The little things in life.

General Discussion
61
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.
Say the words and you are speaking with sounds. Vocabulary exists of an ordered series of grunts and clicks, sounds. And if you do not possess empathy, you are lacking an important social asset. Do you even know what empathy means? Still just words, not music. The subjective nature of music makes it hard to define exactly. I know what empathy is, it's the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. So by that definition it's a lie. I don't have it in the sense that I don't pretend to know what others feel. Unless I can read their mind or have their feelings beamed into my head then saying I understand would be a lie. Empathy is dishonest. Empathy is not mind reading. If we start with DesCartes first meditation, that the one thing we can know is ourselves, then you know what you feel. There are limits to that, but it's the one thing you know better than anyone, as long as your mind is functioning. You also know you are human, and we've had a few million years of experience, so we know all humans have things in common. So you know quite a bit about others. You can watch them and know if they are in pain, even if you don't see where the pain is coming from, even if it is emotional pain. You can read their faces and see how they hold their bodies. So, empathy is one of the most real things there is, because it comes from you. Even if you are a brain in a vat or a programmed computer simulation, it's still you experiencing the experience of observing another human and being affected by it. It originates in the Mirror Neural System, the cognitive part of the brain;
A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron Some great examples are presented in this clip; https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality
62

Ted talks might as well be synonymous with garbage and your like to mirror neurons doesn’t list anything solid, it’s just speculation.

63
You also didn't speak in sound, you wrote it in words. There was no sound. You can't be this foolish.
Say the words and you are speaking with sounds. Vocabulary exists of an ordered series of grunts and clicks, sounds. And if you do not possess empathy, you are lacking an important social asset. Do you even know what empathy means? Still just words, not music. The subjective nature of music makes it hard to define exactly. I know what empathy is, it's the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. So by that definition it's a lie. I don't have it in the sense that I don't pretend to know what others feel. Unless I can read their mind or have their feelings beamed into my head then saying I understand would be a lie. Empathy is dishonest. Empathy is not mind reading. If we start with DesCartes first meditation, that the one thing we can know is ourselves, then you know what you feel. There are limits to that, but it's the one thing you know better than anyone, as long as your mind is functioning. You also know you are human, and we've had a few million years of experience, so we know all humans have things in common. So you know quite a bit about others. You can watch them and know if they are in pain, even if you don't see where the pain is coming from, even if it is emotional pain. You can read their faces and see how they hold their bodies. So, empathy is one of the most real things there is, because it comes from you. Even if you are a brain in a vat or a programmed computer simulation, it's still you experiencing the experience of observing another human and being affected by it. Sorry to say but yeah, empathy is essentially mind reading according to the dictionary. What you are describing isn't empathy but sympathy. You feel for someone but not with them. Empathy is little more than an illusion that we think we possess. It's little more than humans using their imagination to varying degrees of success, but it's still dishonest. Humans have trouble understanding their own feelings so to say that others can when they don't have our experience and sensory data to work with is nothing more than hubris. As I have said, I don't pretend to know what someone is feeling unlike the rest of humanity.
64
Tetanomachine said; Sorry to say but yeah, empathy is essentially mind reading according to the dictionary. What you are describing isn’t empathy but sympathy. You feel for someone but not with them
No I am talking about, empathy. If you do not know the difference you should inform yourself of the difference. There is nothing mystical about its. It's based on previous neural experiences by specialized neurons in the observer which "remember" and stimulate an emotional and physical chemical reaction, very much like the observed subject is exposed to. There is now extensive research available to make a good "best mental guess" about its logical implications. Many of those empathic feelings are the little things in life, that can be positive or negative.
65

Not sure what dictionary you’re using. I went with Oxford’s
empathy
NOUN
/mass noun/
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Usage
People often confuse the words empathy and sympathy. Empathy means ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’ (as in both authors have the skill to make you feel empathy with their heroines), whereas sympathy means ‘feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune’ (as in they had great sympathy for the flood victims)
If we can’t agree on the meaning of a word like “understand”, I’m afraid we have broken all communications to meaningless arrangements of characters and symbols.

66
Not sure what dictionary you're using. I went with Oxford's empathy NOUN /mass noun/ The ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Usage People often confuse the words empathy and sympathy. Empathy means ‘the ability to understand and share the feelings of another’ (as in both authors have the skill to make you feel empathy with their heroines), whereas sympathy means ‘feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune’ (as in they had great sympathy for the flood victims) If we can't agree on the meaning of a word like "understand", I'm afraid we have broken all communications to meaningless arrangements of characters and symbols.
It is clear you do not "understand" the Mirror Neural System in it's full scope of physiological responses/
67

If you’re looking for definitions and details, here’s a pretty good read.

Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it? January 8, 2017 http://theconversation.com/understanding-others-feelings-what-is-empathy-and-why-do-we-need-it-68494 Pascal Molenberghs Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash University Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is associated with its own brain network. There are three ways of looking at empathy. First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie. They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly within themselves when seeing others scared or in pain. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense. Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient. Another way to understand empathy is to distinguish it from other related constructs. For example, ...
As they say, it's all in your head. :)
68
If you're looking for definitions and details, here's a pretty good read.
Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it? January 8, 2017 http://theconversation.com/understanding-others-feelings-what-is-empathy-and-why-do-we-need-it-68494 Pascal Molenberghs Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash University Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is associated with its own brain network. There are three ways of looking at empathy. First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie. They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly within themselves when seeing others scared or in pain. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense. Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient. Another way to understand empathy is to distinguish it from other related constructs. For example, ...
As they say, it's all in your head. :)
There is one additional but important aspect to empathy and that is a physical chemical response reaction, which mirrors the same physical chemical reaction in the observed subject. When someone yawns, many others are compelled to yawn also . when someone is eating a tasty morsel, the observer may begin to produce saliva.. We cringe when we see someone get hurt. These are not just emotional recognitions but are physically experienced and reacted on by the observer. The entire body of a cuttlefish may be a mirror neural system. It literally can become invisible by shaping its body to mirror its surrounding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-cxg8mF_Lw
69
If you're looking for definitions and details, here's a pretty good read.
Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it? January 8, 2017 http://theconversation.com/understanding-others-feelings-what-is-empathy-and-why-do-we-need-it-68494 Pascal Molenberghs Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash University Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is associated with its own brain network. There are three ways of looking at empathy. First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie. They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly within themselves when seeing others scared or in pain. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense. Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient. Another way to understand empathy is to distinguish it from other related constructs. For example, ...
As they say, it's all in your head. :)
Aside from emotional regulation, the other two do not exist. We cannot understand the emotions of others, because we aren't them. All we do is make guesses that miss the mark usually. The same thing in regards to sharing the emotions of others. Such a thing is simply not possible. In the case of a scary movie you are just reacting to it in the manner that you would and not exactly sharing in any phenomenon. It's all merely an illusion. Kind of like emotional intelligence there isn't any indication of it existing.
70
Tetanomachine said; Sorry to say but yeah, empathy is essentially mind reading according to the dictionary. What you are describing isn’t empathy but sympathy. You feel for someone but not with them
No I am talking about, empathy. If you do not know the difference you should inform yourself of the difference. There is nothing mystical about its. It's based on previous neural experiences by specialized neurons in the observer which "remember" and stimulate an emotional and physical chemical reaction, very much like the observed subject is exposed to. There is now extensive research available to make a good "best mental guess" about its logical implications. Many of those empathic feelings are the little things in life, that can be positive or negative.
Alas no there isn't. Your link to mirror neurons didn't prove anything at all, especially since it's only been observed in monkeys and there isn't any indication it exists in humans. As for the case of "empathy", the definition is vague and therefor makes it difficult to pin down what it isn't exactly. You guys are stuck in the trap that positive psychology weaves. The really is that we don't feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn't empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It's a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.
71
If you're looking for definitions and details, here's a pretty good read.
Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it? January 8, 2017 http://theconversation.com/understanding-others-feelings-what-is-empathy-and-why-do-we-need-it-68494 Pascal Molenberghs Senior Lecturer in Social Neuroscience, Monash University Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is associated with its own brain network. There are three ways of looking at empathy. First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie. They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly within themselves when seeing others scared or in pain. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense. Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient. Another way to understand empathy is to distinguish it from other related constructs. For example, ...
As they say, it's all in your head. :)
There is one additional but important aspect to empathy and that is a physical chemical response reaction, which mirrors the same physical chemical reaction in the observed subject. When someone yawns, many others are compelled to yawn also . when someone is eating a tasty morsel, the observer may begin to produce saliva.. We cringe when we see someone get hurt. These are not just emotional recognitions but are physically experienced and reacted on by the observer. The entire body of a cuttlefish may be a mirror neural system. It literally can become invisible by shaping its body to mirror its surrounding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-cxg8mF_Lw Once again, not empathy. And it doesn't prove that it exists either. The cuttlefish isn't made up of mirror neurons. You are applying a concept that may not even exist at all to everything else.
72

Titan. You are expressing yourself much better than how you used to when you first started posting here. (sorry for that horrible run-on sentence). However, in this thread, you are using better grammar to say something that is just wrong. You are saying empathy isn’t mind reading, which is correct, but then you are saying that’s what it is defined as, which complete wrong. It’s a rookie mistake to says “dictionary definition”, then not produce that definition.

73
Titan. You are expressing yourself much better than how you used to when you first started posting here. (sorry for that horrible run-on sentence). However, in this thread, you are using better grammar to say something that is just wrong. You are saying empathy isn't mind reading, which is correct, but then you are saying that's what it is defined as, which complete wrong. It's a rookie mistake to says "dictionary definition", then not produce that definition.
I still maintain that it doesn't actually exist and that it's a popular idea meant to ensure a better behaved populace, like emotional intelligence. Both suffer from poor definitions.
74
Titan. You are expressing yourself much better than how you used to when you first started posting here. (sorry for that horrible run-on sentence). However, in this thread, you are using better grammar to say something that is just wrong. You are saying empathy isn't mind reading, which is correct, but then you are saying that's what it is defined as, which complete wrong. It's a rookie mistake to says "dictionary definition", then not produce that definition.
I still maintain that it doesn't actually exist and that it's a popular idea meant to ensure a better behaved populace, like emotional intelligence. Both suffer from poor definitions. So, if you want dialog, instead of "I still maintain", try something like, "I get that" or "that's a good point" or even "I was wrong about that definition". As for the "popular idea" and "behaved populace", sigh. The world is broken. There are too many people that believe in government conspiracies and Illuminati and mind control. The milder form of that is believing that the culture that you were handed is the culture that you must accept. The world has always turned on doubters, artists, crazies, questioners, misfits and clowns. The conformists are great for keeping the wheels turning, but the one at the steering wheel needs to say, "wait, what?" By "broken", I mean people like you who see the problems, but don't think they can do anything about them. You have nothing but excuses. You have all the evidence for why you shouldn't bother and you ignore any evidence that you can make a difference.
75
Ted talks might as well be synonymous with garbage and your like to mirror neurons doesn't list anything solid, it's just speculation.
I am sorry, but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. And to ease you mirror neural system which responded negatively to that ambiguous word, "ignorant", I meant "lack of knowledge". Ted Talks hosts recognized experts in their field of research. They are short overviews by knowledgeable scientists in the various sciences and very useful to the layman for gaining a fundamental understanding of how things work. In the case of the brain. The brain contains some 100 billion neurons, divided into sections much like the partitions, folders and files in a computer which respond to specific "input data". As in a computer the brain has a partition that is dedicated to memory, the storage of previously acquired information, in the form of electro/chemical packets. But what is memory in a computer? They are stored packets of electronic codes which represent something that has been electronically fed to the computer by the programmer. So what is memory in a brain? It's fundamentally the same thing, except the programmer is our entire experiential environment from which we select specific information of interest, which is then stored in our mirror neural system as electro/chemical data packets. And just as with a computer these memories (packets of information) can be accessed by the brain at a later date. This is the function of schooling. The teacher is the programmer who feeds us packets of information, which are then stored in our mirror neural system (MNS). This is how we gain electro/chemical knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and how they behave. If you have set your computer to auto-fill names and phrases, or even spelling-correction, and you begin type in a name or a word, the computer is trying to anticipate what it is and will auto-fill a bunch of possible names or if it does not recognize a word, it will suggest alternatives. Ever seen that little computer question "do you mean (this word) or (that word)? The brain does the same thing except at a much deeper level. It can respond to observational input and asks itself; from what I know and can recall from memory, what is it that I am watching. At that point the brain begins to make best guesses as to what our eyes, ears, nose, touch are "telling" us what we are experiencing and from our experience, we are able to recognize the same thing when we see others experiencing something which we are familiar with. If we see a crashed car, do we say; "poor car, look at all the damage", or do we ask "poor people, was anyone hurt"? Our emotional involvement is at the personal level with the welfare of the occupants in the car, rather than with the damage done to the car, which we know cannot experience the feeling of pain. When we see someone hit their thumb with a hammer, we wince as if we were struck by the hammer, even as we are standing 10 feet away. But our mirror neural system (MNS) recognizes the action and we know the hammer doesn't feel anything, it's the guy's thumb that was hurt. However, our actual nerves in our thumb are not traumatized and will immediately inform our brain that our electro/chemical response is an empathic response and that we ourselves are not experiencing the pain physically. Pain is a electro/chemical experience of the brain with which we are all familiar with and have stored in our memory. It is to be expected that the guy hitting himself creates the electro/chemical response which his brain translates as pain. The interesting thing is that when we observe this, our mirror neural system (MNS) responds electro/chemically as if it is itself experiencing the pain, but without actually feeling pain. But we still wince or even shake our hand, the same as the guy who is experiencing the real pain. This ability to identify the implications of what we are observing in others is called "empathy", which often result in a secondary feeling of "sympathy". After all we were not actually hurt, but we know the other guy was and we can relate to that person's suffering. In spite of your negative disposition toward Ted Talks, I'll post this link primarily for other interested persons
The neurons that shaped civilization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l80zgw07W4Y
76
Titan. You are expressing yourself much better than how you used to when you first started posting here. (sorry for that horrible run-on sentence). However, in this thread, you are using better grammar to say something that is just wrong. You are saying empathy isn't mind reading, which is correct, but then you are saying that's what it is defined as, which complete wrong. It's a rookie mistake to says "dictionary definition", then not produce that definition.
I still maintain that it doesn't actually exist and that it's a popular idea meant to ensure a better behaved populace, like emotional intelligence. Both suffer from poor definitions. So, if you want dialog, instead of "I still maintain", try something like, "I get that" or "that's a good point" or even "I was wrong about that definition". As for the "popular idea" and "behaved populace", sigh. The world is broken. There are too many people that believe in government conspiracies and Illuminati and mind control. The milder form of that is believing that the culture that you were handed is the culture that you must accept. The world has always turned on doubters, artists, crazies, questioners, misfits and clowns. The conformists are great for keeping the wheels turning, but the one at the steering wheel needs to say, "wait, what?" By "broken", I mean people like you who see the problems, but don't think they can do anything about them. You have nothing but excuses. You have all the evidence for why you shouldn't bother and you ignore any evidence that you can make a difference. Because in the ultimate analysis nothing really doesn't change. What you or I do makes no difference. Humans won't change and the world will likely remain broken for as long as we exist in the world. All one can hope for is a more stable kind of broken if that makes sense. Better to look out for you and your happiness than to try and fix anything.
77
Ted talks might as well be synonymous with garbage and your like to mirror neurons doesn't list anything solid, it's just speculation.
I am sorry, but that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. And to ease you mirror neural system which responded negatively to that ambiguous word, "ignorant", I meant "lack of knowledge". Ted Talks hosts recognized experts in their field of research. They are short overviews by knowledgeable scientists in the various sciences and very useful to the layman for gaining a fundamental understanding of how things work. In the case of the brain. The brain contains some 100 billion neurons, divided into sections much like the partitions, folders and files in a computer which respond to specific "input data". As in a computer the brain has a partition that is dedicated to memory, the storage of previously acquired information, in the form of electro/chemical packets. But what is memory in a computer? They are stored packets of electronic codes which represent something that has been electronically fed to the computer by the programmer. So what is memory in a brain? It's fundamentally the same thing, except the programmer is our entire experiential environment from which we select specific information of interest, which is then stored in our mirror neural system as electro/chemical data packets. And just as with a computer these memories (packets of information) can be accessed by the brain at a later date. This is the function of schooling. The teacher is the programmer who feeds us packets of information, which are then stored in our mirror neural system (MNS). This is how we gain electro/chemical knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and how they behave. If you have set your computer to auto-fill names and phrases, or even spelling-correction, and you begin type in a name or a word, the computer is trying to anticipate what it is and will auto-fill a bunch of possible names or if it does not recognize a word, it will suggest alternatives. Ever seen that little computer question "do you mean (this word) or (that word)? The brain does the same thing except at a much deeper level. It can respond to observational input and asks itself; from what I know and can recall from memory, what is it that I am watching. At that point the brain begins to make best guesses as to what our eyes, ears, nose, touch are "telling" us what we are experiencing and from our experience, we are able to recognize the same thing when we see others experiencing something which we are familiar with. If we see a crashed car, do we say; "poor car, look at all the damage", or do we ask "poor people, was anyone hurt"? Our emotional involvement is at the personal level with the welfare of the occupants in the car, rather than with the damage done to the car, which we know cannot experience the feeling of pain. When we see someone hit their thumb with a hammer, we wince as if we were struck by the hammer, even as we are standing 10 feet away. But our mirror neural system (MNS) recognizes the action and we know the hammer doesn't feel anything, it's the guy's thumb that was hurt. However, our actual nerves in our thumb are not traumatized and will immediately inform our brain that our electro/chemical response is an empathic response and that we ourselves are not experiencing the pain physically. Pain is a electro/chemical experience of the brain with which we are all familiar with and have stored in our memory. It is to be expected that the guy hitting himself creates the electro/chemical response which his brain translates as pain. The interesting thing is that when we observe this, our mirror neural system (MNS) responds electro/chemically as if it is itself experiencing the pain, but without actually feeling pain. But we still wince or even shake our hand, the same as the guy who is experiencing the real pain. This ability to identify the implications of what we are observing in others is called "empathy", which often result in a secondary feeling of "sympathy". After all we were not actually hurt, but we know the other guy was and we can relate to that person's suffering. In spite of your negative disposition toward Ted Talks, I'll post this link primarily for other interested persons
The neurons that shaped civilization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l80zgw07W4Y Unfortunately TED talks are more about appearing intelligent than rather saying anything of substance, that and the quality control of the ideas on their isn't very good. I'll say this though, based on their speech pattern and mannerisms they can make anything sound profound. But no, TED talks are about giving people their 15 minutes of fame. And once again, mirror neurons (of which the existence of hasn't even been confirmed yet) aren't responsible for that. We have observed them in apes and birds, but in the case of humans you are jumping the gun again (as you have been this entire forum). Here are some bits you conveniently left out from the wiki article: Recently, Cecilia Heyes (Professor of Experimental Psychology, Oxford) has advanced the theory that mirror neurons are the byproduct of associative learning as opposed to evolutionary adaptation. She argues that mirror neurons in humans are the product of social interaction and not an evolutionary adaptation for action-understanding. In particular, Heyes rejects the theory advanced by V.S. Ramachandran that mirror neurons have been "the driving force behind the great leap forward in human evolution. Neurophilosophers such as Patricia Churchland have expressed both scientific and philosophical objections to the theory that mirror neurons are responsible for understanding the intentions of others. In chapter 5 of her 2011 book, Braintrust, Churchland points out that the claim that mirror neurons are involved in understanding intentions (through simulating observed actions) is based on assumptions that are clouded by unresolved philosophical issues. She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that "A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that". To date, no widely accepted neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions.[13][14][15] The subject of mirror neurons continues to generate intense debate. In 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B published a special issue entirely devoted to mirror neuron research Your entire case for mirror neurons, what they do or their existence is a house of cards on a foundation of sand. The majority of answers you will find regards to the matter are "we don't know". So given that I cannot honestly take what you say seriously. You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don't acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn't he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn't seem to point in that direction. Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn't real and neither is empathy.
78
The really is that we don't feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn't empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It's a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.
The point is that we TRY. I don't know anything about "mirror neurons" so I'm not even going to get into that argument, but Humans are social animals, and we get along best by trying to understand what makes other people tick, by using our own experiences as a guideline. True, not everyone's emotional response is the same, and we often get it wrong. But we get it right more often than not. Why? Because we have a lot of practice. Have you ever wondered why people even like fiction? Movies, novels, fairy tales, made-up stories -- why would an intelligent person bother with characters who don't really exist, who are just figments of someone's imagination? It's because they offer us a good training ground, a simplified stage on which we can see other people's emotional responses play out. And for human beings, that's addictive.
79

TitanoMachine quoted;

She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that".

Indeed, the MNS is a whole integrated system of referencing data from exterior stimulation and comparing to what we know as a recognizable object, no single neuron could contain such information.
Moreover we are talking empathy, which is an involuntary reactive response. Intention to insult is a voluntary action, not an involuntary reaction, unless it was preprogrammed in the neural system.
However I am heartened that you actually familiarized yourself with the concept of a mirror function in the brain that allows us to learn and remember.
The deeper you look everywhere, you find mirror functions, it seems to be a universal potential on the level of "an action causes an equal and opposite reaction)

80
The really is that we don't feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn't empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It's a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.
The point is that we TRY. I don't know anything about "mirror neurons" so I'm not even going to get into that argument, but Humans are social animals, and we get along best by trying to understand what makes other people tick, by using our own experiences as a guideline. True, not everyone's emotional response is the same, and we often get it wrong. But we get it right more often than not. Why? Because we have a lot of practice. Have you ever wondered why people even like fiction? Movies, novels, fairy tales, made-up stories -- why would an intelligent person bother with characters who don't really exist, who are just figments of someone's imagination? It's because they offer us a good training ground, a simplified stage on which we can see other people's emotional responses play out. And for human beings, that's addictive. Fiction isn't even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don't get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.