| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> You have taken the above to mean that Bruce thinks that science is unable to
> explain the existence of emotions. Frankly, I have no idea what Bruce
> thinks about that, but I am pretty sure he has stated no such thing so far.
>
> FWIW, let me assert that science can and does explain the existence of
> emotions at least at a primitive level -- the more complicated the emotion,
> the more particularized the issue, and the more difficult it becomes to
> explain the emotion by any means.
This hominid-centric viewpoint that we are the sole custodians of emotions
baffles me. Richard you do a great job at explaining the possible origins of
them as have several others in this thread.
> For example: the emotion identified by many as "love" is probably a creation
> of natural selection and has a lot to do with getting human beings to mate
> for the propagation of the species. Anthropologists have discovered that
> the human species seems to favor "love" relationships that last in the main
> from 4-6 years, usually just enough time to have a few kids and bring them
> into the stages of later childhood. When children are at thier youngest,
> nature needs the parents to stay together for the benefit of the children --
> for protection, for the gathering of food, to be their transportation
> system, etc. Once children are out of these earlier stages of childhood and
> can move well on their own and generally fend for themselves, nature cares
> less whether parents stay together or not. As a consequence of children's
> greater autonomy, loving relationships that create children tend to last
> between 4-6 years in our species and this has been the case it is thought
> for several thousand years -- in the exact same way that your physiology
> matches that of human being best described as a "hunter/gatherer." Marriage
> as you may know it and think of it is a relatively new thing -- something
> that came into fashion more strongly during the industrial revolution.
> Elsewhere, people hookup and break up on the 4-6 year cycle described above.
The albatross which is the oldest living bird ( 80 yrs ) mates for life.
They don't see their mate for most of the year but when they do meet up with
them, along with 1000's of other albatrosses, they pick them out of a crowd
and perform a wonderful dance ( as many other monogomous birds do ). Yes,
it's in the benefit of these birds to remain faithful to each other so they
can ensure their genes are passed on, but this affection they show each
other seems to be a wasted of precious energy, if it didn't otherwise serve
a purpose possibly to enrich their lives and make for a stronger bond.
> Yes, there is slippage. Some people stay together for briefer relationships
> and still others stay together for much longer ones. Do these facts
> disprove the theory? No, because it is well known that nature tries
> everything in a "shotgun approach" and doesn't put all of her eggs in one
> basket. If nature tries everything with each species -- each species is sure
> to continue. But I am just speaking metaphorically, there is no "nature"
> there is only natural selection.
>
> Science DOES have a theory that explains emotions. Keep in mind that
> science knows that you are a walking and talking DNA sample with a very
> complicated nervous system and a VERY big brain. Some of the things that we
> do are likely to be evolutionary "extras" -- in that we don't seem to
> specifically require the behavior or trait for the survival of the species,
> but at the same time, the behavior may be the outgrowth of another related
> but necessary adaptation for survival. Our big brains may have to do with
> the way we see and having complicated visual structures. Bigger brains
> means that we created language and that in turn gave us the ability to
> transmit knowledge through the generations of the species. Etc. etc. etc....
I would recommend reading Arthur Koestler's trilogy of the origins of
creative thought: Sleepwalkers, The Art of Creation, and The Ghost in the
Machine. The first book follows humanities perception of the universe
throughout civilization and the main players and their various struggles in
their times. The next book is what is pertinent to this discussion. Among
other things it tries to uncover the physiological reasons for laughter and
crying. Also analyzing the various forms of humour and their uses. His
theory is that it is a build up of energy or emotion and the crying or
laughter serve as suprising release ( like a bark? ). I think they were
written in the 50's but still have relevance today as this field is still new.
Personally I think this crosses over into every aspect of our behaviour. One
instance I'd like to propose is dreaming. This too seems like a vestibual
tail, oddly useless. What it might be is an acient kick-start. Imagine two
baboons in the tree sleeping away. A leopard climbs the tree making little
noise but enough to stir the baboons. The one who is groggy from a dead
sleep is probably more prone to be a midnight snack. The one who's brain has
been active with imagination and impossible combinations of memories during
the night could possibly be able to bolt awake and flee easier from the
scene. Obviously fear and hunger have physiological symptoms that are
directly associated with our survival. With a little bit of imagination it's
possible to find a valid reason for any sort of behaviour rooted somewhere
in survival of the individual or the species.
cheers, Joseph
* proofreads for any potential invalidations to any technically inferior
cultures... nope just baboons this time
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) There is no such assertion being made by me. Human examples merely avoid the extra step of having to describe how one knows the experience of another species. I think I read "Ghost in the Machine" many, many years ago. A lot of the stuff that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) See? This is why I only skim your replies... Bruce is talking about a debate technique called an "emotional appeal" -- usually this takes the form of something that stirs the emotions of a reader or listener but that also tends to lack a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
