Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ai.toronto.edu!tjhorton
From: tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton")
Subject: Re: Emotion
Message-ID: <8803252155.AA26416@ai.toronto.edu>
Keywords: emotion drives physiology consciousness
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <44@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> <2100@phred.UUCP> <2103@phred.UUCP> <962@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <355@thirdi.UUCP> <8803222016.AA27059@ai.toronto.edu> <366@thirdi.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 88 14:55:03 EST

In article <366@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>>>What would qualify as an "unconscious experience"?
>
>>Process, and/or processing constraint, perhaps.
>>These would probably be experienced INdirectly.

>OK.  So something unconscious would be something that is not yet known.

No.  Some thing or event or process or change that is not DIRECTLY
detectable, nonetheless indirectly detectable, though not necessarily
ever known or knowable.

>Unconscious emotion, on this scheme, would be an internal physiological state
>that was not yet known but could be inferred.

Try this:  on your first ski trip you observe that you haven't said
anything to the gorgeous member of opposite sex sitting on the bus seat
next to you, though you normally would.  That's not an observation of some
"physiological state".  Later, on the ski hill you notice your trembling
hands and flighty stomache.  Is it fatigue, excitement, anxiety, or the
jostling your brain took on your first big fall?  Later on, in the warmth
of the lodge, you feel euphormic and can't seem to focus your attention
on anything but wild skiing exploits to come.

I really do mean *process* and *process constraint*.  I doubt you want to
say that processes ("acts" if you will) like reasoning are "physiological
states".  I doubt you want to say that process constraints like consciously
applying yourself to some mental task, or treating some task with urgency,
or responding aggressively to someone's every statement, are "phsyiological
states".

I think that most emotion is indirectly perceived.  I don't think we have
direct "happiness" sensors, or "jealousy" sensors built right in.   (Tell
me, what is your current emotional state?)  Even my introductory psychology
textbook seemed to provide firm evidence for indirect self-attribution as
far as emotions were concerned.  (apparently, smiling will make you think
you are happier, etc).