What are Emotions?

[tomspug]

Are emotions merely forms of communication? What are their evolutionary purpose? What purpose do feelings of guilt, remorse, shame, bitterness, pride, and love serve in the evolutionary process?

I know that emotions aren't exclusive to humans, but I don't understand how they have 'developed' over time.

 

[Sunstone]

Emotions are based on neurochemicals. For instance, oxytocin, a peptide, causes us to have "warm and fuzzy" feelings. Emotions seem to serve at least two purposes. First, they prompt us to action. Second, they help us to prioritize.

 

[zenzero]

Friend tomspug,
Your thoughts on the subject are on the right track that emotions springs from the feelings of guilt, shame, remorse etc.
The evolutionary process works in the sense that one is born wherever the individual left of in his previous birth BUt in so far as his karma is concerened. in another wards it is the resultant or balance of karma that one starts another birth and since most are yrt to get over those feelings like thoughts they too remain as seeds.
From experience can say that though am not emotional in expressing have found they came out once or twice when I met someone like some knots opening but why it happened am yet to get an answere. Yes, attachments do play a great role in emotions and which are used everyday by everyone which we call emotional blackmailing in extreme cases.
Love & rgds

 

[Wandered Off]

We process information by comparison. Emotions are the results and reflections of those comparisons.

 

[tomspug]

Yes, I understand that emotions are chemical processes, but my question concerns their purpose in the evolutionary process. If our development is based on adaptation, how did we go from not having these emotions to having them?

 

[Ringer]

Yes, I understand that emotions are chemical processes, but my question concerns their purpose in the evolutionary process. If our development is based on adaptation, how did we go from not having these emotions to having them?

Maybe those that were able to produce the chemical that in turn produced the emotion that gave the animal a favorable chance of survivability was able to reproduce and after a while a dominate species prevailed?

 

[tomspug]

But what benefits do these emotions have on survival? That is what I'm wondering.

 

[Wandered Off]

But what benefits do these emotions have on survival? That is what I'm wondering.

Perhaps they're a byproduct of the way we process information rather than a key benefit to survival, and it's actually the processing that helps us survive rather than the emotions themselves.

 

[camanintx]

But what benefits do these emotions have on survival? That is what I'm wondering.

Didn't you see Sunstone's answer?

 

[kadzbiz]

Who says animals don't have emotion? I think many, if not all, large brained animals have emotion of various forms, perhaps not as extensive as humans, but definitely love, guilt and anger to say the least. Sunstone noted a couple of good points, but if we go further, we know that humans are a gregarious species for the most part and having emotion assists in everyone getting along better, understanding each other and adapting and progressively building our surviving civilization. There are many species that wouldn't have emotion and have lasted a very long time, but as far as their civilization goes, little has changed.

 

[Somkid]

Just chemical processes in the brain, if you work hard enough you can do away with many of them.

 

[blackout]

E - motions

Electro/chemical "motions".

 

[fantome profane]

Are emotions merely forms of communication? What are their evolutionary purpose? What purpose do feelings of guilt, remorse, shame, bitterness, pride, and love serve in the evolutionary process?

I know that emotions aren't exclusive to humans, but I don't understand how they have 'developed' over time.

I think you are asking too big of a question and you need to break it down. How did emotions develop? What is the evolutionary process? Well that depends on what emotion you are asking about.

I hope you understand that when talking about the modern Theory of Evolution that it is all about the genes. It is about a survival advantage to the genes, not necessarily to the organism.

Fear and sexual attraction for instance should be immediately obvious. You need to survive, to avoid danger and find a mate in order to pass on your genes.

I can hear what you might be saying to this, “well that is fine for base emotions like sexual attraction, but what about higher emotions like love”?

Well what kind of love? The love a parent has for their children is clearly also an advantage in protecting their own genes. The love one has for their mate is also an advantage in forming a bond for raising their children (protecting their genes) together. Love for your neighbours or friends creates a safe community, which again is advantageous for raising your (genes) children.

How about guilt, remorse, shame? We humans live in a society; we evolved to live in a society. To be able to survive in a society we need to follow certain codes of behaviour. Guilt provides a negative reinforcement for following those rules. And pride provides a positive reinforcement for the kind of achievement that it would be advantageous to repeat.

This is just a short list of a few emotions. Others may be more complicated. Some may be as Wandered Off suggests a byproduct of another process. There is clearly no advantage for a moth to fly into a flame, but it happens as a result of another very useful process of navigation by the moon. Some emotions may have similar causes.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[tomspug]

That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me. If they are indeed CHEMICAL responses, then they had to have been developed with a specific SURVIVAL PURPOSE. It simply doesn't make sense to me that some simply developed for 'living in society'. They certainly serve that purpose, but these are processes of the brain we're talking about, so they had to have a SPECIFIC SURVIVAL PURPOSE.

Love is nice in life, but I don't see any argument for why it is essential to survival. Animals do just fine without it. And you could say that intelligence is where we get more advanced emotions, but why then? Shouldn't we have evolved into purely intelligence-based beings (like Vulcans??? j/k)?

 

[kadzbiz]

That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me. If they are indeed CHEMICAL responses, then they had to have been developed with a specific SURVIVAL PURPOSE. It simply doesn't make sense to me that some simply developed for 'living in society'. They certainly serve that purpose, but these are processes of the brain we're talking about, so they had to have a SPECIFIC SURVIVAL PURPOSE.

Love is nice in life, but I don't see any argument for why it is essential to survival. Animals do just fine without it. And you could say that intelligence is where we get more advanced emotions, but why then? Shouldn't we have evolved into purely intelligence-based beings (like Vulcans??? j/k)?

You're not getting satisfied Tomspug. Maybe you should just accept that perhaps there ISN'T a specific survival purpose for emotions and it's just a by-product of brain development. If you compare species on this earth, and you reckon that only humans have emotions, then you'll see the obviously differences in progress.

 

[tomspug]

For the second time, kadzbiz, you fail to notice that I specifically SAID that animals have emotions. I'm talking about specific ones, and I will absolutely not accept the idea that these advanced chemical processes are somehow a 'by-product'. That's what I like to call a 'cop-out'.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me. If they are indeed CHEMICAL responses, then they had to have been developed with a specific SURVIVAL PURPOSE. It simply doesn't make sense to me that some simply developed for 'living in society'. They certainly serve that purpose, but these are processes of the brain we're talking about, so they had to have a SPECIFIC SURVIVAL PURPOSE.

Let's say that a guy meets a nice girl and wants to ask her out. He goes towards her, with the intention of stealing a kiss. Then her dad shows up. The lad's chemical responses kick in, telling him that he is suddenly in very serious danger of getting his *** kicked, and he amends his behavior accordingly.

That's an example of "survival purpose." It is also "living in society."

 

[Quoth The Raven]

That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me. If they are indeed CHEMICAL responses, then they had to have been developed with a specific SURVIVAL PURPOSE. It simply doesn't make sense to me that some simply developed for 'living in society'. They certainly serve that purpose, but these are processes of the brain we're talking about, so they had to have a SPECIFIC SURVIVAL PURPOSE.

Love is nice in life, but I don't see any argument for why it is essential to survival. Animals do just fine without it. And you could say that intelligence is where we get more advanced emotions, but why then? Shouldn't we have evolved into purely intelligence-based beings (like Vulcans??? j/k)?

Some animals mate for life. Probably because of a chemical process similar to what we'd describe as love.Why is that a survival mechinism for a type of lizard? I don't know, but it seems to work so why should anyone argue that it's not necessary?
And Vulcans weren't purely intelligence based beings, they strove for pure logic. (If you're going to joke about Star Trek, at least get it right.:sarcastic p))
It's been suggested that there are a series of lightning fast calculations that go on when something happens that puts another person in a situation where they need help, that determines what percentage of your genes that person shares and decides whether it's putting all your genes at an unnaceptable risk in order to preserve the percentage. Which is why you're more likely to run into a burning house or into the pounding surf to save your own kiddies than someone elses. If you run into a burning house to save a stranger, thereby putting your own genes in danger of destruction with no pay off, something has gone wrong.
Ask someone why they risked their life to save their child, their response is likely to be that how could they do anything else, it was their child and they love them. They're quite unlikely to say,'Well, obviously they had a big enough percentage of my genes to make it an acceptable risk.' Because the love and desire to care for their offspring is the way that need to preserve their genetics is expressed.
You're also assuming that living as part of society doesn't make it more likely for your genes to survive and prosper than living as a couple with children in the middle of a forrest. Survival is the sole survival purpose. Anything that aids that is a useful thing.

 

[kadzbiz]

For the second time, kadzbiz, you fail to notice that I specifically SAID that animals have emotions. I'm talking about specific ones, and I will absolutely not accept the idea that these advanced chemical processes are somehow a 'by-product'. That's what I like to call a 'cop-out'.

:foot: Yes, it seems I have. I've been overdoing it lately and the brain's gone to mush. Whether you accept the provided examples in the thread or whether it is just a "cop-out", if there was no other explanation to it, then what?

.... Survival is the sole survival purpose. Anything that aids that is a useful thing.

Sits well with me.

 

[Sunstone]

But what benefits do these emotions have on survival? That is what I'm wondering.

You don't think being prompted to action has any survival value? You don't think being able to prioritize has any survival value?

Let's look at those two roles of emotions in the following circumstances. Imagine you see a tiger. Your body would immediately unleash massive amounts of testosterone, cortisols and other neurochemicals of emotion. Those neurochemicals would prepare you for dealing with the tiger in tens of ways. Among other ways, they would at the very least put you "on the edge of your chair", so to speak, ready to take action. They would also focus your attention on the tiger and make dealing with it (and the consequences of it) your highest priority of the moment. Without those neurochemicals, you would be apathetic about the arrival of the tiger -- and possibly likely to get eaten.