Not necessarily. My exchange with Ricter used "feelings" and "emotions" interchangeably. The thoughts preceding a resulting emotion can be instantaneous and fleeting, or more protracted as you described them. The principal constant is the order in which they occur. But don't take my word for it. http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-...0336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300316105&sr=8-1
No. As an abstraction theres a qualitative standard for what passes as a Thought and it has to do with duration, reflection and is never instantaneous. What you're describing is more like the input output of what happens along the event horizon of a cpu but thought is uniquely human.
Wish I had time for this tonight. What if I accepted that thought precedes emotion/feeling, what then? Feeling is negated?
From the non-religious perspective, Newberg has been criticized for not ultimately reducing religion to brain function. There's the kicker. Sure he does the science, and is extremely good at it, but he focuses only on people who are religious. You don't need a PhD to realize that although the science in the measuring would be expected to be sound, measuring one group will only show results from that one group! So religion is good for you because your brain lights up the same way it does for sex and rock and roll? Come on. His peers criticize him, not for his science and capabilities, but for not showing the science to confirm religion specific to that brain function. Other activities produce same or similar results. It's interesting to notice how religion rushes to science, even at the faintest hope of god by association , but will slam all of science along with every fact and reason it provides wherever no god or religion is required. But hey, he can sell more books by connecting just the god part and omitting other aspects of science and research which would be required to forward his proposition.
Read the book. Feelings can be a conditioned response to a stimulus based on a past event that may or may not have been blown out of proportion. (Problems arise when people blow things out of proportion.) This conditioned response can be near instantaneous. Imagine Charlie Brown, who once met a red-headed girl and became enamored of her. Despite his strong attraction to her (based on love maps or whatever), she did not return his affection and this left a mark on him. Now, he may flinch almost automatically every time he sees a red-headed girl and feel nervous and unsure of himself. His near automatic response is based on his perception of a past event which is now affecting his perception of present and possibly future events. Duration of thought to a near automatic feeling can be fleeting. We are all "victims" of our own life experiences, both good and bad, when we blow things out of proportion and fall into various mental traps described in the book. Seriously, read the book. It's a great read, and it's not new-age pap. Cognitive therapy is at the forefront of talk therapy today among leading mental health professionals.
Why would a feeling/emotion be "negated" simply because a thought normally precedes it? I'm not sure I understand the rationale.
if you really want to know how religion changes the mind here is a place to start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wGY8UrElE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRs-CTEn1yg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg&feature=related
I had no time earlier. "Negated" probably wasn't the best word choice. I've lost the train of thought here, why are you arguing that thought precedes emotion, I mean, in what way does it help your argument?
I was adding context to your following remarks: I was merely pointing out that feelings/emotions are essentially the byproduct of thoughts that precede them. By virtue of transitivity, that implies that thoughts are "real" too, which, of course, they are. However, real thoughts need not necessarily be valid, which is why I used the extreme example of a psychotic earlier. A psychotic's feelings may be very real, but they are based on a thought process that is flawed. My point, therefore, is that although feelings may be very real, they are only as valid as the thoughts that preceded them. That's why cognitive therapy is so compelling. It seeks to objectively determine the validity of underlying thoughts upon which our feelings are based. In so doing, the feelings are put into a more proper context. People with emotional problems often have thoughts, either lingering or near-automatic honed over time, that are out of proportion with the facts. Congitive therapy endeavors to place thoughts into more proper context so that more appropriate and balanced feelings and emotions will follow. Read the book. I'm sure you'll enjoy it: http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-...0336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300316105&sr=8-1