Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 4:51:28
In reply to Re: opinion survey » Estella, posted by Damos on May 18, 2006, at 4:01:29
> 1) Definitely, absolutely for animals (puppy said so) and I also believe so for infants
yeah. i wonder if anyone (aside from philosophers in the grip of a theory) think that animals and infants don't have emotions...
> 2) This is really interesting and I don't believe that one is more important than the others 'in all cases'.okay.
> Guess I believe that different trigger events...
yeah. i haven't talked about commonalities / differences in the events / states of affairs / objects that trigger emotions. one thought is that... there is some commonality (people seem to be predisposed to develop fear resposnes to snakes, spiders, and heights for example. but then you also want to allow for cultural and individual variation... one way to go is to abstractly characterise the property that all objects of fear (should) have in common. as one fairly rough account... fear is an appropriate response to the property of being a threat.)
> all 3 are in the sequence of things you experience as the 'emotion' and that your ability to perceive the actual sequence of internal events and processes maybe almost non existent but nonetheless there.
so you think that cognitive judgement, bodily change, and phenomenology are none of them by themselves sufficient for emotion... but that joined together all of them are necessary and sufficient (in the sense that when all three occur then those three things constitute an emotion)?
i will try and tease them apart...
> 3) Yes I definitely believe this is possible.
okay....
thanks...
poster:Estella
thread:645293
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060513/msgs/645404.html