Vladimir_Nesov comments on Spock's Dirty Little Secret - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
By emotion, I mean, "that which controls the macro-physiological state of the body across multiple control systems, whose effects may be observed through kinesthetic awareness, and which is not a product of direct conscious effort to influence that state."
Or, in simpler words, "feelings". ;-)
Evolutionarily, I propose that the function of emotion is to prepare the body for co-ordinated action of some kind - for example, fear prepares for fight/flight and triggers heightened sensory focus.
Other emotions are more cerebral (e.g. the "aha" sensation), but still can be perceived in physical form, often still having externally visible effects, even to the naked eye.
The reason is that brains were not created for us to perform reasoning, they were created to classify things by emotion -- that is, to prepare the body for responses appropriate to recognized external events. It's important to remember that thinking arose after simple memory-prediction-action chains, and that it's built on top of that legacy system. That's why emotion (using the definition I gave above) is critical: tagging things with emotions and replaying those emotions upon recall is the primary substance and function of brains.
Yes, there are goal subsystems and all that... but that's another system (like "thinking") that's layered on top of the memory-prediction-action chain.
Certainly -- that's later in the sequence. It was going to be next, but yours and Yvain's comments make me think that maybe I need to get a bit more explicit about the evolutionary chain here, including the memory-prediction-action core, although maybe I can work that in at the beginning.
You have already said this in the article, and I basically agree with this model. But it doesn't follow that the categories/responses/tags are in any sense simple. They have the structure of their own, the structure as powerful as any piece of imagination. The structure of these "tags" has complexity still beyond the reach of any scientific investigation hitherto entered upon. ;-) And for this reason it's an error to write them off as phlogiston, even if you proceed with describing their properties.
I'm treating emotion -- or better, somatic markers -- as a category of thing that is useful to know about. But I have not really needed to have finer distinctions than "good" or "bad", for practical purposes in teaching people how to modify their markers and change their beliefs, motivations, etc. So, if you're saying I have too broad a category, I'm saying that in practice, I haven't needed to have a smaller one.
Frankly, it seems to me that perhaps some people are quibbling about the word "emotion" because they have it labeled "bad", but I'm also using it to describe things they have labeled "good". Ergo, I must be using the word incorrectly. (I'd be happy to be wrong about that supposition, of course.)
From my perspective, though, it's a false dichotomy to split emotion in such a way -- it overcomplicates the necessary model of mind, rather than simplifying it.
I don't believe anyone is thinking that.