post by [deleted]
This is a link post for
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Richard_Kennaway ·
2019-09-22T19:31:19.786Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Perhaps I'm missing some context that you've expounded elsewhere, but what evidence do you have for any of this? I have also not seen the terms S1.5 and S2.5 before, and a search indicates that they do not occur anywhere else on LessWrong..
comment by G Gordon Worley III (gworley) ·
2019-09-23T19:27:20.655Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I've come to see that emotion looks a lot like a confused, confounded category. We use "emotion" to point at a lot of different things, evidenced by if nothing else the way people vacillate between whether or not to talk about countable, distinct emotions (e.g. I'm sad, I'm angry, I'm sad and angry at the same time, etc.) or uncountable, fuzzy emotional energy (e.g. I'm a little sad, I'm very angry, I'm a mix of sad and angry, etc.). So this makes it hard to talk about the category we colloquially call "emotion(s)" and say anything much about their etiology.
This doesn't mean we can't try, but so long as we remain confused at best we can talk about some aspect of the ball-of-mud labeled "emotion". In that sense I think, for example, it's both right that emotions are ultimately actions and that they are ultimately messages, because much of the work is being done by your perspective on the confusion rather than the thing itself.
comment by romeostevensit ·
2019-09-23T02:02:40.633Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
> Seeking pleasure as a goal is goodharting.
I think this frame is subtly off. Something more like: using what feels good as evidence about what sort of thing you are.
Or, dis-identifying with a part of yourself often hides a tacit stronger identification with a different part of yourself, and is thus part of your ongoing war against yourself. This process is unavoidable, most of us have to pass through building a spiritual identity on the way towards a more widespread dis-identification. Replies from: TekhneMakre
comment by bitcohen ·
2019-10-01T10:18:04.975Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Every action is susceptible to influence by emotion, and at the same time every action is susceptible to influence by reason. Probably by some other influences that fall outside those two categories, too, but let’s start simple.
What “drives” any given action is a superposition of emotion and reason [and other stuff]. Some drivers are more of one than the other, of course, but none is ever pure emotion or pure reason.
comment by rrrrrrrrt? ·
2019-09-23T21:52:07.361Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm sorry: am I to understand that you read a book - one single book, which is forty-three years old - and now are proposing an epistomology of emotion?Replies from: Pattern