Who is born feeling that way? We even fall in love because society tells us to.
You do realize that defining life is an ongoing debate in science right?
I’m saying that being happy over a gain or sad over a loss is how society expects you to feel and so you do.
You said you had articles to back up your claims. So I asked Which article shows that we are taught what " happy" is?
Non Answer
Why do difficulties defining life, at the margins, or back during origins, justify deny Life?
That’s something like tossing out the baby with the wash water.
Nope it makes my point.
No it means that we don’t have a solid definition for it and as the Quora post mentioned it’s an illusion.
And in regards to questioning reality because of the fallibility of the brain: Newsroom | Johns Hopkins Medicine
I don’t have it on hand but it’s not like you’d read it if I did. Not only is it evident but if you google it you can find it.
The Constructed Theory of Emotions seems to support that.
Why do you feel nature owes us a perfect and complete answer?
“That implies,” says O’Connor, “that the activity in S1 is being shaped by S2, a finding that adds cellular details to our understanding from psychology that what we perceive is not a fixed thing based only on sensory input but is influenced by our prior experiences and the current state of our brain.”
O’Connor says far more research is needed to determine what precisely accounts for the differences in S2 signaling. He expects that a “host” of factors will be identified, including memories and what the brain is paying attention to.
It’s not just paying attention to, it is interacting with, being influenced by, sometimes driven.
It’s fantastic isn’t it?. That’s inside of us! And that relates to understanding the evolutionary origins, with these puzzle pieces of incredible details on how the brain produces various aspects of mind.
inthedarkness What is your null hypothesis, so to speak?
How is it you think human reality should unfold?
That would be interesting to hear. What do you think would be ideal?
Because my experience is that nearly everything I read, like the excellent article you shared, stuff that gets into the details, sometimes surprising, occasionally shocking our preconceptions. Yet, I find, after a little digesting, the information settles right in with the stew of knowledge I possess. Internal consilience, aka folds within folds of cumulative, harmonic, complexity in motion, flowing down the cascade of time. It gives me security in my outlook.
Here, you tell me, it’s proof reality doesn’t exist.
I don’t get it.
So our creature perception is a little fuzzy at best,
doesn’t make the reality any less a reality.
Life is not complicated. It is an ultimate expression of a self-referential dynamic set of self-forming patterns.
The constructed theory of emotions
It really wasnt that hard lausten dude
Okay. You don’t understand how an evidence based forum works. Maybe try Reddit.
Which article shows that we are taught what " happy" is?
I can see how you could misinterpret something like this
Over time, this intergenerational transfer of emotion knowledge – in the form of stories, traditions, myths, fables, or really anything that we can communicate – allows each generation to shape the brain wiring of the next. This body of knowledge constitutes the essence of our civilization just as much as the books in our libraries
That comes from
But transferring knowledge is not the same as saying emotions don’t exist and have to be taught. It starts with the brain developing concepts as the body reacts to events in our young lives. We develop emotional knowledge and we do that with the help of others.
I believe it’s called empathy, produced by the “mirror neural network”
You kinda missed the part about how our brains overrule our senses.
Then you haven’t actually read anything I posted. It disrupts all of that by challenging our notion of what is real and reality, even that video about everything is memory. Like…this just sounds like ignorance.
It kinda does. Our brains make a smoothed version of reality not a updated version of it. It leaves things out, adds whats not real, and is delayed from what’s actually going on. Any one with half a brain could see that’s enough to shake folks notion of reality.
No it’s effectively arguing that emotions don’t exist just like the lady I quoted said how the specificity of the response can be ascribed to how societal expectations dictate we ought to feel about a certain cause. I don’t doubt emotions are cause and effect, you’re not happy or sad for no reason. But that cause is what society shows to you.
I did question Barrett about how her theory isn’t effectively saying emotions aren’t real, since she all seems to argue that animals don’t have emotions because they lack concepts.
Limit your comments to your evidence. You don’t have data on people’s brain size.
I think you confuse the well agreed upon idea that we as humans don’t have access to a full picture of reality, with some notion of yours that we do but society gets in the way, somehow.
It’s knowing that learning more doesn’t make life more interesting but the opposite. To suggest otherwise is naive:
"The only “proper” way of being in the world is acceptance of the good and the bad, without feeling inherently joyful or badly about it
after that first level, it is appropriate to feel a variety of ways to share in social experiences
if people around you are depressed over loss, the compassionate thing is often to commiserate with them, rather than tell them their loss is false and not worth crying over
if people around you want to give you gifts and celebrate their promotion at work, the compassionate thing is to thank them for the gifts and share in their celebration to maximize their feelings of joy
in both situations, the individual with “true understanding” knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding
but the conventionally appropriate way of being in the world may include feeling depressed over things to empathetically connect with other people"
This quoted reminded me of it, sort of like how nihilism is the truth of reality and everything else is just us pretending. Kinda like how Citizen still hasn’t given a good argument for life or how you insist that what we feel is genuine rather than social programming. Big picture wise it’s all just matter, nothing more. Nothing dies because nothing was “born” or truly “lived” it’s just arrangements.
I googled that paragraph, that you say is a quote. I didn’t get any hits. Where did you get that? I know several psychologists and none of them have recommended anything like this, the opposite actually. No philosophers, no scientists, neurology or otherwise. It sounds like a confused interpretation of Buddhism with some quantum mechanics mixed in.
Do you have a source? Last time I asked for that, you said you had given links, but then you said you couldn’t find one that addressed my question. So, are you just making this up for fun? To see who will respond?
Okay, the first sentence is out there, but it’s a forum, one hit, from 2020. We had a member here, called himself ExMachina. Sounded a lot like this.
Can you provide an example?
Even if you could, what’s wrong with that? Senses are fallible.
So is the mind, for that matter.
A color-blind person’s mind is unable to overrule the sensory input.
What you seem to overlook is that all of this is a result of evolution and the natural selection of those abilities that help one survive.
It’s called “selective attention”.
The selective attention definition is the act of focusing on a particular object for some time while simultaneously ignoring distractions and irrelevant information . Selective attention is also known as controlled attention, directed attention, or executive attention.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/selective-attention-theory-examples.html#
That’s not really selective attention, after all our brains do also add what isn’t there.
It’s from someone I knew who studied Buddhism, though it’s similar in some respects to Nihilism and it’s hard to argue against. There isn’t really a reason to be sad over a loss or happy over a gain, these are things society fills us with that aren’t inherent to us. Same with wanting to win a game, achieve a goal, or anything like that. These aren’t inherent to humans, we aren’t born with some desire or dream to fulfill. IT’s just something that gets put in our heads as we grow up.
It’s why Buddhism is similar to Nihilism in that regard, though I think the Buddhist notion for it is dependent arising.