Even rationality vs irrational are just coarse labels on the emotional tensor across large time scales.
There are cases where the word rationality gets used in such a way but it’s not how the word gets used in this community.
I think you make a mistake when you try to reduce emotions to spikes in neurotransmitters. Interacting with emotions via Gendlin’s Focusing suggests that emotions reflect subagents that are more complex then neurotransmitters. Emotions also seem to come with motorcortex activity as they can be felt to be located in body-parts. Given plausible reports that they can be felt in amputed body-parts as well, a main chunk of the process will be in the motor cortex instead of in the actual part of the body where the emotion is felt.
The fact that you have the possibility of an emotional label to produce a fit in Gendlin’s focusing suggests that “Anger” is more then just a coarse label.
I’m myself neither deeply into machine learning nor into neuroscience. I don’t know of someone who cares about both towards which I could point you. That said, if you have ideas writing them up on LessWrong is likely welcome and might get people to give you valuable feedback.
I’ll just point out that the the coarse label is the human intuition and mistake. There is no such label. The instance of anger is a complex encoding of information relating to not “subagents” but to something more fundamental, your “action set.” The coarse resolution of anger is a language one, but biologically, anger does not exist in any form you or I are familiar with.
It seems to me hard to explain why an emotion such anger might release itself when the corresponding emotion subagent gets heard in Gendlin’s Focusing if anger is not related to subagents.
but biologically, anger does not exist in any form you or I are familiar with.
That sounds to me like you are calling something anger that is not the kind of thing most people mean when they say anger.
If you burrow a word like anger to talk about something biological and the biological thing is not matching with what people mean with the term, it suggests that you should rather use a new word for the biological thing you want to talk about.
There are cases where the word rationality gets used in such a way but it’s not how the word gets used in this community.
I think you make a mistake when you try to reduce emotions to spikes in neurotransmitters. Interacting with emotions via Gendlin’s Focusing suggests that emotions reflect subagents that are more complex then neurotransmitters. Emotions also seem to come with motorcortex activity as they can be felt to be located in body-parts. Given plausible reports that they can be felt in amputed body-parts as well, a main chunk of the process will be in the motor cortex instead of in the actual part of the body where the emotion is felt.
The fact that you have the possibility of an emotional label to produce a fit in Gendlin’s focusing suggests that “Anger” is more then just a coarse label.
I’m myself neither deeply into machine learning nor into neuroscience. I don’t know of someone who cares about both towards which I could point you. That said, if you have ideas writing them up on LessWrong is likely welcome and might get people to give you valuable feedback.
Thanks.
I’ll just point out that the the coarse label is the human intuition and mistake. There is no such label. The instance of anger is a complex encoding of information relating to not “subagents” but to something more fundamental, your “action set.” The coarse resolution of anger is a language one, but biologically, anger does not exist in any form you or I are familiar with.
It seems to me hard to explain why an emotion such anger might release itself when the corresponding emotion subagent gets heard in Gendlin’s Focusing if anger is not related to subagents.
That sounds to me like you are calling something anger that is not the kind of thing most people mean when they say anger.
If you burrow a word like anger to talk about something biological and the biological thing is not matching with what people mean with the term, it suggests that you should rather use a new word for the biological thing you want to talk about.