How do we know we know?

[i_am_i]

But what exactly is the point of all this, idiotsavant? What is it that you're trying to say? Just come out and say it and be done with it man.

[idiotsavant]

I’m simply asking Davin to support his claim:

I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires.

Why would you want to save time?  To get to work on time.  Why does that matter?  I need money to eat.  So you fear hunger?
Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...
But you’re not alone, Sophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.

Do they have mirrors where you come from?

Peace I/s

[pinkocommie]

Sophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

Hahaha.  Bailed or lost interest?  

[Davin]

I’m simply asking Davin to support his claim:

I don't have emotional needs and I don't have many emotional desires.

Why would you want to save time?  To get to work on time.  Why does that matter?  I need money to eat.  So you fear hunger?

No, I don't fear hunger. Hunger doesn't hurt me so there is nothing to fear from it. It just lets me know when to eat.

Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...

I appears that you have have stopped asking questions too soon, questions like: Do all decisions come from some kind of emotional need or desire? Ask the question again without your already reached conclusion that they do.

Conversations are much easier if we just talk abut what each person says instead of assuming something that has nothing to do with anything the other person said.

Do they have mirrors where you come from?

Why would I need one. Because you already stated that you think that all decisions must relate to some kind of emotion, I assumed that that is where you were leading, because I was very sure I decided to just skip to the end. This assumption was based on what you said and confirmed by what you just posted. I didn't assume incorrectly and if I had, I would have accepted that I was wrong.

[Sophus]

Sophus baled when I challenged his assumptions...

roflol Typos? Hahahaha... if this is the case there's a only a few "typos" that are in your favor of there being no eternal hell. What are the odds of so many mistakes being made claiming that there is an eternal lake of fire? Even if one did make a mistake the odds are not in your favor. But have you read all of the Bible? Have you noticed just how many blatant contradictions there are? What of the Koran? Are contradictions in the Koran of any significance to you in revealing it's not "the true word of God"? Why is accuracy significant? Because if the Bible is fallible how do you know what to believe? You don't. You can't pretend to know anything because you have admitted that it is open to interpretation. If you give 100 men a Bible each, they'll give you 100 different religions (or should I say sects?).

I've already answered your other question. We're going in circles. I think it's time this thread died.

[i_am_i]

Like I said, I respect your intelligence gentlemen, but I think you stop asking questions when you get to the assumption you were expecting...

That statement right there makes you come across as being snide and insinuating. Why do you have a problem with the idea that everybody has different motivations, emotion-based or not, for making the decisions they do?

You are you. And that's just great! But stop telling everyone that they're you too.

[idiotsavant]

I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question?   I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection.   I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

Peace I/s

[JillSwift]

I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question?   I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection.   I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

Peace I/s

Typical closed-minded claptrap.

You think you've got the answers, and the first moment you come across contrary evidence your first reaction is to say "You're hiding from the truuuuuth!"

Why won't you question your assumptions?

[Davin]

I'm glad you don't fear hunger, Davin.  Why do you fear my question? I've been working on this theory for some time now, and you are the first to offer so much resistance to introspection. I want you to prove me wrong, but your claim is unsubstantiated.  Why do you hesitate to question your own assumptions?

How is my claim any more unsubstantiated than yours? I've never quit questioning my own assumptions, why are you so deadlocked in yours?

“Why would you want to save time?”  If you can’t answer this simple question, then Sophus is right, this thread is dead.

I'm pretty sure you're going to keep going on with these stupid questions until you somehow link it to some kind of emotional need or desire. I'm going to tell you right now, with me answering those questions, we will never reach an emotion. So let's not play the boring game and skip to the end:

It's a preference. Why do some people like cream cheese and others not like it? Is it emotional?

[Davin]

We have meandered in this conversation, and perhaps the question, “How do we know what we know?” has morphed to “What is our fountainhead?  Are we who / what we think we are?”.  Similar questions, but not spot on.  I’m ok with the morph, are you?  Should we start another string?

Davin, I interpret your comments to say your fount is logic, not emotion.  I’ve asked you give us an example.

e·mo·tion  n.
1.   an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and  states of consciousness.
2.   any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

cog·ni·tion
1.   the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.   the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3.   knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

vo·li·tion (v$ lishÆÃn, vÃ-), n.
1.   the act of willing, choosing, or resolving; exercise of willing: She left of her own volition.
2.   a choice or decision made by the will.
3.   the power of willing; will.
[1605â€"15; < ML voliti$n- (s. of voliti$), equiv. to vol- (var. s. of velle to want, wish; see WILL1) + -iti$n- -ITION]

And you Sophus have claimed your logic is pure, you don’t assume.  I think you do, and asked you prove me wrong.

I respect your intellect gentlemen.  You have questioned and challenged religious thought and seen through the smoke.  But I think you stopped asking questions too soon.  You know what makes religion tick.  What makes you tick?

Peace -I/s

I went back to this post to see what definition you were using for emotions and this time I noticed some very buggered things:

This definition that you gave.

e·mo·tion n.
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
[1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmov"re, for L "mov"re; see E-, MOVE, MOTION]

Your definition is very similar to this one:

Emotion (Dictionary.com)

e·mo·tion
   /??mo???n/ Show Spelled[ih-moh-shuhn] Show IPA
â€"noun
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.

Origin:
1570â€"80; appar. < MF esmotion, derived on the model of movoir: motion, from esmovoir to set in motion, move the feelings < VL *exmove-re, for L e-move-re; see e-, move, motion

For some reason the wording is exactly the same except for "volitional states of consciousness" is missing the word "volitional" on yours.

I'm just wondering where you got you're definition of emotion from, can you provide a link?

Similar thing with your definition of cognition:

cog·ni·tion
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional
3. knowledge.
[1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cogniti$n- (s. of cogniti$), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogn$scere (co- CO- + gni-, var. s. of gn$scere, n$scere, to learn (see KNOW1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -i$n- -ION]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

cog·ni·tion
   /k?g?n???n/ Show Spelled[kog-nish-uhn] Show IPA
â€"noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3. knowledge.
Use cognition in a Sentence
See images of cognition
Search cognition on the Web
Origin:
1375â€"1425; late ME cognicioun < L cognitio-n- (s. of cognitio-), equiv. to cognit(us), ptp. of cogno-scere (co- co- + gni-, var. s. of gno-scere, no-scere, to learn (see know1) + -tus ptp. suffix) + -io-n- -ion

The difference is that the word "volitional" appears after a "etc." on your definition and I don't think a dictionary site would make that kind of mistake. If you could just link to where you got those definitions because if I do a search for "the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional" it only brings up your post here, same thing if I do a search for "an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness." I know I asked for what definition of emotion that you were using, but you posted something that looked like you just copied and pasted it from a dictionary reference, but didn't link to the source, didn't explain which parts you changed and didn't even mention that you modified them to show how you defined emotion.

Despite this: you define emotion as, "an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and states of consciousness." You defined cognition as "the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.volitional", so emotions are a state of consciousness separate from making decisions. Not only in your definitions but the definitions everyone else uses. Why are we still talking about this? By your definitions you agree that emotions are distinguished from the decision making process.

[idiotsavant]

For some reason the wording is exactly the same except for "volitional states of consciousness" is missing the word "volitional" on yours.

I must have botched my cuts and pastes with the definitions.  I use my computer based Webster’s and it agrees with your online definitions...   All I meant to do was lop off the last three uses, as I didn’t think they fit.  Sorry for the confusion.

 

Why are we still talking about this?  By your definitions you agree that emotions are distinguished from the decision making process.

"Distinguished from” is not synonymous with “separate from”.

I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?  

Peace I/s

[Davin]

Distinguished from” is not synonymous with “separate from”.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distinguish
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/distinguish
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distinguish
http://www.yourdictionary.com/distinguish
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

What is your definition of distinguish?

I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?

I don't like the taste.

[i_am_i]

I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.

For some people, sure. For others not at all.

[idiotsavant]

What is your definition of distinguish?

I like these two:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distinguish 1. To perceive as being different or distinct. - (But not necessarily separate. ~ I/s)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish  2. to be a distinctive feature of; characterize.  (Emotion is a distinctive feature of our being, as is reason. ~ I/s)

I’m still talking about this because I think decisions (volition) and emotion are more closely related then we realize.  For instance - I enJOY cream cheese, how about you?

I don't like the taste.[/quote]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Like
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/like
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like
http://www.yourdictionary.com/like
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/like

What is your definition of “like”?

Peace I/s

[Davin]

How do you distinguish between things without being able to separate them? To distinguish you must be able to define things as distinct and different. A better approach for you to take instead of trying to destroy the meaning of a word is to say that emotion is separate but still affects the decision making process. That would have kept the meaning of the word while still allowing you to defend your point of view. Besides, this current argument isn't about whether emotions and volition are separate, it's whether every single decision made is for the purpose of fulfilling an emotional need or desire.

I don't think that your argument relies on them not being separate, I was just confused as to why you wouldn't consider them separate when the definition you gave clearly defined them as different. I can see that people can make choices for emotional needs or desires, I just don't see how every decision is for an emotional need or desire, especially since I do not have any emotional needs and very few emotional desires.

I define "like" in this context as a preference. I just don't like the taste of cream cheese, for no emotional reason. It tastes bad to me so I choose not to eat it. However I do keep trying things with cream cheese when people tell me something tastes really good, however I've tried very little with cream cheese that doesn't taste bad.

I don't do very much for sake of my emotions, I do do most things for the sake of preferences. I know based on your argument that your preferences are based around emotions, most of mine are not. There are many things that people just don't like merely because they don't like them. People like them just because they do. There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I think your going to have to stretch your meaning of emotion so thin that it doesn't even mean very much anymore in order to define choices made to seek or avoid things based on taste as emotional decisions. If your meaning of emotion is different than the definition that you offered, then give me that definition, because as far as I can see, it doesn't cover preferences as it is. It's also going to have to cover why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa. Also why people choose to cross their legs or use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard. Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.