Compassion and empathy

[MaxP]

Primates evolved social traits long ago; a basic level of collectivity and/or mutual aid allowed them to thrive without being physically powerful. When our ancestors moved into the savannas 7 million years ago, the presence of more adept predators and prey on this open landscape pushed these social traits towards complex communications, planning, and cooperative bonding.



Who says monkeys don't have feelings? Not nearly as complicated as out own perhaps, but they do care for one another to some degree.

I appreciate the contribution, but thats been covered in depth already in this thread.

 

[Wyzaard]

Okay, then if I "feel" it is right to kill homosexuals, you can say you don't like that, but you've no standing to say I'm "wrong".

Hmmm... what do you mean by 'standing'? Methinks you are presuming objectivist criteria in your argument against subjectivism?

My feeling that homosexuality should be eliminated from society is on exactly the same level as your feeling that you like chocolate ice cream (or whatever it is you like).

Well, except for the radically different effects those beliefs have on everyone; some feelings are more important than others in reagrds to human-level concerns.

 

[MaxP]

I'm still kind of wondering where emotions fit in with intellect.
It would seem emotions have been posited as a instinctual way of guaranteeing and giving favors to build trust and social networks.
Our intellect has, however, improved, so could not the functions of emotions that compel us to behave a certain way could be handled entirely by the intellect?
Are emotions still essential, or are they like the appendix of the social development?

 

[Wyzaard]

I appreciate the contribution, but thats been covered in depth already in this thread.

So you've already conceded this point then?

 

[MaxP]

So you've already conceded this point then?

I've conceded the point monkeys have feelings, yes.

 

[Nathan45]

I'm still kind of wondering where emotions fit in with intellect.
It would seem emotions have been posited as a instinctual way of guaranteeing and giving favors to build trust and social networks.
Our intellect has, however, improved, so could not the functions of emotions that compel us to behave a certain way could be handled entirely by the intellect?
Are emotions still essential, or are they like the appendix of the social development?

I wouldn't say they're essential but they're still very useful and it's hard to get along without them.

You could google for information fully functional autistics, who through their disorder lack any kind of social instincts. Some are actually smart enough to figure it all out through intellect but there's a lot of things they don't "get".

Here's a wiki article on a highly functional autistic that might be useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin . She describes herself as "an anthropologist on mars".

One hypothesis is that social emotions, even if less needed later in life, are extremely useful for learning earlier in life. It's possible to imagine an adult with a full range of life experiences getting along with no emotions and only reason, but how would a child manage it? He wouldn't have enough of a worldview yet to make any rational decisions, so without emotional decisionmaking he would be lost.

edit: i also don't think we're quite to the point where we can discard emotion entirely and let intellect take care of everything. People are smarter than most animals but not that smart, in my opinion.

 

[cantata]

Are emotions still essential, or are they like the appendix of the social development?

Perhaps they are not essential.

However, we have them, inessential or otherwise.

 

[MaxP]

I wouldn't say they're essential but they're still very useful and it's hard to get along without them.

You could google for information fully functional autistics, who through their disorder lack any kind of social instincts. Some are actually smart enough to figure it all out through intellect but there's a lot of things they don't "get".

Here's a wiki article on a highly functional autistic that might be useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin . She describes herself as "an anthropologist on mars".

I don't think autism is a lack of just emotion; autistic people have emotion. It's something else, something more fundamental, and we don't, as of now, know exactly what.

One hypothesis is that social emotions, even if less needed later in life, are extremely useful for learning earlier in life. It's possible to imagine an adult with a full range of life experiences getting along with no emotions and only reason, but how would a child manage it? He wouldn't have enough of a worldview yet to make any rational decisions, so without emotional decisionmaking he would be lost.

He could be taught, perhaps? Rather than making decisions base don his own emotional digression, he would mimic the activity he sees his parents do(which babies already do to a large extent). Such things as crying to tell of pain or discomfort are also not necessarily linked to emotion; more instinct. Also, a baby learns fro itself through play; at least play involving the senses, not really emotion. Although I suppose you could argue a baby would not play unless he got the feeling of happiness from it, although he might if the parents show him to.

Theoretically, a baby could get along fine without emotion.

edit: i also don't think we're quite to the point where we can discard emotion entirely and let intellect take care of everything. People are smarter than most animals but not that smart, in my opinion.

Alrighty, if you say so. but what do you mean by most animals?

 

[MaxP]

Perhaps they are not essential.

However, we have them, inessential or otherwise.

So, will we lose them, given enough time? Or will they stick with as an appendix-like item(I forget what the evolutionary term is for an unneeded organ or bone that throws back to ancestors)?

 

[Wyzaard]

I've conceded the point monkeys have feelings, yes.

No... have you conceeded that our instincts of compassion and empathy, the basic elements of such also being present in our closest relatives, are positive evolutionary developments that have allowed human beings to survive by way of mutual aid?

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

[MaxP]

No... have you conceeded that our instincts of compassion and empathy, the basic elements of such also being present in our closest relatives, are positive evolutionary developments that have allowed human beings to survive by way of mutual aid?

No, I don't see why they imply humans being able to survive by mutual aid. Humans are intellectual creatures; they could reason they needed to help each other to survive. Other animals, being a rung lower on the intellectual scale, are a different matter, and may indeed require emotion to get them to group together(not, perhaps, necessarily). So is emotion a thing we need? Humans seek to pervert, twist, or destroy it, and are often successful. So would not intellect supercede a need for emotion, at least if you believe emotions we experience evolved, or were enhanced, between monkey and man.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

To have a discussion.
Does every post have to have a skewed agenda behind it?

 

[Nathan45]

I don't think autism is a lack of just emotion; autistic people have emotion. It's something else, something more fundamental, and we don't, as of now, know exactly what.

you're may be right.

He could be taught, perhaps? Rather than making decisions base don his own emotional digression, he would mimic the activity he sees his parents do(which babies already do to a large extent). Such things as crying to tell of pain or discomfort are also not necessarily linked to emotion; more instinct. Also, a baby learns fro itself through play; at least play involving the senses, not really emotion. Although I suppose you could argue a baby would not play unless he got the feeling of happiness from it, although he might if the parents show him to.

I don't see why you need to go out of your way to show that emotion is unnecessary. It seems to me to be a useful evolutionary construct for decision making and even if it isn't strictly perfect or necessary it was definately useful in the past, it's useful now, and it is apparently still fit because it still exists in wide variety.

Theoretically, a baby could get along fine without emotion.

I really don't think it could.

Alrighty, if you say so. but what do you mean by most animals?

I meant absolutely nothing by "most" animals. not even sure why i said that.

anyway i'm about done with this thread, i think i've said about everything i'm going to say about this and i don't feel like repeating myself. If you post something else, just pretend like i responded by reposting something i've already posted somewhere in the last several pages.

Alternatively, you could just answer your own questions yourself because by now you should have a good idea of how i think.

 

[MaxP]

you're may be right.


I don't see why you need to go out of your way to show that emotion is unnecessary. It seems to me to be a useful evolutionary construct for decision making and even if it isn't strictly perfect or necessary it was definately useful in the past, it's useful now, and it is apparently still fit because it still exists in wide variety.
I really don't think it could.

All right, thats fair enough, I don't know why, but IMHO, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, emotions seems antiquated by intellect.

I meant absolutely nothing by "most" animals. not even sure why i said that.

anyway i'm about done with this thread, i think i've said about everything i'm going to say about this and i don't feel like repeating myself. If you post something else, just pretend like i responded by reposting something i've already posted somewhere in the last several pages.

Yeah, it appears we have as good an understanding as we're going to have; continuing would most likely lead to frustration.

Alternatively, you could just answer your own questions yourself because by now you should have a good idea of how i think.

Nice talking to you.

 

[Chesterton]

What I can do, by the way, is try to show you that your position is internally inconsistent. Suppose you think that killing is wrong.

No, you can’t do that; you’ve already precluded the idea of “wrong”, right? According to you we both can only like or dislike a killing. And since you can’t reason a person into liking or disliking something, I think your course of action is limited to hoping that I dislike killing.

Then I can say to you that you are being hypocritical if you think that killing homosexuals is right. Of course, I can't make you care either about homosexuals or about being consistent in your views, but we can still have a reasonable discussion if we share at least some common goals (such as, for example, the desire for a healthy, happy society, or the desire to have internally consistent views).

All the words and ideas you use above – “hypocritical, inconsistent, consistent, wrong, right, reasonable” – none of them apply to subjective feelings. Again, you can hope, or maybe attempt the absurd - ask me to mentally/biologically produce the same feelings that you do.

But then why would you even want me to do that? If you don’t believe your goal of a “happy, healthy society” is “right” according to some external standard, then why is it necessary that I share that goal? Why should your preferences be superior to my preferences? Because a majority shares your preference? Again, you’re limited to hoping - that I like democracy.

And before we get to the question of why you’d want me to accept your subjective preference, why should you accept your subjective preference? If that’s all it is, you could just as easily have the opposite preference. Why aren’t you a serial killer? You’re a determinist, so obviously it’s not your fault/credit that you’re not a killer. It’s another fluky, psychological accident. Meaningless accidents belong in a trash can, not on a pedestal serving as a universal standard.

Well, not really, because I'd imagine that such a view is much more deeply held and psychologically significant to you than someone's preference for a particular flavour of frozen dessert.

Why would you imagine that? Because it feels that way to you?

You are attempting to make my position look absurd by trivialising "moral" feelings. However, they are not trivial feelings. They are at the very heart of human discourse.

That’s not what I’m trying because I don’t think your position is absurd; I think it’s untrue, but I don’t think it’s absurd. If it were true, it would be rational, but then my complaint would be that you don’t think it through to its logical conclusion – that in a Godless universe, a small wisp of cigarette smoke has more meaning and substance than the greatest love or hate you’ve ever known.

If you’re going to posit a purely material universe, I’ll hold you to it: I don’t say your feelings are trivial; I say they’re nothing. They’re illusory, ephemeral, electro-chemical nothings.

The fact that we do not have an external standard by which to judge them doesn't change their importance.

I think it entirely removes any importance.

The love that I feel for my parents is a much more significant feeling to me than my fondness for my beautiful new iPod. Likewise, my feeling that killing homosexuals is horrible is much more significant to me than my enjoyment of chocolatey goodness.

In order for one feeling to be more significant than another feeling, feelings have to have some significance at all.

 

[Wyzaard]

No, I don't see why they imply humans being able to survive by mutual aid. Humans are intellectual creatures; they could reason they needed to help each other to survive.

Why are you assuming thinking and feeling are seperate domains? The evidence suggests reasoning and social acuity are closely related; managing relationships between people and between logical progressions aren't dissimilar.

Other animals, being a rung lower on the intellectual scale, are a different matter, and may indeed require emotion to get them to group together(not, perhaps, necessarily). So is emotion a thing we need? Humans seek to pervert, twist, or destroy it, and are often successful. So would not intellect supercede a need for emotion, at least if you believe emotions we experience evolved, or were enhanced, between monkey and man.

No... again, I have no reason to believe their are discretely different cognitive processes that evolved in a vacuum. Emotion and reasoning work together quite well, methinks.

To have a discussion.
Does every post have to have a skewed agenda behind it?

Your resistence to poster's well-supported responses suggests you have already made up your mind beforehand, and are just tring to muddy the issue for everyone else.

 

[Wyzaard]

I think it entirely removes any importance.

Well... continue to think so according to your own subjective criteria preferences then.

 

[cantata]

So, will we lose them, given enough time? Or will they stick with as an appendix-like item(I forget what the evolutionary term is for an unneeded organ or bone that throws back to ancestors)?

I have no idea. I'm not a fortune-teller.

Humans are intellectual creatures; they could reason they needed to help each other to survive. Other animals, being a rung lower on the intellectual scale, are a different matter, and may indeed require emotion to get them to group together(not, perhaps, necessarily). So is emotion a thing we need? Humans seek to pervert, twist, or destroy it, and are often successful. So would not intellect supercede a need for emotion, at least if you believe emotions we experience evolved, or were enhanced, between monkey and man.

1. We share a common ancestor with the apes and monkeys of today. (We didn't "come from" them.) Remember that our emotional complexity and our intellects have evolved in tandem, so it's not surprising that we have both.

2. Emotions may be primitive, but they do the job. You need selection pressure for evolutionary change to happen. Do you think that there is selection pressure on human beings today to be emotionless? It's a serious question.

 

[WhatThe]

I can't see where Autism came into this discussion, so I'll just add this in a new post:
Autism is not so much an absence of emotion, it's more of an inability to comprehend emotions and social cues. Indeed, in some areas of the autistic spectrum it seems closer to being TOO emotional (ODD, for example).

 

[cantata]

No, you can’t do that; you’ve already precluded the idea of “wrong”, right? According to you we both can only like or dislike a killing. And since you can’t reason a person into liking or disliking something, I think your course of action is limited to hoping that I dislike killing.

I said, "Suppose you think that killing is wrong." I didn't deny that you would be mistaken if you thought that, but the fact is that a lot of people do think that. If you think that, but you advocate killing in some specific situation, I am then in a position to suggest to you that you are being inconsistent.

All the words and ideas you use above – “hypocritical, inconsistent, consistent, wrong, right, reasonable” – none of them apply to subjective feelings. Again, you can hope, or maybe attempt the absurd - ask me to mentally/biologically produce the same feelings that you do.

I said all of that in my post. I guess if you like repeating what people have already said, but in sarkier language, then go right ahead.

I can only persuade you if it turns out that we do share some feelings about things. If you and I agree that we don't like it when people are hurt, we can discuss the use of torture in interrogation. If you and I agree that we would like (for aesthetic, or intellectual, or whatever reasons) our feelings to be consistent with one another, then we can have a discussion about that, too. If we disagree, we can't, and that's all.

But then why would you even want me to do that? If you don’t believe your goal of a “happy, healthy society” is “right” according to some external standard, then why is it necessary that I share that goal? Why should your preferences be superior to my preferences? Because a majority shares your preference? Again, you’re limited to hoping - that I like democracy.

I want you to agree with me because I feel that a healthy, happy society would be a pleasant place for me to live. Also, I find that I care about other people; I want them to be healthy and happy too. So if I can get you on board then we have one more person trying to achieve my goal, and that's something that I desire.

I want you to agree with me about killing because if killing doesn't make you feel bad or uncomfortable, you might kill me or my family, and I don't want you to. In fact, I don't want you to kill anyone, because people dying makes me sad. That's why. It has nothing to do with the majority.

And before we get to the question of why you’d want me to accept your subjective preference, why should you accept your subjective preference? If that’s all it is, you could just as easily have the opposite preference. Why aren’t you a serial killer? You’re a determinist, so obviously it’s not your fault/credit that you’re not a killer. It’s another fluky, psychological accident. Meaningless accidents belong in a trash can, not on a pedestal serving as a universal standard.

Why do you want to be happy rather than sad? Look at your question. It's silly.

It makes me sad when you do certain things, and I want you to be made sad by them too so that you'll stop doing them.

Why would you imagine that? Because it feels that way to you?

I think it is not an unreasonable assumption that some people's beliefs and feelings are more influential and more important to them than others. And I think that this can be quite easily demonstrated in psychological study. People tend to be more devastated by the death of a parent than by the loss of a biro.

That’s not what I’m trying because I don’t think your position is absurd; I think it’s untrue, but I don’t think it’s absurd. If it were true, it would be rational, but then my complaint would be that you don’t think it through to its logical conclusion – that in a Godless universe, a small wisp of cigarette smoke has more meaning and substance than the greatest love or hate you’ve ever known.

If you’re going to posit a purely material universe, I’ll hold you to it: I don’t say your feelings are trivial; I say they’re nothing. They’re illusory, ephemeral, electro-chemical nothings.

So?

They are deeply important to me. What further justification do you need?

Human society is built on our feelings. We feel that we would like to be safe and we would like our loved ones to be safe. We feel that we would like to own property. Or whatever. There doesn't need to be some grand magical scale by which we measure the ultimate significance of these feelings. They are significant to us, and we're the ones doing the society-building.

I think it entirely removes any importance.

Why, yes. In the grand scheme of things, nothing matters.

In order for one feeling to be more significant than another feeling, feelings have to have some significance at all.

They are clearly significant to me. They have no universal significance, I agree.

 

[Chesterton]

I said all of that in my post. I guess if you like repeating what people have already said, but in sarkier language, then go right ahead.

I promise I wasn’t trying to be sarkier (or maybe I was; I don’t know what the word means. )

I can only persuade you if it turns out that we do share some feelings about things. If you and I agree that we don't like it when people are hurt, we can discuss the use of torture in interrogation. If you and I agree that we would like (for aesthetic, or intellectual, or whatever reasons) our feelings to be consistent with one another, then we can have a discussion about that, too. If we disagree, we can't, and that's all.

I agree.

I want you to agree with me because I feel that a healthy, happy society would be a pleasant place for me to live. Also, I find that I care about other people; I want them to be healthy and happy too. So if I can get you on board then we have one more person trying to achieve my goal, and that's something that I desire.

I want you to agree with me about killing because if killing doesn't make you feel bad or uncomfortable, you might kill me or my family, and I don't want you to. In fact, I don't want you to kill anyone, because people dying makes me sad. That's why. It has nothing to do with the majority.

Okay, I appreciate your honesty and your consistency, but are you really saying that there’s nothing inherently wrong in any horrible human actions I can name (slavery, rape, murder), but rather that they merely make cantata sad? If there's a man with no family or friends, is it okay if I rob and murder him in secret, since I won't be producing a sad emotion in anyone?

And to my earlier question about murdering someone, you’ve basically said there’s no reason not to. You’ve said there’s an emotion not to, and one may or may not share your emotion.