Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Do We NEED Emotions?

Picard, Rosalind. W. 1997. Affective Computing. MIT Press. "The latest scientific findings indicate that emotions play an essential role in decision making, perception, learning, and more--that is, they influence the very mechanisms of rational thinking. Not only too much, but too little emotion can impair decision making. According to Rosalind Picard, if we want computers to be genuinely intelligent and to interact naturally with us, we must give computers the ability to recognize, understand, even to have and express emotions."

I, for one, live (contently) mostly devoid of emotions. I have trouble interacting/understanding HIGHLY emotional people; they make thier emotion (from my perspective) to be hysterics. Over the years, I have learned to be more tactful and diplomatic, however. Maybe my experience is unique.. or even nuts!

Sincerely,

Fear and anger must have been both very useful emotions on the grass plains of Africa, and are still useful today in exceptional circumstances.

They both set off increased adrenaline production, amongst other processes, aiding the "flight or fight" response.

Jealousy and envy are the engines of progress in modern day society. Everyone wants what everyone else has.

Love and hatred also both have their (obvious) benefits, both now, and during the preceeding millions of years of human evolution.

All in all, emotions are very useful for humans.

DietAnthrax wrote:
"must have been both very useful emotions on the grass plains of Africa"

"Have been" indicates past tense.

Take a good look at what hurricane Katrina did in the Gulf Coast region.

Removed the thin veneer that separates us by appearance from what we are by substance.

Jealousy and envy are two of the fifteen defilements that Buddha teaches are to be overcome in order to live a peaceful life. Love is a necessary feeling, but some others, negative emotions, cause us to act irrationally and cruelly and should be eschewed if one is to find peace. I think it is possible to overcome the negative and still retain the positive.

Now here we go off on religion again. Anyone have a science topic to discuss?

Sure. That's why I went on to say "and are still useful today in exceptional circumstances".

If you were trying to defend your house from looting thugs, a healthy dose of anger (and a gun) would help.

BTW, there is perhaps a more immediate connection between the events in Louisana and the plains of Africa.

Amaranth Rose, all emotions can make us act irrationally. However, I believe in general they are beneficial to humanity (even the negative ones).

http://tap3x.net/ENSEMBLE/main.html#1

Perhaps emotions are necessary if solely because they help to give us perspective and relativity regarding what is right and wrong (even if that is often arbitrary). Emotion is a building block of morality, appreciation and empathy.

I did not intend to imply that I am an unfeeling robot.

Sincerely,

Rose wrote:
"Now here we go off on religion again."

Sorry Rose but you can not separate the two. Science, and the scientific method, require that one confront untruths and fantasies where-ever they exist.

We all know that emotions are reactions to neurochemistry. Don't believe me? Find a good medical library and look up the 1960s-70s work of Holger Hyden of Karolinska and a compound he named Scotophobin. Better emotions through chemistry!

The sooner humanity stops playing childish games: Stops trying to deny reality. The sooner it accepts the truth. The sooner it will be able to move forward.

Mung wrote:
"I did not intend to imply that I am an unfeeling robot. [Smile]"

I'm glad you clarified that. I'd sure hate to be conversing with a machine!

Am fascinated with the notion that some people are better at "understanding" emotions than others. I fall in the latter group; finding it necessary to intellectualize emotion in order to "understand" it. Why do some have this natural ability or "skill" (to understand emotions) and others not? Is there an ideal balance between emotion and logic, or is there a discordance which can not be harmonized. Maybe seeing things in "black or white" helps to break-down reality.. in order for our perceptions to be processed more efficiently.
But reality is NOT black and white. It is the gray area which baffles the human mind.
I do not know. Live and let live is what I say.
(sorry if this sounds like rambling; perhaps it is - I am tired). LOL :p
Sincerely,

:p

I think the real question, Mung, is; do we NEED emoticons? hee hee, just kidding. Seriously though, they annoy some people. (Not me)

In answer to your question; yes, they govern how we should react to a particular situation, they also give warnings to others of how we may react. They can also be ?passed on? to make others react in similar ways.

Empathic ability certainly varies with the individual. Some people are exquisitely sensitive while others need it pounded in with a two by four. The ability to understand and perceive the emotions of others can be very useful in certain professions (Law and Medicine come to mind for examples) while in others it is of no consequence (does a rock care if the Geologist smacks it with a hammer?) or at least not very useful.

Ssome people are very detached from their feelings while others may be too involved with them. Some people live in their guts while others live in their heads. Who is happier? Beats me.

I think the ability to "read" others emotions can be learned or enhanced through practice. I know how my empathy was honed to a sharp edged tool. It may not be obvious how to do this, but it can be done.

Hope that helps.

And another little item establishing what medical science knows as fact ... emotions are chemistry.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.ph...us-oxytocin.xml

MIYAGI, Japan, Oct. 17 (UPI) -- Tohoku University researchers in Miyagi, Japan, say mice lacking the receptor for the hormone oxytocin exhibit impaired social interactions.

The Japanese scientists say their discovery provides further evidence of oxytocin's role in the formation of trust.

If you don't trust me ... take a pill.
If you don't trust your government ... stay away from those pills.

So, are you saying I should be more trusting?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.ph...itain-trust.xml

This is a non- scientific question;

What would you rather, do something not- fun, but extremely satisfying, or something extremely fun but not satisfying?

*just checking something

not fun but extremely satisfying.

Rose asks:
"So, are you saying I should be more trusting?"

To answer your question I would need to know whether your level of trust is rational or not. An analysis hard to perform over the internet. But do not doubt that when you are more or less trusting ... it is just biochemistry at work.

If the outcome is good ... all was tuned properly. If the outcome is not so good ... perhaps some adjusting of the drip rate is required.

It seems somewhat paradoxial to divide such subjective terms.

"fun", being the user dependent term it is could be any number of things, for me it could be satisfaction, or it could be somthing incredibly boring in the eyes of others (watching paint dry for instance)

but for the sake of the question i would choose fun purely for the fact i could choose to do what ever i want..