Where do feelings come from?

[Agent Intellect]

I'm still interested in why brain chemistry would be inadequate to explain emotions.
I'm also interested in what spiritual, metaphysical, or 'other' explanations there are.

I am open to the possibility that emotions, consciousness etc could be more than just biochemistry at work, what I have a difficult time understanding is the axiomatic assumption that biochemistry is inadequate as an explanation - it's perfectly possible that it is inadequate, but current evidence shows otherwise.

What is it about biochemistry (or our plane of existence and/or dimension in general) that makes it inadequate for being where emotions come from? Is it that the 'thing/substance/entity' that causes emotions must also somehow 'feel' emotions?

Why is spirituality or metaphysics the only alternative to a physical explanation for emotions?

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

My view of philosophy is quite different. I think that precise concepts are absolutely important to philosophy. Precise things like, exactly what does it mean for something to be proven?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Well, I didn't say I believed chemicals caused emotions. I just meant I believed in causality in general.

Since we were talking about causality, I switched into epistemology mode. Thus I object - science is sure of nothing.

This is a pedantic objection, not a semantic one.

Right there with you. I don't know yet whether I accept Kant's rejections of Hume, but, I do believe in causality. I don't think Hume was right. (Clever, perhaps, but not right.)

Dave

 

[Vrecknidj]

I'm still interested in why brain chemistry would be inadequate to explain emotions.
I'm also interested in what spiritual, metaphysical, or 'other' explanations there are.

I am open to the possibility that emotions, consciousness etc could be more than just biochemistry at work, what I have a difficult time understanding is the axiomatic assumption that biochemistry is inadequate as an explanation - it's perfectly possible that it is inadequate, but current evidence shows otherwise.

What is it about biochemistry (or our plane of existence and/or dimension in general) that makes it inadequate for being where emotions come from? Is it that the 'thing/substance/entity' that causes emotions must also somehow 'feel' emotions?

Why is spirituality or metaphysics the only alternative to a physical explanation for emotions?

In general, I find Occam's Razor compelling, except, of course, it's not always right. As regards your last point, a rephrasing might help.

"Why is a non-physical explanation the only alternative to a physical explanation...?"

Now it answers itself. If there is an alternative to a physical explanation, then it's either another physical explanation, or it's a non-physical explanation.

Dave

 

[Beat Mango]

I could never grasp what Hume was talking about - the example he uses is that of a billiards ball: we can see one ball move, hit a second ball, then see the second ball move in a different direction. But we can't inder that it was the first ball that caused the second to deviate?? Seems a bit odd to me. Like the "dreams are real"argument - possible, but damn unlikely, you would think.

In terms of causality regarding feelings and brain chemicals, I would be my house if I had one that the process is dynamic, and each one affects the other. Eg, if there was no world for the brain to exist in, it's hard to imagine feelings being possible as there'd be no stimuli. Likewise, if there was no brain/body/chemicals (subject), then it would of course be quite impossible to have feelings. So I disagree with Da Blob; the fundamental question here is not that of causality, but of subject/object - which is truer?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Had some more thoughts tonight.

1) Different people probably have feelings come from different places. Whether those places are physical or otherwise.

2) Within one person, two different feelings might come from different places. And, within one person, two of the same feelings, at different times, (or with respect to different things) might come from different places.

3) It is nevertheless possible that there is some set of possible places from which feelings come, and that feelings only come from that set. And, it is further possible that your set and my set might have some differences, but that there is some core set that all humans have in common. (Whether it's also true that there's a core set that all mammals, or all rational creatures, etc., have in common, is a further issue about which to speculate.)

So, I think it's probably useful to try to identify all the different sources of feelings, within oneself, and for people, en masse, to share their findings, and see what we come up with.

Dave

 

[Beat Mango]

Oh and how could I forget: it should be fairly apparent that if one was perfectly neutral regarding all things, they would have no capacity for feeling. Therefore feelings come first and foremost from having an interest in something, from having a bias.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I suppose it's important to look at things like "feeling hungry" and "feeling thirsty" in addition to things like "feeling guilty" or "feeling happy."

Dave