[ExI] what's the use?

[William Flynn Wallace]

The science of emotion is in the midst of a revolution on par with the
discovery of relativity in physics and natural selection in biology.
Leading the charge is psychologist and neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett,
whose research overturns the long-standing belief that emotions are
automatic, universal, and hardwired in different brain regions. Instead,
Barrett shows, we construct each instance of emotion through a unique
interplay of brain, body, and culture.

This is a blurb from Amazon for the bookI recently read:
How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain Paperback –
Illustrated, March 13, 2018  Lisa Barett - psychologist/neuroscientist

Basic idea is fairly old:  emotions are nothing but arousal interpreted.
Arousal on a roller-coaster gets interpreted by some as fear, by some as
excitement, and by some as both.  The fear giving the excitement a bit of a
frisson.

As for music - I have no idea, but nothing in this world can get me more
emotional than music. It doesn't have to be classical.

billw

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:55 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2024, 10:09 AM BillK via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Jason Resch via extropy-chat
>> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's an example of consciousness pursing it's own goals (e.g. seeking
>> novel experiences), and suppressing purely evolutionary goals. You can't
>> explain bungee jumping in evolutionary terms, but you can when you
>> recognize that all value is rooted in states of conscious experience.
>> >
>> > I think it is useful to recognize as Sperry does here, that even within
>> the same system of a human body, there any many distinct systems of
>> causality at play, operating simultaneously:
>> >
>> > "I am going to align myself in a counterstand, along with that
>> approximately 0.1 per cent mentalist minority, in support of a hypothetical
>> brain model in which consciousness and mental forces generally are given
>> their due representation as important features in the chain of control.
>> These appear as active operational forces and dynamic properties that
>> interact with and upon the physiological machinery. Any model or
>> description that leaves out conscious forces, according to this view, is
>> bound to be pretty sadly incomplete and unsatisfactory. The conscious mind
>> in this scheme, far from being put aside and dispensed with as an
>> "inconsequential byproduct," "epiphenomenon," or "inner aspect," as is the
>> customary treatment these days, gets located, instead, front and center,
>> directly in the midst of the causal interplay of cerebral mechanisms.
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Jason
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Well, I don't want to get into a discussion on the alternative
>> theories of consciousness.  :)
>> More knowledgeable people than me are still arguing about that.
>>
>
> I think you're right we can ignore the issue of consciousness, so long as
> we don't lose sight of the fact that there are many (sometimes competing or
> contradictory) forces at play:
>
> - Evolutionary forces (wanting to survive and reproduce)
> - Psychological forces (seeking pleasure)
> - Thought processes (this activity seems risky)
> - Chemical forces (hormones, adrenaline, dopamine)
>
>
>
>> But bungee jumping seems to be readily explained by inherited
>> evolutionary traits.
>> Bungee jumping causes the release of adrenaline and other stress
>> hormones into our body, as for the "fight or flight" response.
>
> The euphoria experienced after a jump is the reward for being brave
>> and relief at surviving a dangerous situation.
>>
>
> These reasons seems to fit your question of likiy loud noises, no?
>
> There're plenty of behaviors people do that are evolutionarily-speaking
> bad for them (opioids, slot machines, junk food, etc.).
>
> It's because they exert influence over our neural systems, which are far
> more complex than our genetic systems. Genes (at 750 MB) can't prepare us
> for every situation we might face in the environment, which is why we need
> neurology with an complexity of around (8,000 TB). The former can't specify
> the latter, and so there is room for environmental things that can corrupt
> our neurology at the expense of the genetic goals of survival and
> reproduction.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> There is also social status benefit in demonstrating courage and
>> physical fitness to other members of the tribe.
>> (Though this may be reduced by having to be pushed off the platform
>> and screaming in terror all the way down).  :)
>>
>> On consciousness, I tend to go along with the idea that consciousness
>> is mostly a story-generating system, rather than a causal system.
>> i.e. unconscious processes are doing most of the work and the
>> reasons we give for our decisions are often created after the fact,
>> rather than being the actual drivers of the decision.
>> But as I said, this is still an area of much dispute. :)
>>
>> BillK
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20241006/ccedacba/attachment-0001.htm>