Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

a reply to: zackli

it implies that there is something controlling the body. It is a system of (trillions?) of cells. There is no necessity for something to be controlling the body,

Of course there's something controlling it. Me. If there is nothing controlling it then how does my body move around? Or type this sentence? Illusion is a stupid non-answer. A cop out. So please give something more substantial than that if at all possible.

when each cell (metaphorically) knows what to do.

So my body "metaphorically" knows what to do. So I am a metaphor now. Trippy

It's a letter in the alphabet.

Ok so now I (my sense of self) am an illusion, a metaphor, and a letter of the alphabet. Science.

So how does the letter of the alphabet recall (via control) a memory? How does the body control introspection?

A third intervening factor is most likely responsible in this case, which acts on both your perception of causing things to happen and that which actually causes your body to move.

And what might that be?

don't think the last part of that question ever arises in terms of how I have laid it out here. It will never be in another organism, because it is only the consequence of one particular group of cells which lived at one particular time in one particular environment. Change any of those factors and "you" are significantly different.

What causes the sense of self to be stable. Why can I wake up and feel like the same person. If my identity is a product of my group of cells, which I'm okay with, then how does it remain conserved even as all my cells are constantly changing, dying off, and regenerating though out time.

a reply to: zackli

A causes B
B causes A
C causes A and B
C causes A and D; D causes B

Suppose B = walking. Define A, C and D

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The sun in a “true objective sense”, “beyond the human construct of it”...let me guess, what the sun looks like without anyone to look at it? or how an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God might describe it? I don't even consider questions like these. There are no grounds to even ask them.

Just because you don't consider them doesn't make them less valid.

Reality is not what we say it is. That's the point. Humans don't get to speak, or define the universe, on behalf of the universe.

“Invoking a subjective state”. I’m not even sure what that means.

'
You just answered your own question.

Yes the self is an illusion

An illusion requires perception, awareness. The sense of self is a derivative of introspection. How does an illusion have the power of introspection. You claimed to have thought about writing this thread before you physically typed it out. That is introspection. Awareness of your own thoughts. Not an illusion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You must First " Feel " Before you can Act . Cause and Effect you know........

originally posted by: WASTYT

Reality is not what we say it is. That's the point. Humans don't get to speak, or define the universe, on behalf of the universe.

That's not the point. That is the irony. "Reality is not what we say it is", is saying something about reality. If you don't get to speak or define the universe on behalf of the universe, then I apologize, but you cannot say reality is not what we say it is. Here we can directly see what this sort of scepticism and fence-sitting amounts to.

An illusion requires perception, awareness. The sense of self is a derivative of introspection. How does an illusion have the power of introspection. You claimed to have thought about writing this thread before you physically typed it out. That is introspection. Awareness of your own thoughts. Not an illusion.

I must admit I have trouble with these sorts of words. It's all very abstract and I cannot really connect them to anything in the world. I have a conceptual sense of what you mean, but then I immediately begin to wonder about what else in the world besides concepts we are really speaking about. I suppose this gives credence to your theory we cannot say anything about reality. I'll just have give you the benefit of the doubt

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

You must First " Feel " Before you can Act . Cause and Effect you know........

To feel is a verb, an act.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Reality is not what we say it is", is saying something about reality.

No, it's saying something about the human impression of reality.

I must admit I have trouble with these sorts of words. It's all very abstract and I cannot really connect them to anything in the world.

In the end we are all slaves to our own words. Our reality is completely shaped by them. And like feelings, they mean nothing.

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Your thoughts and feeling are yours because there is a receiver of those thoughts and feelings, what is that receiver? Generally speaking the receiver has a name and location, a form by which he/she can be identified. We use the body as a form of identification, this body identifies a string of experiences with other bodies. Is that what we are fully/ wholly? I would say no, but it is what we appear to be. Each body appears to be alive and engaged in living everything that is perceived. There is nothing wrong with the mine approach as long as one know that is just a story, it when we fully believe that as a total truth. Then.... we are like a kind of pinnocchio, a foolish. Which we all are at moments of our life, then we are swallowed up by something much larger and the fool is seen and (maybe) at that point a deeper quality can be realized.

Yes, the mine approach can be likened to pinnocchio's path of discovery, in that he was always a real boy but refused to accept it. Denial of feelings, ego and spirit will keep one a wooden puppet dangling, but embracing all that you are will ground your feet on the one true path.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: Unity_99

Thank you Unity for bringing more positive "feelings" into the thread. I know that my responses were not of a very positive nature and it is often hard for me to know what the right thing to do is. I know that it would be great if all could be bright and positive in life. And yet the reality is there is much negativity that must be dealt with in life. David in the old testament was "a man after God's own heart" and yet his hands were stained with the blood of his enemies. I don't want to promote violence and yet I don't know what proper balance within our current world would look like. Jesus did teach us to be humble and meek and yet even he made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the temple ( although it is not recorded that he struck anyone). All I can do is ask to be guided in the way by those powers that are purer and greater than I.

The negative that we're dealing with is only negative because instead of stopping, standing still in our tracks, and not reacting to the world around us that is set up to keep us in fear and lower frequency, to prevent us from awakening and shining, we react.

Stand still, there are big problems and small problems, and we need to get with others on a problem solving quest, not a religious or ideological one, but one where everyone throws in their 2 bits!!! And starts to listen to other, so some of those suggestions will change with more understanding.

Problem solve around us. Not by dominating another, telling what to do, like a child, a spouse, a relative, a friend, a neighbor, but by finding out what their talents and assets are and what brings them joy and then encouraging them to really develop their gifts and live in higher mind.

And while doing so, more and more will band up against the system, it naturally would change.

Make that Love and Peace and Goodness shine around you.

My Christian upbringing means that I pray, meditate, envision, but don't like any codes here, and so my default is always, The Highest Love and Goodness in existence beyond all codes, and all lower realm traps, the True Tao of Love God/Goodness/Higher Mind Consciousness, and my Dad/Mom!!!! Christ consciousness, Christ real as in my Brother, or metaphor.

And prayers are answered. Have answers come so fast my breath is taken away at times.

Caring for others, concerned with self, especially in the area of performance, not able to reach people, and weaknesses are all things that get answered quickly.

We need to get our own self interest out of the way, but at the same time realize home, hearth, food, resources to lift projects off, develop talents and bring joy are all considered essentials so they're alright to ask, pray, meditate on, its things that promote self above others that are the warning signs.

Recognize family all around.

The world is dark and miserable, because that is the paradigm a small group of evil slavers wants you to see.

But everyone standing at your side is capable of creating heaven on earth, paradise, or at least a workable slice of something good, flawed or not, though some of them need healing first.

Intercede for all and for that and the joy, the view, along the way is breathtaking.

It odd how Jedi are supposed be mindful, but yet try to ignore, or even forbid feeling and keep it to themselves, while the Sith like to express their feelings when ever they feel, like love or anger and possibly use that cheesy line " I feel so good, it bad",

While my Jedi feelings tell me, that so cheesy, I just had to Jedi mind wipe it from my brain, and insulted their proud-ful feelings of being orignal, I destroyed their moment.

originally posted by: Specimen
It odd how Jedi are supposed be mindful, but yet try to ignore, or even forbid feeling and keep it to themselves, while the Sith like to express their feelings when ever they feel, like love or anger and possibly use that cheesy line " I feel so good, it bad",

While my Jedi feelings tell me, that so cheesy, I just had to Jedi mind wipe it from my brain, and insulted their proud-ful feelings of being orignal, I destroyed their moment.

We are not the droids you are looking for.

Two things matter, as to our existence, as of right now:

1. Science -- the language of the cosmos, our only path to enlightenment and off this temporary rock.

2. Art -- to distract those that do not, cannot or will not adopt 1. as their sole reason for being; panem et circenses, if you will.

One's 'feelings' and emotions about these inalienable truths are trifles light as farts and do no matter.

a reply to: WASTYT

The answers to the questions you asked will require a bit of time. I work today, so I'm not going to be able to answer them immediately.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Is there then a point where feelings end and emotions begin? At what point what point is that? The thing is we never stop feeling and we never stop thinking. How can one end and the other begin?

Perhaps layers?Generally I would place the boundary between the physical and the mental aspects of our being.Awareness is fluid, range and scope varying with focus.I feel always "on" one way or another.Even in states of internal silence, I am aware the subconscious is operating...

edit:Looking back, I feel like becoming aware of the difference between feelings and emotion could be seen as a beginning.

a reply to: WASTYT

Of course there's something controlling it. Me. If there is nothing controlling it then how does my body move around? Or type this sentence? Illusion is a stupid non-answer. A cop out. So please give something more substantial than that if at all possible.

Ok, I'll concede that you, as an object, exist. Before you yell at me for adding "as an object", let me explain. As I referred to in my other post, individuals have ideas about the world around them. Calling them ideas is fairly arbitrary, but it is the accepted vocabulary of our times. Each individual idea is referred to as a concept. Each concept has all of the salient properties of the object as it is in the world. I say salient, because there are an unknown number of properties that are not salient, which for all we know could mean your picture of the object is completely wrong.

You, existing as you do, also have a concept of yourself. It contains all of your salient features. The emphasis, once again, is on salient. Since you have "hidden access" to a whole bunch of processes that other people do not (feelings, ideas, pain, etc.) your self-concept is much more complex than basically anything else in the world. Self-absorption, to the max!

Don't get me wrong, it's not because you're inherently selfish. It's just because you don't have access to anyone else's feelings, except insofar as you can accurately tell what they're feeling at the time due to telepathy, reading facial expressions, or their statements or other things I haven't mentioned.

So my body "metaphorically" knows what to do. So I am a metaphor now. Trippy

You're like a one paragraph summary of 300 wikipedia pages.

(sarcasm redacted)

So how does the letter of the alphabet recall (via control) a memory? How does the body control introspection?

How does a planet orbit its star? Magic. I'll get back to you on that.

And what might that be?

It's purely metaphorical. You only have one brain. As far as locating it in the real world, it's probably scattered all over your brain. I lack the neuroscience background to name the particular regions, or even to know what those names mean at this time. This being ATS, I'm sure you'll be able to imagine a boardroom meeting at a big organization. This particular entity is that boardroom. Now, obviously certain things are kept confidential from the rest of the corporation because certain information can be acted upon or the employees could tell others who don't care so much about the survival of the organization (organism).

Obviously, there's also a whole bunch of other information that is exceptionally boring/useless to 99% of everyone else in the organization. The useful information is interspersed with the useless, and no one knows what is what. Each member of the board room is a representative of each "department", and each department represents different parts of the body.

What causes the sense of self to be stable. Why can I wake up and feel like the same person. If my identity is a product of my group of cells, which I'm okay with, then how does it remain conserved even as all my cells are constantly changing, dying off, and regenerating though out time.

First off, this was a really good question. I think I have an idea of what/where the answer could be, but it's ultimately impossible to know for sure because of the limitations of the human brain. That's like simulating an exact copy of a computer within a computer.

Anyway, my proposed answer is salience. It's not going to be very satisfying, and will probably sound like a cop-out, but there's no getting around it. If you're interested in reading a paper on this subject, it's called "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes". It's free online [1]. While it is a bit long (~40 pages), if you just read the first five and last five you should get a bit of an understanding of what I'm talking about.

If, as I proposed previously, people just have an "idea" of themselves, which would be one of hundreds of thousands/millions/billions (unknown) of other ideas, it would allow for quite a bit of change while still maintaining consistency.

If you don't understand what I mean, think about what the dictionary definition for any word is. If you can successfully think of the definition, you understand what I mean. Only, instead of one dictionary definition, the list of characteristics associated with yourself is much larger.


If you still don't get it, I don't really know what to tell you. I'll be thinking more about this throughout the week.

a reply to: zackli


A causes B
B causes A
C causes A and B
C causes A and D; D causes B


Suppose B = walking. Define A, C and D

A = Your brain
B = electrical signals sent to your legs

Those weren't all necessarily true for everything. It was simply illustrating the number of possible causal models.

There are an exceptionally large number of possible variables for each side of the equation. Think about religion...

Did each one of those things "cause" the proceeding event to occur? "Basically", but there's a lot more to the story than that.

A = God
B = the universe
C = the milky way galaxy
D = Our solar system
E = Our planet
F = Us

A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
E causes F

Now, consider the possibility that there was a different god that created the universe.


Deity 1 = A
Deity 2 = A2

EITHER A causes B OR A2 causes B

If A causes B...

A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
E causes F

or if A^2 causes B

A2 causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
E causes F

As the number of possible causes goes up, the probability that one particular cause was the true cause goes down.

[1] deepblue.lib.umich.edu...

I feel (I don't care if it doesn't matter) that your disdain for "feelings" says more about you than it does the society you criticize. How does it "feel" to be a pedant? To miss the forest for the mosquitoes? Guess it doesn't matter.

a reply to: zackli

originally posted by: zackli
Ok, I'll concede that you, as an object, exist. Before you yell at me for adding "as an object", let me explain. As I referred to in my other post, individuals have ideas about the world around them. Calling them ideas is fairly arbitrary, but it is the accepted vocabulary of our times.

Yes, my body is an object. That's fine.

You say "idea" and "concept". What are these physically speaking? I don't think the author of this thread likes those words, since they can't be quantified per se. There is nothing tangible about an idea yet our sense of introspection (awareness of our thoughts) allows us to create and think about them at length. Our bodies, if we must, can decide when and how to turn these non-tangible ideas into things that are tangible. Now I, as in my concept of self, can command my brain to do this. Where are ideas to be found inside the body? They surely exist. And even if they are illusions, and this feeling of myself is an illusion, somehow I can turn those illusions into actual physical things. Makes sense?

originally posted by: zackli
You, existing as you do, also have a concept of yourself. It contains all of your salient features. The emphasis, once again, is on salient.

Can you expound more about what you mean by "salience" and "salient features"?

Before there was language, did our ancestors not feel a sense of self or identity? How did they conceptualize both temporally and spatially without language? Does meaning require language? What is meaning? How does the body create meaning in anything? Feelings included.

originally posted by: zackli
How does a planet orbit its star? Magic. I'll get back to you on that.

Okay, please do

originally posted by: zackli
It's purely metaphorical. You only have one brain. As far as locating it in the real world, it's probably scattered all over your brain. I lack the neuroscience background to name the particular regions, or even to know what those names mean at this time.

Yeah I hear that. Metaphors don't do us much good I'm afraid.

originally posted by: WASTYT
What causes the sense of self to be stable. Why can I wake up and feel like the same person. If my identity is a product of my group of cells, which I'm okay with, then how does it remain conserved even as all my cells are constantly changing, dying off, and regenerating though out time.

originally posted by: zackli
Anyway, my proposed answer is salience. It's not going to be very satisfying, and will probably sound like a cop-out, but there's no getting around it.

Hmm, yeah you're right. Not very satisfying from an explanatory standpoint.

originally posted by: zackli
If, as I proposed previously, people just have an "idea" of themselves, which would be one of hundreds of thousands/millions/billions (unknown) of other ideas, it would allow for quite a bit of change while still maintaining consistency.

How does anyone have an idea of themselves if the part (the self) that conjures an idea is an illusion? Le Mis says it's the body, but will only stop there and not explain how the body tells itself to have a concept of itself. The answers I've gotten (not necessarily from you), are that "the self" or the "sense of subjectiveness" is an illusion, "ideas" are an illusion, and the "sense of control of my body" is an illusion. What are the studies that unequivocally prove this to be the case?

Illusions require perception in the first place, don't they? So the body must perceive itself from the inside.

originally posted by: zackli
If you still don't get it, I don't really know what to tell you. I'll be thinking more about this throughout the week.

It's not about not getting it. It's an inadequacy in the explanation of the phenomena.

originally posted by: zackli
If you don't understand what I mean, think about what the dictionary definition for any word is. If you can successfully think of the definition, you understand what I mean.

All definitions are circular and are at the root of this issue I think.

Here let's have a look at what I mean:

What is an idea?

i·de·a (ī-dē′ə)
n.
1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
3. A plan, purpose, or goal: She started school with the idea of becoming a doctor.
4. The gist or significance: The idea of the article is that investing in green technology can save you money in the long run.
5. A sense that something can happen; a notion or expectation: They have this idea that we can just drop what we're doing and go to the park.

Okay, what is a thought?

thought (thôt)
v.
Past tense and past participle of think.
n.
1. The process of thinking; cogitation: sitting deep in thought at the computer.
2. A product of thinking or other mental activity: What are your thoughts on this matter? See Synonyms at idea.
3. The faculty of thinking or reasoning: Why not use thought instead of emotion to solve the problem?
4. The intellectual activity or production of a particular time or group: ancient Greek thought; deconstructionist thought.
5. Consideration; attention: didn't give much thought to what she said.
6. a. Intention; purpose: My thought is to live in a house on a lake.
b. Expectation or conception: She had no thought that anything was wrong.

Okay, fine then, what is thinking?

think·ing (thĭng′kĭng)
n.
1. The act or practice of one that thinks; thought.
2. A way of reasoning; judgment: To my thinking, this is not a good idea.
adj.
Characterized by thought or thoughtfulness; rational: We are thinking animals.

Okay, maybe the definition of concept will get us off this merry go round?

con·cept (kŏn′sĕpt′)
n.
1. A general idea or understanding of something: the concept of inertia; the concept of free will. See Synonyms at idea.
2. A plan or original idea: The original concept was for a building with 12 floors.
3. A unifying idea or theme, especially for a product or service: a new restaurant concept.

Nope.

originally posted by: zackli
A causes B
B causes A
C causes A and B
C causes A and D; D causes B

originally posted by: WASTYT
Suppose B = walking. Define A, C and D

originally posted by: zackli
A = Your brain
B = electrical signals sent to your legs

What commands the brain to generate those signals to the legs versus the arms let's say? I've been told to look at it as an automatic action by the brain, that this sense of control or awareness I have over commanding my body doesn't actually exist. Yet, as I command my body to type this I still don't understand how anyone holds the notion that our feeling of existence is illusory.

[1] deepblue.lib.umich.edu...

Thanks, I'll have a read over a cup of joe.

a reply to: WASTYT

Yes, my body is an object. That's fine. You say "idea" and "concept". What are these physically speaking?

Words only refer to other words. You got that from the circular definitions. One way to think of an idea comes from people who are exceptionally good at memory. They use words, numbers and letters. They refer to them as hooks or pegs, and much like a coat hanger, they are used for “hanging” information. You can google memory palaces and memory systems for more on that.

There is nothing tangible about an idea yet our sense of introspection (awareness of our thoughts) allows us to create and think about them at length.

That’s because ideas don’t refer to anything in the world. Our brains construct these “ideas” out of data gathered from the senses, and those senses are never perfect in their collection of information. In addition, the storage and retrieval processes affect the memory itself. You are, in essence, adding information to a memory every time you remember it.

A solid description of how your brain works can be found in The Happiness of Pursuit by Shimon Edelman.

Our bodies, if we must, can decide when and how to turn these non-tangible ideas into things that are tangible…. And even if they are illusions, and this feeling of myself is an illusion, somehow I can turn those illusions into actual physical things. Makes sense?

It’s one thing to watch something, and another to do it. This is the problem with trying to perfectly distill psychology down to a complete set of principles. We have to be using the process we’re trying to describe, and this interferes with the observations. That isn’t to say that observations can’t be made.

The idea is the most basic aspect of consciousness that we can identify. The biological equivalent can be thought of as a neuron, even if it isn’t exactly “right”. The brain is several hundred billion neurons with up to ten thousand connections between each one. That’s definitely a good starting point for the origin of ideas, but it would be impossible at this point in time to single out a particular idea within the brain, because we would need a complete list of all of our ideas in order to figure out which one was missing when it was surgically removed. The process of creating those ideas would create more ideas, ad infinitum. We would have to be able to stop the production of new neurons and their connection in the brain, which barring the possibility of a gigantic ethical lapse on the part of a large team of individuals performing a lethal surgery, is not likely.

Can you expound more about what you mean by "salience" and "salient features"?

Certainly. Salience is how visible or attention-grabbing something is. You are not cognizant of trillions of processes going on in the individual cells in your body. You don’t feel it every time one of them is born or dies. In the real world, salience can refer to many features of an object. What makes an object stick out? It could be brighter, it could produce a high-pitched squeak, it could change color frequently, it could move quickly back and forth.

In terms of salience within you, there are going to be different versions of basically the same idea. A salient feature in consciousness is that which you notice. One highly salient, but normally fleeting sensation is pain. Another example is feelings or moods or ideas. Any idea which your attention is called to at a particular point in time (whether that is from someone else calling your attention to it or from yourself) is more salient than all of the others at that point.

All of our mammalian instincts, including those sensations we call feelings, are salient.

One way to think about it would be to think of all of your ideas being written on a long, long piece of paper. The ones your attention is called to are highlighted.

As I said earlier (the first reply?), this “illusion” of the self is generated by faulty observations of the sort that make it impossible to form an objective human psychology. We notice two things that happen very quickly (our intention to perform an action and the action that takes place in the world) and assume that it is our intention that caused the action to happen.

As you may recall, earlier I mentioned “something” generating an illusion of free will and performing the actual action simultaneously. The first time a person performs an action, they might make the observation that they did it. The second time, depending upon how challenging the task is and whether or not they are successful at it, they might make the same observation. Over time, the connection between the thoughts and the action strengthens, which simply means that a person “learns” that this combination of muscle movements leads to X outcome.

Before there was language, did our ancestors not feel a sense of self or identity?

It is thought that our prefrontal cortex, which is the last part of the brain to have evolved, is responsible for thought. It is possible they may have seen themselves causing things to happen, but it would be no more correct than ours is.

How did they conceptualize both temporally and spatially without language? Does meaning require language? What is meaning? How does the body create meaning in anything? Feelings included.

One of the memory systems I mentioned at the beginning is called the memory palace. Humans have a wonderful memory for locations and pictures, and this is thought to have evolved so that people can find their way around in environments, not only for hunting but also so that they can find their way home. It is possible that even if they did not have words, they had pictures in their heads that told them about landmarks in their surrounding region, and simple cues in their environment for navigation.

Hmm, yeah you're right. Not very satisfying from an explanatory standpoint.

I’m glad your sense of humor is still intact, even if your cells are constantly changing, dying off and regenerating throughout time.

The “constant change” is, in part, BECAUSE you are thinking of something else. I explained above how we won’t ever have a perfect psychology of ourselves because of the never-ending loop of ideas being generated. Each time you think of yourself, you are thinking of a different you. A demonstration is to consider the fact that each time you think of yourself, the fact that you just thought of yourself is added to the large list of other characteristics you have added. You could do that forever and never arrive at any complete definition of yourself.

(Cont)

a reply to: WASTYT

How does anyone have an idea of themselves if the part (the self) that conjures an idea is an illusion?

The brain isn’t an illusion. The action and the delusion are taking place nearly simultaneously.

I realize that thus far, I’ve only explained how you remember the past. I’m just about spent right now, so I’ll tackle that later.

It's not about not getting it. It's an inadequacy in the explanation of the phenomena.

I know.

What commands the brain to generate those signals to the legs versus the arms let's say?

This is related to planning for the future, which I’m far too tired to consider right now. I’ll get to it eventually. It’s related to senses and cues in your environment. You are trying to get from point A to point B. You observe that you’re at point A, which can be whatever arbitrary point in the universe you want, and you realize that you forgot a condom at your house, but plan to sleep with a hot girl later. You need to go back to your house, which is at point B.
Nothing arbitrarily “commands” the brain to generate the signals. It is a stimulus/response machine, responding to input from the environment (the sensory organs, more specifically).

Yet, as I command my body to type this I still don't understand how anyone holds the notion that our feeling of existence is illusory.

No one is saying that you don’t exist. It is the attachment of your idea of your self to your feelings, intentions, beliefs, desires and control over your own body that isn’t “objectively” true.

This whole “observing” vs. “doing” dichotomy is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. The conflict between them can never be resolved.

Thanks, I'll have a read over a cup of joe.

What’d you think?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course we do not literally wish to know how you are doing, or your feelings.

This is a terribly ironic post.

Feelings are everything. Ever read Lakoff? If you read Lakoff, combine a little bit of Tomasello, Damasio, Schore and Tronick, you can get a pretty basic theory of human mental functioning that really makes this sort of philosophizing look.....gratuitous, unnecessary....something a person with a lot of education and literary talent engages in to help make sense of the world to himself. I remember one researcher in developmental psychology describe research as being "me-search", whenever interpretation is involved, it has to do with ourselves and our own feelings - and thus our own developmental habits.

The fact is, we are shaped by the biological past of our organism to enact behaviors that serve our survival. But due to ever increasing complexity in both individual and social development, the human organism survives by aligning it's motivational and perceptual states with how it experiences and 'takes in' immediate reality.

Why go outside the logic of evolution, why engage in such needless cynicism - what seems to me to be narcissistic ramblings about meaning and value. Value and meaning is obviously developmental; consider this, how could you be who you are in the present without the interactions of the past? If you study this process at the micro-level (as developmental psychologists do) the patterns of interaction are seen to be law-based, and not only that, but paradoxical as well. How is it human behavior is what is? You claim that we are entirely selfish, END CASE/. And yet, our MOTIVATIONAL states NECESSARILY require the input of other faces, other voices, other personalities. How is it, I ask, can you arrive at such a crisp distinction between selfishness and altruism, when together, they form the two poles that activate our personality.

Consider those studies of Romanian orphans born in a country that barely took care of it's poor and vulnerable. These orphans were fed and cleaned but never experienced being held, touched, hugged, spoken to softly, kissed, caressed, sung to, as so many baby's naturally come into the world experiencing. The result: baby's nervous develops to "adapt" to the ever-changing conditions of a negligent environment (no emotional input from the world), biasing at each neuromolecular moment (which is at an enormously tiny scale) to generate a nervous system that keeps 'perturbations' low and regultory processes 'stable'.

Such a human becomes anhedonic - or does not experience pleasure. How do you compute that in your philosophical framework? If pleasure, love, joy, are socially emergent - or require another human being to 'generate' as a relational (and experiential) possibility - then how exactly can you hold to such a dismal view of human nature? Look at what happens to us when we do not feel the feeling of being loved, or when we do not see a face recognize an emotion we've felt, and so become motivated to integrate that state for a future self-organization.

We are TIED together, with anger, hatred, love and compassion. But our awareness of ourselves and the horrors of suffering SHOULD bias the self-aware mind to be compassionate, and thus, to care about and attend to the feeling states of others - because what could be more significant than realizing within ourselves the core vulnerability that turns life, if we act DEFENSIVELY and aggressively, to feel one way, and not another?

And what about neurons? Your conscious rides upon a physiological state which produces within your brain the conviction that the world is exactly as you say it is, and not, as it is actually is, by epistemologically bound physical, chemical, biological and social laws of activity.

It's blank. When we react and choose cynicism, we 'give in' to the biases set by the conditions we were born into, and that I think is a pretty big waste of a mind that seems to designed to overcome and transform those types of patterns: what could be more real than changing an attitude of apathy into an attitude of compassionate regard? The conditions in other realities are changed by such actions - in the world of others and in ourselves.

Is there a division between a feeling arising and you? If you think that 'you' have 'feelings' then there has been a division assumed, which does not exist - the 'you' that has the 'feeling' is an illusion.
Feelings come and go, they are constantly changing but there may seem to be a solid something which attaches to certain feelings - 'the me sense'. The 'me sense' is also just a sensation that comes and goes.