HearthBorn
Know what you're doing yet?
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Messages
- 145
- Likes received
- 126
Wait a minute. Edge? Are we jumping into other fanfiction?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is hilarious, so Clayface was impersonating Common Sense Paul and got grabbed by Korona instead.
Yes. He can wield yes amounts.
No I think the guy that kept him locked up in his collection was called Edge.
No I think the guy that kept him locked up in his collection was called Edge.
Not really...I mean, it's the nature vs. nurture debate. I have serious doubts about this research, especially since other species are capable of recognizing emotional cues in humans, and there are clear emotional responses in other species. If it were totally an emergent phenomenon of highly-social society, then you would expect the qualia and presentation of emotions to vary from species to species or even from population to population within a single species -- indeed, you would even expect there to be a different set of emotions present. But at least in the broad strokes, they appear to be consistent across time and culture. Some cultures might have different conceptualizations of those emotions (particularly with regards to where the emotions are felt to originate in the body) and certainly the nonverbal communication cues have some variability because those can certainly be learned, but when it comes down to it the underlying palette of basic emotional responses does seem pretty universal among human societies.
I just imagine that at the start of any chapter or new POV characters has sudden inexpicable urge to check time and everyone just does that if they can, not questioning it at all.
Ah, okay, thanks. Too bad, though - it would've been fun to have a brief crossover.
I have a feeling that by the time Zade, Zaul, Saul, Raul and the army of Goldies come knocking "Peter Wynne" will have already released every other Paul and Jade, staged a prison riot and killed Krona. He'll do it without a power ring and without breaking his character even once.
Clayface the Saviour of the Multiverse!
Maybe they've all been on that training course, that teaches you to always mark anything you do with a date/time? Of course, the original teaching (Tony Buzan? Edward De Bono?) was that anything should have embedded in it context info, so a document should have a meaningful title, unique within the context, and a date (time if needed, maybe time-zone). If you go for the full Who/When/Why/What/Where (and maybe 'How') then some might think you're going overboard...I just imagine that at the start of any chapter or new POV characters has sudden inexpicable urge to check time and everyone just does that if they can, not questioning it at all.
You might want to make clearer who this 'Paul' is... We're dealing with a lot of universes, ATM...Hey Zoat if Paul were to go through the mirror to Equestria would he become an Alicorn, seeing as his soul is made of the heart of a godlike being?
If not an Alicorn then what would he be?
Yes.Hey Zoat if Paragon Paul were to go through the mirror to Equestria would he become an Alicorn, seeing as his soul is made of the heart of a godlike being?
A Quetzalcoatl.
Not really...
The basic idea is that bodies have various reactions, which are useful for survival, and that there's a "human model" of those as 'emotions', which vary across societies. So, odds are you've got some basic survival reactions/'logic', at the reptile level, some mammal reactions at the (pack of) dog level, and some primate reactions which include handling complex social groups. That's the classic 'monkey riding dog riding lizard' bit, which as long as you don't push it too far is still useful - humans add things like language and fine manipulation ability on top of that, of course. So, humans will share the (pack) mammal stuff with dogs, therefore each will recognise that in the other, and humans have bred animals to be more social.
Emotions, then, are a rationalisation of these reactions, putting 'logic' into them. You can expect some similar logic over most societies, as the biology is shared, but there will be highly important variations, like the whole fear/shame/guilt social logic thing. 'Disgust' is a good example, as it seems to be based on survival logic, 'angst', not so much... This is one reason that while you may doubt things like CBT, the fact that it focuses on working to change unwanted behaviour, not on emotional or historical analysis, may explain its high success rate.
If you think this is all too 'mechanistic', I'm not suggesting that we forget culture, as that's very important to being human, and making life worthwhile. Getting a good balance between the rational and the emotional, the individual and the group, survival and having a 'good' life.
All this makes DC's emotional spectrum highly suspect - and that's not even starting in on whether 'Will' is an emotion, or something like the basic survival instinct, which underlies all the other stuff.
But, as always... What do I know? I'm here for the interesting story.
It's a snake with wings. Twilight got wings when she became an alicorn.How so? I don't get the symbolism. Is it just for the cool factor?
He turned into a serpent when he was temporarily minus one body, so that seems to check out.
It's a snake with wings. Twilight got wings when she became an alicorn.
That's Clayface. A colossal fucking spanner.
Extra apostrophe
thoughts
So at some level that just hits into a definitional issue. How much of what we call "emotion" is the fundamental physiological reaction, how much is the meaning we assign to that reaction, how much of it is survival, how much of it is cultural, how much of it is personal, et cetera? If you want to define emotion purely as the cultural meaning and if you want to claim that everything underlying that is just physiology... well, then, by that definition, of course you can draw that conclusion -- at that point it's nearly a tautology.The basic idea is that bodies have various reactions, which are useful for survival, and that there's a "human model" of those as 'emotions', which vary across societies. So, odds are you've got some basic survival reactions/'logic', at the reptile level, some mammal reactions at the (pack of) dog level, and some primate reactions which include handling complex social groups. That's the classic 'monkey riding dog riding lizard' bit, which as long as you don't push it too far is still useful - humans add things like language and fine manipulation ability on top of that, of course. So, humans will share the (pack) mammal stuff with dogs, therefore each will recognise that in the other, and humans have bred animals to be more social.
Emotions, then, are a rationalisation of these reactions, putting 'logic' into them. You can expect some similar logic over most societies, as the biology is shared, but there will be highly important variations, like the whole fear/shame/guilt social logic thing. 'Disgust' is a good example, as it seems to be based on survival logic, 'angst', not so much... This is one reason that while you may doubt things like CBT, the fact that it focuses on working to change unwanted behaviour, not on emotional or historical analysis, may explain its high success rate.
I didn't read it that literally, and indeed he did say "if you don't push it too far" which is an acknowledgement that it's a metaphor.That's not how it works. Give me some time to dig up my psychology textbook and get back to you. Anyways, for now, my rusty knowledge should suffice. The model doesn't literally mean that parts of our brain are similar to that of reptiles and mammals, it was a metaphor. We didn't evolve linearly, but in parallel. It's meant to describe the complexity of the parts of the brain and the tasks they perform.
I think you just answered your own question. The argument appears to be that attributing a certain feeling to an emotional response (as opposed to identifying it as an evolved adaptation) is a post-facto label being slapped on by conscious thought.I'm not sure why you talk about expressing emotions as rationalisations or some such, given that 99% of what goes on in our conscious brain are so called 'rationalised' thoughts. As a rule we never make our decisions consciously, rather our reasoning is justification for the decision post-fact.
I think you might also be reading too much into that last bit. I read it as "in the end, don't get too hung up on the philosophical debate, because the answer shouldn't change how you live your life."The last part of your post though really makes me suspect your understanding of the subject. That's akin to saying 'let's all of us have a healthy balance between science and philosophy' and smacks of pseudoscience. Understand that the last part really raises my hackles, you seem to have a genuine interest in the subject but speaking like that is akin to talking to a doctor about your homegrown anti-vax theories.
Thank you, corrected.
Is the philosophy useful to you? If not, it's a waste of your time - Wittgenstein commented that most philosophy is playing games with words... (Though, I think he went a bit too far.) I'd suggest you don't write off philosophy, though, as science grew out of it, and is still 'natural philosophy' in some languages. Science is a tool, a modelling technique, a hammer if you like. Danger of just having (just) one tool is that everything may look like a nail to you... Elegance can be an interesting concept...I think you might also be reading too much into that last bit. I read it as "in the end, don't get too hung up on the philosophical debate, because the answer shouldn't change how you live your life."
Stating something still doesn't make it true.
No. Even if, against all odds, you provided a convincing argument that Peter is the one with more common sense, he still wouldn't get that lable because he already has another one (Peter Wynne, in case you've forgotten) and the other guy doesn't. If we decided that Common Sense Paul won't be called Common Sense Paul any more then when talking about him, we'd need to find something else to call him like that-guy-who-used-to-be-called-common-sense-paul-but-isn't-anymore-because-vaermina-insisted which is not going to happen. Meanwhile, Peter AKA Common Sense Paul would not be called Common Sense Paul because everyone would know that everyone else would think of a different individual and thus, all it would accomplish would be removing the lable of one Paul and making your points less intelligible.