On feelings.

[Agent 008]

Feelings are just there as an evolutionary tool, giving what we know as "Nature" control over our lives.

As long as one still has feelings - not merely just as sensory information, but as something that controls and drives our decisions - one is not free.

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

[Dream of the iris]

I diagree with what you say. Feelings drive us in evolution and are very important. Shunning them out won't do anything. It's not nature controlling you it's you.

[Rizzo in a box]

What exactly is it that you're feeling?

Because, personally, I'm feeling up the goddess.

[talonner]

Originally Posted by Nukem

Feelings are just there as an evolutionary tool, giving what we know as "Nature" control over our lives.

As long as one still has feelings - not merely just as sensory information, but as something that controls and drives our decisions - one is not free.

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

I disagree, without feelings you would be a robot ala sociopath.

Eg, unable to comprehend feelings, no empathy, emotional memory is non existent.

With feelings you are far less robotic. Sociopaths lack a subconscious and therefore are far more robotic than someone with feelings could ever be.

[nshanin]

Agree with OP; emotion is just an evolutionary tool. Per this definition, all living things are organic robots. Although I don't think just giving oneself up to reason and negating all feelings will allow you to transcend the biological nature of thought. To do that you'd need thought that exists outside of mind, and that's not possible (unless you're megadosing on deleriants). No matter what you do you're just a physical system, you're a robot whether you accept your emotions or not.

[Rizzo in a box]

I think it's more accurate to say that there is a mechanical element present in life.

There is however a much deeper, organic element of life.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rizzo in a box

I think it's more accurate to say that there is a mechanical element present in life.

There is however a much deeper, organic element of life.

Chemistry is the corollary to physics

[Ambient]

Feelings are the language of the soul. Sentiment however means nothing without knowledge to provide a clarity to these feeling's.

[LiquidIce]

^ What if some animals have feelings? Thus they too have souls.

Also: I agree with OP, feelings are products of evolution. I believe the Truine brain model says that reptiles have no feelings due to their brains being unevolved, whereas mammals, birds and even some fish are able to feel emotions because of the way their brain evolved. Reptiles supposedly don't have dreams, whilst many other animals do.

Emotions serve a certain role, sure, but one has to be able to control them as they are rooted in animalistic desires. Sometimes being rational is better than being emotional - especially to humans who have to cooperate together (a function demanding rationality).

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by talonner

I disagree, without feelings you would be a robot ala sociopath.

Eg, unable to comprehend feelings, no empathy, emotional memory is non existent.

With feelings you are far less robotic. Sociopaths lack a subconscious and therefore are far more robotic than someone with feelings could ever be.

I am not saying that you should get rid of feelings.

But rather not let feelings overwhelm and control you.

As in, get a feeling, acknowledge it, and then do your own thing.

It is not just about love, hate or empathy; it also applies, more importantly, to feelings of fear, anxiety, stress, anger, even pain (to an extent; the latter seems to be very difficult to override) - all the feelings that, when allowed to go out of control, breed mistakes.

[parisianblue]

Originally Posted by Nukem

Feelings are just there as an evolutionary tool, giving what we know as "Nature" control over our lives.

As long as one still has feelings - not merely just as sensory information, but as something that controls and drives our decisions - one is not free.

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

When you emotions you begin your journey towards sentience. When you gain control of your emotions, you become sentient.

[0omnidirectional]

Originally Posted by Nukem

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

What else could we be in the corporeality?

I've got some ideas, but I'm a fucking lunatic.

You know what I feel like doing?

Smoking the rest of my pot and laying in bed all day.

A grand day lies ahead, full of wonder, colorful visions, and excellent/worthless ideas.

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by LiquidIce

^ What if some animals have feelings? Thus they too have souls.

Also: I agree with OP, feelings are products of evolution. I believe the Truine brain model says that reptiles have no feelings due to their brains being unevolved, whereas mammals, birds and even some fish are able to feel emotions because of the way their brain evolved. Reptiles supposedly don't have dreams, whilst many other animals do.

Emotions serve a certain role, sure, but one has to be able to control them as they are rooted in animalistic desires. Sometimes being rational is better than being emotional - especially to humans who have to cooperate together (a function demanding rationality).

The term feeling is perhaps a vague and ambiguous one. I myself subscribe to the concept that all of life have souls... in that they have unrealized potential or at least the structural means for realizing their potential. How else can one explain living entities ability to evolve?

Sure, ultimately this change is derived from a relatively stagnant/stable ecological climate in which climate process have low variability and of course unchanging physical laws... however living entities must have the means to introspect reality in order to evolve; otherwise they are a biotic as opposed to biotic. I would call this an element of consciousness albeit in part... if it makes you feel better it can be called "a response to stimuli or the ability to respond to stimuli"; same shit in my book.

For this reason if we truly value or existence in an empathetic and altruistic manner we will not wish death upon any form of life and will conduct ourselves accordingly. (Yes I know the anti-thesis is that living entities need nutrition to survive themselves which is largely derived from other living entities).

[0omnidirectional]

Originally Posted by Nukem

Feelings are just there as an evolutionary tool, giving what we know as "Nature" control over our lives.

As long as one still has feelings - not merely just as sensory information, but as something that controls and drives our decisions - one is not free.

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

Are you saying there is something beyond feelings, what is it?

______________

Maybe instead of abandoning feelings altogether, try invoking a discipline of balance.

[0omnidirectional]

Originally Posted by Killallthewhiteman420

The term feeling is perhaps a vague and ambiguous one. I myself subscribe to the concept that all of life have souls... in that they have unrealized potential or at least the structural means for realizing their potential. How else can one explain living entities ability to evolve?

I subscribe to the concept that every atom (and beyond) has soul. Form is created from the space resonance of the One's vibration. Individuating within the One, becoming one within the One. Every atom has a soul, every cell is an accumulation, an ultra soul. The connection to the world of soul is still present within the atoms, but this connection is intensified as the software and hardware advances. Upgrading to a new stratum information apprehension.

If indeed what you are saying with the ambiguous definition, that feeling (or emotion) is the only facet of the soul. In that case, I strongly disagree.

How else can one explain living entities ability to evolve?

I'm interested in hearing other peoples responses to this. Though I can already imagine the friction.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Killallthewhiteman420

How else can one explain living entities ability to evolve?

You mean, the mutations of our genetic material... They are conscious?

That's an interesting concept.

After all, all those tiny bio-bots that read our DNA, build cells, travel through our blood - they are all living beings too... Living in a community, and working together / cooperating for its survival.

Think about how it all started. First there were single-celled creatures, floating around in water on their own. Then, some of them united into colonies (conscious decision?). These colonies eventually became so tightly-knit, that we now view them as one abstraction - as a bigger being.

We, humans, are, after all, nothing more than a colony of cells. Each cell performs its function, but it chose to be in this "Federation" for a reason - together, as a community, they are much stronger than they are on their own.

What is also interesting, is that united, they acquired a shared consciousness as well. We think of ourselves as one being with one consciousness - not as a cell among millions of other cells each with a separate consciousness. Pretty interesting how that could've happened, right? Just through some information-sharing, signal-passing, chemical-sharing, at some point wham! And they were one.

Is it inevitable that humanity will acquire a shared consciousness at some point as well? The Internet is one step; is JC Denton's plan described in "Invisible War" really just science fiction that could never happen? Or are we really going that way?

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I was typing this stream of thoughts as I was thinking it.

[LiquidIce]

^ Oh it makes sense.

Look at mobile phones and bluetooth headsets -> I think that's another step in the direction of a unified consciousness. If we extrapolate this technology a wee bit into the future ie. mobile implants, extended signal coverage... Then humans will start to be connected to eachother all the time. In a few generations such implants will become mandatory. Will we still use our vocal cords then? What for?

[Resign the King]

Originally Posted by Nukem

You mean, the mutations of our genetic material... They are conscious?

That's an interesting concept.

After all, all those tiny bio-bots that read our DNA, build cells, travel through our blood - they are all living beings too... Living in a community, and working together / cooperating for its survival.

Think about how it all started. First there were single-celled creatures, floating around in water on their own. Then, some of them united into colonies (conscious decision?). These colonies eventually became so tightly-knit, that we now view them as one abstraction - as a bigger being.

We, humans, are, after all, nothing more than a colony of cells. Each cell performs its function, but it chose to be in this "Federation" for a reason - together, as a community, they are much stronger than they are on their own.

What is also interesting, is that united, they acquired a shared consciousness as well. We think of ourselves as one being with one consciousness - not as a cell among millions of other cells each with a separate consciousness. Pretty interesting how that could've happened, right? Just through some information-sharing, signal-passing, chemical-sharing, at some point wham! And they were one.

Is it inevitable that humanity will acquire a shared consciousness at some point as well? The Internet is one step; is JC Denton's plan described in "Invisible War" really just science fiction that could never happen? Or are we really going that way?

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I was typing this stream of thoughts as I was thinking it.

It's a really trippy thing to look through a microscope into pond water and see all the microscopic organisms floating around, and to look at plant cells and human cells. I was doing so the other day and it was a neat experience.

Self consciousness makes us appear to be a whole. But we are made up of countless living things. In a little bit of water, or a tiny slice of onion, you can see a huge amount of life under the microscope invisible to us. And we are made up of similar living cells.

When I've thought of collective consciousness, I've thought of higher beings made up of not only humans but all things. I've thought of the events that we experience in our lives, the things we do and experience, as being the movements of larger organism invisible and incomprehensible to us. For instance large scale events like wars could be the movement of a specific organism, or all sex makes the movement of one kind of organism, every action, thought, emotion, natural disaster, and event is caused by the movements and interactions of different kinds of higher organisms that are made up of us and everything else, and our movements and their movements are one and the same.

It's just a thought though, and I don't really take it seriously, but since we're talking about collective consciousness in this thread I thought I would add my two cents.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Killallthewhiteman420

Sure, ultimately this change is derived from a relatively stagnant/stable ecological climate in which climate process have low variability and of course unchanging physical laws... however living entities must have the means to introspect reality in order to evolve; otherwise they are a biotic as opposed to biotic. I would call this an element of consciousness albeit in part... if it makes you feel better it can be called "a response to stimuli or the ability to respond to stimuli"; same shit in my book.

Rocks respond to waves beating against them by eroding--do they then possess this element of consciousness?

[Kwinnie Bogan]

Feeeeeeellliiiiiiiiiiiiiingsss




An absolutely great cover song.

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Rocks respond to waves beating against them by eroding--do they then possess this element of consciousness?

What element of consciousness?

BY element i meant partiality.

For example if you look at a plant, if it is destroyed by say an animal in part and one of the twigs falls off on a branch it has elementary consciousness as it is a living entity. This means that it has the power of movement, reproduction, sensitivity, growth, excretion and respiration (photosynthesis). It will respond to the damages to its welfare, perhaps with sap covering or regrowing some of the leaves.

I have absolutely NO idea where you gained this sentiment that abiotic existences (i.e. rocks/waves) are living entities.

Abiotic organic matter have no sentience or agency and are whimsical the the processes of nature i.e. erosion of rocks by waves.

[Syphilis]

Feelings and emotion are nothing metaphysical or supernatural. They're chemical responses to certain events, created throughout evolution.

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by Agent 008

...

This is pretty bang on, it is true the cell is in a way "the building blocks of life". When differentiate between living entities and non-living entities we have to take a position and draw the line between consciousness and unconsciousness; perhaps the cell is the end of this biological line.

IT is important to recognize however that whilst human beings are conscious beings made up of a collective of conscious cells; the aggregate or holistic human being is far more than this in terms of function.

Although both the cell and the aggregate share the symptoms of life ( Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Respiration, Excretion, Reproduction) the capacities of an individual cell and the aggregate are different; much the same as as Omnidirectional's conceptualization of the soul within the ultra soul.

For instance we should ask ourselves.

Is a single human cell capable of cognition?
Is a single human capable of cognition?

Is a single human cell capable of movement within the planet earth, or does it move according to the whim of the aggregate human being?

The biological capacities between the human entity and the single cell seem vastly different in function.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omni

If one does their research, it can be seen that the amount of conception their are of the soul are vast... yet their can only be one true soul more than any other phenomenon; relativity is not a word which mingles well with the word "soul".

Perhaps if even atomic particles have souls, then the differentiation is between manifest and manifest energy. For example I could say that water is relatively unmanifest energy as it contains elements, whilst as human being is relatively manifest energy i which many compounds, elements, cells and biological process exist and occur.

[Rizzo in a box]

Originally Posted by LiquidIce

^ Oh it makes sense.

Look at mobile phones and bluetooth headsets -> I think that's another step in the direction of a unified consciousness. If we extrapolate this technology a wee bit into the future ie. mobile implants, extended signal coverage... Then humans will start to be connected to eachother all the time. In a few generations such implants will become mandatory. Will we still use our vocal cords then? What for?

Consciousness is already unified, that is its base state of being. Anything we do to improve, change, or grow more unified...is only taking us further away.

It is also beyond life & death. Its realm lies in that of pure observation.

[Nero]

While feelings are natural, the stimuli that determines our emotional reaction is not.

The people around us control our lives.

Take an average member of western society. If you walk up to them and take a piss on their leg, they'll be mad or disgusted.

If you go to a man who's been raised by chimpanzees and piss on his leg, he's not going to care. Shit, he might even lick it dry.

It all boils down to how our brain has been conditioned to react to certain events. That's why people care about things that aren't necessary to survival. That's why we care what we look like or what superficial materialistic things we own.

When you look at the leg pissing situation, and substract the chemical changes the human brain undergoes when reacting to the piss, you'll see that getting pissed on doesn't matter at all. Nothing is, in itself, good or bad. There is no pleasure or pain. It's just neurochemistry.

Do moar drugs.

[Rizzo in a box]

Originally Posted by Chichi

Do moar drugs.

And piss on people moar.

[ArmsMerchant]

OP seems to be blurring the distinction between feelings as sensory impressions and feelings as emotions.

As long as you have a healthy physical body you will have sensort impressions, but an enlightened person is largely immune to the storm of fears and wants which accompany the untranscended ego.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

OP seems to be blurring the distinction between feelings as sensory impressions and feelings as emotions.

As long as you have a healthy physical body you will have sensort impressions, but an enlightened person is largely immune to the storm of fears and wants which accompany the untranscended ego.

That was what I was trying to say - thank you!

[Rizzo in a box]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

OP seems to be blurring the distinction between feelings as sensory impressions and feelings as emotions.

As long as you have a healthy physical body you will have sensort impressions, but an enlightened person is largely immune to the storm of fears and wants which accompany the untranscended ego.

They can't possibly be immune from them, they are merely unified with them.

[Slapshot]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

OP seems to be blurring the distinction between feelings as sensory impressions and feelings as emotions.

As long as you have a healthy physical body you will have sensort impressions, but an enlightened person is largely immune to the storm of fears and wants which accompany the untranscended ego.

I was about to point out how easy it is to control other people's emotions, but you beat me to it.

Certainly, feelings are an evolutionary tool, and evolution will always take us in the right direction. Even if that means extinction.

[Chavinist]

Originally Posted by talonner

Sociopaths lack a subconscious .

don't you mean conscience? how do they lack a subconscious mind?

[Rizzo in a box]

Originally Posted by Chavinist

don't you mean conscience? how do they lack a subconscious mind?

by being fully conscious?

[Chavinist]

Originally Posted by Rizzo in a box

by being fully conscious?

I'm just saying, everyone in this world has a subconscious mind. If you dream, even once, you have one.

[LiquidIce]

Many if not all animals dream.

[Politikill]

Originally Posted by Agent 008

Feelings are just there as an evolutionary tool, giving what we know as "Nature" control over our lives.

As long as one still has feelings - not merely just as sensory information, but as something that controls and drives our decisions - one is not free.

Otherwise you are just a highly sophisticated, intelligent biorobot, a puppet of evolutionary forces.

First of all, we are as much a part of nature as any rock or tree or animal, so nature doesn't control our lives, we are nature.

Second, how would we know freedom if we couldn't feel it?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Cloudcat

Emotions are what make life worth living. Without them, we'd just be like any other animal that eats, drinks, sleeps, shits, fucks, and dies. That would be a meaningless existence...

Many animals feel emotions.

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by Cloudcat

I know that. But animals lack ambition, imagination, and creativity!

These are the things that matter, and only human beings have taken these values to heart. And you cannot be ambitious, imaginative, or creative without emotions.

Ambition= The aspiration to attain or observe some influence or agency between yourself and that which is not yourself or "outside the body"- the world.

Imagination- The ability or appreciation of different thematic or ontological concepts in different contexts.

Creativity- It could be stated that this is an amalgamation of ambition and imagination. In short, haresting raw materials or ingredients and combining them in unison or harmony. The product may be considered art.

Ambition is a quality which belongs to the animal kingdom, not the human species. For instance, a monkey may wish to eat a bannana...however he must do some sort of work or physical effort to attain the bannana; the bannana is his ambition. Dedication and commitment is different to ambition. If the money has both ambition, dedication and commitment it is likeley that he or she will be able to harnests the ability and therefore become capable.

Imagination occurs when an individual is able to percieve the significance of an image or symbol; to realize a common denominator amongst different numerators, to percieve the relevance of an image to an unrelated circumstance or to appreciate different appearances of phenomenon in different contexts. Who is too say that an animal is uncapable of this?
To be honest though this does seem like a very human quality, that perhaps is reserved for the perceptive species such as primates, I cannot think of an instance in the animal kingdom. Perhaps one could consider the "sight" of a bat to be imaginative.

Creativity- Harnesting raw materials and combining them in unison. This generally means establishing that there is something which exists in nature in its consitutional position, often more than one phenomenon. When this position is amalgamated or contemplated it is interpreted. Is not the song of a bird creative? The pitch of a whale? Simultanous cleaning and eating?

Infact you can see that creativity is derived from the word "create" or "creation", similarly anything which is "created" is a "creature" which means a living entity with creativity.

Arguably from the eytomology (sp) alone we can say that even a protista or a monera has creativity, because they have that living agency that differentiates them from the abiotic- movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, excretion, reproduction and nutrition.

What then of the human?

The human entity posseses ambition, imagination,creativity etc; however as we have established so does the non-human animal entity. The human entity experiences these things and is able to contemplate them. If the human entity understands these subtleties then the subtle senses have been developed, engaged and investigated and the human being can realize "aha, this is ambition... but this is different, this is imagination... oh and this thing over here is creativity"; and perhaps he will also notify his neighbour!

It is not that animals lack consciousness; all animals have consciousness and infact all living entities have consciousness within their own biological capacities. That is to say the material senses and the subtle senses. However the human being has self-awareness; this is to say that the human being is aware that he or she is consciouss and that whilst the animal is conscious he is not aware of this.

In this way, only the human being is conscious of consciousness.

P.S As a theist I would like to mention that only the human is capable of complete God consciousness.

[Lman1578]

Yeah i like having feelings, otherwise i would turn into a dead soul aka "asian". Everybody knows asians dont have souls.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Cloudcat

These are the things that matter, and only human beings have taken these values to heart. And you cannot be ambitious, imaginative, or creative without emotions.

Of course you can--spiders display all of those qualities and don't feel emotions.

inb4sharp

[nshanin]

Ok, it's because they don't have emotions that they don't take these qualities to heart.And that's why spiders don't create art, technology, or civilization.

Let's get back to your original point:

Controlling ones emotions is not weak - letting ones emotions control them is.

Emotions are what make life worth living. Without them, we'd just be like any other animal that eats, drinks, sleeps, shits, fucks, and dies. That would be a meaningless existence...

Although I dunno if that's actually true about spiders having these qualities in the first place. Source? Link?

Neither, unfortunately. But it has been demonstrated that after getting their webs destroyed spiders will refuse to build in the same place unless it's prime territory. Their web designs also vary by environment and location, you should look it up yourself.