Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness

[Mole]

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness

Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place.

Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational

I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence.

From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of.

Evidence for

It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly.

Evidence against

The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier.

Argument for from first principles

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about.

I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand.

"There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147)

All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self  and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual.

Argument against from first principles

Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational.

"Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5)

also,

"An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”  (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17)

Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously.

If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ.

What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

[barn]

Hi @Mole

Have you seen my response in your '... military internship' -> '... to philosophy' thread?

Barnsley

Edited June 8, 2018 by barn
specified, thread

[RichardY]

@MoleYou ever read or listen to the book 1984? I listened to it recently on Audible. With all the political stuff going on in the background I thought I'd give it a listen. It's much better than "Brave New World" or "Heart of Darkness" which I also recently listened to. The book should be a prerequsite for psychology imho(& limited knowledge..). The later half leading upto when the protagonist Winston Smith gets captured is better than the first half. I can explain some of the reasoning, but don't want to spoil the story?

5 hours ago, Mole said:

Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no is from an ought.

With Rand I would say she would consider a man, only a man, as long as he thinks. This is different from using associative memory.

 

 

[Mole]

7 hours ago, RichardY said:

don't want to spoil the story?

I'll read it in the coming weeks. No spoils!

[Mole]

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

With Rand I would say she would consider a man, only a man, as long as he thinks. This is different from using associative memory.


I'm not sure what you are trying to explain, could you elaborate?

[RichardY]

7 hours ago, Mole said:

I'll read it in the coming weeks. No spoils!

I found "Brave New World" more disturbing in a urbane way, though I think 1984 is a much better written book, and better on the explanation and plot of things. Heart of Darkness was a bit thin, the movie Apocalyse Now based on the Heart of Darkness is better. Yeah definitely worth reading 1984 it'll give you some answers to what you're thinking about.
 

15 hours ago, RichardY said:

With Rand I would say she would consider a man, only a man, as long as he thinks. This is different from using associative memory.

5 hours ago, Mole said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to explain, could you elaborate?

The difference between Inductive(associative memory) and deductive(executive, effortful thinking, purposeful) reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves certainty, though it might be in error, where as inductive reasoning is more arbritary(not focused). "Thinking fast and slow" & "The Art of the Argument" touch on the two systems.

---------------------------

In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary.

I want to note here parenthetically that the words expressing an arbitrary claim may perhaps be judged as true or false in some other cognitive context (if and when they are no longer put forth as arbitrary), but this is irrelevant to the present issue, because it changes the epistemological situation. For instance, if a savage utters “Two plus two equals four” as a memorized lesson which he doesn’t understand or see any reason for, then in that context it is arbitrary and the savage did not utter truth or falsehood (it’s just like the parrot example). In this sort of situation, the utterance is only sounds; in a cognitive context, when the speaker does know the meaning and the reasons, the same sounds may be used to utter a true proposition. It is inexact to describe this situation by saying, “The same idea is arbitrary in one case and true in another.” The exact description would be: in the one case the verbiage does not express an idea at all, it is merely noise unconnected to reality; to the rational man, the words do express an idea: they are conceptual symbols denoting facts. - Arbritary Ayn Rand Lexicon

---------------------------

Objectivism tends to emphasis deductive reasoning, but it seems to neglect the inductive imho.

[barn]

Hi @Mole

 

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

I found "Brave New World" more disturbing in a urbane way, though I think 1984 is a much better written book, and better on the explanation and plot of things. Heart of Darkness was a bit thin, the movie Apocalyse Now based on the Heart of Darkness is better. Yeah definitely worth reading 1984 it'll give you some answers to what you're thinking about.

/Quickly bungee-ing in, to (meaningfully).../

Add to @RichardY 's list something essential imho...

G. Lucas - THX 1138 (movie)

and

Logan's Run - William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson 1967, (a book, the movie not so much)

[Mole]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

The difference between Inductive(associative memory) and deductive(executive, effortful thinking, purposeful) reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves certainty, though it might be in error, where as inductive reasoning is more arbritary(not focused). "Thinking fast and slow" & "The Art of the Argument" touch on the two systems.

---------------------------

In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary.

I want to note here parenthetically that the words expressing an arbitrary claim may perhaps be judged as true or false in some other cognitive context (if and when they are no longer put forth as arbitrary), but this is irrelevant to the present issue, because it changes the epistemological situation. For instance, if a savage utters “Two plus two equals four” as a memorized lesson which he doesn’t understand or see any reason for, then in that context it is arbitrary and the savage did not utter truth or falsehood (it’s just like the parrot example). In this sort of situation, the utterance is only sounds; in a cognitive context, when the speaker does know the meaning and the reasons, the same sounds may be used to utter a true proposition. It is inexact to describe this situation by saying, “The same idea is arbitrary in one case and true in another.” The exact description would be: in the one case the verbiage does not express an idea at all, it is merely noise unconnected to reality; to the rational man, the words do express an idea: they are conceptual symbols denoting facts. - Arbritary Ayn Rand Lexicon

---------------------------

Objectivism tends to emphasis deductive reasoning, but it seems to neglect the inductive imho.

 

The reason I said that perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is is because she seems to think that reason should be used separately from emotion, but reason alone cannot derive an ought from an is, so it will ultimately fail. You seem to be saying that Rand would say that a man is only a man if he thinks (deductively). I am not sure how your comment relates to my quote.

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, Mole said:

 

The reason I said that perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no is from an ought is because she seems to think that reason should be used separately from emotion, but reason alone cannot derive an is from an ough, so it will ultimately fail. You seem to be saying that Rand would say that a man is only a man if he thinks (deductively). I am not sure how your comment relates to my quote.

"That there  is no is from an ought". - So someone might say to me you ought to walk down the stairs. To which my reply could be, but my leg is broken, I can hobble I can't walk.

The converse is true; that often repeated David Hume quote - "You can not derive an ought from an is."

I think I know what you might be getting at, if you read 1984 it's the last thing Winston Smith considers before room 101.

------------------------------

In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.

When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man—in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being—an unfocused mind is not conscious.

Psychologically, the choice “to think or not” is the choice “to focus or not.” Existentially, the choice “to focus or not” is the choice “to be conscious or not.” Metaphysically, the choice “to be conscious or not” is the choice of life or death.

---------- Ayn Rand 

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

--------- Ayn Rand Galt Speech
 

[Mole]

3 minutes ago, RichardY said:

"That there  is no is from an ought". - So someone might say to me you ought to walk down the stairs. To which my reply could be, but my leg is broken, I can hobble I can't walk.

The converse is true; that often repeated David Hume quote - "You can not derive an ought from an is." 

1

My bad! I meant ought from an is! Rookie mistake. I'll correct that.