Emotions

[Korona]

Conditioning:
The subject is being conditioned... why is further analysis required?
Reinforcement:
In the case of positive reinforcement an action is being positivly reinforced (so as to break the previous conditioning). It's not the belief that is being reinforced.
In the example I said that we should assume Little Albert already had the belief "rats are not fearworthy" - (and we can assume he speaks truthfully when he says it). This is as far as a rational analysis can go.

I don't really see where you are going with the "cute" example. My point was never "all emotions are a form of conditioning". Such a position is ridiculous. My arguement is that conditioning applies to SOME cases. Thus it undermines the view that a belief state is in some way nessecary for an emotional response. If you accept that conditioning is a case where beliefs are not necessary for an emotional response, then I suggest you reformulate your position, or just conceede that it was flawed.

(Although I do think that even someone classically conditoned to respond to compliements with a smile would be capable of distinguising a compliment aimed at them, from one aimed at someone else. If there was ambiguity enough for doubt then it's not hard to find out, or take an educated guess.

In my case of course, if someone said "you're cute" to me, I would probably say "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaguhhhhh IM LIVING IN AN AMERICAN CLICHE!!!!" )

 

[Seditious]

In the case of positive reinforcement an action is being positivly reinforced (so as to break the previous conditioning). It's not the belief that is being reinforced..

so, what 'action' about the sun coming up tomorrow is reinforced? If we only have actions, we mechanically respond rather than acting on beliefs, what action is reinforced by our experience of the sun rising in the past if we don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow because of our experience? It seems your model is the more complicated of the two as it is an utter affront to our own experience.

In the example I said that we should assume Little Albert already had the belief "rats are not fearworthy" - (and we can assume he speaks truthfully when he says it). This is as far as a rational analysis can go.

that can't be assumed by anyone but a fool.

you think we should assume 'he's not scared' just because he says he knows he shouldn't be, even though he acts scared? To me that simply suggests you are mistaken---you're someone who is easily lied to, unable to read people and simply taking their word without any regard for their telling physiology.

My arguement is that conditioning applies to SOME cases.

you've yet to show one case where something other than belief is conditioned, which of course is to use the word 'condition' as a synonym for 'learn' or 'change' rather than the machanical behaviorist use of the word.

If you accept that conditioning is a case where beliefs are not necessary for an emotional response, then I suggest you reformulate your position, or just conceede that it was flawed.

I don't accept that because you've done nothing to say 'conditioning' is the behaviorist mechanical process rather than a cognitive experience creating beliefs.

 

[Korona]

On the sun rising point:
I never claimed to be offering an "alternate theory", my talk about conditioning is merely meant to offer an example of a case where beliefs do not preceed emotion. I'm not asserting that the sun rising is an example of classic conditioning or that classic conditioning should apply to all emotions. I don't really agree with the process of "advancing theories" in philosophy (qua Wittgenstein) so I'm definatly not trying to give you a different "model".

On the point about asserting "rats are not fearworthy".
This is a pretty central point. It hinges on the idea that Little Albert has been messed up pretty good. The response "fear" is related to the presence of "white furry objects". If you want a neurological story about it, then how about something like this - Little Albert's brain has been "programmed" to take anything that looks remotely like a rat as a kind of input stimulus and output all the chemicals that produce a feeling of fear/anxiety -. In this picture there is very little to seperate the process "getting hit by a hammer -> pain" and "seeing a rat -> fear".

To expand the analogy, imagine a person whose nerves were super-sensitised so that they felt agonising pain at the slightest touch. They can rationalise and say - this kind of stimullus does not cause damage to my body - thus it should not cause pain. That doesn't stop the input causing pain never the less.
Likewise a person classically conditioned to feel fear at the sight of a rat can rationalise that there is no REASON to feel fear at the sight of a rat... yet he feels fear none the less.

Given that the person's responses are what is conditioned and not their "belief" then I think this offers a counterpoint to the rest of your post.

 

[Seditious]

If you want a neurological story about it, then how about something like this - Little Albert's brain has been "programmed" to take anything that looks remotely like a rat as a kind of input stimulus and output all the chemicals that produce a feeling of fear/anxiety -. In this picture there is very little to seperate the process "getting hit by a hammer -> pain" and "seeing a rat -> fear".
.

exactly. you have to believe the hammer will equal pain to worry about it. the sight of the hammer or the rat elicites no emotion unless you believe something about it, and you haven't said anything to contradict that.

To expand the analogy, imagine a person whose nerves were super-sensitised so that they felt agonising pain at the slightest touch. They can rationalise and say - this kind of stimullus does not cause damage to my body - thus it should not cause pain. That doesn't stop the input causing pain never the less

pain and emotion are not analogous. believing you can fly or believing you are impervious to pain doesn't just change reality.

 

[Korona]

arrgg you belief fetishist!

What exactly is the belief supposed to be that "enables" the feeling of anxiety? That the rat causes pain? That it causes damage if I hold it? That a scientist will bang a steel rod behind my head if I approach it? Surely the classical conditioning example is perspicuous exactly because you could know that none of these will happen, but the fear will still occur?

With the hammer example I was pointing to to mechanical process of getting hit and then feeling pain, (rather than a 'worry' that is illicited when I see a hammer weilding maniac or whatever). I am saying it is simmilar in the rat case, in that you are "programmed" to respond to fear when you see a rat.

Indeed what is striking about this sort of case is that you can believe whatever you like about the rat and still feel the same emotional response. Thereby suggesting a contingent relationship between beliefs and emotions, rather than an inherant or necessary connection.
The point about still being hurt if you fall even if you believe you are impervious to pain is surely also true in the case of classical conditioning - you can believe rats aren't fearworthy, but you will still feel fear when you see one because this response has been conditoned into you.

 

[Silver Incubus]

arrgg you belief fetishist!

What exactly is the belief supposed to be that "enables" the feeling of anxiety? That the rat causes pain? That it causes damage if I hold it? That a scientist will bang a steel rod behind my head if I approach it? Surely the classical conditioning example is perspicuous exactly because you could know that none of these will happen, but the fear will still occur?

With the hammer example I was pointing to to mechanical process of getting hit and then feeling pain, (rather than a 'worry' that is illicited when I see a hammer weilding maniac or whatever). I am saying it is simmilar in the rat case, in that you are "programmed" to respond to fear when you see a rat.

Indeed what is striking about this sort of case is that you can believe whatever you like about the rat and still feel the same emotional response. Thereby suggesting a contingent relationship between beliefs and emotions, rather than an inherant or necessary connection.
The point about still being hurt if you fall even if you believe you are impervious to pain is surely also true in the case of classical conditioning - you can believe rats aren't fearworthy, but you will still feel fear when you see one because this response has been conditoned into you.

I think that you may be overlooking the fact that there is such things as unconscious/subconscious beliefs. Such are ones that are instantly learned and not consciously chosen like phobias. These unconscious or body beliefs are the reason why phobias are irrational, because the body mind isn't very rational when it comes to choosing a response, especially when there are less choices as to how a reaction to the stimulus might be. Conditioning is just teaching the unconscious mind how to react to stimulus, either good or bad. Some things like manners are conscious beliefs, where as phobias are unconscious beliefs.
this is a good explaination of how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOhJX1BDYng

 

[Seditious]

What exactly is the belief supposed to be that "enables" the feeling of anxiety? That the rat causes pain? That it causes damage if I hold it? That a scientist will bang a steel rod behind my head if I approach it? Surely the classical conditioning example is perspicuous exactly because you could know that none of these will happen, but the fear will still occur?

well, using that audio example I provided, as I said a while back, it's the association that 'where this occurs (white furry thing appearing in front of me), this other thing which i don't like occurs (startling noise of steel bar banged behind my head)'

you don't need to know why fire hurts when you touch it, 'because you have nerves and a nervous system which detects harm to your body and pain refers to harm, and intense heat harms the skin,' these are all deep scientific understandings, the belief doesn't need to be 'the scientist will bang a rod' or 'the heat will damage cells in my epidermis leaving me suceptable to infection'---all you need to have is a belief that, for whatever reason, some effect is related to some cause. if you believe sex feels good, wanting to feel good you will see sex on that list of 'things i might want to do,' and if you don't want to feel bad and you believe white furry things, or big muscley people in large groups carrying weapons relate to some bad experience, even if it's just santa and the US Military not rats and gangs, you might want to avoid those things. (of course, -we- believe there is a difference between cops and gangs---we aren't like that unfortunate child who generalized about white furry things, though we know of people abused who generalize about all adults and sexual behavior and the like, but they can come to believe it isn't all adults that are dangerous, all sex that is dirty or wrong, they can learn to differentiate these things and undo such fears.)

With the hammer example I was pointing to to mechanical process of getting hit and then feeling pain, (rather than a 'worry' that is illicited when I see a hammer weilding maniac or whatever). I am saying it is simmilar in the rat case, in that you are "programmed" to respond to fear when you see a rat.

well if you're saying you're programmed to respond 'when you see the rat,' then you are talking about the programming of 'when you see the hammer,' unless you're not talking about the same thing at all (as I said, sensory pain and interpreted mental experience aren't analogous). if you were to talk about the getting hit with the hammer part, then the analogous part would be the getting startled by the banging of the rod---you have no emotion prior to the experience if you don't expect the hammer to hit you or the noise to bang behind you.

Indeed what is striking about this sort of case is that you can believe whatever you like about the rat and still feel the same emotional response.

can you elaborate on that?

The point about still being hurt if you fall even if you believe you are impervious to pain is surely also true in the case of classical conditioning - you can believe rats aren't fearworthy, but you will still feel fear when you see one because this response has been conditoned into you.

again, feeling an emotion and feeling sensory injury aren't the same. the difference is that your beliefs don't wholly control your sensory experience, where as they do wholly control your emotions.

Indeed I can know 'I shouldn't be afraid of rats and black people' just because some rats are infected and some black people are criminals, but that I'm 'open to believing' otherwise, doesn't mean I 'do' believe otherwise. This is of course the first step in any recovery---accepting that what I believe maybe isn't justified, but it doesn't change that I believe it, it's so deep-seated that it will take time before I can internalize my intellectual understanding. If you think 'I'm hot, or smart, or strong,' but other people are like 'lol, ugly...dumb...weakling' then you may not feel joy or pride or anything because you haven't been able to confirm the idea and believe it. and if someone says 'ugly' and everyone else is like 'she's just a bitch' and people always say that you're hot, you probably believe it, her one idea doesn't change shit, you might go 'hmm rats aren't fearworthy' 'hmm im not hot' but it's in conflict with the actual belief you have, it's just an idea, and merely entertaining an idea doesn't mean you believe it.

 

[Korona]

Originally Posted by Korona View Post
Indeed what is striking about this sort of case is that you can believe whatever you like about the rat and still feel the same emotional response.

can you elaborate on that?

Yes because this is what the arguement comes down to:

Imagine a person (Little Albert) classically conditioned to respond to a rat with fear.
Now imagine they were given a biology course about rats so that they know pretty much everything there is to know about "rattus rattus".
Amongst this knowledge will be the knowledge that rats are for the most part a non threataning, timid and non-agressive animal.
From this knowledge it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Little Albert genuinly "believes" (or rather KNOWS) that rats are not threatening.

He can then be led to an empty room where noone else is present, and so we can reasonably say that he "believes (or rather KNOWS) that noone can bash a rod behind his head.
Now if a rat is released into the room it is still almost certain that he will respond with panic, because his mind has been conditioned to respond to it in this way.

Where does belief play a role here? We can eliminate any possible belief he may have as relevant because he can think the opposite to what would be required to illicit a fear response... and still feel fear.

Of course you can just flat out deny that he would feel fear, but I think that the example is fairly compelling. It shows that an emotional response can be ellicited that flys in the face of a person's "beliefs".

Alternativly we could try Justin's route which is to say that we have "subconscious beliefs" that are playing some mysterious role. In this picture, our "conscious" beliefs are being overridden by the "subconscious" belief that rats cause bars to be smashed behind my head. I don't actually buy into that picture too heavily (and I don't think the hypnotist would either), but lets assume it is true.
Even if you believe something subconsciously, if you look at the video he posted, you will see that the pavlovian response ("classical conditioning") actually works on a layer one step deeper than the subconsious (the instinctual level). If we grant that classical conditioning can illicit an emotional response, then we must accept that an emotional response can be triggered on a level deeper than the one beliefs operate at.


I will offer another example that I think should be fairly compelling (although God knows how it will be interpreted!)

Imagine you had a belief (as suggested in the video) along the lines of:
"I believe people should be nice to me"
the hypnotist suggests that this means when we are confronted by a person who isn't nice to us, lo and behold we are prompted to feel anger.
However our responses simply don't seem to be this regular, even if we grant the belief that "people should be nice to me". If you love someone they can get away will all kinds of stuff, and you simply don't feel the same way about those actions as you would if someone you didn't like did them.
Our emotional responses are fickle and simply don't seem to have the kind of regularity required, were they to be generated through some kind of "belief calculus".

 

[Silver Incubus]

Alternativly we could try Justin's route which is to say that we have "subconscious beliefs" that are playing some mysterious role. In this picture, our "conscious" beliefs are being overridden by the "subconscious" belief that rats cause bars to be smashed behind my head. I don't actually buy into that picture too heavily (and I don't think the hypnotist would either), but lets assume it is true.
Even if you believe something subconsciously, if you look at the video he posted, you will see that the pavlovian response ("classical conditioning") actually works on a layer one step deeper than the subconsious (the instinctual level). If we grant that classical conditioning can illicit an emotional response, then we must accept that an emotional response can be triggered on a level deeper than the one beliefs operate at.

Actually you kind of misunderstood my point about how this works. Its the same as my arachnophobia explanation. It's not so much as you are afraid someone is going to smash the bar anymore, it changes to an automatic response, like a button if you will. So to push the button to create fear in Albert is to hold up the white fluffy things. It is the unconscious/subconscious beliefs(depending on how you define it or what it effects) that create the anticipation of being startled and that causes the response.

In NLP the term 'anchoring' refers to a process in which you couple a stimulus with a specific response. You can ask someone about the most exciting experience and watch their physiology change. Ask them again and right before the peak (which after the physiology changes back) you can touch them and it will connect that touch with that excitement. This is some of the basics of NLP work.

 

[Seditious]

Now if a rat is released into the room it is still almost certain that he will respond with panic, because his mind has been conditioned to respond to it in this way.

Where does belief play a role here?

if he no longer associates any fearful belief about the rat then he wont there respond with panic.

Of course you can just flat out deny that he would feel fear,

yep

but I think that the example is fairly compelling.

it's not.

It shows that an emotional response can be ellicited that flys in the face of a person's "beliefs".

it doesn't show it, it assumes it, and so I'll just go ahead and assume the opposite since you offer nothing to contradict the belief model.

Imagine you had a belief (as suggested in the video) along the lines of:
"I believe people should be nice to me"
the hypnotist suggests that this means when we are confronted by a person who isn't nice to us, lo and behold we are prompted to feel anger.
However our responses simply don't seem to be this regular, even if we grant the belief that "people should be nice to me". If you love someone they can get away will all kinds of stuff, and you simply don't feel the same way about those actions as you would if someone you didn't like did them.
Our emotional responses are fickle and simply don't seem to have the kind of regularity required, were they to be generated through some kind of "belief calculus".

you wouldn't be upset if someone you love was mean to you when you believe people should be nice to you? I would. I might be more upset even since they're not a stranger and should be more likely to be nice to me. I might let them get away with it, sure, that's a whole rational level of behavior, but I still have my emotions based on those beliefs.

 

[Korona]

Actually you kind of misunderstood my point about how this works. Its the same as my arachnophobia explanation. It's not so much as you are afraid someone is going to smash the bar anymore, it changes to an automatic response, like a button if you will. So to push the button to create fear in Albert is to hold up the white fluffy things. It is the unconscious/subconscious beliefs(depending on how you define it or what it effects) that create the anticipation of being startled and that causes the response.

Well, no, as I understood it you meant to say that it is still beliefs that are at work, but now they are on the subconsious level (so we aren't aware of them or something).
Now my point is that classical conditioning (according to the hypnotist in the example you gave us) operates on the unconscious level. There are no beliefs at work in the classical conditioned response - it is fairly "mechanical" in how it works (watch the video again if you like). If you accept classical conditioning can illicit emotional responses then you need to accept that something seperate from beliefs can illicit emotions.



@ Seditious, fine if you want to dispute my example then I will drop it, it is as clear as I think I am able to make it. Perhaps you have a different picture of what classical conditioning is/does... as far as I am concerned it is equivalent to a mechanical response, like a reflex. *Wham* a rat *Kick* <FEAR!!>

The other example may have some milage in it though...
The example of "I believe that people should be nice to me" demonstrates the double (or rather multiplicity of) standards we apply. Let's take 3 examples-

A random kid yells "oi fuck off you long haired twat" at me. Do I care? I may think he what he did was rude/wrong, but that doesn't mean it illicits an emotional response. I feel apathetic towards his wrongness. It doesn't concern me because I don't feel emotionally engaged with his opinions.

A trusted friend says "you look like a dumbass with that long hair". In this case I think my friend has done something wrong, and so I may feel hurt or angry - friend shouldn't insult me... However I may feel apathetic, accept the difference of opinions and just forgive the rudeness because he is my friend, and "don't let it get to me".

A girlfriend yells "you dickhead get a haircut" in the middle of a fight, a low blow and certainly a case of someone not being nice to me. I feel angry? Well no I am already angry... I feel more angry? Well perhaps or perhaps not. I could think something like "haha! her position is weak because she is resorting to insults" and thus feel vindicated and elated. Alternativly it may cut deeply that someone I love is insulting me - all feelings of anger subside and I just feel sad (or perhaps as I said, I just feel more angry).

In each case the belief "People should be nice to me" is intended to prescribe some emotional response. But if a wide array of emotional responses can accord with the belief, how are we to know which emotional response is appropriate?
The prescriptive role beliefs are meant to play seems to evaporate when we reflect on the varieties of ways we can interpret what they are telling us to think.

 

[Seditious]

my point is that classical conditioning (according to the hypnotist in the example you gave us) operates on the unconscious level. There are no beliefs at work in the classical conditioned response - it is fairly "mechanical" in how it works.

hynoticism is believed to be very unlike normal behavior by such figures as John R. Searle. If I could be bothered finding something to quote I would, but I think that's something most of us take for granted.

as far as I am concerned it is equivalent to a mechanical response, like a reflex. *Wham* a rat *Kick* <FEAR!!>

I have no idea what that cartoonesque sentence is supposed to convey dude, you'd need to detail exactly what that's meant to portray a little more clearly if it's important.

A random kid yells "oi fuck off you long haired twat" at me. Do I care? I may think he what he did was rude/wrong, but that doesn't mean it illicits an emotional response. I feel apathetic towards his wrongness. It doesn't concern me because I don't feel emotionally engaged with his opinions.

it doesn't create an emotion because you're not emotionally engaged with his opinion? lol, that's just talking in circles. you don't feel the emotion because you don't believe what he said even if you believe what he said was an insult which would insult you were it true.

A trusted friend says "you look like a dumbass with that long hair". In this case I think my friend has done something wrong, and so I may feel hurt or angry - friend shouldn't insult me... However I may feel apathetic, accept the difference of opinions and just forgive the rudeness because he is my friend, and "don't let it get to me".

wait. you think?---I thought you were a mechanically responding machine? if you believe he did something to offend you and then you feel hurt then you aren't talking about conditioning at all.

A girlfriend yells "you dickhead get a haircut" in the middle of a fight, a low blow and certainly a case of someone not being nice to me. I feel angry? Well no I am already angry... I feel more angry? Well perhaps or perhaps not. I could think something like "haha! her position is weak because she is resorting to insults" and thus feel vindicated and elated. Alternativly it may cut deeply that someone I love is insulting me - all feelings of anger subside and I just feel sad (or perhaps as I said, I just feel more angry)..

yep. if you have a belief that it is weak to use insults, and believe being strong is better than being weak, you may feel satisfied with her apparent show of weakness compared to you. again, you're not hypnotised or a machine.

In each case the belief "People should be nice to me" is intended to prescribe some emotional response. But if a wide array of emotional responses can accord with the belief, how are we to know which emotional response is appropriate?

it's well known many beliefs can ellict the same emotion, and the same beliefs in a different belief structure, as you've outlined, can cause a different emotion.



and just a friendly note off topic.
illicit means 'disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons.'
it's 'elicit' (to draw or bring out or forth) you meant to use near the start of your post.
(not a snide remark or anything, it's just good to take note of things like that now n then so they don't become bad habits n that.)

 

[Korona]

hynoticism is believed to be very unlike normal behavior by such figures as John R. Searle. If I could be bothered finding something to quote I would, but I think that's something most of us take for granted.

I am addressing the point made my Justin which is as follows (sorry for paraphrasing):
(citing the video he posted in which a hypnotist explain a very basic picture of the mind)
"You can still be acting on beliefs in situations (presumably like classical conditioning) even when beliefs are not conscious, because (as is pointed out in the video) beliefs operate at a subconsious level too."
My response is that if you buy into the picture of the mind given in the video you must accept that beliefs operate on a different level of consciousness to classical conditioning (because this is what the hypnosit himself says). If you also accept that classical conditioning can produce an emotional response, then in simple AnB => C type reasoning, you must accept that a non-belief orientated process can illicit an emotional response.

I have no idea what that cartoonesque sentence is supposed to convey dude, you'd need to detail exactly what that's meant to portray a little more clearly if it's important.

I was thinking of a reflex (like when the doctor hits you on the leg with a hammer to make you kick). Beliefs about the hammer don't come into the process - it's purely mechanical.

it doesn't create an emotion because you're not emotionally engaged with his opinion? lol, that's just talking in circles. you don't feel the emotion because you don't believe what he said even if you believe what he said was an insult which would insult you were it true.

Yes but that is my point exactly - the arguement goes "my belief 'People should be nice to me' gives me the reason to feal anger when someone is not nice to me". My point is that it doesn't because the response can just as easily be apathy (or an almost infinite number of other reactions)

wait. you think?---I thought you were a mechanically responding machine? if you believe he did something to offend you and then you feel hurt then you aren't talking about conditioning at all.

Seeing as how you simply disagree with me about what classical conditioning is, I said we should move on, because I don't see how I can argue you out of your semantics. All the classical conditioning example was meant to show was a case where an emotional response was illicited without recourse to belief states.

yep. if you have a belief that it is weak to use insults, and believe being strong is better than being weak, you may feel satisfied with her apparent show of weakness compared to you. again, you're not hypnotised or a machine.

I don't see how wheeling in beliefs here makes it a more complete description. They don't seem to be doing any work other than backing up you're theory. I think that a statement like "I believe it is bad to recourse to insults" is linguisically dependant upon you finding a recourse to insults bad. If that is the case then surely it is finding insults a low blow that is the significant factor in not responding to the insult with anger?

it's well known many beliefs can ellict the same emotion, and the same beliefs in a different belief structure, as you've outlined, can cause a different emotion.

And so if the same belief "can elicit" various emotional responses depending on the situation - how is it the belief that is doing any of the "eliciting" work here in producing the emotional response, and it not simply being caused by our reaction to the situation itself?

and just a friendly note off topic.
illicit means 'disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons.'
it's 'elicit' (to draw or bring out or forth) you meant to use near the start of your post.
(not a snide remark or anything, it's just good to take note of things like that now n then so they don't become bad habits n that.)

sure, thanks for pointing it out

 

[Seditious]

I am addressing the point made my Justin which is as follows (sorry for paraphrasing):

(citing the video he posted in which a hypnotist explain a very basic picture of the mind)
"You can still be acting on beliefs in situations (presumably like classical conditioning) even when beliefs are not conscious, because (as is pointed out in the video) beliefs operate at a subconsious level too."
My response is that if you buy into the picture of the mind given in the video you must accept that beliefs operate on a different level of consciousness to classical conditioning (because this is what the hypnosit himself says). If you also accept that classical conditioning can produce an emotional response, then in simple AnB => C type reasoning, you must accept that a non-belief orientated process can illicit an emotional response.

I didn't see the video (I'm 56k), but I don't know of any hypnotism which doesn't work with beliefs---'when you wake up you will believe you are a chicken'... and in believing it, they act how they believe chickens act, or whatever it is. if you're hypnotized be afraid of snakes and someone shows you a snake then yea, your being made to believe you you should be afraid of snakes will make you act the way you act when you're afraid of something. perhaps hypnotism is something that bypasses normal function to manipulate the person, but it seems to rely on the above structure still anyways. An example I was hoping to find is where Searle gives example of a man hypnotized to like crawl around on the floor when a certain word was heard, and when he heard it, he suddenly made up this excuse like, 'ooh i love these tiles, i've been thinking of getting them in my place, mind if I take a good look at them? rationalizing his behavior, even if he is compelled to do it, he thinks enough to give a believable account of why he would be doing it so it seems like he's acting normally on normal beliefs as we expect of people. I found the example interesting because usually we think of someone hypnotized just doing what they're told and not bringing beliefs/rationalizations into it, but this shows how they do still want to act as if they're working on beliefs as per normal.

I was thinking of a reflex (like when the doctor hits you on the leg with a hammer to make you kick). Beliefs about the hammer don't come into the process - it's purely mechanical.

and purely without emotion. as I said earlier with the hammer/steal bar stuff, the hammer will hurt if you're hit by it but you don't get scared before the event if you have no belief you're about to face that event, you have whatever your mood is and then -bam- pain, and after that an emotion can follow.

Yes but that is my point exactly - the arguement goes "my belief 'People should be nice to me' gives me the reason to feal anger when someone is not nice to me". My point is that it doesn't because the response can just as easily be apathy (or an almost infinite number of other reactions)

as easily if you have or remove certain other beliefs in network to that belief, so any of the infinite possible responses rely on which belief structure underlies it, the belief you have a big nose could elicit an infinite number of reactions, and which one is brought about is determined by meta-beliefs (beliefs about that belief)

All the classical conditioning example was meant to show was a case where an emotional response was illicited without recourse to belief states.

well, we all know you don't decide 'I now will love you'---you don't consciously choose your beliefs, you derive them essentially silently in experience. learning is a subtle thing, hell we don't say 'oh, hello means 'greetings' but we obviously have to believe it is a greeting to use it as one, so we have a belief about that word... and shitloads of other things in our life. this is what was being said earlier about subconscious beliefs, i mean essentially anything that you aren't conscious of is subconscious/unconscious. you don't need to be conscious of 'scratching will ease my itch' to scratch when you itch, but you know it's not a mechanical process, you wouldn't do it if you didn't believe it would do anything. I think you're talking about teaching/learning and trying to call it classical conditioning, which really refers to a process that isn't what is going on here.

And so if the same belief "can elicit" various emotional responses depending on the situation - how is it the belief that is doing any of the "eliciting" work here in producing the emotional response, and it not simply being caused by our reaction to the situation itself?

to use one of the early examples, you can believe you have a big nose, but the 'role beliefs are meant to play' don't evaporate just because that one belief doesn't have a single emotion it is supposed to elicit---if you believe it's good then you have a positive emotion and if you believe its bad then you have a negative emotion. the role is working fine here, fact and value beliefs making predictable emotional outcomes, so predictable that if you don't like an emotional response you have you can explore 'what must I have believed to have reacted the way i did' and you can question 'is that really the only thing i could believe about that' and so on, hell there couldn't be such a thing as changing ones mind or forgiveness if this wasn't the case. and here in a case like forgiveness no 'situation' or experience or stimulus or anything you could think of as used to 'condition' an animal is anywhere to be seen, the experience is past, and they can modify their own response themselves without any further experience a 'situation to condition them' merely by playing around with what they believe. that is perhaps the surest proof against the behaviorist model.

 

[Korona]

I didn't see the video (I'm 56k), but I don't know of any hypnotism which doesn't work with beliefs---

... How is what follows at all related to my arguement against Justin's claims? I would recommend watching the video...

and purely without emotion. as I said earlier with the hammer/steal bar stuff, the hammer will hurt if you're hit by it but you don't get scared before the event if you have no belief you're about to face that event, you have whatever your mood is and then -bam- pain, and after that an emotion can follow.

I wasn't claiming that getting hit by a bar elicited an emotional response - just that it is an example of a mechanical process and thus works in a way analagous to classical conditioning.

to use one of the early examples, you can believe you have a big nose, but the 'role beliefs are meant to play' don't evaporate just because that one belief doesn't have a single emotion it is supposed to elicit---if you believe it's good then you have a positive emotion and if you believe its bad then you have a negative emotion. the role is working fine here, fact and value beliefs making predictable emotional outcomes, so predictable that if you don't like an emotional response you have you can explore 'what must I have believed to have reacted the way i did' and you can question 'is that really the only thing i could believe about that' and so on, hell there couldn't be such a thing as changing ones mind or forgiveness if this wasn't the case. and here in a case like forgiveness no 'situation' or experience or stimulus or anything you could think of as used to 'condition' an animal is anywhere to be seen, the experience is past, and theyan modify their own response themselves without any further experience a 'situation to condition them' merely by playing around with what they believe. that is perhaps the surest proof against the behaviorist model.

Situation "I have a nose that I really really like" RESPONSE happyness
Situation "I have a nose that I really really hate" RESPONSE unhappyness
...
now beliefs form part of the picture of what the situation is... But they play no part in the response. I mean what you're saying here is like saying two different situations produce different emotional responses...(duh) It doesn't explicate the process of having the emotion and it doesn't exaplain why we should look at beliefs as being more important than any other factor that goes into building the situation (people praising/condemning the nose etc.). As I have said long ago, I have no problem if all you are claiming is that "beliefs can affect how we percieve the world or circumstances" - I agree, it seems common-sense. In this picture the kind of statement "changing our beliefs will change our emotional responses" seems to be saying "we react differently to different situations".
What I reject is the somewhat stronger claim that beliefs play either some role of primary importance and/or some causal role in our emotional response (above and beyond the role they play in building the scenario).

 

[Seditious]

... How is what follows at all related to my arguement against Justin's claims? I would recommend watching the video...

you suggested it was a "non-belief orientated process."

Situation "I have a nose that I really really like" RESPONSE happyness
Situation "I have a nose that I really really hate" RESPONSE unhappyness.

now beliefs form part of the picture of what the situation is... But they play no part in the response.

not true.

I'm forced to enquire, if curious about someones emotions, 'why do you like/hate your nose'?
(I imagine you'll say something about the aesthetics of it---'its a sexy/ugly nose')
so I wonder, 'why don't you like having an ugly nose (vice versa)?'
(do you believe it's bad to have an ugly nose, or good to have a nose you think is cute? If not, why do you feel anything?)
I have normal feet, but I don't feel happy about that because I don't believe there is anything significant about that, it isn't merely finding my eyes to be properly formed which makes me happy, I have to believe there is something good about being normal like that to feel happy about it ---indeed if I thought having 3 eyes made me unique I might be happy about not being normal, and having 2 eyes I might be unhappy that I'm so plain, merely acknowledging features of you does nothing to elicit an emotion, you need some belief about the value of that feature before you can 'feel' anything)

What I reject is the somewhat stronger claim that beliefs play either some role of primary importance and/or some causal role in our emotional response (above and beyond the role they play in building the scenario).

causal role, yes---exclusive role even. You have no emotion that didn't come from a belief.

 

[Korona]

you suggested it was a "non-belief orientated process."

It? if you mean hypnotism - no I didn't... My arguement was about entailment - if you accept the video you should accept that emotions can be evoked without recourse to beliefs. The video isn't about hypnotism.

not true.

I'm forced to enquire, if curious about someones emotions, 'why do you like/hate your nose'?
(I imagine you'll say something about the aesthetics of it---'its a sexy/ugly nose')
so I wonder, 'why don't you like having an ugly nose (vice versa)?'
(do you believe it's bad to have an ugly nose, or good to have a nose you think is cute? If not, why do you feel anything?)

If you get praised for your [nose] then you do not need a belief "it's good to be praised" (indeed such a statement is almost a tautology) to feel good about the object of praise. Your beliefs may make you question whether you are being praised or not, but in so far as you are aware of the praise and understand it, then it is an inherantly good thing to recieve. I don't really see where beliefs have a role... well I guess that you could argue that understanding words involves belief... but that is surely nonsense!

 

[Seditious]

It? if you mean hypnotism - no I didn't... My arguement was about entailment - if you accept the video you should accept that emotions can be evoked without recourse to beliefs. The video isn't about hypnotism.

again, I can't watch the video, and I only know you mentioned some hypnotist. maybe you want to elaborate on it.

If you get praised for your [nose] then you do not need a belief "it's good to be praised" (indeed such a statement is almost a tautology) to feel good about the object of praise. Your beliefs may make you question whether you are being praised or not, but in so far as you are aware of the praise and understand it, then it is an inherantly good thing to recieve. I don't really see where beliefs have a role..

that's quite a naive view

if a transvestite came up to you and after giving you a sexual lookover said 'you'd make a beautiful woman' (I'm assuming you're a guy, if I'm wrong then just reverse the example), do you go 'aww I love being told I'm feminine and attractive to trannys' automatically because in their eyes it was a compliment? If a pedophile says 'your child is sexy, I'd love to do her in the butt' do you smile because you're flattered you have such an adorable child and someone noticed it and likes it? If you've ever met a girl who thinks she's fat and you say 'you look sexy' and she doesn't believe you, she doesn't just go 'hey, i dont believe you but yay you complimented me, now i feel great,' she might say so, as the social convention is to say 'thanks', but she only actually feels good about the compliment if she believes it. Indeed if she thinks you were definitely wrong she might feel negative emotions because she's self-aware now and aware what you said was a lie (in her mind), and she hates how she looks and people noticing it, and may even think you were just being mean and lying to screw with her (takin' the piss), or lying to get something from her, or whatever and she feels bad because she thinks she's being manipulated, lied to, and used. the fact someone says what is a compliment in their view doesn't mean the object of the compliment responds as a robot, how you'll react is entirely dependent on what you believe, the programming is in you not in their words.

 

[Korona]

All these examples show is that beliefs can change how we percieve something that is, on the face of it, a compliment, which is exactly my point! This just demonstrates that things can look like compliments, but still be interpreted differently based on the circumstances.

Even the transvestite case, where they genuinly mean "you should be a woman" to be a compliment, just isn't one (based on my attitudes towards effeminacy/transvestites). For a compliment to work in the sense that is relevant here (i.e. to be taken as such) we need to intend it as such, but also for it to be appropriate based on the circumstances. Else it can easily be an insult/downright creepy as in the transvestite/pedophile case.

There is all the difference in the world between trying to compliment someone, and actually doing so.

Assuming you are complimented (the circumstances - Including Beliefs - do indeed play a role here) then you are almost certain to feel good about it. Even if you didn't I don't see how an appeal to beliefs would help here - it would be more profitable to suggest a foul mood or whatever.
The examples you give just serve my point that beliefs change how we interpret a statement - they don't affect our feelings of the event thus percieved.