Why do we feel, the way we do?

[hallenrm]

Here are some fresh thoughts, insights on this subject partly due to the knowledge gained through web surfing!

 

A feeling is not just sensational perception, due to the sensory mechanism in our body, it is much more. Think about the various phrases, liking

 

Feeling affectionate

Feeling jittery

Feeling amazed

Feeling dejected

Feeling elated

Feeling emancipated

Feeling experienced or exploited

 

(One can find thousands of such phrases at

http://eqi.org/fw.htm and perhaps feel what I am hinting at.

 

If science or scientists refuse to talk about such widespread phenomena unscientific, then it is due to the very limited knowledge that they possess and amply illustrates that there are still many more territories to explore, by methods still unknown, by people who are not presently recognized as scientists!!! :confused:

[saidevo]

The following discussion from the book titled Astral Body by Arthur E. Powell, (chapter 25) which is itself based on the book The Science of Emotions by Bhagavan Das, might be helpful. This work is available at: http://www.theosophical.ca/AstralBodyByPowell-B.htm

 

The reality (manifested existence) may be analysed into the Self, the Not-Self, and the Relationship between the two.

 

Feeling or emotion is bipolar, like most things in reality: pleasurable and painful. Pleasure, basically a sense of moreness and produces attraction, love; pain, basically a sense of lessness, produces repulsion, hate.

 

Attraction is the origin of all love-emotions; and repulsion, of hate-emotions. Emotions arise from love or hate, or from both in varying degrees of intensity.

 

The precise nature of a particular emotion is also determined by the relationship between the one who experiences the emotion and the object which is the occasion of the emotion. The one who experiences the emotion may be, so far as the circumstances connected with the particular emotion are cncerned, (1) Greater than, (2) Equal to - or (3) Less than the object.

 

Pursuing this analysis, we arrive at the six possible types of emotion-elements and their subdivisions. These are arranged in the table below in the descending order of their intensity:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualitative - Quatitative - Emotion Element - Degrees

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

.......... -- Superior .... Reverence ..... - Worship, adoration, Reverence,

..............................................Esteem, Respect, Admiration

LOVE (for) -- Equal ....... Affection ..... - Affection, Comradeship,

..............................................Friendliness, Politeness

.......... -- Inferior .... Benevolence ... - Compassion, Tenderness,

..............................................Kindness, Pity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

.......... -- Superior .... Fear .......... - Horror, Dread, Fear,

..............................................Apprehension

HATE (for) -- Equal ....... Anger ......... - Hostility, Rudeness, Aversion,

..............................................Coldness, Aloofness

.......... -- Inferior .... Pride/Tyranny . - Scorn, Disdain, Contempt,

..............................................Superciliousness

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/Quote]

 

Everyone of us at some time or other has experienced one or more of these emotions in various degrees, which might have found their biological / nurological / psychological channels to express themselves and ended up as recallable/reusable additions to our 'self'. The question is, to what extent can the origins of these emotions are traceable in our bodily self?

[ronthepon]

First of all, even I felt the same way as you do, hallenrm, but there were things that changed my ideas.

 

What changed me were a complex mixture of realisation and external circumstances. If you'll allow me, I'll put them here for analysis.If you want, hallemrm. I'd be ready to delete this one if you do not consider this the matter of your discussion.

 

Here is the first one.

 

It occured to me that the 'observer' in me would stop observing when, and only when I would allow it to. Then came to my mind the concept of death, and I reasoned that if one would try to remain observant after the death causing event, then somehow death *could* be postponed/delayed/averted.

 

I know it was a stupid thought, but try to take my view here. You do find it hard to believe that such a solid and coherent understanding and continuously thinking agency could suddenly come to a stop. If I would keep my eyes open, what would happen? If I kept listening, what would happen? If I forced myself to keep breathing, what would happen?

 

What changed my belief was a condition where, due to severe sleep deprivation I used to have periods of low concentration abilities and severe tiredness. I decided to experiment, see if I could force myself to become normal by sheer willpower.

 

The first time I tried, I stood up, opened my eyes wide and tried to concentrate on a map on the wall. I tried to make sense of it.

 

First of all, my eyes began to water. They stung hard. My brain completely refused to make sense of the map. I tried to look at the features, instead I saw them mix and almost blend into the wall. It felt like my brain was simply refusing. I could not... could not push it to work. Soon, my vision began to fail. It was most surprising, I had my eyes wide open (I could tell because they stung so much) and yet everything was turning black. I cannot even say if it was turning black. There was actually no colour trhat I could name. I barely felt my limbs failing, a sharp pain in my head (which I failed to associate with anything at the time) and there was a loud buzzing in my ears.

 

When I came back to the room, I realised that I had stumbled across and hit the wall.

 

I thought about it, and formed a few opinions. Do you wish to analyse this, hallenrm?

[hallenrm]

What changed me were a complex mixture of realisation and external circumstances. If you'll allow me, I'll put them here for analysis.If you want, hallemrm. I'd be ready to delete this one if you do not consider this the matter of your discussion.[/QUOTE]

 

Whatever led you to believe that I would mind your right for civil expression, banish it. First and foremost it is important to be bold and thoughtful!! :shrug:

 

I thought about it, and formed a few opinions. Do you wish to analyse this, hallenrm?

 

I do believe that your experience, as you have described was primarily due to mental fatigue.

[ronthepon]

Well, there I realised the limitation of my body as a mere working biological object.

 

My eye burning, that indicated that my body was unable to sustain an active tear secretion, which made seeing difficult. Then, my vision actually failed, without my 'consent'. My ears began to ring, and I failed to hear. I had moved across the room, yet I did not do it conciously.

 

The basic point is: I did not do those things directly. How did they happen? I answer: My body was a machine, and it did not get it's requirements. 'It'. Not 'me'.

 

Similarly, my mind had refused to concentrate. It defied my 'orders'. 'It'.

 

It was silly. Obviously, I had hit upon something that was me, yet was not mine.

 

But what does this have to do with your subject? Just this: You are made up of biological-machines. Each of your feelings, instincts, well... features are outcomes of these machines. They are not as permanent or stable as they seem. When the environment around machines change, and the machines fail, so do those higher products of the machines.

 

Very similar is the working of the computers, as it seems to me. I have recently learnt about the logic gates. I have seen how they are arranged. But right now, I cannot visualise the whole computer in the terms of the logic gates. Do a favour to yourself, and open up flashchat and have a short (talk?) with the hypobot. Does it seem apparent that it is an outcome of 'OR', 'AND', 'NOT' etc, logic gates?

 

Probably no, perhaps because you have come to take the lower workings for granted. It is simpler to look at the upper workings, and not practical to try work the programmes while keeping the basics in view.

 

It's like so for the mind. You are accustomed to use it, not feel it's fleshiness. For you, it is not as biological or even physical as it is for someone with -say- autism.

 

There have been other experiences, but I'll leave them out. For now, throw an emotion or feeling 'outcome of that machine' and see if I succeed in explaining it's matter...ness or not. I'm ready, let me hear your first one. <you have put up some, but it's going to be more sensible if a 'one at a time' method is used>

[hallenrm]

For now, throw an emotion or feeling 'outcome of that machine' and see if I succeed in explaining it's matter...ness or not. I'm ready, let me hear your first one. <you have put up some, but it's going to be more sensible if a 'one at a time' method is used>

 

How, about this one! on reading your post I feel like repping you up :wave:

[ronthepon]

A wish to rep? It is simple. You have, in the course of your time here at hypography, come to consider the rep system a method of showing appreciation and recieving it.

 

This has primitive roots, where the action of realising goodnesses in others and rewarding them enable the 'nice' people to live a more successful life, due to which they(good people) get a better survival chance, and hence the society prospers.

(That's why we feel like rewarding those who we like)

 

Now the rep system is the hypography community's way of rewarding those whom you like, and punishing those whom you don't like. Since you have seen that the person you wish to rep may be a positive factor in society, you wish to reward him. And rep is a convinient, easy, almost instinctive way of doing it.

 

Ofcourse, rep does not actually increase anybody's chances of survival. It is an example of an out-dated mechanism, something that appears pointless to rationalism, yet is upheld by the primitive instinct.

 

Note that people rarely are aware of the lower levels of this feelings, the ones I've highlighted in the second paragraph. Only the upper 'layers' of the feelings are apparent, visible.

[hallenrm]

That is precisely my point, one can indeed explain anything intutively, as you have done. But, it does not neccesarily fall in the realms of science: physics, biology, psychology. These sciences give us the tools to argue but not neccesarily the real arguments.

 

Thus although you could argue why do I feel to rep anybody on the Hypography, a few closely related questions remainun answered:

 

1. Why did I feel reping you in particular at that moment?

2. Why did I not rep you inspite of my feeling.

 

Science is not merely giving some psuedo arguments in response to a question, it is much more. :wave:

[ronthepon]

That is precisely my point, one can indeed explain anything intutively, as you have done. But, it does not neccesarily fall in the realms of science: physics, biology, psychology. These sciences give us the tools to argue but not neccesarily the real arguments.

Actually, I used biology. Darwins's concepts and their extensions. I used psychological reasoning also. Perhaps anthropology? Perhaps some other branches? My ideas are not 100% science. They are hypotheses. Pretty good ones, I might add for myself, and when they are verified, they become 100% science.

 

Thus although you could argue why do I feel to rep anybody on the Hypography, a few closely related questions remainun answered:

 

1. Why did I feel reping you in particular at that moment?

2. Why did I not rep you inspite of my feeling.

What stopped you? Although I do not have enough information to be sure abut it, these are my hypotheses.

 

At that moment,perhaps, you felt a brief urge to reward this 'little kid' because he has ideas, and he thinks. His ideas may or may not be useful, but he certinaly can be useful to society.

 

Or perhaps you liked the ideas or attempts to discuss this with you. Perhaps you liked some point, which gave you a momentary analysis of me as 'Profitable for society', one having 'Promising thoughts'.

 

Why did you not rep me? Perhaps you stopped yourself, 'lets see more'. Or perhaps you wanted to hold back the reward for a time when I satisfied you to a greater extent.

 

note that I'm not a professional psychology analyser. These are crude hypotheses, and there wuill be more. The one among those hypotheses which stands the tests of verification and analysis, not to mention experimentation, will be truth. 'Science'

 

Science is not merely giving some psuedo arguments in response to a question, it is much more. :)

Ouch. pseudo arguments sounds harsh. How about my term, 'hypothesis'? It comes from something I read in my biology book. The title was 'The scientific method'.

 

I am enjoying this discussion. This will leave a lasting effect on me, if it works out.

[hallenrm]

Oh! If you want to talk about Hypothesis, let me tell mine.

 

According to my favorite hypothesis which I have aired several times on this forum, we are all surrounded by a thought field, which may be likened to the electromagnetic field. So thoughts are everlasting, just like electromagnetic waves. Thoughts can neither be created nor destroyed just like energy.

 

So, our feelings are a consequence of the thoughts which our body/mind readily accepts at a particular moment; our body/mind acts as a transeiver of thoughts.

 

:shrug: B)

[ronthepon]

Thought feild. I disagree about it's existence, and I shall try to give reasons for this to be impossible.

 

Well, hallenrm, first of all, is there a background that you can propose for this idea? Is there any observation that can be explained by this idea? If there is, then your stand can be strengthened.

 

Well, let me try to disprove it for the moment.

 

Let me begin. *rub hands*

According to my favorite hypothesis which I have aired several times on this forum, we are all surrounded by a thought field, which may be likened to the electromagnetic field.

A thought feild, analogous to the elctromagnetic feild? Is that what you imply?

 

So thoughts are everlasting, just like electromagnetic waves. Thoughts can neither be created nor destroyed just like energy.

Thoughts are not everlasting. One moment I think of football, the next it's physics.

Not only that, but once I used to think that my observation abilities are invincible, while now I think that it can be wiped outin an instant.

'Change is eternal, constancy not so'

 

By the way, electromagnetic waves end the moment they are absorbed by electrons in an atom. They may be created by the interaction of electrons and positrons.

 

So, our feelings are a consequence of the thoughts which our body/mind readily accepts at a particular moment; our body/mind acts as a transeiver of thoughts.

If this were true, then two people loceted very close to each other could not have feelings that were much different. I could not feel the pride and happiness of victory, while the person whom I just beat at chess feels horribly sad, sad enough, in fact, to commit suicide.

 

You are hypothesising that thoughts are physical, and our bodies/minds pick them up from the area. I have, I think, just refuted this hypothesis.

[hallenrm]

Good, to note that you are thinking! Let me explain a bit.

 

When I say 'Thoughts are everlasting" I certainly do not mean that the thoughts of a person at a particular moment are permanent, all I mean is that the thoughts that have occured in the minds of humanity and what may occur in future are in fact essentially same.

 

The thoughts of any individual are susceptible to change, because as I have said is under a constant onslaught of thoughts from his/her surroundings.

 

As regards the difference of thoughts between two people located closeby, it is essentially due to their different selfs. Just like two receivers (whether TV, radio or wireless or cell phones) can react to the same transmission in different ways, so do people. For example, if you say something to a crowd, not everybody would understand it the same way, everyone interprets the message according to his/her own perceptions, worldview and understanding.

 

So you have misunderstood the hypothesis and not disproved it:D

 

Let me now go further with my thoughts.

 

The genesis of a feeling can be physiological (as in the example you cited); it can be psycological, as you have tried to reason out my feeling for repping, but beyond these the genesis of a feeling can also be spiritual, something which science in its present avataar refuses to analyze or explain.

Many of our feelings are in fact a result of all these factors, which can be clubbed together as the self of an individual.

 

That's sufficient for this post, more next time:)

[ronthepon]

When I say 'Thoughts are everlasting" I certainly do not mean that the thoughts of a person at a particular moment are permanent, all I mean is that the thoughts that have occured in the minds of humanity and what may occur in future are in fact essentially same.

There still remains the problem or change of general thinking processes.

 

Once, in rome, nothing was more enjoyable as seeing bloodshed and terrible gore in the roman arenas. Now, that sort is severely condemned and totally illegal. Who has that thinking process anymore?

 

As regards the difference of thoughts between two people located closeby, it is essentially due to their different selfs. Just like two receivers (whether TV, radio or wireless or cell phones) can react to the same transmission in different ways, so do people. For example, if you say something to a crowd, not everybody would understand it the same way, everyone interprets the message according to his/her own perceptions, worldview and understanding.

But that means that some people are absolutely different, then.

For the chess situation is gave, what about the case when, in the next game that particular ex-opponent has bet money on me, and when I win, both of us can feel happy and full of triumph this time?

 

And further, if feeling were really 'in the air', then we would feel some feelings without reason or out of context also, and that is not observed.

 

So you have misunderstood the hypothesis and not disproved it:D

it's a mental excersise, isn't it? For the sake of the discussion. Ah, but it does instantly bring out resistance in those who call themselves people of science...

 

The genesis of a feeling can be physiological (as in the example you cited); it can be psycological, as you have tried to reason out my feeling for repping, but beyond these the genesis of a feeling can also be spiritual, something which science in its present avataar refuses to analyze or explain.

Many of our feelings are in fact a result of all these factors, which can be clubbed together as the self of an individual.

 

That's sufficient for this post, more next time:)

The spiritual part is something that science refuses to explain because, for most of the time, it is the outcome of those ideas which either cannot be verified or refuse to allow verification.

After all, science is about truth, and if someone expects you to take the truth, and accept it so without showing a reason to, cannot be trusted.

[hallenrm]

Well I thought you would read my post carefully, if you had followed the link on spiritual you would have hit a page on spiritual science on Wikipedia.

 

As regards your comment

 

Once, in rome, nothing was more enjoyable as seeing bloodshed and terrible gore in the roman arenas. Now, that sort is severely condemned and totally illegal. Who has that thinking process anymore?

 

I would only say, that you are still very young and hence have not experienced the world in its very many ways.

 

and your comment

 

But that means that some people are absolutely different, then.

For the chess situation is gave, what about the case when, in the next game that particular ex-opponent has bet money on me, and when I win, both of us can feel happy and full of triumph this time?

 

I never said that a set of any two people cannot have the same feeling at the same time. All I saidwas that different people can perceive the same experience differently, and hence have a different feeling!

 

Let me try to explain using different words and sentences.

 

A feeling is a consequence of sensory or extra-sensory perceptions. The perceptions can be a single event as is the case when one is physically hurt, or several events related or unrelated. How these perceptions lead to a particular feeling depends on the constitution of the person, physiological, psycological or spiritual. Hence there is no exact cause and effect relationship between a perception (or any set thereof) and its consequent feeling.

 

:confused:

[ronthepon]

Ah. I was trying to get exactly this out of you.

 

A feeling is a consequence of sensory or extra-sensory perceptions. The perceptions can be a single event as is the case when one is physically hurt, or several events related or unrelated. How these perceptions lead to a particular feeling depends on the constitution of the person, physiological, psycological or spiritual. Hence there is no exact cause and effect relationship between a perception (or any set thereof) and its consequent feeling.

Yes, that is precisely what I'd accept.

 

Just the way there was no need for Tesla(Was it Tesla? Or was it Faraday?) to imagine magnetic feild lines, yet he did it to simplify matters, there is no need to introduce the concept of 'feelings in the environment' concept. It is basically: The enviroment affects your feelings.

 

Ofcourse, you are right. Different individuals do react differently to feelings, but I'd have to add that it's not just their emotional and mental build, but also the situation they are in.

General profit has feelings of one genre, while general loss has that of the opposite kind.

 

These are probably one of the most basic out of 'human' emotions, and they have minor alterations and modifications that are brought about by either the environment or other conditions. 'Variables of the event'.

 

I'd also have tyo agree when you say that there is no exact cause and effect relationship. I guess I was completely overlooking the sub-concious. Yes, it is a part of our mind, and it alters with time. However, unlike our outer self, our outlook, infact, it is of a little more stable and unchanging state. It alters with more effort, and affects our every feeling.

 

The subconcious is something that has been documented by science, from what I know.

 

And regarding the link you had given, I had probably given an insufficient amount of significance to it, but I think I'll rectify that mistake now. Yes, I had read it. I feel that there needs to be an enormous amount of discussion on the topics contained in them. The reason I flinch every time I come across a spiritual discussion, is because I have seen how unreliable my mind can be. I do not know what the 'spirit' means for sure, and I do not believe that it has a strong definition. I have come across Zen Buddhism, and I have seen quite a large amount of sense in it, yet it involves a large amount of made ups. Too large, in fact.

 

PS:

Once, in rome, nothing was more enjoyable as seeing bloodshed and terrible gore in the roman arenas. Now, that sort is severely condemned and totally illegal. Who has that thinking process anymore?

I would only say, that you are still very young and hence have not experienced the world in its very many ways.

I agree. I guess that was a wrong thing to say. What I wished to demonstrate was that the human mind has developed over time, and with this development, a change in thinking processes has occured.

[hallenrm]

......with this development, a change in thinking processes has occurred.

 

That indeed leads to a feeling of satisfaction in me:). The satisfaction that I have able to influence the thoughts of atleast one person; It is immaterial to me whether that person agrees or disagrees with my opinions. My mission is to influence people to wards thinking :shrug:.

 

That's only a part of my mission in life, the other part is to constantly evaluate my opinions and beliefs in the light of new thoughts that strike my mind.

 

What led me to initiate this thread, was a thought that questioned my beliefs in causality. That a single cause can be held responsible for an observation.

 

For example, the belief that an ailment in our body can always be traced back to a single malfunction, either of an organ or a gene. Or for that matter a single social custom or religion can be the genesis of a particular social disease, say terrorism or heinous other crimes.