Shades of Grey
Emotion
Welcome to another Shades of Grey, blah blah blah, whatever. Lets get right to it... This week, pretty serious column. Emotion, and specifically, why? Why is it necessary to survive? Could this be evolution at work? This subject brought to us by Schizoid, unwittingly. It is her opinion that "Emotion is not product of evolution because the point would be to procreate and thus put one's genes into the gene pool as much as possible. This would contradict love and monogamy." I tend to agree, and I will tell you why as this rolls on. And trust me, this goes much further than that simple point.
First off, What the fuck IS emotion?
Dictionary:
Emotion Serves no purpose.
Long ago during the course of human evolution humans developed an opposable thumb. This was a good thing, it was an asset that we used to survive more efficiently. Beings who developed this trait bred with more success than without said trait and so on, clearly illustrating Darwin's theory. I have a tendency to agree with this theory. Which is why I begin to wonder where emotion comes from. Lets take the three strongest emotions for example: Hate, Fear, and Love. Now a creature exhibiting these emotions for the first time, has in my opinion no clear advantage over his peers in the breeding rights competition. That is again assuming that development of emotion was and evolutionary response. So with not clear advantage, no survival edge, that trait would die out. This chain of events can be seen in evolution everywhere. (Neanderthal traits for example.) So If this is the case, Emotion should not by that logic, exist today. Yet, obviously, it does.
Take that logic and throw it aside. Assume that it WAS an edge to survival. Because it caused a being to react in a way to preserve itself. Anger, to strike before you yourself are destroyed. Fear, to preserve yourself when in danger. Lust, to perpetuate the species. Ok, assuming that... Where does love and hate fill in? Those are hard to rationalize. You know why? Because similar reactions to anger, fear and lust, are exhibited by instinct. Hate and Love, as well as sorrow and joy, have no place in instinct. Instinct is the drive behind survival and completely subconscious and involuntary. I am sure many of you can attest to the fact that emotion may be involuntary, but it is a far cry from subconscious. Hmmm... once again stumped.
Ok... lets try this. Emotion and instinct are the same thing with different functions. It's a freak split-off of instinct or whatever. Ok, well, no. Instinct is a reaction to outward stimuli. Emotion is then a reflection on the outcome or perceived outcome of that stimuli. Two separate responses to one thing... not in any way related except by the catalyst. That not good enough? Look at it this way. If emotion and Instinct are intertwined then it is safe logic to say that emotion acts to preserve life. (Otherwise it would not have been exactly a "survival edge" Duh.) If this is so. Explain to me how that guy who jumped out a 17 story window last week was using his emotion as a survival instinct. Hell In a case like that his instinct to live was OVERRIDDEN by emotion. The same way the sidewalk was OVERRIDDEN with his innards. In a complete and enveloping manner. That does not lend to emotion having purpose. Hell, that's a detriment. (to survival, of-course it's a bonus to sanitation... Job security and all.) I think it's safe to say that these to are TERMINALLY (hehe) separate. (Like the jumper's molecules.)
Ok, I could not help it... puns abound, and in poor taste too, but hey, It's me.
Ok, this ones a stretch, but bare with me because I know some of you could potentially come up with this argument. Say that ok.. emotion came to be because at one time it was necessary, and we can't fathom why because back then was such a different paradigm. That now, it is no longer necessary, but it lingers as a permanent part of our anatomy. Alright, want to call emotion a throwback? No sweat, for that solution we'll turn to our favorite throwback, Mr. Appendix. No this guy knows what it means to be out of use a while. Tell me, what has happened to him at a result? He shrank, he became non-functional. Right, and eventually he will disappear. (So sayest the books.) Well if something, physical, hell an organ in our body, can cease to function and begin to vanish, in the evolutionary blink of an eye, what do you think would happen to a tiny neurological reaction that serves no function? After roughly the same time? Uh-huh... Bub-bye. But no.. Its still around. Once again this scenario's logic deifies the persistent existence of emotion.
Ok, finally, you must at least try to draw some conclusion about why feelings are still around. Well this columnist speculates, (and God Damn-it this is my warped fucking opinion, so don't get your panties in a twist.) that there is a distinct possibility, that emotion may be fuelled by something divine. Supernatural even. The soul, God, what have you. Yes, it is typical for a being to blame on the divine something which he does not fully understand. To some degree, yes, I think it is foolish. However, something so beautiful as true love, and as wretched as hate and malice, I just have to think is to amazing to lump into a chemical/neurological accident of human/animal development. But then, that's my opinion.
Keep in mind that what I have said here tonight is not wholly uneducated, yet it lies fully in the realm of speculation. Take that as you will.
"It is clear, however, that, without the preferences reflected by positive and negative affect, our experiences would be a neutral grey. We would care no more what happens to us or what we do with our time than does a computer." -Unknown
Grey.
**Note, after reading parts of the religion board I see that parts of this column have been grazed there... apparently I am not alone in these thoughts. I urge you to read that board's recent posts, a lot of intelligence can be found there.
First off, What the fuck IS emotion?
Dictionary:
e mo tion
An intense mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a strong feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
Emotion Serves no purpose.
Long ago during the course of human evolution humans developed an opposable thumb. This was a good thing, it was an asset that we used to survive more efficiently. Beings who developed this trait bred with more success than without said trait and so on, clearly illustrating Darwin's theory. I have a tendency to agree with this theory. Which is why I begin to wonder where emotion comes from. Lets take the three strongest emotions for example: Hate, Fear, and Love. Now a creature exhibiting these emotions for the first time, has in my opinion no clear advantage over his peers in the breeding rights competition. That is again assuming that development of emotion was and evolutionary response. So with not clear advantage, no survival edge, that trait would die out. This chain of events can be seen in evolution everywhere. (Neanderthal traits for example.) So If this is the case, Emotion should not by that logic, exist today. Yet, obviously, it does.
Take that logic and throw it aside. Assume that it WAS an edge to survival. Because it caused a being to react in a way to preserve itself. Anger, to strike before you yourself are destroyed. Fear, to preserve yourself when in danger. Lust, to perpetuate the species. Ok, assuming that... Where does love and hate fill in? Those are hard to rationalize. You know why? Because similar reactions to anger, fear and lust, are exhibited by instinct. Hate and Love, as well as sorrow and joy, have no place in instinct. Instinct is the drive behind survival and completely subconscious and involuntary. I am sure many of you can attest to the fact that emotion may be involuntary, but it is a far cry from subconscious. Hmmm... once again stumped.
Ok... lets try this. Emotion and instinct are the same thing with different functions. It's a freak split-off of instinct or whatever. Ok, well, no. Instinct is a reaction to outward stimuli. Emotion is then a reflection on the outcome or perceived outcome of that stimuli. Two separate responses to one thing... not in any way related except by the catalyst. That not good enough? Look at it this way. If emotion and Instinct are intertwined then it is safe logic to say that emotion acts to preserve life. (Otherwise it would not have been exactly a "survival edge" Duh.) If this is so. Explain to me how that guy who jumped out a 17 story window last week was using his emotion as a survival instinct. Hell In a case like that his instinct to live was OVERRIDDEN by emotion. The same way the sidewalk was OVERRIDDEN with his innards. In a complete and enveloping manner. That does not lend to emotion having purpose. Hell, that's a detriment. (to survival, of-course it's a bonus to sanitation... Job security and all.) I think it's safe to say that these to are TERMINALLY (hehe) separate. (Like the jumper's molecules.)
Ok, I could not help it... puns abound, and in poor taste too, but hey, It's me.
Ok, this ones a stretch, but bare with me because I know some of you could potentially come up with this argument. Say that ok.. emotion came to be because at one time it was necessary, and we can't fathom why because back then was such a different paradigm. That now, it is no longer necessary, but it lingers as a permanent part of our anatomy. Alright, want to call emotion a throwback? No sweat, for that solution we'll turn to our favorite throwback, Mr. Appendix. No this guy knows what it means to be out of use a while. Tell me, what has happened to him at a result? He shrank, he became non-functional. Right, and eventually he will disappear. (So sayest the books.) Well if something, physical, hell an organ in our body, can cease to function and begin to vanish, in the evolutionary blink of an eye, what do you think would happen to a tiny neurological reaction that serves no function? After roughly the same time? Uh-huh... Bub-bye. But no.. Its still around. Once again this scenario's logic deifies the persistent existence of emotion.
Ok, finally, you must at least try to draw some conclusion about why feelings are still around. Well this columnist speculates, (and God Damn-it this is my warped fucking opinion, so don't get your panties in a twist.) that there is a distinct possibility, that emotion may be fuelled by something divine. Supernatural even. The soul, God, what have you. Yes, it is typical for a being to blame on the divine something which he does not fully understand. To some degree, yes, I think it is foolish. However, something so beautiful as true love, and as wretched as hate and malice, I just have to think is to amazing to lump into a chemical/neurological accident of human/animal development. But then, that's my opinion.
Keep in mind that what I have said here tonight is not wholly uneducated, yet it lies fully in the realm of speculation. Take that as you will.
"It is clear, however, that, without the preferences reflected by positive and negative affect, our experiences would be a neutral grey. We would care no more what happens to us or what we do with our time than does a computer." -Unknown
Grey.
**Note, after reading parts of the religion board I see that parts of this column have been grazed there... apparently I am not alone in these thoughts. I urge you to read that board's recent posts, a lot of intelligence can be found there.
Grey Warden, calling from somewhere in the vast unknown of the internet, will be publishing every other week or so, depending on your requests. while cynical at some times, thoughtful at others, Grey Warden is a welcome addition to the whatthefuck.com team.