‘I Cannot Name Any Emotion That Is Uniquely Human.’

[Nearly Sane]

Lots of interesting stuff in here


https://longreads.com/2019/03/12/i-cannot-name-any-emotion-that-is-uniquely-human/?fbclid=IwAR1V1H154Vz8kMUz4WUDL6GGSpy3tWMKgfTRwnGT1EDQxM8c9S5zqjYceMg

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lots of interesting stuff in here


https://longreads.com/2019/03/12/i-cannot-name-any-emotion-that-is-uniquely-human/?fbclid=IwAR1V1H154Vz8kMUz4WUDL6GGSpy3tWMKgfTRwnGT1EDQxM8c9S5zqjYceMg

Isn't emotion a scientific no go area?
 Since there is a rush to eliminate emotion from scientific discussion is it therefore valid in this area?

The approach seems reductionist since there is no discussion on whether there are the emotions related to deeper existential considerations.


I appreciate that studies into the emotional states around music and art have been made with captive primates.

[ProfessorDavey]

Isn't emotion a scientific no go area?

Why on earth do you think that - there is a whole branch of neuroscience on this topic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why on earth do you think that - there is a whole branch of neuroscience on this topic.

So. How does science define emotion? And how does it measure it?

[Enki]

So. How does science define emotion? And how does it measure it?

If you are interested you could start by looking at these links:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/emotion.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

I happily accept that there are competing theories and definitions. The whole area is an expanding one as far as science is concerned, but it is an area in which science is taking a great deal of interest in. To suggest that emotion is a 'no go area' for science is demonstrably incorrect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are interested you could start by looking at these links:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/emotion.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

I happily accept that there are competing theories and definitions. The whole area is an expanding one as far as science is concerned, but it is an area in which science is taking a great deal of interest in. To suggest that emotion is a 'no go area' for science is demonstrably incorrect.

Well sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't being a subjective thing described and explained by other domains of scholarship and indeed experienced rather than merely observed.

We have to look then to how science defines emotion in it's own terms and to check that it really is ''Emotion'' we are dealing with.


So many for example confuse consciousness with intelligence for instance which is why definition is highly important.

[Nearly Sane]

Well sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't being a subjective thing described and explained by other domains of scholarship and indeed experienced rather than merely observed.

We have to look then to how science defines emotion in it's own terms and to check that it really is ''Emotion'' we are dealing with.


So many for example confuse consciousness with intelligence for instance which is why definition is highly important.

As so often, it's very hard to understand what you are trying to say. Could I suggest it would be better to talk about the article? One of the points of interest for me was the separation of emotions from feelings, and I would have liked to have seen more examination of that

[wigginhall]

I think that is interesting, and it comes up in therapy training.   Saying that you feel that something is the case,, doesn't equate with an emotion. But sometimes "I feel X", is about emotions, so "I feel sad".  It suggests that "feeling" is multiply ambiguous, but Wiki suggests that emotions are not simple, and comprise thoughts, behaviour, etc.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is interesting, and it comes up in therapy training.   Saying that you feel that something is the case,, doesn't equate with an emotion. But sometimes "I feel X", is about emotions, so "I feel sad".  It suggests that "feeling" is multiply ambiguous, but Wiki suggests that emotions are not simple, and comprise thoughts, behaviour, etc.

Wondering if in the senses used here that the emotion is the reaction and the feeling is the cause of the reaction. I find it difficult to see an easy split here. I think I may have to read a bit further elsewhere from de Waal to get it clear.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As so often, it's very hard to understand what you are trying to say.

If there is no agreed scientific definition of the term emotion then any scientific conclusion is meaningless isn't it? In other words what is it science is meant to be studying?

This doesn't matter if you are treating the article as more philosophical than scientific.

[ekim]

Wondering if in the senses used here that the emotion is the reaction and the feeling is the cause of the reaction. I find it difficult to see an easy split here. I think I may have to read a bit further elsewhere from de Waal to get it clear.

'Feeling' is a word that seems to fit into a number of situations.  A sensation is often described as a feeling e.g. the sensation of somebody sticking a needle into you is regarded as a feeling of pain and if they keep doing it then a feeling of anger or fear may result.   I would take the clue from the word 'emotion' as being an inner  movement towards outward expression, which anger might be an example of.  I would tend to see 'desire' as the prime mover .   There are other 'feelings' which may be experienced in inner 'stillness' which do not seem to need a stimulus, e.g. love, bliss, ecstasy, joy.

[Nearly Sane]

If there is no agreed scientific definition of the term emotion then any scientific conclusion is meaningless isn't it? In other words what is it science is meant to be studying?

This doesn't matter if you are treating the article as more philosophical than scientific.

To answer your first question, no. You seem to think everyone needs to fully accept a definition for any science to cover it. The experiments in emotion will cover the definituon. Not every part of science is hard science.

Do you actually have anything to say about what is covered in the article, as I asked in my post but you edited out?

[Nearly Sane]

'Feeling' is a word that seems to fit into a number of situations.  A sensation is often described as a feeling e.g. the sensation of somebody sticking a needle into you is regarded as a feeling of pain and if they keep doing it then a feeling of anger or fear may result.   I would take the clue from the word 'emotion' as being an inner  movement towards outward expression, which anger might be an example of.  I would tend to see 'desire' as the prime mover .   There are other 'feelings' which may be experienced in inner 'stillness' which do not seem to need a stimulus, e.g. love, bliss, ecstasy, joy.

In terms of what de Waal was arguing in the article this seems not to fit. As wigginhall has already mentioned we also use the term reel as regards emotions, and when we talk about feelings, I don't think we are talking about the sense of pain from standing on a pin.

[wigginhall]

If there is no agreed scientific definition of the term emotion then any scientific conclusion is meaningless isn't it? In other words what is it science is meant to be studying?

This doesn't matter if you are treating the article as more philosophical than scientific.

I don't think this is correct.  Sometimes a phenomenon is observed, and nobody has a clue about it.  An obvious example are quasars, about which various ideas were mooted, including wacky ones, as it seemed incredible that something could be so far away and so bright.   But gradually, and  untidily, there is work towards description and understanding.   You could say that the definition comes last.

Corals are interesting, as the ancients classed them as plants, or even stones, or some intermediate being.  I think they were classed as plants, until Herschel saw their membranes under a microscope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think this is correct.  Sometimes a phenomenon is observed, and nobody has a clue about it.  An obvious example are quasars, about which various ideas were mooted, including wacky ones, as it seemed incredible that something could be so far away and so bright.   But gradually, and  untidily, there is work towards description and understanding.   You could say that the definition comes last.

Corals are interesting, as the ancients classed them as plants, or even stones, or some intermediate being.  I think they were classed as plants, until Herschel saw their membranes under a microscope.

A fair set of points and of course nobody should be forbidden to try science out on anything.

If I have a wee bit of a criticism it's the comparison between things like Corals and emotions which the Brotherhood of Logicians and allied trades might have a bit of trouble with.

[Nearly Sane]

A fair set of points and of course nobody should be forbidden to try science out on anything.

If I have a wee bit of a criticism it's the comparison between things like Corals and emotions which the Brotherhood of Logicians and allied trades might have a bit of trouble with.

Nonsense isn't a criticism.

[ekim]

In terms of what de Waal was arguing in the article this seems not to fit. As wigginhall has already mentioned we also use the term reel as regards emotions, and when we talk about feelings, I don't think we are talking about the sense of pain from standing on a pin.

Yes, I agree that it is used in terms of emotions, as I said e.g. anger, fear.  I was making the point that the word 'feeling' has become a vague expression e.g. I feel like a cup of tea means I desire a cup of tea where desire is the emotion which initiates the move towards expression.  You, yourself, said 'I find it difficult to see an easy split here. ' and I think you are right.  Just for my own personal convenience, I tend to distinguish the two by using 'emotion' as a psychic force in need of expression ... e-motion .. outward motion, and 'feeling' as an observation of something deeper which arises in relative stillness where words like ecstasy (standing outside), stunning (all inner movement ceases), rapture (seized by intense joy) are used.  Whether it is applicable to animals, I don't know., but here is another observation ..... https://qz.com/1568701/what-the-study-of-animal-emotions-shows-us-about-being-human/?utm_source=msn-news

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense isn't a criticism.

…….and I don't feel this post criticises me.

[wigginhall]

Gravity is another interesting example, as as yet, it can't be defined, except in a loose way, or circular, all things gravitate towards one another!   The point is, we can't understand something before we understand it.

[Nearly Sane]

…….and I don't feel this post criticises me.

is there any chance you will talk about the interview?

[Nearly Sane]

Edited extract from de Waal's book


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/12/what-animals-can-teach-us-about-politics?fbclid=IwAR2fs-ByVP310NUfoiyZaLS0kzpa1BjNZKXFDz66QOXBpzLEOD0ShDtFmO0

[SteveH]

Neither can I. What of it?

[Walter]

Edited extract from de Waal's book


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/12/what-animals-can-teach-us-about-politics?fbclid=IwAR2fs-ByVP310NUfoiyZaLS0kzpa1BjNZKXFDz66QOXBpzLEOD0ShDtFmO0

NS
is his book about bricklaying ?

[Walter]

BOOM
end of thread?