Talk:Emotion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Introduction[edit]

"Those acting primarily on the emotions they are feeling may seem as if they are not thinking, but mental processes are still essential, particularly in the interpretation of events. For example, the realization of our believing that we are in a dangerous situation and the subsequent arousal of our body's nervous system (e.g. rapid heartbeat and breathing, sweating, muscle tension) is integral to the experience of our feeling afraid. Other theories, however, claim that emotion is separate from and can precede cognition." Are you serious that this is supposed to be third sentence of this whole article on the vast field of emotions, for which we don't even have a common definition? To me it sounds like it is the opinion of somebody (without citation btw), maybe of Spok?! "Those who act on their emotions ... are not thinking"? Geeez, really? Maybe our deep, differntial emotions are seperating us from animals just as our rational does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.173.63 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Next sentence: Emotions are complex". Really? Why doesn't start the introduction for the wiki "Brain" start with "The brain is complex". Or the universe wiki?

Feeling merged to Emotion? Suggestion[edit]

They are similar things, Feeling is the perception of emotions in the conscious human, while emotions are the feelings themselves. I think we should merge the two articles, and have Feeling as a section under Emotion. Kernosky talk2me! 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and believe there should be two separate listings. Emotions and Feelings are different and hold their own, albeit they are connected. Emotions emanate from processes conscious and unconscious, not necessarily thought, e.g., DNA or post traumatic stress symptoms, whereas feelings are indicative of thought processes, perceptions, beliefs, etc. DianneMead (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Related to goals?[edit]

My Interpersonal Communications textbooks says at page 246, "According to researchers, an emotion is the body's multidimensional response to any event that enhances or inhibits a person's goals.[1]"

  1. ^ Frijda, N.H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford.

The textbook is: Floyd, Kory. Interpersonal Communication: The Whole Story. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print. Is the textbook correct? And if so, why is it not in our article? I searched for "goal" and found nothing. Admittedly, "motivation" and goals are strongly interrelated. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

think straight.[edit]

http://www.jcsd.k12.or.us/sites/jcsd.k12.or.us/files/files/6th%20grade%20lesson%208.pdf

When emotions are strong, it's hard to think straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talkcontribs) 05:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

And what do you want to say with that? Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just that. Benjamin (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

emotion = conscious experience?[edit]

I'm Not in agreement with the entry paragraph sentence that reads as "Emotion, in everyday speech, is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure." the references provided are: Cabanac, Michel (2002). "What is emotion?" Behavioural Processes 60(2): 69-83. "[E]motion is any mental experience with high intensity and high hedonic content (pleasure/displeasure)." Scirst=Daniel L. (2011). Psychology Second Edition. 41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Worth Publishers. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.

It is not clear from the references provided, where is actually stated, and with what degree of mainstream acceptance, that emotions are a function of the consciousnesses. For me it just lacks total validity, it'd place the consciousness at the level of emotions, but if we read Plato we have that consciousness is at the level of the Logos,[1] which is a further plane of existence on top of human emotions and passions (Logos is seen by others as the very source of everything which might place consciousness as the human interaction with the source of everything), others as Aristoteles would indicate that the soul of the humans are rationale and thus in possession of consciousness whereas animals have souls that exist only at the level of emotions and passions he calls it sensitive soul.

What's more, what makes us persons is the fact that we have free will and consciousness on top of that... I think therefore I exist! It doesn't mean that we exist because we think, we have consciousness and therefore we are aware that we think, that we feel, that we remember, unlike animals that could even have all of those operations of the soul without a consciousness.

Saying that emotions are a conscious activity is like saying dogs that get sad are conscious persons just because they feel emotions, or that lions that prepare their hunts in groups with social strategy (we would even say military strategy) making use of things like communication (for instance, they know how to count) have a consciousness just because they have an intellect. There is not even evidence that if you have free will then you would have consciousness, just look at the problems introduced by Artificial Intelligence.

Up to this point, in mainstream Psychology (study of the soul), consciousness is an spiritual state that only human beings possess and we know that free will is (or at least should be) on top of emotions and thoughts, therefore even if the provided reference was in fact reading like the actual entry paragraph then it would deny, or at least enter in contradiction, with other articles in wikipedia, see for instance the article on Soul#Socrates_and_Plato.

the assertion that emotions are a conscious activity should be removed as it contradicts the mainstream understanding of free will and conscience, which is that you are a Person because you know you exist! whilst emotions alone don't provide such capacity. 186.144.41.175 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded the first phrase and now it doesn't read as emotions being limited to a high intensity mental experience but rather to a pleasing or displeasing sensation, as such high intensity emotions should be considered a subset of emotions themselves; The existing reference does provide an assertion that limits emotions to high intensity mental activity only but that clearly writes off subtle emotions which do exist. 186.144.41.175 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody in everyday speech defines emotion in that way. If you have that modifier at the beginning of the sentence, use a dictionary definition.Petergstrom (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, so you do consider emotion to be conscious? well you simply reverted without the proper discussion had even taken place. Like I said earlier on, ancient philosophers considered consciousness to be on top of things like emotions; Just today I was reading an article on how chicken have emotions, may be you will infer that they have a conscious existence because of the presence of emotions? My problem with that first phrase is that it places person-hood on irrational animals, but like I said even artificial intelligence has some sort of rationality, even that is not enough for consciousness and thus person-hood.
nevertheless I don't consider normal people saying things like: I have a movement of my consciousness in experiencing an affection desire or activity, people do not articulate like that on a daily basis so saying people just refer to emotions as positive (accepted, pleasing) and negative (unaccepted, displeasing) I think it is far more common that bringing ideas of the consciousness that are probably wrong, and I think the dictionary definition restricts emotions to those experienced by human beings that have use of consciousnesses and will as an species defining factor.
As far as I am concerned the article is not restricted to human beings, there are representations of anger and other emotions by making use of renderings of animals within the article body.
Or perhaps the presence of emotions in animals (some say even in plants) is not properly discussed in this article needing the creation of a separate one? in any case, from my point of view, and you could review Plato and Socrates and Darwin (The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals) on that matter, is that emotion is an early or lower development that can be traced back to animals and therefore it appears way before consciousness does.

186.144.41.175 (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

as per the link provided below by another user and as per the discussion above, The statement that emotion is an act of the consciousness has been removed as no reference that sustain such an statement has been provided thus far. 181.55.23.216 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to admit that consciousness is a very tricky and subjective idea. That said, I think you may be equating the normal use of the word "conscious" with the term "self-conscious". You argue that "Saying that emotions are a conscious activity is like saying dogs that get sad are conscious persons just because they feel emotions, or that lions that prepare their hunts in groups with social strategy (we would even say military strategy) making use of things like communication (for instance, they know how to count) have a consciousness just because they have an intellect." Dogs and lions may not have self-consciousness perhaps, but I think we can all agree that, in the normal sense of the word, such animals have consciousness (and therefore emotions). After all, you can knock a dog unconscious, can't you? And a sleeping lion is experiencing a lessened or decreased state of consciousness; when it fully wakes, it is certainly now conscious. This is all we mean by the word. Wolfdog (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This is more complex than i thought it was. On the one hand you have a reference that supports the very narrow view of emotions existing as a pleasure/displeasure only experience that has been placed as the first phrase in the first paragraph of the lede section: It currently reads as Emotion is any mental activity characterized by a high degree of pleasure or displeasure.[2][3][4] There is no mention of consciousness in the firts two references. However the third reference, and this article in wikipedia: PAD_emotional_state_model, point to the work of Albert Mehrabian and James A. Russell in 1970s, and they make a classification of Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance for emotions. The Computational analysis performed in Germany in 2012, and shared via pdf by the third link states that: "1.Primary emotions:• No memory, no expectations, no higher order cognition" classifying Primary emotions as: fear, anger, joy, ...): • fast, hard wired stimulus response patterns • trigger fight or flight behaviors • ontogenetically earlier types of emotion.
The classification of emotions in that theory is as it follows (from Wikipedia): The Pleasure-Displeasure Scale measures how pleasant or unpleasant one feels about something. For instance both anger and fear are unpleasant emotions, and both score on the displeasure side. However joy is a pleasant emotion.[5]
The Arousal-Nonarousal Scale measures how energized or soporific one feels. It is not the intensity of the emotion -- for grief and depression can be low arousal intense feelings. While both anger and rage are unpleasant emotions, rage has a higher intensity or a higher arousal state. However boredom, which is also an unpleasant state, has a low arousal value.[5]
The Dominance-Submissiveness Scale represents the controlling and dominant versus controlled or submissive one feels. For instance while both fear and anger are unpleasant emotions, anger is a dominant emotion, while fear is a submissive emotion.[5]'
So according to that theory we would be making statements about Primary emotions only, which apparently, and that is ver divisive, don't require higher order cognition as self-consciousness. the other emotions seem to require apraisal and thus require free will and consciousness. So there would be something missing in there to reflect that theory that still is a theory and not science as for something to be scientifically true it has to be backed by experiment, and I'm not in the know so as to how much has that theory been clinically tested. So that first sentence Needs to be expanded!
So as for the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness: I'm not sure consciousness can be equated to awareness in the perfect sense, I mean, for instance, a digital photo camera by means of semiconductor technology sensors and processors makes it possible for it to adjust its settings when the photograph is on focus/out of focus, or underexposed/overexposed, or to even detect smiles, closed eyes, etc; So a camera is aware of the world and even "acts" according to external stimulae but we cannot say it is conscious, can we? However the current article in wikipedia on Consciousness does have that wording, that consciousness equates awareness, and it only means that it is in that article's talk page that this discussion should take place; however it'd require some preparation so as to consult the required bibliography to back or deny consciousnes as meaning external awareness. 181.55.23.216 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok there was no consensus for that change. Most sources define emotion in terms of the subjective concious experience. If you havent already noticed, this article prinarily focuses on human emotion. This is what Jaak Panskepp says about emotion ""Our emotional feelings reflect our ability to subjectively experience certain states of the nervous system. Although conscious feeling states are universally accepted as major distinguishing characteristics of human emotions, in animal research the issue of whether other organisms feel emotions is little more than a conceptual embarrassment""Petergstrom (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If the article focuses on human emotions, then the article name should be changed to emotions (human). But in stating that emotions are determinastically a conscious experience you are Denying 2 published reasearchers (Albert Mehrabian and James A. Russell in 1970s) mentioned in the emotion article as notable theorists, a Wikipedia article on their theory and a third party research (statiscs) that further elaborates on that theory, as posted by two wikipedia users, that state that Some Primary emotions are NOT based on consciousness.
Emotions such as fear are so unconscious (Because there is a part of the brain that handles the unconscious, some people call it the central brain, or the primitive brain) that your body maybe even ready to flee/fight, even before you were conscious of an impeding danger. If your body would ready itself to flee or to fight after the consciousnes realizes the danger then it'd be too late! However we eventually become conscious of the consequences of fear such as elevated/decreased body temperature, higher/lower heart rate/breathing rate, but that cannot be called fear consciousness but body consciousness. (fear is a source of stress, your unconscious mind readies you to fight/flee but you may not see why).
However, it is very real that Wikipedia Is NOT written by Truth but by consensus which is The very weak point of the wiki model.
The article, however, at present Does Not back its comment on emotion being an conscious experience, leave alone to be ANY conscious experience of pleasure/displeasure. If you have one reference, of the many you have access to, please add it, other wise the in-line tag reference-needed should be added.181.55.23.216 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I too disagree. The entry sentence is incorrect and immediately dissuades me from reading the article. Emotions emanate consciously as well as unconsciously. Unfortunately this initial point highlights the comprehension of consciousness rendering the article antiquated.
I am new to contributing and have yet to read up on etiquette for contribution but believe this article needs rectifying post haste. DianneMead (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, David (2009). The Gift of Logos: Essays in Continental Philosophy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 33–35. Retrieved 2016-02-23.
  2. ^ Cabanac, Michel (2002). "What is emotion?" Behavioural Processes 60(2): 69-83. "[E]motion is any mental experience with high intensity and high hedonic content (pleasure/displeasure)."
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schacter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Computational modeling of emotions" (PDF). 2012. p. 10. 1.Primary emotions:• No memory, no expectations, no higher order cognition • Elicitation of primary emotions in PAD space (Russel & Mehrabian) 2.Secondary emotions:• product of conscious appraisal based on memory, expectations and goal conduciveness(Scherer)
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Mehrabian1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Update please[edit]

https://www.newton.ac.uk/files/seminar/20120313163017001-153025.pdf

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Introduce a new theory about emotions[edit]

   Information to be added or removed: Emotional Theory of Rationality - ETR. An evolutionary approach to emotions as functional elements to optimizing brain functioning as a whole. It explores the structure and dynamics of emotional system, linking it with attention and cognition through a new architectural model. According to ETR theory, emotions are the mechanism to optimize the balance between the interdependent variables that define the quality of responses that living beings deploy before challenges, including survival and reproduction. The model sets a framework to scientifically define and better understand some psychological and behavioral phenomena. 
   Explanation of issue: This is a new architectural and transversal approach to explain emotions, which integrates different casuistics into a more general model. It has already (recently) been published in a JCR journal and received more than 8.000 readings and almost 900 downloads.
   References supporting change: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00011

Mario Garcés (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 20-SEP-2019[edit]

  1. Although it wasn't stated in the request where this particular information is to be placed, the Theories section may be where the COI editor intends the information to be placed.
  2. Looking at that section shows that more than one reference is given for each different theory offered. Nowhere in the article is there a particular theory offered with only one substantiating reference.
  3. I think a good idea might be to require additional sources for this theory before adding it to the article. But as the request was just made, I'll leave the request open so that other local editors more experienced in the article's subject can weigh in.
  4. I'd also note that the COI editor appears to have a connection to the offered reference based on their username being the same as the report's author — although the spelling and grammatic errors in their proposed text do raise questions about that connection.[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  08:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ If the COI editor were using a cellphone with predictive text to make their posting here, that might explain the issues with grammar in their request.

thanks for the remarks[edit]

Thanks a lot for your remarks. I have corrected some expressions you pointed out. Please let me know any other change you think can improve the quality.

Mario Garcés (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Химические реакции. Разные.[edit]

В рецепторах носа - одни химические реакции. Языка - другие. Уха - третьи. Температуры, давления и др.. У желудка - тоже. Между желудком или чем и .. например надпочечником какой-нибудь мозжечок типа таламуса или гипо- или "датчика кислорода или глюкозы или кислорода и много всякого другого и разнога ..

Короче в мозг приходят электрохимические сигналы преодолевшие 75mV-й барьер! Вариантов много.. силой, измором, стимуляцией всякой..

Теперь мозгу надо подумать и ??

Интуитивно понасылать электричества всяко-разно всяким разным штобы што-то как-то чего-то потомушто ну а вдруг .. наверное .. лишь-бы не убило .. Может даже Идею !! .. 

176.59.192.208 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)