Evolution of Anger and Fear
Tom Hendricks
How do emotions evolve? I suggest that two of the main ones evolved directly from two of the 4 options that are set up when you have a cell membrane. Those are ANGER and FEAR
Four options are set up once a cell membrane is created:
1. Take in nurturing
2. block out non nurturing
3. hold in and use nurturing
4. excrete out waste.
Note how the stress response of fight and flight fits option 2 and option 4.
Fight = Option 2 block out non nurturing
Flight = Option 4 excrete out waste.
I suggest that ANGER is a specific evolved emotional response connected to option 2.
I suggest that FEAR is a specific evolved emotional response connected to option 4.
For the first time we can see how these basic emotional responses evolved from physical processes that go back to the beginning of life. Thus once life began, it started a food in/waste out system that would most likely evolve to the emotions of ANGER and FEAR
There should be basic emotional development for the other two options as well.
Comment on the evolution of ANGER and FEAR?
Tom Hendricks
Alan Meyer
news:h20djq$bs5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Tom,
Both anger and fear are properties of animals with fairly
advanced nervous systems. It's hard to see how any other kinds
of organisms can be thought of as having emotions, or how
individual cells can be thought of as having anything like
emotions. It would be an extraordinary stretch, I think, to
speak of fear or anger in trees, mushrooms, or bacteria.
Even in a metaphorical sense, I'd be inclined against your
analogies. I don't see "fear" as being like excretion. It's
more like avoidance. It's not about eliminating something from
inside but about getting away from something that's already
outside. Anger seems to me more about aggression against
something than about blocking out something. I'm having trouble
seeing any metaphorical analogy to cell membrane reactions.
Alan
Lana
other "needs" which might provoke an anger response? Such as the need
to reproduce, and the lack of that resource. I also think there are
other important 'emotions' that could come from a lack of nutrients.
our cousins and ancesters were group animals. Feelings of "love" or
'need for approval" may have evolved for a need of food, for example
getting nutrients from the help of others.
Fear may come from the fear of being alone and having to forage alone,
and/or being defenseless. An individual is less likely to be attacked
in a group.
The above is true for cells.
Lana
On Jun 25, 12:54=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
> How do emotions evolve? I suggest that two of the main ones evolved direc=
tly from two of the 4 options that are set up when you have a cell membrane=
.. Those are ANGER and FEAR
>
> Four options are set up once a cell membrane is created:
> 1. Take in nurturing
> 2. block out non nurturing
> 3. hold in and use nurturing
> 4. excrete out waste.
>
> Note how the stress response of fight and flight fits option 2 and option=
4.
> Fight =3D Option 2 block out non nurturing
> Flight =3D Option 4 excrete out waste.
>
> I suggest that ANGER is a specific evolved emotional response connected t=
o option 2.
> I suggest that FEAR is a specific evolved emotional response connected to=
option 4.
>
> For the first time we can see how these basic emotional responses evolved=
from physical processes that go back to the beginning of life. Thus once l=
ife began, it started a food in/waste out system that would most likely evo=
lve to the emotions of ANGER and FEAR
>
> There should be basic emotional development for the other two options as =
Tom Hendricks
> "Tom Hendricks" <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:h20djq$bs5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > How do emotions evolve? I suggest that two of the main ones
> > evolved directly from two of the 4 options that are set up when
> > you have a cell membrane. Those are ANGER and FEAR
>
> > Four options are set up once a cell membrane is created:
> > 1. Take in nurturing
> > 2. block out non nurturing
> > 3. hold in and use nurturing
> > 4. excrete out waste.
>
on
> > 4.
> > Fight =3D Option 2 block out non nurturing
> > Flight =3D Option 4 excrete out waste.
>
> > I suggest that ANGER is a specific evolved emotional response
> > connected to option 2.
> > I suggest that FEAR is a specific evolved emotional response
> > connected to option 4.
>
> > For the first time we can see how these basic emotional
> > responses evolved from physical processes that go back to the
> > beginning of life. Thus once life began, it started a food
> > in/waste out system that would most likely evolve to the
> > emotions of ANGER and FEAR
>
> > There should be basic emotional development for the other two
> > options as well.
>
> > Comment on the evolution of ANGER and FEAR?
>
> > Tom Hendricks
>
> Tom,
>
> Both anger and fear are properties of animals with fairly
> of organisms can be thought of as having emotions, or how
> individual cells can be thought of as having anything like
> speak of fear or anger in trees, mushrooms, or bacteria.
Yes of course. But emotions have evolved like any other aspect of
living things.
And in those species that have advanced nervous systems with emotions,
I suggest
these specific emotions evolved from these specific lines of physical
processes.
>
> Even in a metaphorical sense, I'd be inclined against your
> analogies. =A0I don't see "fear" as being like excretion. =A0It's
> more like avoidance. =A0It's not about eliminating something from
> inside but about getting away from something that's already
> outside. =A0Anger seems to me more about aggression against
> something than about blocking out something. =A0I'm having trouble
> seeing any metaphorical analogy to cell membrane reactions.
We are saying the same thing. When you are 'getting away from
something"
you are excreting it out. You are separating from it - it's virtually
the same thing.
Anger is indeed agression against something - something that is in
every case
not nurturing. It is an emotion of protection. You take in nurturing
in option one
and block it out in option 2. anger is an evolved way to help block
out what
endangers.
>
> =A0 =A0Alan
Tom Hendricks
> Are you suggesting that anger comes from lack of food?
Not at all. It's too much bad coming in. Not a lack of good.
Anger is the reaction to being forced. It is the emotion of
protecting the organism from any threat outside of it.
The positive aspect of any organism is to take in what nurtures
and block out what doesn't nurture or endangers - the block out is #2.
Are there no
> other "needs" which might provoke an anger response? Such as the need
> to reproduce, and the lack of that resource. =A0I also think there are
> other important 'emotions' that could come from a lack of nutrients.
> our cousins and ancesters were group animals. Feelings of "love" or
> 'need for approval" may have evolved for a need of food, for example
> getting nutrients from the help of others.
>
> Fear may come from the fear of being alone and having to forage alone,
> and/or being defenseless. An individual is less likely to be attacked
> in a group.
I suggest that fear is at its base, the fear of not having enough
nurturing, food etc.
So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
four options.
We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
evolve to everything that is part of living things.
So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
then
evolved to other projected fears.
Lana
> On Jun 29, 11:46=3DA0am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you suggesting that anger comes from lack of food?
>
>
> Anger is the reaction to being forced. It is the emotion of
> protecting the organism from any threat outside of it.
>
> The positive aspect of any organism is to take in what nurtures
> and block out what doesn't nurture or endangers - the block out is #2.
>
>
> > other "needs" which might provoke an anger response? Such as the need
e
> > other important 'emotions' that could come from a lack of nutrients.
> > our cousins and ancesters were group animals. Feelings of "love" or
> > 'need for approval" may have evolved for a need of food, for example
> > getting nutrients from the help of others.
>
> > Fear may come from the fear of being alone and having to forage alone,
> > and/or being defenseless. An individual is less likely to be attacked
> > in a group.
>
> nurturing, food etc.
> So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
>
> Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
> four options.
> We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
> evolve to everything that is part of living things.
>
> So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
> then
> evolved to other projected fears.
I'm having trouble with your idea of Anger only coming from these four
cellular functions. You could look at the waving cilia of a cell and
suggesting this is how we evovled "waving" to friends. That would be
projecting our complex emotions on to the cell.
Lana
Tom Hendricks
> On Jul 1, 6:05=3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 11:46=3D3DA0am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you suggesting that anger comes from lack of food?
>
>
> > Anger is the reaction to being forced. It is the emotion of
> > protecting the organism from any threat outside of it.
>
> > The positive aspect of any organism is to take in what nurtures
> > and block out what doesn't nurture or endangers - the block out is #2.
>
>
> > > other "needs" which might provoke an anger response? Such as the need
e ar=3D
> e
> > > other important 'emotions' that could come from a lack of nutrients.
> > > our cousins and ancesters were group animals. Feelings of "love" or
> > > 'need for approval" may have evolved for a need of food, for example
> > > getting nutrients from the help of others.
>
,
> > > and/or being defenseless. An individual is less likely to be attacked
> > > in a group.
>
> > nurturing, food etc.
> > So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
>
> > Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
> > four options.
> > We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
> > evolve to everything that is part of living things.
>
> > So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
> > then
> > evolved to other projected fears.
>
> I'm having trouble with your idea of Anger only coming from these four
> cellular functions. You could look at the waving cilia of a cell and
> suggesting this is how we evovled "waving" to friends. That would be
> projecting our complex emotions on to the cell.
>
> Lana
First a clarification. Anger came specifically from #2 option - move
against.
And it is a highly evolved aspect of a living thing. We don't expect
one cells
to talk - so of course they wouldn't be able to have an anger tantrum
either.
But the ability to get mad evolved from something, and it didn't come
down from the air.
Now back to the four options - find me a single action or reaction of
any living thing that isn't one of the four
>From the outside
1. take in
2. don't take in
>From the inside
3. hold in
4. excrete out.
You mention the waving cilia.
When that had evolved the cell had
a way to move towards food, and maybe move away from danger (too high
heat for example).
These 2 are clearly, move toward, #1, move away, #4
At this stage there was no anger or fear. But there is
something in these cells that direct them toward food and maybe away
from some dangers.
That was about as evolved as we would expect at this stage in
evolution.
Phil Roberts, Jr.
>
> I suggest that fear is at its base, the fear of not having enough
> nurturing, food etc.
> So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
>
> Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
> four options.
> We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
> evolve to everything that is part of living things.
>
> So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
> then
> evolved to other projected fears.
>
It is not currently fashionable to notice that, in man,
some of the most pressing and energy absorbing needs are
not actually physical needs, but emotional needs, e.g.,
the need to maintain an "adequate" sense of self-worth
and avoid the pain of feelings of worthlessness. And
because this is quite possibly the dominant need in man,
the one requiring most of his energy and attention, at
least in affluent societies, it should also come as no
surprise that Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom (not)
as commandeered some of the more antiquated biological
emotions to assist in the sheparding of self-worth (e.g.,
fear of giving a speech, asking for a date, anger
over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment, etc. Not
surprisingly, these lower emotions often do more harm
than good in this endeavor. But then what else would
you expect from a blind mechanical process, eh?
As to why this need seems to have come to the fore in
Mother Nature's most rational species (presumably), I
suspect that the value that a rational being attaches
to it's own existence is more or less correspondent
with this being's "will to survive", a feature that
is probably absent in less rational species where
motivation is pretty much tied to satisfying immediate
urges and appetites with little if any understanding
of the "objective" they have been "designed" to
achieve (survival, perpetuation of DNA, etc.)
Phil
Lana
organisms, the ones with emotions, have cell to cell chemical
communication. If emotions were to evolve from the cellular level, I
think it would be more accurate to look at the chemical response to
1-4.
"Four options are set up once a cell membrane is created:
1. Take in nurturing
2. block out non nurturing
3. hold in and use nurturing
4. excrete out waste."
no lets look at the four options and the emotional reaction of the
cell next door!
Four options cell neighbors:
1. Take in nurturing, 'hey, why didn't i get some of that!"
2. block out non nurturing "i see, you just leave the crums for me!"
3. hold in and use nurturing "oh, now your going to hold out on me!"
4. excrete out waste. "don't dump on me!"
:-)
At any rate, I think chemical response to simulation would be a better
breakdown of evolution of emotions than a simple cell wall barrier.
This is similiar to what you are saying, I'm would just replace
"nutrient" with any another type of molecule that would cause the cell
to react. Also, other factors, such as pH outside of the cell, can
cause a reaction without entering the cell!
Cilia in epithelial cells moves objects away from the cell. Of course
mucus does a better job of capturing containants.
Just my two cents
Lana
On Jul 5, 12:36=A0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:15=3DA0pm, Lana <drache1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 11:46=3D3D3DA0am, Lana <inann...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Are you suggesting that anger comes from lack of food?
>
> > > Not at all. =3D3DA0It's too much bad coming in. Not a lack of good.
>
> > > Anger is the reaction to being forced. It is the emotion of
> > > protecting the organism from any threat outside of it.
>
> > > The positive aspect of any organism is to take in what nurtures
> > > and block out what doesn't nurture or endangers - the block out is #2=
..
>
> > > =3D3DA0Are there no
>
> > > > other "needs" which might provoke an anger response? Such as the ne=
ed
> > > > to reproduce, and the lack of that resource. =3D3D3DA0I also think =
ther=3D
> e ar=3D3D
> > e
> > > > other important 'emotions' that could come from a lack of nutrients=
..
> > > > our cousins and ancesters were group animals. Feelings of "love" or
> > > > 'need for approval" may have evolved for a need of food, for exampl=
e
> > > > getting nutrients from the help of others.
>
> > > > Fear may come from the fear of being alone and having to forage alo=
ne=3D
> ,
> > > > and/or being defenseless. An individual is less likely to be attack=
ed
> > > > in a group.
>
> > > I suggest that fear is at its base, the fear of not having enough
> > > nurturing, food etc.
> > > So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
>
> > > Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
> > > four options.
> > > We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
> > > evolve to everything that is part of living things.
>
> > > So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
> > > then
> > > evolved to other projected fears.
>
> something in these cells that direct them =A0toward food =A0and maybe awa=
y
> from some dangers.
> That was about as evolved as we would expect at this stage in
> evolution.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lana
I will admit that I am only a novice when it comes to evolutionary
biology. I agree with you that self esteem is important to us. Status
in the troop is something that is important to our cousins as well.
Even our status, and the fear of losing it, could be linked to a need
for resourse, ie food and reproduction.
I remember from my ecology classes that older individuals who were no
longer reproducing but continuing to use resourse were referred to as
"excess population." I think our need to have status, especially in
the later years, comes from this fear of being viewed as taking up
resources without contributing. This can also be associated with the
grandmother theory.
I looked up the most popular books on amazon years ago. I was suprised
to see how many of them focused on two things, 1. weight loss and
'beauty' or 2. finding purpose in life or in a career. We seem to be
fixated with appearing to be reproducitivily successful and/or able to
contribute resources for those who are.
Lana
On Jul 5, 12:36=A0am, "Phil Roberts, Jr." <phil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Tom Hendricks wrote:
>
> > I suggest that fear is at its base, the fear of not having enough
> > nurturing, food etc.
> > So it evolved from lack of nurturing.
>
> > Now remember ALL functions of all living things evolved out of these
> > four options.
> > We must take them literally when they began, but then see that they
> > evolve to everything that is part of living things.
>
> > So fear is at first an emotion evolved from lack of nurturing within,
> > then
> > evolved to other projected fears.
>
> It is not currently fashionable to notice that, in man,
> some of the most pressing and energy absorbing needs are
> not actually physical needs, but emotional needs, e.g.,
> the need to maintain an "adequate" sense of self-worth
> and avoid the pain of feelings of worthlessness. =A0And
> because this is quite possibly the dominant need in man,
> the one requiring most of his energy and attention, at
> least in affluent societies, it should also come as no
> surprise that Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom (not)
> as commandeered some of the more antiquated biological
> emotions to assist in the sheparding of self-worth (e.g.,
> fear of giving a speech, asking for a date, anger
> over an insult, sex as a basis for endearment, etc. =A0Not
> surprisingly, these lower emotions often do more harm
> than good in this endeavor. =A0But then what else would
Tom Hendricks
> You talk about the cell as if it is an island to itself. Mutlicellular
> organisms, the ones with emotions, have cell to cell chemical
> communication. If emotions were to evolve from the cellular level, I
> think it would be more accurate to look at the chemical response to
> 1-4.
>
> 1. Take in nurturing
> 2. block out non nurturing
> 3. hold in and use nurturing
> 4. excrete out waste."
>
> cell next door!
>
> Four options cell neighbors:
> 1. Take in nurturing, 'hey, why didn't i get some of that!"
> 2. block out non nurturing "i see, you just leave the crums for me!"
> 3. hold in and use nurturing "oh, now your going to hold out on me!"
> 4. excrete out waste. "don't dump on me!"
>
> :-)
> At any rate, I think chemical response to simulation would be a better
> breakdown of evolution of emotions than a simple cell wall barrier.
> This is similiar to what you are saying, I'm would just replace
> "nutrient" with any another type of molecule that would cause the cell
> to react. Also, other factors, such as pH outside of the cell, can
> cause a reaction without entering the cell!
>
What word would best fit your "any other type of molecule that would
cause the cell to react'?
It's hard to find correct terminology that includes all aspects of
each option.
For multi cell organisms we have the overall 'skin' acting as that
organisms cell wall, and a
second one as you mention between cells. I think that that is far down
the history line and very
evolved.
Lana
> On Jul 7, 1:08=3DA0pm, Lana <drache1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > You talk about the cell as if it is an island to itself. Mutlicellular
> > organisms, the ones with emotions, have cell to cell chemical
> > communication. If emotions were to evolve from the cellular level, I
> > think it would be more accurate to look at the chemical response to
> > 1-4.
>
> > 1. Take in nurturing
> > 2. block out non nurturing
> > 3. hold in and use nurturing
> > 4. excrete out waste."
>
> > cell next door!
>
> > Four options cell neighbors:
> > 1. Take in nurturing, 'hey, why didn't i get some of that!"
> > 2. block out non nurturing "i see, you just leave the crums for me!"
> > 3. hold in and use nurturing "oh, now your going to hold out on me!"
> > 4. excrete out waste. "don't dump on me!"
>
> > :-)
> > At any rate, I think chemical response to simulation would be a better
> > breakdown of evolution of emotions than a simple cell wall barrier.
> > This is similiar to what you are saying, I'm would just replace
> > "nutrient" with any another type of molecule that would cause the cell
> > to react. Also, other factors, such as pH outside of the cell, can
> > cause a reaction without entering the cell!
>
> What word would best fit your "any other type of molecule that would
> cause the cell to react'?
> It's hard to find correct terminology that includes all aspects of
> each option.
> For multi cell organisms we have the overall 'skin' acting as that
> organisms cell wall, and a
> second one as you mention between cells. I think that that is far down
> the history line and very
>
> - Show quoted text -
Word? not sure. even if I were to list catergories of chemicals, the
list would be to long and far beyond my laymen's comprehension.
Tom Hendricks
inability to block out anything threatening the body from the outside
- option 2.
FEAR is basically the bodies evolved emotional reaction to the bodies
inability to separate from waste. or not removing waste from the body.
That is option 4.
It is also the 2nd part of sleep and REM.
Fight = anger = emotional response to anything attacking from outside
flight = fear = emotional response to anything attacking from inside
and not able to excrete out = waste.
Tom Hendricks
tly from two of the 4 options that are set up when you have a cell membrane=
.. Those are ANGER and FEAR
>
> Four options are set up once a cell membrane is created:
> 1. Take in nurturing
> 2. block out non nurturing
> 3. hold in and use nurturing
> 4. excrete out waste.
>
4.
> Fight =3D Option 2 block out non nurturing
> Flight =3D Option 4 excrete out waste.
>
> I suggest that ANGER is a specific evolved emotional response connected t=
o option 2.
> I suggest that FEAR is a specific evolved emotional response connected to=
option 4.
>
> For the first time we can see how these basic emotional responses evolved=
from physical processes that go back to the beginning of life. Thus once l=
ife began, it started a food in/waste out system that would most likely evo=
lve to the emotions of ANGER and FEAR
>
well.
>
> Comment on the evolution of ANGER and FEAR?
>
> Tom Hendricks
Here is some interesting information.
I have suggested that the REM sleep, the 2nd of two parts of sleep.
( REM is that part of sleep that I suggest prepares waste out in the
metabolism cycle - or option 4 above)
may be connected to the Fear emotion. During REM sleep the amygdala
part of the brain is very active , and it is associated with fear.
This quote from http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Amygdala#Function
In the late 1930s, researchers observed that damage to the temporal
lobe resulted in profound changes in fear reactivity, feeding, and
sexual behavior. Around mid century, it was determined that damage to
the amygdala accounted for these changes in emotional processing.
Numerous studies subsequently attempted to understand the role of the
amygdala in emotional functions, especially fear. ..
Though the connection is unclear it is exciting.