Our complex feelings and emotions evolved in a long evolutionary process and is our recipe for success.

Actually no. Even without such complex social networking we would have managed the same. In fact we most likely would have been far more successful if we were more cold-hearted and interaction was for benefit only.

We've made it, 6 billion of humans, with an ever rising tendency despite all this .

Actually our birth rates are plummeting, we have confronted diseases we are incapable of combating and we are being driven out of various regions of the planet. Fish manage all of these far better. They're immune to almost anything, they have constant high birth rates and can live almost any water source on the planet.

[Chaigidel]

Oh I agree completely.