Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 20, 2005, at 17:12:34
In reply to Re: emotional encapsulation, posted by ghostshadow on December 20, 2005, at 9:39:39
> but phobias are, by definition, irrational.
yeah. irrational emotions.
and delusions are, by definition, irrational.
irrational belielfs.but the trouble with accepting those truths by definition is that if we want an explanation of the phenomena... well... you can't offer a 'rational' explanation for something that is essentially 'irrational' (by definition once more, heh heh)
and... some philosophers accept this conclusion.
and... it is accepting conclusions such as this that leads to the scientists mocking philosophers (and rightly so in my opinion) :-(
like how Plato considered planatary orbits must be circular because the 'heavenly bodies' must be perfect and clearly a circle is the perfect shape...so...
how to get off...rationality (of mental states - ie feelings and beliefs) has a structure.
at least three parts to it...
(funnily enough this falls out of the way in which we use the terms too)see... feelings and beliefs are supposed to be internal mental states of the person (by definition)
INPUT CLAUSE
they are supposed to be caused by certain things (so the belief that the sun is hot is roughly supposed to be caused by the sun being hot. a feeling of fear is supposed to be caused by something posing a danger / threat)
INTERNAL ROLE CLAUSE
they are supposed to interact with other mental states in certain ways (inferential relations. that is the alleged breakdown in phobias / delusions where the subject is led to endorse contradiction)
OUTPUT CLAUSE
they are supposed to interact with other mental states so as to produce the relevant action (so if you believe your step-father has been replaced by an impostor it may well be 'rational' (with respect to the output clause) to decapitate him in order to look for the batteries and micro-film in his head. The irrationality consists in how the belief was formed in the first place... But some other people say their step-father has been replaced by a robot and yet they do not act in ways we would expect. They do not search for the original or report the disappearance to the relevant authorities or anything like that. Their 'irrationality' consists in... All three parts. How it is formed. How it interacts with other beliefs. How it interacts with (assumed) desires in the production of action.But if things are irrational by definition... How to offer a rational explanation for them???
There are cognitive modules that underlie our ability to be 'rational'. If there is a breakdown / malfunction in an underlying cognitive mechanism then that could lead to a very specific breakdown in rationality. In such cases we could say 'given the nature of that breakdown in that cognitive mechanism... delusions (or phobias) would be an inevitable (hence predictable and understandable 'normal' or 'rational' even in a revised sense of the term) response.
trouble is... if you go from conceptual analysis to making empirical claims... science may well show your claims to be false. language ain't perfect. just because we talk about people having 'beliefs' and 'emotions' doesn't mean there actually are any inner mental states of the person that map onto the terms we use in our common sense folk-psychological vocabulary. and the same goes... for the cognitive modules we posit. what we really need is independent empirical evidence for cognitive modules. cases where they malfunction to compare that to cases where they funciton normally...
what i want to say is...
that emotional encapsulation is fairly 'normal'
it happens to everybody...
but it happens more to some than others...
matter of degree...:-)
:-)
:-)
> (and i want some of whatever you're on)
heh heh
yeah, i wouldn't mind some more ;-)
poster:alexandra_k2
thread:590579
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20051216/msgs/590744.html