How socially-derived are emotions?

[Cavernio]

I've not said anything about physiologically stimulated emotions being more or less real. Don't read between the lines when it comes to talking to me about things like this, because there's nothing between them.


"Why not?

Your answer, by the way, should appeal to something physiological -- e.g. similar to reasons why you could not elicit a developed sperm ejaculation from an infant, because post-puberty physiology is a requisite."

Anyways, no, I don't have 'proof' of anything, because accurately measuring emotional states so far is impossible. Furthermore, even if we could measure them, the ethics surrounding the experiments necessary to solidly determine whether I or you is correct would, hopefully, prevent them from being done. What I can do, however, is point towards other neurological development studies and make hypotheses that align with the results of knowledge we DO have.

For instance, vision simply doesn't develop without light, and the physiology necessary for the development of vision stops working after a certain point in time. Plenty of studies about that, famous one was done on cats. We also automatically learn language, but only at certain points in time, whereas afterwards we suddenly have to make conscious effort into doing so.
Also, kids and animals raised in pauce environments end up underperforming on a variety of measures of things, to the point of mental retardation. Look into studies on underfunded orphanages, there's a well-known one on some place in eastern Europe circa 1960 I think. Also, look into any studies about rats and rich vs. poor environments.
Regarding emotional states, there are definitely strong ideas about the environmental impact of poor parenting on things like personality disorders, involving messed up emotional states. Abusive, cold or inconsistent parenting, especially at very young ages, is known to play important roles for the development of personality disorders.

1. Our brains are highly plastic. Given that emotions are a part of the nervous system, it follows that emotions, too, are highly plastic, 2. Given that some things core to our physiology, eg: vision, can completely fail to develop if there's nothing to stimulate it's growth, 3. Given that poor environments can affect the development of other complex systems like intelligence, I don't see why emotions would be any different.

I don't know why I'm being put on the ropes here anyways. You certainly don't have concrete proof that we can even physiologically elicit emotions with electrodes, yet you nevertheless strongly believe that you can. But you have not mentioned proof. (Of course, we're both agreed on this point, but that does not give it any more proof.)
Nor do I understand why your overall assumption that the brain just develops all these things no matter what the environment a person grows up in, is the standard that I somehow have to debunk. It's your standard, but you haven't exactly put forth any scientific claims regarding your own beliefs, just said 'this is how the brain is, obviously we can theoretically plug things into the brain and elicit emotions, this is proof.' I daresay you're pleading to circular logic.


""Jealousy" doesn't exist as some single real thing in the way that oxytocin does, basically; it's just a linguistic shortcut to refer to real things without knowing precisely what those things are."

Come again? Jealousy isn't real, it's just a referral to something real...??

I actually currently believe that consciousness and qualia are tangible, as it makes no sense for intangible things to exist. This is, of course, purely philosophical musing, and is not based in anything scientific...yet :-p