What are Emotions?

[tomspug]

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."

OK, that makes sense, but how did the non-emotional people get weeded out of the gene pool? I understand everyone's arguments, but I simply disagree. I mean, does everyone really understand just how complex emotions are? For that matter, does anyone even really understand how complex genes are PERIOD?

I mean, I think one of the biggest arguments against evolution is common sense. Think about it, the only reason you believe in evolution is because you were TOLD that it was true. Doesn't that sound a little bit like... religion? I look at an earthworm, which itself baffles me in complexity. Then some 'scientist' walks up to me and says that it used to be a single-celled organism, but somehow over "billions of years" (the scientific equivalent of "a wizard did it") it became what it is today. Not only that, over "billions of years" that earthworm became us. And on the off chance that this incredible phenomena of science actually happened, you have to admit that it still takes a LARGE stretch of the imagination to comprehend the very precise explanation. (and lots of charts!)

 

[Willamena]

OK, that makes sense, but how did the non-emotional people get weeded out of the gene pool?

What makes you think there ever were any?

I mean, I think one of the biggest arguments against evolution is common sense. Think about it, the only reason you believe in evolution is because you were TOLD that it was true. Doesn't that sound a little bit like... religion? I look at an earthworm, which itself baffles me in complexity. Then some 'scientist' walks up to me and says that it used to be a single-celled organism, but somehow over "billions of years" (the scientific equivalent of "a wizard did it") it became what it is today. Not only that, over "billions of years" that earthworm became us. And on the off chance that this incredible phenomena of science actually happened, you have to admit that it still takes a LARGE stretch of the imagination to comprehend the very precise explanation. (and lots of charts!)

Evolution, for me at least, isn't about "Oh, look! Complexity! How'd that happen?" It's more about "Oh, look! Change happening!" --and it does appeal to my common sense that the more things change the more complex they become.

The more scientific approach is to look at evidence as an "answer," and then proceed to devise "questions" that produce it, and then test each to see if the "question" holds up, and then choose the one that best fits with the big picture of reality that science is painting.

 

[Yerda]

OK, that makes sense, but how did the non-emotional people get weeded out of the gene pool? I understand everyone's arguments, but I simply disagree. I mean, does everyone really understand just how complex emotions are? For that matter, does anyone even really understand how complex genes are PERIOD?

Maybe not, but I can say with some degree of confidence (having studied genetics and endocrinology) that we know plenty. Pick an emotion and I'm sure someone (if not myself) could provide you with an evolutionary benefit.

And on the off chance that this incredible phenomena of science actually happened, you have to admit that it still takes a LARGE stretch of the imagination to comprehend the very precise explanation. (and lots of charts!)

Certainly. Many people reject evolution out of hand until they see the evidence and more importantly understand the mechanisms. I did.

 

[Sunstone]

I mean, I think one of the biggest arguments against evolution is common sense.

Common sense is vastly overrated when it comes to judging science in theory or fact -- For instance, according to common sense, quantum mechanics shouldn't predict anything with any accuracy. Yet, quantum theory does indeed predict things with great accuracy. Hence, common sense is of limited value in assessing quantum theory.

Think about it, the only reason you believe in evolution is because you were TOLD that it was true.

Guess again.

 

[Wandered Off]

Guess again.

Ooh, is it because "Beagle" is the coolest ship name ever?

 

[Sunstone]

Ooh, is it because "Beagle" is the coolest ship name ever?

You're getting closer!!

 

[Quoth The Raven]

OK, that makes sense, but how did the non-emotional people get weeded out of the gene pool?

What makes you think there aren't any? There are a slew of personailty disorders that involve a marked lack of some emotion or other.

I mean, I think one of the biggest arguments against evolution is common sense. Think about it, the only reason you believe in evolution is because you were TOLD that it was true.

Um, no. The reason I believe in evolution is that based on the evidence it makes far more sense to me than the outlandish idea that some great being that apparently always existed got a fistful of playdoh one day and made a Platypus. That makes as much common sense as any other creation myth, the vast majority of which I'm quite sure you dismiss out of hand as complete piffle.
If you believe that common sense dictates the creation myth is true, why is your myth any more valid than someone elses?

 

[tomspug]

My common sense has nothing to do with myth.

My common sense has to do with human identity. Evolution is a rejection of the value of human life. You can take "answers" and form "questions" out of them if you like, but it's never going to give you answers to the questions that actually matter.

The "common sense" I'm talking about it simply skepticism. I'm skeptical of something that seems highly improbable and highly inconclusive. And yes, I understand that a lot of people believe in evolution because they have accepted what they consider 'conclusive evidence', but I've seen the same evidence and remain skeptical. Does this make me unique? No, it doesn't, and it's not because I'm a Christian either. It's because I value life and human nature. The same people who believe that we can just 'figure out' this complex body we house our souls that we can't even explain are the same people who think that human cloning and genetic experimentation will take us to the next 'evolutionary level'.

How can someone simultaneously believe that evolution is true and yet find genetic research to be inhumane, let alone hold to any system of morality at all? The theory of evolution completely justifies any medicinal practice for the purpose of progress.

 

[Yerda]

It's because I value life and human nature.

Evolutionary biology says nothing about human value, although it can perhaps reveal much about human nature.

How can someone simultaneously believe that evolution is true and yet find genetic research to be inhumane, let alone hold to any system of morality at all? The theory of evolution completely justifies any medicinal practice for the purpose of progress.

Please, tell me what grounds this belief rests upon.

 

[tomspug]

It follows logically that if morality and emotions are a result of evolution, then they have no real value for anything other than social progress.

In other words, morality does not exist. The only morals are progression and religion is simply an obstacle to that progression.

 

[Willamena]

My common sense has to do with human identity. Evolution is a rejection of the value of human life. You can take "answers" and form "questions" out of them if you like, but it's never going to give you answers to the questions that actually matter.

But it'll give you questions to the answers that matter (or questions that matter to the answers). That's science in the image of the hypothesis.

It follows logically that if morality and emotions are a result of evolution, then they have no real value for anything other than social progress.

In other words, morality does not exist. The only morals are progression and religion is simply an obstacle to that progression.

I don't see how that follows.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

It follows logically that if morality and emotions are a result of evolution, then they have no real value for anything other than social progress.

In other words, morality does not exist. The only morals are progression and religion is simply an obstacle to that progression.

Quite clearly morality exists, it just isn't necessarily an absolute, nor need it be the result of some supreme being saying,'Because I said so.' The value is in survival. If it's ok for you to open the next door neighbour up like a tin of sardines to see what makes him tick, then it becomes ok for the guy on the other side to do the same to you. I think we can all agree that we don't like the idea of that.
Tell me, what exactly is the value if god did it, and how is it he manages to screw up with that small percentage of the population that don't function the way the rest of us do? The ones who do think it's ok to do whatever you like to someone else.
If you can do that without bringing a ticket to heaven into it, that would be good.
As an aside, it always strikes me as odd that some religious people argue that atheism, evolution, etc are the thin edge of the wedge to death, destruction and human beings being given octopus legs in the name of scientific progress, when it's abundantly clear that you can be an atheist and believe in evolution and still value all manner of things that you apparently shouldn't be able to.

 

[tomspug]

I don't think you understand. If morality is a process of evolution, then morality must be based on survival, not the current moral codes we hold.

And like it or not, all notions you have of morality ARE because of religion. It is a matter of nature vs. nurture. If you reject religion, then you must reject the morality as well. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical. You must form a new morality based on the principles of evolution.

It seems more convenient for people to believe in evolution without actually accepting a social-Darwinist worldview. That's what I'm trying to say. Morality HAS NO VALUE to us PERSONALLY. There is no such thing as 'sin', so why should we feel guilty about anything.

Take business. In business, you only help people to get something from them. Give and take dominate all decision-making. You even give to charity for tax-benefits! This should be the morality system of an evolutionist, because all that life is is give-and-take. If your morality is more than this you are either a) clinging to religion-based morality for the sake of emotional attachment or b) you believe that life is more than give-and-take.

 

[Willamena]

Even Darwin thought Social Darwinism to be silly, so you're in good company.

 

[jamielynn]

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 dont know what they are, i just wish they would go away!!! when i'm upset, my stomach feels wierd, then when i'm really happy, my stomach feels wierd, where's the upside to this madness?:help:

 

[Dislekseyuh]

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

Let me put it this way.

Let's say you were born with out the ability to process fear. You are on top of a pretty high cliff, slowly drifting towards the edge. You have to constantly tell yourself that this is a dangerous situation since there is no response in your brain signaling to you that this is a bad situation. Maybe somebody 3 people are holding you up at gun point. Chances are that with out fear you are bound to do something irrational, such as try to take these guys on, or maybe just be a smart ***.

 

[tomspug]

Let me put it this way.

Let's say you were born with out the ability to process fear. You are on top of a pretty high cliff, slowly drifting towards the edge. You have to constantly tell yourself that this is a dangerous situation since there is no response in your brain signaling to you that this is a bad situation. Maybe somebody 3 people are holding you up at gun point. Chances are that with out fear you are bound to do something irrational, such as try to take these guys on, or maybe just be a smart ***.

How about ALL THE OTHER EMOTIONS other than fear?

Say two alpha males are on the top of a cliff. To become leader, one alpha male would have to kill the other, but one of the alpha males feels guilt and hesitates to attack his brother. The other one pushes the guilty male off the cliff.

Or, say a retarded child is crossing the street in front of oncoming traffic. A man is filled with bravery to save the child and pushes him out of the truck, which in-turn kills him.

Or, someone falls in love with a sickly person, and loves them in spite of their faults. So their children have sickly genes while arrogant and shallow people marry each other, producing stronger genes.

The fact is that morality IS NOT CONDUCIVE to evolution. It just doesn't make sense. We live in America, so we have this blind facade that all successful societies are moral ones, when America is one of the few that were founded as such. America is the anomaly! Most organized civilizations followed the laws of survival, not the laws of morality.

Morality exists IN SPITE of our desires and ambitions, that is what is so dumbfounding about it.

 

[Wandered Off]

The fact is that morality IS NOT CONDUCIVE to evolution.

Mabye it's indirect. You might reasonably claim that morality IS conducive to a stable society, and stable societies in turn are conducive to survival.

 

[Sunstone]

How about ALL THE OTHER EMOTIONS other than fear?

Say two alpha males are on the top of a cliff. To become leader, one alpha male would have to kill the other, but one of the alpha males feels guilt and hesitates to attack his brother. The other one pushes the guilty male off the cliff.

Or, say a retarded child is crossing the street in front of oncoming traffic. A man is filled with bravery to save the child and pushes him out of the truck, which in-turn kills him.

Or, someone falls in love with a sickly person, and loves them in spite of their faults. So their children have sickly genes while arrogant and shallow people marry each other, producing stronger genes.

The fact is that morality IS NOT CONDUCIVE to evolution. It just doesn't make sense. We live in America, so we have this blind facade that all successful societies are moral ones, when America is one of the few that were founded as such. America is the anomaly! Most organized civilizations followed the laws of survival, not the laws of morality.

Morality exists IN SPITE of our desires and ambitions, that is what is so dumbfounding about it.

Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Or read "Sociobiology" by E.O. Wilson.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

How about ALL THE OTHER EMOTIONS other than fear?

Say two alpha males are on the top of a cliff. To become leader, one alpha male would have to kill the other, but one of the alpha males feels guilt and hesitates to attack his brother. The other one pushes the guilty male off the cliff.

Or, say a retarded child is crossing the street in front of oncoming traffic. A man is filled with bravery to save the child and pushes him out of the truck, which in-turn kills him.

Or, someone falls in love with a sickly person, and loves them in spite of their faults. So their children have sickly genes while arrogant and shallow people marry each other, producing stronger genes.

The fact is that morality IS NOT CONDUCIVE to evolution. It just doesn't make sense. We live in America, so we have this blind facade that all successful societies are moral ones, when America is one of the few that were founded as such. America is the anomaly! Most organized civilizations followed the laws of survival, not the laws of morality.

Morality exists IN SPITE of our desires and ambitions, that is what is so dumbfounding about it.

There's a very good explaination of Hawks and Doves in The Selfish Gene that should answer your first question. It's simply not conducive to survival of a species if every male will happily kill every other male. There needs to be a balance.
As to your second question, I could take the stance that the calculation that takes place to determine the risk to the mans genes vs. the genetic payoff of saving the child went horribly wrong, to his great detriment. However I think it's more likely that as a very social animal that usually lives in groups we've evolved to care for children as a collective. In a small social group it's unlikely that there's a person that's completely unrelated to anyone else, so there's always some genetic payoff. We live in massive groups now, with many unrelated people, but the genetic imperative of altruism still stands, because lets face it, it's completely illogical to put yourself in danger, and yet people do it every day to save people they don't know.
Someone falls in love with a person with say, sickle cell anaemia. They get married. The anaemic isn't the healthiest person, but given an epidemic of something like Malaria, those two fit, healthy - and apparently shallow and arrogant people (are you saying that people who fall in love with healthy people are by their very nature shallow and arrogant:sarcastic) - will probably get sick and perhaps die, whereas the children of the person with anaemia will have the sickle cell trait and thus reduced succeptability to the disease. Sometimes what we'd call genetically bad has a payoff that isn't immediately evident.