Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do feelings exist?

  1. Nov 12, 2011 #1
    Are feelings just biochemical-based illusions?

    Although we percieve ourselves as having emotions, and those emotional perceptions come from real chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions come from real stimuli, it is still the case that emotions don't "Exist"?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2011 #2

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    "Feelings" most definitely exist. They, like the rest of our awareness, are thought to be an emergent property of our brain. Exactly how this works is currently unknown and is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness" [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  4. Nov 12, 2011 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This doesn't meet criteria for posting in philosophy, moved to GD.
     
  5. Nov 12, 2011 #4

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Feelings exist in the same way the weather exists. The weather isn't a particle or an object, it's a phenomena that arises from particular configurations of particles and their interactions.

    In the same way, feelings arise from particular energy/matter configurations in your brain. They aren't objects but the phenomena of feeling is a property of sentient matter like you and I.
     
  6. Nov 12, 2011 #5
    While feelings will most likely keep existing, it seems equally likely that the definition of what a 'feeling' is, is going to change over the course of time, just as it has done in the past.
     
  7. Nov 12, 2011 #6

    256bits

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess by analogy, pain, smell, taste do not exist either.
     
  8. Nov 12, 2011 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Explain and cite sources please. I have no idea what you mean.
     
  9. Nov 12, 2011 #8
    Feelings are not illusions and can literally cripple and kill people without any external stimulation required whatsoever. Newborn infants tend to die from what is called "failure to thrive" if not held and loved. In general, the more intelligent the animal the wider the range of emotions it displays.

    Antonio Damasio is a neurologist who has made a career of studying people who have lost the ability to emote. They tend to have extreme difficulty making even the simplest decisions such as whether to get out of bed in the morning or tie their shoes and rely extensively on memories from their past when they still had emotions to decide what to do any situation. The lights are on, but nobody is home adding to the evidence that it is impossible to be a person without ever having emotions.
     
  10. Nov 13, 2011 #9
    On the other hand, consider the paranoid schizophrenic who killed several people because the only way he could explain the fear they induced in him was to suppose they were embodiments of the Devil. We can easily conclude that his emotion was illusory. How do we know all emotions aren't just as illusory?

    While the phenomenon of experiencing emotions is real, is there any guarantee the actual emotion felt, and its intensity, is actually objectively appropriate? If so, by what standard?

    It is a tenet of Cognitive Therapy that "feelings aren't facts". The strength and character of an emotion is not a gage of its "reality" as we would all agree in the case of the devil-plagued schizophrenic. On the other hand, no one questions the intense fear of the person running from the murderous madman. We reckon them to be in authentic danger.

    Between those extremes there are a lot of pockets of gray mud where the appropriateness, the "reality" of an emotion can be seriously debated back and forth.
     
  11. Nov 13, 2011 #10
    Perhaps I was a bit unclear. What I meant was that while it seems likely that most people will continue to think of feelings as existing in some way or another, the definition of what exactly a feeling -is- has changed considerably over the years. This should not be surprising, considering the amount of progress we've made in psychology/neurology. Thus, we may find out some more about how the brain works, but this most likely won't make people say feelings don't exist. Rather, the definition of what a feeling is will change.
     
  12. Nov 13, 2011 #11
    Name one thing that exists. I hope it's me because my next installment payment on the car is due and I don't want to waste the money if I don't need to.
     
  13. Nov 13, 2011 #12
    That doesn't mean his feelings were illusory, it simply means his feelings are wrong or misplaced. There is no reason to assume that our feelings are somehow always right anymore then there is to assume any other knowledge or awareness we might possess is always right.

    I'd suggest that "reality" and "appropriateness" are less important then whether or not our emotions serve useful purposes. For example, there are "miracle babies" that have survived up to 10 days without food and water when trapped by earthquakes. For the first several hours they may cry, but when no one comes to save them they fall asleep and conserve their energy. An adult might feel so anxious they can't sleep making their emotions counter productive for that situation.
     
  14. Nov 13, 2011 #13
    You do. For eveything else, who knows, perhaps you imagine it all up. Or I do.
     
  15. Nov 13, 2011 #14

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think it's important to breakdown the word "feelings" into perception, emotion and thought. All exist but it is more meaningful to talk about whether or not they are illusionary one by one. Perception can clearly be illusionary, much of what we see and remember is just filled in for example.
     
  16. Nov 13, 2011 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Does "a table" exist?
    Or is it mostly empty space, just like everything else?
    Or as Marvin put it:
    "But even if it matters, does it matter that it matters?"
     
  17. Nov 13, 2011 #16

    Deveno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    i find it difficult to discuss things like this. i become unsettlingly uncertain of what it is i know, and even less certain of what you (the abstract all y'all out there) know, and to what extent we can agree on what we have in common.

    i know, for example, that my senses lie to me: there is sense-data being recorded by my retina, for example, but that's not what i see (for example, the world is actually up-side down, if i understand the optics of the eye correctly). so there's neurological processing going on that isn't necessarily faithful. we experience a lot of what i call "frog-vision": we only actually focus on a small percentage of the data coming in, and pretty much fabricate the rest.

    and then there's the problem, of what a "thought" is. i'm not talking about a series of voltage-gated transmissions along the neural network, i'm talking about the information encoded by the transmissions. where does my own internal dialogue come from? and why is language so effective, when most of what we know about it, is entirely in undefined terms?

    i dimly recall first learning to talk. it was as if a box opened, and all this stuff started unpacking itself. there was an intent to communicate, with a full knowledge of what that meant, far before i had the means to do so.

    of course, i do not know if the "redness of "red" is quite so red for others, as it is for me. in fact, short of some kind of brain-transplantation, i don't think anyone can. and yet, even in our total ignorance of the actual subjective state of other beings, we still mange to interact, in ways that make it appear as if we understand each other, it's a bit mystifying to me.

    of course, the chemical basis of a great many feelings is well-known. certain kinds of organo-phosphate poisonings have been known to trigger irrational rage, and the mood regulating effects of certain neurotransmitters is exploited in a dizzying array of anti-depressant medications. but, yeah, the chemistry doesn't do justice to the glory of love, or the harshness of abject terror, never mind the subtle shadings of "micro-feelings", like the ambivalence i feel about what i'm writing, even as i write it.

    what i'm certain of is this: there's something going on besides what we can capture in data. something fluid, subtle, almost impossible to put into words. it's like the black layer they use in 4-color printing, to increase definition: it's not actually a color, and it ought not to make a picture look more "realistic" (RGB values, or magenta/yellow/cyan should take care of that), but it does.

    yeah, consciousness is a problem. i seem to have some, but then...well, my brain has lied to me before.
     
  18. Nov 13, 2011 #17
    Something has to be defined. It's like everyone's talking about a different inertial frame in a discussion of Relativity.

    I like the way it's parsed in Cognitive Therapy. Perception leads to thought which leads to emotion. Any emotion a person feels is actually a reaction to a thought, and the thought may or may not be appropriate to the perception that triggered it. The perception, itself, might be inaccurate, as you said, but what's more likely to get someone in trouble is a distorted thought i.e. "those people are possessed by the devil". If you actually believe a thought like that intense fear and the urge to kill them is actually an appropriate emotional response. What's distorted and inappropriate is the thought. (In the case of a paranoid that thought might be triggered by an hallucinated perception - a disembodied voice telling him the people are possessed.)

    Take something less extreme: a person gets a C on a test. If he reacts to that by thinking "I'm an academic failure," the emotions that thought triggers will be very negative. If he reacts by thinking "I'm going to study harder and do better next time," his emotions won't be so bad. If his thought is "Wow! I thought I was going to fail altogether," his emotions will be upbeat. The perception is the same in each case. What's different is the thoughts that follow.

    So, it's not the perception that generally matters, but the train of thought the perception engenders, that triggers the emotion. Cognitive Therapy aims itself at the thought and asks "Is this thought realistic?" To the extent it isn't ("I'm an academic failure!") the emotion that follows is an unnecessary illusion. Hence "Feelings aren't facts."

    That doesn't mean the experience of that emotion isn't an authentic physiological phenomenon. In that sense, as an experience, they're quite real.
     
  19. Nov 13, 2011 #18

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Very good points :smile: I don't have much to add to it except to also point out that some emotive responses are inappropriate due to biological conditions like those seen in hormone imbalances.
     
  20. Nov 13, 2011 #19

    I like Serena

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Agreed! I haven't seen "feelings" defined so rigorously before! :approve:
     
  21. Nov 13, 2011 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Feelings. This should end any doubt.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drmQe-Y64O4
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  22. Nov 13, 2011 #21
    Posting about feelings on a physics forum? Reminds me that famous quote by Einstein:

    Gravity cannot be blamed for people falling in love.
     
  23. Nov 13, 2011 #22

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't believe that "any" emotion a person feels is always a reaction to a thought (unless maybe you were to define all unconscious processes in the brain as 'thought'). As far as I can tell, emotion and thought run in parallel and there's no actual clear cause-effect chain.

    Sometimes a thought can trigger more intense emotions, but in my not-so-humble opinion, the emotions weren't ever absent.
     
  24. Nov 13, 2011 #23

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This is true to some extent, sometimes the emotion comes before any thought seems to be there e.g. fear at thinking something in the dark. But then thoughts themselves can cause/affect emotions e.g. relief and calm from working out that that thing in the dark is your coat.
     
  25. Nov 13, 2011 #24

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Its often said that solids are an illusion born of our inability to see the space between each molecule that makes up the "solid", on a microscopic level. Yet, the illusion that we have built that represents a solid, is our way of avoiding being hurt or killed by slamming into the solid (which, by our perception, represents a collection of molecules and spaces between them) because, through experience, we have learned that a solid can hurt or kill us.

    Similarly, feelings and how we perceive the collection of hormones and electrical activity they are, are warnings and stimulus that help us survive as humans amongst humans. So, a feeling may appear as an inescapable waft of insight and comprehension etc.... but, that is an illusion and the truth is that feelings are a wash of hormones and electrical activity in our body that is helping us survive in some way.
     
  26. Nov 13, 2011 #25
    It doesn't matter. The point is that any time you focus on the thought, an emotion can be seen to follow from the thought, and the thought (and style of thinking it represents) is what can be changed from distorted to realistic.

    I would be surprised, given your interest in matters psychological, if you hadn't run into Cognitive Therapy and its list of the ten common forms of distorted thinking.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...