Comments for emotionistic http://emotionistic.com the quest for happiness in a physical world Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:21:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on About Emotionistic by Jason http://emotionistic.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-8951 Jason Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:21:06 +0000 http://emotionalcow.com/?page_id=2#comment-8951 Hi bruce, thanks for asking and yes I'm still active, although haven't been posting with as much frequency lately (a new baby may have something to do with it :). Lots (lots!) of thoughts still though, and have a lot to post about / planning to post about... Hi bruce, thanks for asking and yes I’m still active, although haven’t been posting with as much frequency lately (a new baby may have something to do with it :). Lots (lots!) of thoughts still though, and have a lot to post about / planning to post about…

]]> Comment on About Emotionistic by bruce http://emotionistic.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-8391 bruce Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:30:21 +0000 http://emotionalcow.com/?page_id=2#comment-8391 are you still active in this? its interesting and i'm always looking for people with good insights into humanity, society, etc.. are you still active in this? its interesting and i’m always looking for people with good insights into humanity, society, etc..

]]> Comment on Is Low-Anxiety, High-Performance Possible? by Mike http://emotionistic.com/posts/is-low-anxiety-high-performance-possible/comment-page-1/#comment-8351 Mike Sun, 04 Dec 2011 08:53:13 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=952#comment-8351 Very interesting. I've always been the type who was always very nervous before an event like public speeches and the like, but when it was time to actually DO it, the fear went away but the adrenaline was still surging through my veins, making my mind think ultra fast and giving me, I believe, the ability to perform better. I've also found that changing my perception of what is happening can make the difference between adrenaline turning to panic and adrenaline turning to high performance. I think the moment you begin to fear the adrenaline rush and all the weird bodily symptoms that arise from adrenaline, you build the perfect storm for panic and high anxiety. If instead you say, "OK, its go time!" with as much optimism as possible, you have a better chance of performing to your best capabilities. Thanks for the post, I found it insightful! Very interesting. I’ve always been the type who was always very nervous before an event like public speeches and the like, but when it was time to actually DO it, the fear went away but the adrenaline was still surging through my veins, making my mind think ultra fast and giving me, I believe, the ability to perform better.
I’ve also found that changing my perception of what is happening can make the difference between adrenaline turning to panic and adrenaline turning to high performance. I think the moment you begin to fear the adrenaline rush and all the weird bodily symptoms that arise from adrenaline, you build the perfect storm for panic and high anxiety. If instead you say, “OK, its go time!” with as much optimism as possible, you have a better chance of performing to your best capabilities. Thanks for the post, I found it insightful!

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by E http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-3361 E Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:01:18 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-3361 Yes, I believe I have a soul. Yes, I believe I have a soul.

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by Scott Slaughter http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2555 Scott Slaughter Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:05:54 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2555 Do either of you believe you have a soul? If so, is it merely a configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons? Or is it something else? Do either of you believe you have a soul? If so, is it merely a configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons? Or is it something else?

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by E http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2471 E Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:38:09 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2471 Well, I didn't ask my question correctly. What I was trying to ask about is evidence for a spontaneous change, which you surmised and addressed anyway. My conclusion so far is that we do not currently have evidence that the non-living came to life spontaneously, though there are thoughts about "might haves" and "could haves". Thanks for taking the time to explain. Well, I didn’t ask my question correctly. What I was trying to ask about is evidence for a spontaneous change, which you surmised and addressed anyway. My conclusion so far is that we do not currently have evidence that the non-living came to life spontaneously, though there are thoughts about “might haves” and “could haves”. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by Jason http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2387 Jason Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:15:35 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2387 Hmmm... well on one hand, the evidence is that there *are* bacteria / things you call living, which suggests that the "inanimate" did at some point change configuration into something you would call living :) So clearly, something happened such that at one point we had only so-called "inanimate" things, molecular compounds etc. but nothing organized to the scale of what we now know as "life". Your question though, I imagine, is not whether this change took place (clearly it did, as we see the results), but *how* it took place. The short answer is that we don't know yet, but we have some ideas about plausible mechanisms that could have been involved. Most likely it involved some kind of "self-replicating molecule", basically molecules that can create copies of themselves in the presence of the necessary building blocks. Quite a number of such self-replicating molecules have been found, of different types -- proteins, peptides, etc. if I am remembering correctly. Through chance, some of these molecules were probably modified over time, and with different such molecules, a "survival of the fittest" scenario would play out, such that some of them became more numerous than others. Further chance changes to these molecules could result in changes over time to these populations, and eventually the complexity could reach the stage of the "simplest" bacteria / viruses (which may have been very different from the ones we see today). So, basically, while the details are not yet known, this kind of change is well within the realm of possibility of our physical understanding of chemistry / "biology". At least, that's my understanding :) Hmmm… well on one hand, the evidence is that there *are* bacteria / things you call living, which suggests that the “inanimate” did at some point change configuration into something you would call living :) So clearly, something happened such that at one point we had only so-called “inanimate” things, molecular compounds etc. but nothing organized to the scale of what we now know as “life”. Your question though, I imagine, is not whether this change took place (clearly it did, as we see the results), but *how* it took place.

The short answer is that we don’t know yet, but we have some ideas about plausible mechanisms that could have been involved. Most likely it involved some kind of “self-replicating molecule”, basically molecules that can create copies of themselves in the presence of the necessary building blocks. Quite a number of such self-replicating molecules have been found, of different types — proteins, peptides, etc. if I am remembering correctly. Through chance, some of these molecules were probably modified over time, and with different such molecules, a “survival of the fittest” scenario would play out, such that some of them became more numerous than others. Further chance changes to these molecules could result in changes over time to these populations, and eventually the complexity could reach the stage of the “simplest” bacteria / viruses (which may have been very different from the ones we see today).

So, basically, while the details are not yet known, this kind of change is well within the realm of possibility of our physical understanding of chemistry / “biology”. At least, that’s my understanding :)

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by E http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2370 E Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:45:51 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2370 Thanks for the additional info. Let me ask my question a little differently. Is there evidence that what I would call inanimate (like soil or air or water) changed into something that I would call living, such as bacteria? Thanks for the additional info. Let me ask my question a little differently. Is there evidence that what I would call inanimate (like soil or air or water) changed into something that I would call living, such as bacteria?

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by Jason http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2351 Jason Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:18:30 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2351 Hmmm, let me see if I can shed some light on my thoughts here, in that case. There are often many different ways to categorize things, such that under one categorization two things are "the same" and under another one they are "different". For example, let's say we have two people, Bill and Sue, and two dogs, Max and Caroline. In one way of thinking about things (dog vs. human), Bill and Sue go together and Max and Caroline go together. In another way of thinking about things (male vs. female), Bill and Max go together and Sue and Caroline go together. I think it's the same with thinking about things like "living", "inanimate", and "death". My point about saying that "living" and "inanimate" things are "the same" was simply that, in my view, they are all made of physical matter, and that there is no "life force" or essence beyond the physical which would make "life" different from "non-life". Of course, from a different perspective, things that we generally refer to as "living" do typically differ from things we generally refer to as "inanimate" or "dead" -- a living person is different from a deceased person, and a person is different from a rock. But in my view, those differences are that they are different configurations of matter, and no more. An analogy might be that a living person and a deceased person (sorry to be a bit morbid here!) are, in my view, different like a working dishwasher is different from a broken dishwasher. Are they different? Of course. Is there a non-physical "working dishwasher essence" present in one and not the other? I don't believe so. Hmmm, let me see if I can shed some light on my thoughts here, in that case. There are often many different ways to categorize things, such that under one categorization two things are “the same” and under another one they are “different”. For example, let’s say we have two people, Bill and Sue, and two dogs, Max and Caroline. In one way of thinking about things (dog vs. human), Bill and Sue go together and Max and Caroline go together. In another way of thinking about things (male vs. female), Bill and Max go together and Sue and Caroline go together.

I think it’s the same with thinking about things like “living”, “inanimate”, and “death”. My point about saying that “living” and “inanimate” things are “the same” was simply that, in my view, they are all made of physical matter, and that there is no “life force” or essence beyond the physical which would make “life” different from “non-life”. Of course, from a different perspective, things that we generally refer to as “living” do typically differ from things we generally refer to as “inanimate” or “dead” — a living person is different from a deceased person, and a person is different from a rock. But in my view, those differences are that they are different configurations of matter, and no more.

An analogy might be that a living person and a deceased person (sorry to be a bit morbid here!) are, in my view, different like a working dishwasher is different from a broken dishwasher. Are they different? Of course. Is there a non-physical “working dishwasher essence” present in one and not the other? I don’t believe so.

]]> Comment on Happiness And Being Okay With Anything by E http://emotionistic.com/posts/happiness-and-being-okay-with-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-2331 E Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:52:02 +0000 http://emotionistic.com/?p=1254#comment-2331 I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood. I thought your 3-22 post was saying that there was no clear line of demarcation between what is alive and what is not. I’m sorry. I guess I misunderstood. I thought your 3-22 post was saying that there was no clear line of demarcation between what is alive and what is not.

]]>