Which comes first - thinking/mind/rationale or feeling/emotions/experience?

[jhon]

Who dictates what?

[thalberg]

I think they influence each other.  I think neither is officially "in charge."  That's what makes decisions hard.  The logical choice sometimes hurts; the "heart choice" sometimes isn't practical.  Who wins--the mind or heart?  Well, they just kind of argue so we're tormented.

[prometheus]

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase.

[c18cont]

Maybe it's associated with left brain/right brain issues...

John

[prometheus]

That doesn't exist.

If this is what he is getting at the division he makes is not founded in the physique properties of the brain.

The brain exists out of three parts. The 'reptile' brain, the 'mammal' brain and the neocortex.

The reptile brain is where emotions like fear come from. But also impulses like hunger, thirst, sex drive. So impulses and instincts come from this part of the brain.

The mammal brain focusses on social aspects. Love, friendship, attachment, etc.

The neocortex has the things that make humans special. Language, math, awareness of your own conciousness, awareness of time, sense of future and history, planning, reason.

I think it is still highly debated where things like humans refined emotions and ethics come from but they problably come from the mammal brain and not from the neocortex. Arent the basic emotions from the mammal brain modified by the neocortex? Or are the mammal emotions just what they are and does the neocortex try to justify them to prefevent contradiction or conflict?


So some rationale and some emotions come from the reptile brain, some from the mammal brain and some from the neocortex.

Plus, even this is bordering pseudoscience.

[pianonut]

if you are taught basic morality when you are young (not to steal, cheat, lie) it will impact your feelings as well as your rational mind and you will feel compassion for people and animals.  if young children are regularly beaten or abused and neglected, i would imagine they would not have the connection between feelings/rationale and separate the two.

just because you feel something, doesn't mean it's wrong.  but, it doesn't mean it's right, either.  that's where you have to use your instinct and your reason.  after all, the apple looked pretty good to eve.  and, with enough reasoning, she ate it.  (that goes to show that if you think about something too much, it's guaranteed you'll get the wrong answer)  like on those SAT tests for highschoolers.  you can't go back and change the answers when you are tired, or you'll re- reason the wrong answer.

i think the show 'who wants to be a millionaire' has some good ideas.  poll the audience.  ask a friend.  or, pray!  unless, you are relatively certain you can pay the price, or don't care about the outcome of something.  something valuable is harder to achieve or get.  so, you think more about things and decide to go for whatever is the hardest in your mind.   

[jhon]

This question of mine is actually philosophical.  Way back in college, I remember we were discussing in a philosophy class two schools of though - rationalism and experientialism.  To put it simply, the former claims a person have in himself an INNATE knowledge whihch is developed by way of thinking, reasoning, and rationalizing things.  The latter disagrees and tells that without experience (through senses/emotions), there can be NO knowledge of something.  Thus, the issue is where do we really LEARN from - from knowledge or experience? 

In my analysis, when it comes to sensory things such as accidentally pricking your fingers with needle while sewing, experience comes first before you would think that you have indeed accidentally pricked yourself. 

But for emotional matters such as your mood, temper, and feelings, I think it's more influenced by our personal mental outlook or vision in life in general.  Yes, bad tempers can be caused by physical reasons (such as sickness) but you see, let's face it - we almost don't notice it but sometimes, we're simply CREATING, through our mind, our emotions or the emotions that we want us to feel or we want to project to others!  This is where fields like Psychiatry deals with where it aims to change and alter negative expeirences (emotions/feelings) through rationalizing (thinking/reasoning).  (This is why there are quotes such as "Fear is all in your mind" and fear is a kind of mood/emotion.)   

You see, so far, I somewhat concluded that a person's mind/thinking/reasoning/understanding can change emotions/feelings/moods/experience - not in reality, but at least in the level of the mind - VIRTUAL.  If you want the realistic level, simply do the other way around which is common - when experiences turn from bad to good, of course, the natural mental response is positive. 
   
But the only thing which seems, for me, that the mind CANNOT (or very seldom) change/dicatate/alter is the experience of LOVE.  But this is still debatable - how are we attracted to somebody we love - through thinking or feeling?   

[pianonut]

i think through maturity.  for every thing there is a season.  we once thought as children.  i believe it's kind of good for the soul to just let things go once in a while and have a good time (within reason), but we know that whatever we choose to do has consequences.  if you accept that, you are maturing.  some consequences are good, and others not.  some risks are taken because a person goes on impulse.  but impulse decisions are rarely long lasting. 

to have any decision have long lasting, fruitful, and rewarding results...i believe you have to make your decision process less 'feeling' oriented and more 'realistic.'  noone on this earth is perfect, so sooner or later you will find something with almost everyone that you don't like.  that's love - to be able to deal with reality.  to love someone for who they are.  and, to forgive.  the deepest love that we want, i feel, comes from God.  it nourishes us (to make us feel loved first) and be able to love others.  God is love.

[prometheus]

This question of mine is actually philosophical.  Way back in college, I remember we were discussing in a philosophy class two schools of though - rationalism and experientialism.

I wonder how long ago you went to Collage because this topic has been outside the field of philosophy and in the field of psychology for a long time because we can do experiments and find out which one is true.

But the two different views are called behaviorism and cognitive psychology. The first was popular in the 1920-1950's. Part of this movement, which was actually already part of psychology. Part of this movement was the idea that humans were born as clean sheets. It claims that all behavior is a result of the environment. So no free will and 'the mind' isn't considered at all.

Because in the 1950's people began to do more scientific research another field called 'cognitive psychology' was created. Let me first say this is not real science because it is soft. But experiements 'proved' that humans already know human language in general. They just need to learn the variation used. So all humans are born with this 'universal grammar' and we need to learn very little to learn a language.


Without experience you can know nothing about anything outside your own intellect. We already know that humans aren't born 'empty' but some obvious things are learned through experience. Little children do not realise that the water you throw into a glass/pitcher stays the same independent of the shape of the glass. When they are asked how much water is in the glass they look at the shape and make an estimate. They do not remember how much water they poured in the glass and reason that the water in the glass must be equal to the water that was poured into the glass.

Since we are on a music forum, people that have never heard music before do have a preference for some kinds of music. This preference obviously has no basis in experience since this person will have heard little or no music and cannot even speak a language. People like this are rare. An example is a person raised by wolfs or dogs.

I don't see why I should link emotions with experience.

[ted]

For me everything is too tangled to bother with analysis of this sort. Even in the relatively small domain of music things become complicated. When I create music I just let it out without being aware of any logic but afterwards, when I listen, I hear a labyrinth of pattern, form and self-reference.