emotional question.

There is a wide range in variance of emotion, sensitivity, etc. of human beings, even the newborn,
but there is no such thing as an unemotional infant. The only time there would be totally
unemotional human "life" is when there is no life i.e. a miscarriage or abortion. A more interesting
question would be when a human fetus is capable of feeling pain i.e. is sentient. Most of us would
agree this is not at conception but at some point along the way in development it does occur. As far
as I'm aware science does not yet know exactly when sentience begins. Another question is sentience
the same thing as consciousness i.e. having awareness of one's existence. I would argue sentience in
the developing fetus represents a primitive form of consciousness.

As far as your other question are there people born lacking the ability to form just one emotion
certainly there are people born who have less inherent genetic capacity for expressing a particular
emotion than another but this doesn't mean they are necessarily without this emotion. All humans are
born with aggression. Becoming hungry is not an "emotion". In general, compassion doesn't exist.

Why are you asking these questions?

Michael Ragland

Humans can be born with many physical deformities-blindness,very low intelligence,short height etc
etc. What i want to know if any humans have ever been recorded by medical science as been born:
                    1)without

aroused,hungry for food,compassionate? by this i don't necessarily mean the part of the brain
responsible for emotion,the amygdala,is not formed in the embryo,but that even with a
physiologically correct brain the person is unemotional? ( maybe due to absence of appropriate
neurotansmitters)                   2)alternatively, are there any cases in medical science of ppl
being born lacking the ability to form just one emotion? for example, a person without the abilty to
get angry? I'm familiar with serial killers and their sociopathic lack of compassion, but even these
ppl, are able to experience some compassion, and more importantly have their other emotions intact.
I realise this is a unusual question, but i have searched Google for an answer,but couldn't do find
one, even though normally i am able to use the correct keywords in searches. Thank you very much
anyone who has the time to answer my question.

<< What i want to know if any humans
have ever been recorded by medical science as been born:
1)without any emotion at all, i mean, they couldn't get

necessarily mean the part of the brain responsible for emotion,the amygdala,is not formed in the
embryo,but that even with a physiologically correct brain the person is unemotional? ( maybe due to
absence of appropriate neurotansmitters) >>

IIRC there are some brain injuries on record that lead to loss of emotion. That may be worth
investigating. I would check any good psychology text for starters.

[email hidden] (Sal) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Humans can be born with many physical deformities-blindness,very low intelligence,short height etc
etc. What i want to know if any humans have ever been recorded by medical science as been born:
1)without any emotion at all, i mean, they couldn't get

Quoted message said:

necessarily mean the part of the brain responsible for emotion,the amygdala,is not formed in the
embryo,but that even with a physiologically correct brain the person is unemotional? ( maybe due
to absence of appropriate neurotansmitters)
2)alternatively, are there any cases in medical science of ppl being born lacking the
ability to form just one emotion? for example, a person without the abilty to get
angry? I'm familiar with serial killers and their sociopathic lack of compassion, but
even these ppl, are able to experience some compassion, and more importantly have their
other emotions intact. I realise this is a unusual question, but i have searched Google
for an answer,but couldn't do find one, even though normally i am able to use the
correct keywords in searches. Thank you very much anyone who has the time to answer my
question.

The closest I have come is a discussion in chapter four of "Mapping the Mind", by Rita Carter, of
the case of Elliott, who lost his capacity to feel emotion after the removal of a brain tumour. The
book discusses other cases with various emotional deficits, but for the most part these have been
caused by damage to the brain rather than being born with the problem.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Michael Ragland said:

There is a wide range in variance of emotion, sensitivity, etc. of human beings, even the newborn,
but there is no such thing as an unemotional infant. The only time there would be totally
unemotional human "life" is when there is no life i.e. a miscarriage or abortion. A more
interesting question would be when a human fetus is capable of feeling pain i.e. is sentient. Most
of us would agree this is not at conception but at some point along the way in development it does
occur. As far as I'm aware science does not yet know exactly when sentience begins. Another
question is sentience the same thing as consciousness i.e. having awareness of one's existence. I
would argue sentience in the developing fetus represents a primitive form of consciousness.

I would disagree with your definitions here. I don't consider it that usefull to define
consciousness as being self aware. Simply being aware is enough in my book.

I therefore see no distinction between "awareness" and "consciousness". Its like a sofa is a couch.
If you try to define consciousness, you end up using the word aware. If you try and define or
explain "aware" you end up using the word consciousness.

anasoft.co.ukthehardproblem.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

As far as your other question are there people born lacking the ability to form just one emotion
certainly there are people born who have less inherent genetic capacity for expressing a
particular emotion than another but this doesn't mean they are necessarily without this emotion.
All humans are born with aggression. Becoming hungry is not an "emotion".

I can't really agree with this. There is a very good case for defining hunger to be an emotion. It
acts just like any other aspect that is also attributed to be an emotion, as explained here
anasoft.co.ukemotions.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

In general, compassion doesn't exist.

Of course it exists, its just that it is a "selfish" emotion, just as *all* other emotions
are selfish.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

Michael Ragland said:

Michael Ragland wrote:

There is a wide range in variance of emotion, sensitivity, etc. of human beings, even the
newborn, but there is no such thing as an unemotional infant. The only time there would be
totally unemotional human "life" is when there is no life i.e. a miscarriage or abortion. A more
interesting question would be when a human fetus is capable of feeling pain i.e. is sentient.
Most of us would agree this is not at conception but at some point along the way in development
it does occur.

As far as I'm aware science does not yet know exactly when sentience begins. Another question is
sentience the same thing as consciousness
i.e. having awareness of one's existence. I would argue sentience in the developing fetus
represents a primitive form of consciousness.

KA: I would disagree with your definitions here. I don't consider it that usefull to define
consciousness as being self aware. Simply being aware is enough in my book. I therefore see no
distinction between "awareness" and "consciousness". Its like a sofa is a couch. If you try to
define consciousness, you end up using the word aware. If you try and define or explain "aware"
you end up using the word consciousness. anasoft.co.ukthehardproblem.htmlOpen ↗

Response: I don't think human awareness can be seen as separate from self-awareness.

I agree, that, in principle, it might not by possible to identify any self awareness which does not
necessarily include being self aware in some sense. For example, even if an animal does not picture
itself as self aware, it is aware of it of on arms and legs. The point I make making is more of a
technical one of restriction the scope of definitions. For example, one could declare that the speed
of light is independent of source velocity, and then with suitable arguments conclude that light is
*also* independent of observer velocity. Or we could simply declare that the speed of light is
invariant, to cover all cases. Usually, its better to not include too much to avoid possible
contradictions. One tries to derive the most from the least.

Quoted message said:

If one is talking about the 'awareness' of a plant or bacterium that is at a wholly different
level. The terms consciousness and awareness also aren't necessarily the same. One might speak of
how bacteria has an awareness of itself but not consciousness of itself.

I disagree with this. In my view, "awareness", by default, should be restricted to conscious
awareness. Otherwise it gets impossible to distinguish between what are declared inanimate and
conscious. The notion of awareness that you present would have *any* computerised machine as
*aware*. It makes no rational sense to do this. The term "aware" would than be, essentially,
meaningless.

Quoted message said:

Consciousness implies reason and abstract thinking.

Again, this seems to be overall broad. Consciousness, is essentially summed up as "I *feel* pain". I
see no reason that "abstract" thinking is necessary for a rational definition of consciousness.
Anyone who has a cat appreciates that cats are conscious. Its hard to see that they have much of an
abstract thinking capability, although they might have a little by way of pictures and touch. We
certainly don't boil bunnies alive, well not much anyway.

Quoted message said:

That is something a plant or microbe doesn't possess.

But cats do.

Quoted message said:

And I would argue being self aware is an integral part of consciousness.

It might well be, but as an indirect effect, as I see this as derived result from the notion of
awareness on its own.

Quoted message said:

MR:As far as your other question are there people born lacking the ability to form just one
emotion certainly there are people born who have less inherent genetic capacity for expressing
a particular emotion than another but this doesn't mean they are necessarily without this
emotion. All humans are born with aggression. Becoming hungry is not an "emotion".

KA: I can't really agree with this. There is a very good case for defining hunger to be an
emotion. It acts just like any other aspect that is also attributed to be an emotion, as explained
here anasoft.co.ukemotions.htmlOpen ↗

Response: When I referred to 'becoming hungry' I was referring to the biological causes of it, not
cognitive, learned, etc.

So was I. Emotions are not learned whatsoever in my book. Emotions are physical gene based aspects
of conscious awareness, as I explained in the above link. However, *what* *particular* hard coded
emotion is *invoked* for a particular stimulus is principally the result of *learned* behaviour,
that is environmentally programmed memes. It is the memes that tell you if you should feel horror at
cutting a babies head off. The emotion itself can not do this. Its way too difficult a problem for
hardware to solve. The situations change to much on a daily basis.

Quoted message said:

MR:In general, compassion doesn't exist.

KA: Of course it exists, its just that it is a "selfish" emotion, just as *all* other emotions are
selfish. Response: Thanks for making my case for me.

No problem.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗