Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thinking VS Feeling


8th_wall

Recommended Posts

Good morning to all :).

Id like to get a discussion going regarding the significance that emotion plays when dealing with contentious issues. 

There was a time where I would have considered myself a cold-ish hearted, logic greater than emotion, thinking machine.  And I felt righteous.

Often times I see things such as, "don't let your emotions cloud your judgement." I tailored my world view to things such as these.

Anyway, after too many logical inconsistencies in my internal world view I suspended most of what I hard heard, still in the process, and decide for myself what the hell is actually happening inside of me.  Know thyself.  This can, and in my opinion should, be read as a directive.  Know for yourself what is said is true or not.

Anyway, I came to realise that no matter what I did feeling plays an integral part for effective problem solving for me.  It honestly seems to me that "thinking" is a form of "feeling".

One can be logical however it relies on feeling in order to ascertain the quality of one's doing as, "being logical".  Sensory experience, in my opinion, such as "observing that" is a form of feeling too.  One has a sense for a thing.  That sense is represented in the form of a feeling.

Whar do you guys think?  What role does feeling, whole emotions, play to the end of objective "clear thought".  I would say a significant one, however you slice it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Anyone who claims to be a being of pure logic and reason divorced from emotion is simply lying to themselves. It's psychologically impossible to divorce oneself entirely from their emotions and stick strictly to the facts.

We can all learn to be more objective then we were before, but ultimately our emotions take precedence over facts and reason any day.

I don't like that to be the case, but unfortunately it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Anyone who claims to be a being of pure logic and reason divorced from emotion is simply lying to themselves. It's psychologically impossible to divorce oneself entirely from their emotions and stick strictly to the facts.

We can all learn to be more objective then we were before, but ultimately our emotions take precedence over facts and reason any day.

I don't like that to be the case, but unfortunately it is.

Nice!  The backfire effect.  I've been trying to remember that term for awhile now without being so curious as to go searching for it again.  I like to think of it in conjunction with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Do you think that there is an actual faculty separate of emotion that governs reasoning?  Is reasoning a faculty unto itself?  Can one reason without emotion?  Even if it's subtle enough to be called feeling?  Or so subtle to be called thinking? 

Perhaps what is objectivity is just "high level" emotional and feeling processing?  Where the former are well defined structures such as curiosity and motivation and the latter intuition and reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PsiSeeker said:

Nice!  The backfire effect.  I've been trying to remember that term for awhile now without being so curious as to go searching for it again.  I like to think of it in conjunction with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Do you think that there is an actual faculty separate of emotion that governs reasoning?  Is reasoning a faculty unto itself?  Can one reason without emotion?  Even if it's subtle enough to be called feeling?  Or so subtle to be called thinking? 

Perhaps what is objectivity is just "high level" emotional and feeling processing?  Where the former are well defined structures such as curiosity and motivation and the latter intuition and reason.

I may not have a psychology degree or articles to link to in describing this here, but I'll at least share my personal thoughts on the matter...

I believe most emotions can be reduced down to simply 'like' or 'dislike' (to put it in simplest possible terms). The spectrum of emotions are really just a variation of complex alternate versions and degrees of these two states of being. Furthermore, the evolutionary reason why emotions exist in the first place is to help motivate us towards certain actions without having to calculate complex reasons as to why we're doing what we're doing in our head. For example: when we feel fear, we're motivated to avoid something that causes said fear. When we feel happy, we're motivated to get closer to that which causes happiness.

So building upon that, why do we reason and think in the first place? What's the motivation behind it? You see, thinking and reasoning itself is motivated by something, and it can't be motivated by mere thinking since that falls into an infinite regress. We think and reason because we have the desire and motivation (emotion) to think and reason. However those underlying desires to do so can vary from person to person and topic to topic. For instance, someone might be motivated to use their thinking and reasoning ability as a means of simply justifying a preset worldview to themselves, whereas others would be motivated to use their thinking and reasoning abilities to genuinely find the truth.

In short, our ability to think is a tool, yet that tool can be used in multiple ways. You have to discover what the underlying motivation behind someone's reasoning is in order to determine whether or not someone genuinely cares about knowing the truth. It's not about divorcing yourself from emotion and only thinking rationally, no one can do that. It's about having the right motivation behind your reasoning, and genuinely having a love for what's actually objectively true.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I may not have a psychology degree or articles to link to in describing this here, but I'll at least share my personal thoughts on the matter...

I'd much rather that than external links haha.  I can't query what I read very easily or it takes significant amounts of time.  Your time is much appreciated :).  Thank you.

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I believe most emotions can be reduced down to simply 'like' or 'dislike' (to put it in simplest possible terms). The spectrum of emotions are really just a variation of complex alternate versions and degrees of these two states of being. Furthermore, the evolutionary reason why emotions exist in the first place is to help motivate us towards certain actions without having to calculate complex reasons as to why we're doing what we're doing in our head. For example: when we feel fear, we're motivated to avoid something that causes said fear. When we feel happy, we're motivated to get closer to that which causes happiness.

I had very similar thoughts when trying to figure out what I thought intelligence was years ago.  I thought along the lines of "do" and "don't" however came across a term just yesterday in psychology that seems to resonate with what you're saying and seems more apt.  The valence of a thing.  The affective valence of something.  Where valence is a positive to negative, or neutral affect.  Also trying to gain greater intuitive appreciations between the words affect and effect just randomly but yeah.

I thought of the lowest state of the brain processing do and don't.  The emotional state processing multitudes of the lower states all at once in its own terms to avoid this complexity problem as later portions of the brain develop on earlier portions. 

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

So building upon that, why do we reason and think in the first place? What's the motivation behind it? You see, thinking and reasoning itself is motivated by something, and it can't be motivated by mere thinking since that falls into an infinite regress. We think and reason because we have the desire and motivation (emotion) to think and reason. However those underlying desires to do so can vary from person to person and topic to topic. For instance, someone might be motivated to use their thinking and reasoning ability as a means of simply justifying a preset worldview to themselves, whereas others would be motivated to use their thinking and reasoning abilities to genuinely find the truth.

In short, our ability to think is a tool, yet that tool can be used in multiple ways. You have to discover what the underlying motivation behind someone's reasoning is in order to determine whether or not someone genuinely cares about knowing the truth. It's not about divorcing yourself from emotion and only thinking rationally, no one can do that. It's about having the right motivation behind your reasoning, and genuinely having a love for what's actually objectively true.

That's an interesting point...  The role of truth in the motivation of one's thought.

Right, because whether or not we "like it" objective truth does exist.  I'm not sure how to think about fact because it seems so easy to skew it in the wrong context or misinterpreting it based on biased perception or selective interpretation.

I do still wonder what sort of a "force" higher levels of the brain actually have.  Feels kind of primitive but I'm stuck in this 3 layered brain view.  Survival, emotion, thought.  It's like... Thought is its own driving force provided emotional and survival levels of the brain align correctly with it if you imagine the higher being dependent on the structure of the lower.  Interesting stuff. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, now that I'm semi-jokingly posting Star Wars clips, this one is also relevant to the conversation:

Especially, "I don't believe it." Which is met with, "That is why you failed."

This is a slightly cryptic way of saying that the Law of Attraction is real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

I do still wonder what sort of a "force" higher levels of the brain actually have.  Feels kind of primitive but I'm stuck in this 3 layered brain view.  Survival, emotion, thought.  It's like... Thought is its own driving force provided emotional and survival levels of the brain align correctly with it if you imagine the higher being dependent on the structure of the lower.  Interesting stuff. 

It's all interesting stuff to ponder, and you should by all means do so. Just the agnostic in me says that the human mind is all so complex that it's best not to question it to the point of insanity. There's indeed an answer as to why we do all the things we do, I just don't know it all because there's so much to know it's frickin' unreal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

It's all interesting stuff to ponder, and you should by all means do so. Just the agnostic in me says that the human mind is all so complex that it's best not to question it to the point of insanity. There's indeed an answer as to why we do all the things we do, I just don't know it all because there's so much to know it's frickin' unreal.

Might I suggest reading some Robert Anton Wilson? Prometheus Rising is a fascinating hypothesis about the layers of the mind. Likely incorrect in many areas, but some interesting food for thought regardless.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

Also, now that I'm semi-jokingly posting Star Wars clips,

I wish I could enjoy Star Wars again. The Last Jedi killed the franchise for me. :hmm:

5 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

This is a slightly cryptic way of saying that the Law of Attraction is real.

I love the concept of the force from Star Wars as much as the next guy (and would honestly say that if any sort of 'god' exists it would probably be something like that), but I wouldn't necessarily say that the force teaches the concept of LOA. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

Might I suggest reading some Robert Anton Wilson? Prometheus Rising is a fascinating hypothesis about the layers of the mind. Likely incorrect in many areas, but some interesting food for thought regardless.

I have no idea who you're talking about, but I'm all for new reading material. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Anyone who claims to be a being of pure logic and reason divorced from emotion is simply lying to themselves. It's psychologically impossible to divorce oneself entirely from their emotions and stick strictly to the facts.

We can all learn to be more objective then we were before, but ultimately our emotions take precedence over facts and reason any day.

I don't like that to be the case, but unfortunately it is.

This makes me uncomfortable therefore it isn't true! :rofl:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Podo said:

This makes me uncomfortable therefore it isn't true! :rofl:

I think you just found the next great political slogan. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came across an interesting notion in the past couple of days that seems to be tying together some disparate ideas in my head.

The use of language, whether through talking, reading, writing, typing, mathematics, physics, different models and so forth, is equivalent to what is meant by "thinking".

Thoughts? 

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I wish I could enjoy Star Wars again. The Last Jedi killed the franchise for me. :hmm:

I love the concept of the force from Star Wars as much as the next guy (and would honestly say that if any sort of 'god' exists it would probably be something like that), but I wouldn't necessarily say that the force teaches the concept of LOA. :huh:

Perhaps LOA was an erroneous comparison. Again, I'd suggest skimming the wikipedia entry on Prometheus Rising. The essence is that you begin to mentally envision yourself doing something/achieving something/etc. Then, the goal is reached. Whether that's a result of reality altering to meet your whims or you taking steps to bring about the goal yourself, the result is still the same. 

The classic example is the Quarter Thought Experiment. Starting tomorrow, whenever you're out walking around, visualize a quarter in your mind. Visualize yourself finding it on the sidewalk, bending down, picking it up, and putting it in your pocket thus making yourself twenty-five cents wealthier. Obsess over this quarter. Eventually, you will actually find that quarter. Now, did the quarter manifest itself in response to your thoughts? Or did you begin to shift your attention to scouring the ground at every opportunity to search for loose change, whereas previously you rarely looked down?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I think you just found the next great political slogan. :whistle:

The NEXT great political slogan? I've been hearing different versions of this from south of the border for a little over a year now... :P

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PsiSeeker said:

Came across an interesting notion in the past couple of days that seems to be tying together some disparate ideas in my head.

The use of language, whether through talking, reading, writing, typing, mathematics, physics, different models and so forth, is equivalent to what is meant by "thinking".

Thoughts? 

Not quite. Yes, in one way we're 'thinking' at each other, but we're also polishing those thoughts into an understandable format that we're willing to publicly share. There's plenty of great essays centered on the idea that our thoughts never translate 1/1 into reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

Perhaps LOA was an erroneous comparison. Again, I'd suggest skimming the wikipedia entry on Prometheus Rising. The essence is that you begin to mentally envision yourself doing something/achieving something/etc. Then, the goal is reached. Whether that's a result of reality altering to meet your whims or you taking steps to bring about the goal yourself, the result is still the same. 

The classic example is the Quarter Thought Experiment. Starting tomorrow, whenever you're out walking around, visualize a quarter in your mind. Visualize yourself finding it on the sidewalk, bending down, picking it up, and putting it in your pocket thus making yourself twenty-five cents wealthier. Obsess over this quarter. Eventually, you will actually find that quarter. Now, did the quarter manifest itself in response to your thoughts? Or did you begin to shift your attention to scouring the ground at every opportunity to search for loose change, whereas previously you rarely looked down?

Sorry, but I'm not a supporter of the LOA concept. I've tried it before and I can tell you from experience that there's nothing 'mystical' about it. It's really just predicated on the concept of confirmation bias essentially, which I don't find to be a healthy practice even if someone's fully aware of what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Sorry, but I'm not a supporter of the LOA concept. I've tried it before and I can tell you from experience that there's nothing 'mystical' about it. It's really just predicated on the concept of confirmation bias essentially, which I don't find to be a healthy practice even if someone's fully aware of what they're doing.

You're dodging the core of my post though. Sure, confirmation bias likely plays a role. And this variation of LOA certainly isn't reliably effective. But, what if it's just one more wrench in your toolkit of life? Something to keep on the backburner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Invisig0th said:

You're dodging the core of my post though. Sure, confirmation bias likely plays a role. And this variation of LOA certainly isn't reliably effective. But, what if it's just one more wrench in your toolkit of life? Something to keep on the backburner?

Sorry, it's been a long day. I'm not sure I follow. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Sorry, it's been a long day. I'm not sure I follow. :mellow:

I'll drop it. Don't worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Invisig0th said:

Not quite. Yes, in one way we're 'thinking' at each other, but we're also polishing those thoughts into an understandable format that we're willing to publicly share. There's plenty of great essays centered on the idea that our thoughts never translate 1/1 into reality. 

Into objective reality?  Christopher Langan, if I'm reading him correctly, posits something along the lines that cognition itself relies upon syntactic features essentially equivalent to linguistic structures as well.  Language is communication through meaning, loosely speaking.

I'm still grappling with the possibility that linguistic structures could be thought of us a fundamental basis for thought af all.  Just because they don't necessarily translate 1 to 1 into reality itself, especially in their interpretation, doesn't mean their genesis isn't fundamentally linguistic, as subjective reality is still reality.  Assuming this objective and subjective dichotomy.  I have a difficult time reconciling the duel nature of reality when there are things floating around like "we are all one" and "mind and brain aren't distinct entities". 

Are you able to share your thoughts on the nature of thought itself juxtaposed with emotion?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Invisig0th said:

Perhaps LOA was an erroneous comparison. Again, I'd suggest skimming the wikipedia entry on Prometheus Rising. The essence is that you begin to mentally envision yourself doing something/achieving something/etc. Then, the goal is reached. Whether that's a result of reality altering to meet your whims or you taking steps to bring about the goal yourself, the result is still the same. 

The classic example is the Quarter Thought Experiment. Starting tomorrow, whenever you're out walking around, visualize a quarter in your mind. Visualize yourself finding it on the sidewalk, bending down, picking it up, and putting it in your pocket thus making yourself twenty-five cents wealthier. Obsess over this quarter. Eventually, you will actually find that quarter. Now, did the quarter manifest itself in response to your thoughts? Or did you begin to shift your attention to scouring the ground at every opportunity to search for loose change, whereas previously you rarely looked down?

I had a look but doesn't seem to offer much on what is written in the actual book.  What have you taken from it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

Emotions will happen regardless.  It's what we choose to do with them that matters.  

To what degree do they occur?  Do we have control over the degree?

What should we do in response to various emotions?  If I'm angry what should I do?  If I'm sad what should I do?  If I'm highly motivated what should I do?  It would seem emotion is a response to doing that facilitates further, more particular, doing.  If we're hit with an emotion it seems more a case of what we shouldn't do than what we should do.  What about if the emotion doesn't occur at all?  Emotions are highly useful in helping us map out our actions in response to them.  The prefrontal cortex seems to be largely involved with regulating emotions isn't it?  I think the "what we do with them" part needs to be massively elaborated upon. 

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.