An Apple

[_honorentheos]

My question is, why are emotions almost immediately discounted as evidence, while our ideas of reality are not -- they are both filtered through our mind.

It's a good question, Simon. I think most neuroscientists today would shy away from discounting emotion entirely, but would suggest instead that our non-conscious minds and conscious functions work together. Which gets at your question of sub-conscious processes. I think the term most scientists use now is non-conscious: they are inaccessible. The following two special editions of Scientific American explore the ideas we have been discussing - The Hidden Mind and Secrets of the Sense. I also think you might enjoy the books, The Hidden Brain or How We Decide which I think do a good job illustrating the matter in a narrative, easy-to-read manner. I liked them, anyway.

But to explore your question, I think the right thing to do is follow the same process we have been using so far.

So, rather than tell you what I think, I'm curious how you would answer this - If our idea of apple is dynamic, and is constantly being modified or strengthened by our experience with the object we associate with this idea, how does emotion play into this? In other words, can ideas be solely founded on internal stimuli/emotions?

[_sock puppet]

I think the brain is the nexus for our interpretation of everything ranging from emotion, to our ideas of physical objects (sensory input data). My question is, why are emotions almost immediately discounted as evidence, while our ideas of reality are not -- they are both filtered through our mind.

Emotions are evidence of how someone is, internally. They are evidence of what I like and what I do not like. As responses to certain stimuli and sets of stimuli, emotions are evidence of what makes me different from you and everyone else. For that purpose, they are not disounted as evidence. For example, set two three year olds in different rooms, turn on a video of a clown trying to be entertaining. One of the three year olds laughs, giggles and squeals with delight. The other is fearful, scared and in a flash crying and wanting out of the room.

Now, if alter the experiment just a bit. We are the test subjects. We do not know what is shown on the monitors to the two different three year olds that give wildly different reactions. We as the observers of these two children are asked to make our best guess at what each child is watching on the monitors, one child fearful and crying and the other laughing and giggling. Again, in this alteration, we do not know what they are watching, and we don't even know that the two three year olds are watching the same video presentation.

What might we imagine that each three year old is watching? We might think the three year old that is giggling is watching pies be thrown into people's faces. We might think that the three year old that is fearful and crying is watching a clip from a Freddy Krueger movie. In essence, we would be projecting onto the children what we, with our biases, might assume that they are watching given their very different reactions.

However, Simon, one's emotions--one's reactions to stimuli--is not a reliable indicator of what that stimuli is. It is reliable evidence of the differences in the emotional make-up's of the two 3 year olds. But it is most unreliable as evidence in trying to figure out what the stimuli is that is evoking the emotional responses.

You are trying to posit that a warming bosom emotion is legitimate evidence of god, of a Mormon god no less. It is not. It is an emotional response to the steps that you have taken expecting and hoping that for some type of divine confirmation of whatever it is you put to the 'test' and have hoped for. It is, in short, a self-induced emotion, and it is evidence for nothing more than you hope for Mormonism to be true, it is not evidence that Mormonism is true.

Now, let's take sensory based evidence. By definition, the five senses provide our minds data about what is happening outside of us. Based on this data, and the name previously ascribed to such an object, we can see that we are holding an apple. We can feel that we are holding an apple. If we hold it up near our nose, we might smell that it is an apple we are holding. If we take a bite, our taste sense and perhaps our hearing (especially if it is a crisp appled) tell us that what we've been holding in our hand is an apple. These senses provide us evidence of what is happening externally to us. So we conclude it is an apple, not a peach, that we are holding.

If it turns out that we are wrong, it is some kind of a peach, we take that new data into account in our memory bank so that it is available next time we are holding what might at first appear to be an apple, and causes us to check before so concluding to make sure this next time it is not again a peach.

So your attempt to put emotions on the level of sensory data as evidence fails miserably, Simon. At least if you are seeking to prove the Mormon god, who is not just something as other religions teach that dwells inside of us, in our own hearts. The Mormon god is not just the impulses within each of us to do good towards our fellow man. The Mormon god is a separate being, outside of us. Our emotions are not valid evidence of anything outside of us; our emotions are merely valid evidence of our responses, and to that degree define us as individuals.

[_honorentheos]

My daughter and I have a joke that developed during a recent vacation. We were walking as a family at Sea World in San Diego and, as we came around a corner to where the dolphins are held and can be touched, one of them splashed water out of the tank that got my daughter wet. I joked that Sea World had set up a <daughter's name> trap.

She said, because it partially got me wet, too, "No, it's a daddy trap! No! it's an <honor> trap! NO! It's an <Honorentheos> Trap! Ha!", building up to my full name.

I laughed and said, "Ha!? Checkmate! Ha!?" It made for a good, shared laugh then. Now, when someone says something that they think is definitive, we'll joking add on for them, "Checkmate! Ha!"

I shouldn't be surprised how quick we can be to yell, "checkmate, idiot!" before hardly any of the pieces have been moved and run off hooting, looking for someone with whom we can chest-bump and high five. But I am.

Perhaps if we considered this, we'd realize why so many people feel all of the answers to the troubling issues of Mormonism have been answered? Because to the other person, this looks more like someone tipping the board over in order to avoid losing.

[_sock puppet]

My daughter and I have a joke that developed during a recent vacation. We were walking as a family at Sea World in San Diego and, as we came around a corner to where the dolphins are held and can be touched, one of them splashed water out of the tank that got my daughter wet. I joked that Sea World had set up a <daughter's name> trap.

She said, because it partially got me wet, too, "No, it's a daddy trap! No! it's an <honor> trap! NO! It's an <Honorentheos> Trap! Ha!", building up to my full name.

I laughed and said, "Ha!? Checkmate! Ha!?" It made for a good, shared laugh then. Now, when someone says something that they think is definitive, we'll joking add on for them, "Checkmate! Ha!"

I shouldn't be surprised how quick we can be to yell, "checkmate, m*****f****r!" before hardly any of the pieces have been moved and run off hooting, looking for someone with whom we can chest-bump and high five. But I am.

Perhaps if we considered this, we'd realize why so many people feel all of the answers to the troubling issues of Mormonism have been answered? Because to the other person, this looks more like someone tipping the board over in order to avoid losing.

?

[_honorentheos]

?

It was an obtuse way of suggesting we all have more to gain from a discussion that advances along lines of agreed-upon reasoning than we do from jumping to quick, but conflicting conclusions. I don't expect that the conversation will result in everyone agreeing at the end. But I think we can achieve more, with all parties benefiting from the dialogue, by identifying points of agreement and moving forward from there than we can by quickly focusing on where both sides disagree.

[_sock puppet]

?

It was an obtuse way of suggesting we all have more to gain from a discussion that advances along lines of agreed-upon reasoning than we do from jumping to quick, but conflicting conclusions. I don't expect that the conversation will result in everyone agreeing at the end. But I think we can achieve more, with all parties benefiting from the dialogue, by identifying points of agreement and moving forward from there than we can by quickly focusing on where both sides disagree.

That's what I thought you were intending. So specifically whose post(s) in thise thread were you directing this to?

[_honorentheos]

Sock, I was referring to the last post of yours where you described to Simon just what he means to say about emotions and why it's wrong. You may be right about Simon's position. Who knows?

I would like to think that we could let Simon speak for himself and discuss the OP as the conversation organically emerges. You may have him all figured out. But like in a chess match, let him make his own moves and if you can mate him then let it come in good time.

I honestly believe most Mormons are sincere when they say that all of the critical (or anti- if that is someone's preferred flavor) arguments are solved. And it is my opinion that this comes from the comparatively limited amount of effort and time that is taken to establish the logic that gets a person from one point such as the position they hold and the final view of the matter that seems so obvious to the critic. To be fair, I think it is all too easy to shorthand the steps that believers have taken to connect a beginning with a final position and in the process miss valid points that they are making. There is a lot of room for exploration in the area between critical argument and firm faith, in my opinion.

It's not an exaggeration to say that most conversations here remind me of a game, like chess, where the parties make a brief opening and then debate two possible endings that co-exist at this point. It's the conversational equivalent of Schrodinger's cat. I'm proposing that we try harder to let the game play out from a start position and see where it goes.

[_sock puppet]

Sock, I was referring to the last post of yours where you described to Simon just what he means to say about emotions and why it's wrong. You may be right about Simon's position. Who knows?

I would like to think that we could let Simon speak for himself and discuss the OP as the conversation organically emerges. You may have him all figured out. But like in a chess match, let him make his own moves and if you can mate him then let it come in good time.

I honestly believe most Mormons are sincere when they say that all of the critical (or anti- if that is someone's preferred flavor) arguments are solved. And it is my opinion that this comes from the comparatively limited amount of effort and time that is taken to establish the logic that gets a person from one point such as the position they hold and the final view of the matter that seems so obvious to the critic. To be fair, I think it is all too easy to shorthand the steps that believers have taken to connect a beginning with a final position and in the process miss valid points that they are making. There is a lot of room for exploration in the area between critical argument and firm faith, in my opinion.

It's not an exaggeration to say that most conversations here remind me of a game, like chess, where the parties make a brief opening and then debate two possible endings that co-exist at this point. It's the conversational equivalent of Schrodinger's cat. I'm proposing that we try harder to let the game play out from a start position and see where it goes.

I'm sure my post will not prevent Simon from continuing to post. Do you really think it will?

[_honorentheos]

I don't think it will stop Simon from posting. Maybe it will. Don't know.

I don't know if it means anything on my end, but I am trying to listen better and hear what the other side has to say. Even if I disagree, I think it's worth letting the other person say it and really considering how they view it. At it's heart, I'm trying to justify why I spend time on the boards, and doing so by trying to create value for myself in gaining from what someone else has to say.

In this case, that someone is Simon. Maybe I should try harder to see what you are saying uniquely from your position as well? In my last reading, the post came across as a summary of what you felt Simon was saying or had said a few pages back and why it was wrong regarding emotions.

I'll reread and think on it.

[_sock puppet]

I don't think it will stop Simon from posting. Maybe it will. Don't know.

I don't know if it means anything on my end, but I am trying to listen better and hear what the other side has to say. Even if I disagree, I think it's worth letting the other person say it and really considering how they view it. At it's heart, I'm trying to justify why I spend time on the boards, and doing so by trying to create value for myself in gaining from what someone else has to say.

In this case, that someone is Simon. Maybe I should try harder to see what you are saying uniquely from your position as well? In my last reading, the post came across as a summary of what you felt Simon was saying or had said a few pages back and why it was wrong regarding emotions.

I'll reread and think on it.

The only thing that I attributed to Simon in my post was that his purpose was to try to place emotions on the same level of evidence as sensory data. The rest was all stated as mine, in answering Simon's question. Do you think Simon is trying to do something different than put emotions on the same level of evidence as sensory data?