What are emotions? How do they work?

[kyle22]

What are emotions? I have been thinking about this and I have no idea what they are. I know what it is like to feel emotions and to have them. I guess I know what the word emotion means, but I still do not know exactly what they are or how they work? Where do emotions come from? What makes us feel them? Are emotions just mechanical reactions in the brain that were created by evolution?

[pjkeeley]

Are emotions just mechanical reactions in the brain that were created by evolution?

Not mechanical, chemical. But yes, that's what they are.

I'd like to point however that there is no need to qualify that description with the word 'just', as if it were some mere trifle. Without emotion human beings would not properly function. It underpins everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

For monists like myself, I do believe that consciousness and thus emotion is a quality of the physical makeup of the brain which is made of complex arrangements of particles and chemicals, much like a natural super computer.

Emotions obviously evolved as a motivator for human action. They are more or less instinctive reactions which put as in different states of mind to deal with different situations.

I think what is most philosophically interesting about emotions is how we experience them, which is also incredibly hard to explain. The feeling of them seems so abstract and metaphysical, and also so potent and overwhelming.

But we need emotions or else we would not exercise willpower. And perhaps the power of the feeling of emotions is more of an illusion created by our attempt to conceive of them. That we think of being in pain as being so horrible is why maybe it seems to have this especial power to it which makes it seem so "out of this world" and not just a mechanical and chemical aspect of a natural machine.

This is very interesting. I look forward to reading what others have to say about it.

[Dewey]

Emotions are bodily disturbances. Unlike simple feelings such as pain and pleasure, emotions are complex and widespread. Changes occur in heart beat, breathing, blood pressure and distribution, and body secretions.

The emotions of animals are instinctive. Those of man with a few exceptions, are developed and, luckily, are susceptible to change. I say luckily because, as indicated by Scott, they can be controlled -- modified, really -- through willpower.

The only reason I remembered the above facts is that my source, Mortimer Adler, also mentioned a surprising theory put forth by William James. The emotional experience, he said, is only the feeling of the bodily changes that follow the perception of the exciting event. In other words, we do not run away because we are afraid of the bear; to the contrary, we feel afraid because we are trembling and running away.

This reminds one of FDR's: "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."?

[peewoddin]

There is so much interesting work in this area at the moment and I think some of the best can be found in the work of Antonio Damasio - particularly in Looking for Spinoza and Descartes' Error. You can find these pretty easily. Also - Joseph LeDoux's The Emotional Brain is really interesting. There are no simple answers to 'what is an emotion' but there is a lot of recent research that points to the ways in which emotion is a strong indicator of how the mind is embodied.

[mike]

'Emotions' is a word used by a callous society

[DregsofDilly]

Reminded of that old quip: the difference between fear and excitement is the name you give it.

People were more likely to call a researcher (also an attractive member of the opposite sex) if approached during a risky experience (namely, crossing a narrow bridge over a ravine) than they were if approached afterward.
Presumably this is because they misinterpreted or misremembered their fear as attraction.

Subjectively, the emotions of fear and *ahem* arousal are quite different. Physiologically? Not so different, it seems.

In the physiological sense, emotions are prior to thought. They are instinctual responses to circumstance, the body's way of preparing itself for possible danger or whatnot.

The interesting thing is, we (humans?) can be wrong about the cause of our feelings. We end up flirting instead of getting off that bridge ASAP. Our we invent reasons to be angry at an imagined slight in an imaginary argument, when nothing really happened... and *tada* we're mad.

Most of your questions were answered in previous posts.
Except: Where does emotion come from?

I haven't a clue.

[jehocifer]

I believe that studies indicate the amygdala to be the house of emotions in the brain. But that wasn't the immediate question. I think that it would be safe to say that some emotional responces are instinctual; they are programmed in us to prime for survival. However, other emotions are trickier. In many cases, the action of sacrifice can show this. In an extreme example, if a parent of a child who could was disabled in some way and would never be able to produce offspring (thus carry on the parent's genetic line) was stuck in a situation that could mean life or death, the parent would quite likely save the child at the price of their own life. Of course, it is not a certainty that they would do this. And you also could consider their sacrifice to merely be a weighted decision brought about by the pressures of a "moral" society...but let's just stick with one topic at a time. From an evolutionary standpoint, this sacrifice is of no benefit. From that view, it seems unlikely that this would be an instinctual emotion. The same is true in other species, such as dogs. Take a home with two dogs, for example. At the death of the other household dog (neither of which with the ability to reproduce, and neither of which relying on the other for survival), the other dog may (and has been known) to act as if in mourning for the lost companion.
The real question is, is there a ghost in the shell? I don't care either way, but I would at least say that emotions are not as easy as mere chemical processes and brain stimulations. They also cannot be fully explained by genetic cues.

[anarchyisbliss]

If you really want to learn about emotions you should rent/buy/illegally download a movie called "What the Bleep Do We Know".

[Celebration2000]

I do agree to the statement that emotions are chemical reactions within our bodies, but another question arises : How do certain things we hear/see (not touch, because it is interacting directly with the bodies systems) affect the reactions? How does one sight make the chemicals in our bodies make us happy, and the other sight makes us furious, sad, hopeless? Such as what i'm saying, if you were in chemistry, well at least from what i understand, the sounds/sights around a chemical reaction in progress does only affects the outcome very minimally, if anything. The answer to that is chemicals don't have ears or eyes. (yeah, i answer my own questions and i debate with myself). However, all sounds are just vibrating air waves and sights are just light reflecting off objects. But how do different sounds, alter the chemical activity in our bodies. Intensity is ruled out, because someone can shout "I love you", and they can shout "I'm gonna kill you". I'm trying to make this question as clear as possible. the question is again, if you got lost : How do certain things we hear/see affect the chemical activity within us?

[pjkeeley]

How do certain things we hear/see affect the chemical activity within us?

The chemical activity is a response regulated by the brain and triggered by certain stimuli. So for example if you see something that you associate with happiness (a visual stimulus), your optic nerves send this to your brain and the brain will automatically release seratonin, which causes the feeling of happiness. Why certain stimuli cause certain responses in the brain is a more complicated question. It has to do with our individual psychological make-up (some of us are scared of certain things because of certain past experiences, for example), and also to do with genetics (happiness after sex is an evolved reaction to benefit reproduction).

Hope that answers your question.

[Sanctuary]

When we consider 'what are emotions', we must not forget in our reasoning we, the human species is in flux. It is reasonable to posit a qualification of our emotions. In the first instance i simply proffer in to the debate that there appear's to be a heirarchy of emotions in terms of their complexity, and whether we as subjects control them, observe them in us, or remain unaware or their fundamental workings within us.

Clearly, as we progress as a species; the quailty and quantity of emotions ( and our interst in them as phenomenom)have changed. What i feel is a narcissim in the present musings is the debate seeks to contextualise emotions as something that exists confined within the limits of our physiology, While this might be true, it is of little consequence in examining emotioms. In the same way evey human being has a body, there are many people in the world who's presence have influenced me, without my ever knowing the body that contains the subject/object of their person. Emotions are simillar in my view. Whatever they are, they are surely a sum part of their internal and external effect. We are mediators, we steward our internal world and our external world, a thorough examination of phenomenom such as emotion most undertake an integrity of inner and outer life. To do this we need as much subjective input from all who experience 'emotions', since we the examiner cannot see beyond our location as beings, we can only hope the experiential account of others will offer us grounds to measure difference and thus grasp if possible, an objective but subject centred view of emotions. Like consciouness, we extend ourselves beyond the limits of the contents of our space suits in a vaccum, we use the experience of this exptention to avouid alienation; our chief route of communication if to obseve the effect of our emotions in others, thus disabling the nihilism of not seeing past our own object body and terminal isolation. Emotions are in flux: qualitatlively, quantatatively, linearly and progressively.

[Edward J. Bartek]

Emotions are the antithesis of reason. Reason is a synthesis of spiritual and sensual values. Like rational philosophy is a synthesis of spiritual theology and sensual science. To focus on the spiritual is to submerge the rational and sensual. To focus on the sensual is to submerge the traional and spiritual. To deny the spiritual-rational-sensual is to deny all values. It is to be emotive. To be emotive is to rely on feelings: emotion, instinct, impulse, compulsion, fate, God, etc.