where is Lord going with this? following the dead paths of behaviorism?

although, i think it's safe to say that yes, an emotional state can be considered a stimuli...at the same instance, what was the stimuli that caused said emotional state...and blah, blah, blah, blah...

sorry by the way. I was off suject,

define behaviorism for me. If you are talking about designating probable out comes based on expected behavior responses and making decsions based upon that probablity behaviorism is far from dead.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/behavior.htm

This website needs to learn how to speak philosophically a tad bit better in my opinion, but it's interesting.

Behaviorism, I was suspecting, was basically in reference to B.F. Skinner's psychological hee-bee-gee-bee.

But what you said: designating PROBABLE outcomes based on EXPECTED behavior...well now, that's another side of a coin...after all, "probable outcomes" don't always fit nicely into the realm of "cause and effect"

Anyway, in an attempt to avoid "Behaviorism," I would say that yes, an emotional state can be considered a stimuli which was in itself provoked...To use that example from earlier: If I steal your girlfriend, then it's probable (and likely) that your emotional state will be on a wave of "negativity" [for lack of better word] which could (not necessarily will, but could) result in an act or some other motion that may have been a probable outcome in the long run...such as, in the dissection of the matter, the details, your relationship with your girlfriend and your feelings for her, then your act could in some way have been guessed.

as a factor in the decsion making process I can except as a stimuli ill have to disagree

example: I am hungry (stimuli) I eat (reaction). what i choose to eat is based upon how I percieve or feel about that food.

Exactly. Now how is that any different from what I've said:

"If I steal your girlfriend, then it's probable (and likely) that your emotional state will be on a wave of "negativity" [for lack of better word] which could (not necessarily will, but could) result in an act or some other motion that may have been a probable outcome in the long run...such as, in the dissection of the matter, the details, your relationship with your girlfriend and your feelings for her, then your act could in some way have been guessed."

the use of the word stimuli which suggests that the emotion is coming from an outside source ergo behaviorism (atleast how i understand it from the link you posted) emotions are not external atleast in my opinion

thats a good point.

Not really.

I think I understand now what you're attempting to say. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're stating that the "emotional context" isn't so much a reaction as it is the person himself...FOR EXAMPLE: I steal your girlfriend (stimuli) you have an emotional response to that (reaction); the feeling of hatred or sadness or relief is but your character attribute.

I will grant you that, but you're still not outside realm of this argument. Philosophy, unlike science, doesn't necessarily deal with absolutes nor probabilities. They deal with logical justifications based on the premises. The premises in this case go deeper than 1. stimuli; 2. reaction. They deal with the details of 1-A. What is the stimuli; 1-B Why did the stimuli happen (what was the PRE-reaction); and any other details that might help explain and understand the object of the stimuli. As it is, afterall, a big part of philosophy...subject/object relation. And the same goes for premise 2. All in all to obtain the conclusion that this stimuli caused this reaction which thereby sustains "whatever argument."

What I should say is that I just went thru an entire unit in my pshchology class about this stuff. And one thing I was observing durring my studies was that there can be more than one interpretation of any situation, it mearly depends on the part or parts of the subject you decide to analize. What I am saying is that both of you may be equaly correct, but you two may dissagree with eachother as a result of the way you both think differently.

Well, although that may be true, you must take into account that this is philosophy, and although philosophy and science are sisters, they differ. Philosophy takes into account logical justifications provided they are valid and sound according to the premises. However, Behavorism here isn't so much just the psychological babble...although it is one of the reasons behavorism exists as a philosophical concept.

There have been arguments for centuries concerning "inner knowledge" (for lack of a better phrase...which IS NOT instinct). The idea of the subjectivity of the mind, of the self, of some sort of predesigned filing system for empiricism, is something many philosophers and psychologists want to fully understand. Behaviorism was indeed an interesting step in understanding that fuller. Although behaviorism is more or less a forgotten movement these days.

Anyway...emotions may not be external, but that does not mean the external does not coincide with emotions. The real problem here is that there really hasn't been an emotional-philosophy to come about just yet. And although it's a topic I'm extremely interested in, I myself don't know what possibilities this philosophy leads to. As far as I've encountered thus far, is that emotions might in fact be the bridge between mind and body...that is, of course, if you're a dualist of sorts.

I don't know how to quote your post properly, but I see where you are coming from in responce to my last post, and I can agree with you. Also Between "As far as I've....mind and body" This is a great point you bring up, when I try to think of an alternitive to this, It just wont make as much sence as your notion of the connection between mind and body.

Another question. What part do you think the spirit has to play in these matters, if any?

Well, the alternative would be that emotions are simply the results of mental states, or perhaps they are part of the physiology of one's brain (depends on your take on the mind/body question).

As for the "spirit." Being a metaphysicist (of sorts), the spirit is just another word that explains the "metaphysical" reality of our existence. In the long run, spirit/mind/soul/essence/unicorns/God/mermaids/dragons all are what are known as "metaphysical." Things that exist, but not physically. Now, one can argue whether or not a "spirit" exists or a "soul"...which is why, in the long run, most philosophers just stick with "essence." That is, that which explains the "self" more so than the physical aspects. For example, buy a box of pens and take one out. With that pen in your hand, you know that it's just a pen, and it's like every other pen in that box, and it's essentially like every pen ever created, and yet, that pen in your hand isn't any of those pens in that box. What is the essence of that pen? What makes that pen different than any other pen in that box or created for that matter? And then, to get really indepth, what makes a pen a pen?

All of these are aspects of the "essence" or "spirit." So essentially, to answer your question, what does the "spirit" have to do with emotions, or rather with a person? Religiously, a lot. Philosophically, not so much. There are some philosophical concepts (such as eastern philosophy or classic philosophy or theology) that may say it has an effect, but most philosophical concepts would basically argue that the "spirit" is essentially the result of everything that comprises you.

I need more caffine to understand half of what was just said. but untill morning I want to ask it you have seen a series called Ghost in The Shell,
I can compare some of what your saying to the concepts in this series. I've watched most of the episodes and still I have yet to grasp some of its philosophy.

how can you say not really and then agree with me? "ill grant you that"

emotions are not reactions to a stimuli they are factors or motivators in determining or choosing a reaction to a stimuli.

this is more focused then modern philosophy it is a pysch question understanding behavior and how we can understand and predict reactions based on that behavior (behavior of course taking into account the intangable variable of emotion)

i would think philosphy would attempt to answer the question iam a capable of chossing a reaction or is it already predetermined what that reaction will be

I would say philopophy deals with absultes and probablities isnt that the goal to establish an absolute or propbable outcome based upon intangiable variables?

Philosophy follows a course of logical justifications, but always leaves itself open to being wrong. The majority of philosophical inquires tend to follow certain guidelines ragarding small-t truths, but even then there are some strong counter-arguments. Big-T Truth, which is everyone's goal, is a much cloudier area.

As for "not really"...

I don't think you're applying enough abstract thought into this. I agree with you that "yes, emotions are motivators in determing a reaction to a stimuli..." but you're missing the point. The point is that you have feelings/emotions regarding the stimuli at hand. Every empirical observation made has an effect, and how you "feel" about it is in itself a reaction to that empirical observation. Whether or not the emotion itself is an example of inner-based knowledge is a deeper issue altogether. For now, the premises remain: empirical observation (stimuli) leads to a feeling (reaction) which thereby causes you to react accordingly. And again, even if your emotion is predeterminate in your reaction to the stimuli, it's nonetheless brought forth by said stimuli. For example, you hate nazis (predetermined). You're having a good day and have been happy all day. You see a nazi. You now feel a sense of hate, which was brought forth by the empirical observation (seeing the nazi).

And it's not just a psych question. Modern philosophy has a lot to do with "questions concerning the mind." And in fact, seeing how philosophy has always lead the way to science (with the exception of analytical philosophy), philosophy of the mind very much so paved the way for psychology. Philosophers have generally always thought of it first. And if you didn't know, back in yesteryear they didn't even consider the term "science" like they do today. Newton's publishing of his three laws itself was titled: Natural Philosophy.

Philosophy is science. It's just not as THIS IS THE WAY IT IS! It always leaves the door open for attacks, because afterall, absolute knowledge isn't something we have acquired yet (if it's possible at all).

response and reaction are not the same you are describing emotional respones.

I exisit in an enviroment, a stimuli within that enviroment effects me, my emotional response is to feel anger, this anger has no impact on the enivroment until it is manafested within the enviroment, once it is manafested then a reactin has occurred.

all of the stuff about philiosophy i understand and agree with science pysch are specilized discplines

So . . . why did the chicken cross the road? That's the real question here.

sigh...

~the end