Emotional Perception

Is there a difference between emotion and instinctual reinforcement triggers?

Can reinforcement triggers be manually driven?

The term “emotion” seems to have a different insinuation, than basic reinforcement triggers. By “reinforcement triggers”, I mean instinctive, neurochemical reinforcement triggers. I explained more about this, in a previous post; The Notion of Emotion, in how emotions seem to have the root cause of reinforcement triggers, which developed for the benefit of any species. But the very basic function of a reinforcement trigger seems as though it does not include all the required components to be considered, what we call “emotion”.

For eg, if an ant sees a luscious tasty green leaf, and receives instinctual positive reinforcement to pursue that leaf, is that emotion? If a mountain biker gets a minor scrape from a twig, as they are making a turn through trees, but they are so focused on the next turn on, that the small prick of pain, as negative reinforcement, goes unnoticed, is that emotion?

The technical definition of “emotion”, is; “a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances…”. This includes a state of mind, which seems to be a required component in what we tend to consider emotion. The state of mind, or perception, caused by the instinctive trigger, seems to be the missing portion from the basic function of a reinforcement trigger. Whether an ant has the capability of a “state of mind” might be debatable, but it seems as though insects may not have the complexity involved, in their neural functions, to have a state of mind or perception of their circumstances, sufficient for the complicated function which we call emotion. The biker does have the capability, but when the trigger stimulant of pain, is so insignificant, relative to his focus, that he is inattentive of it, it seems there would likely be an insufficient mind reaction, for it to be considered a state of mind, resulting from the trigger.

So, relevant perception of a reinforcement trigger, seems to be required as a factor of emotion. If perception is a significant factor, then to what degree can someone's perception, manually steer emotion? Perhaps someone could intentionally significantly alter their resulting state of mind, causing varying emotional results, even to the degree of being contrary reinforcement to the instinctual reaction. Pain is instinctive negative reinforcement, but it seems plausible that someone can redirect their resulting perception, to cause pain to be a positive emotion. This could happen subconsciously, if perhaps a lion feels pain from muscle strain while chasing a zebra. But with enough results of post-positive reinforcement, caused by catching and eating the zebra, in the future, the muscle strain pain within those circumstances, could be overpowered by subconscious influence, to cause a positive perception (assuming the lion is capable of the sufficient state of mind). But this is not so much manual steering of emotion.

Manual (by my intended meaning) redirection of a state of mind, would require comprehension of the factors, for it to be intentional. Conscious comprehension should allow more effective alterations of a state of mind. Someone could hypothetically choose to access memories involved in comprehending differing aspects of the circumstances, to alter their perception of any given resulting instinctual reinforcement trigger. If perhaps someone receives instinctual positive reinforcement from eating a big mac, they could intentionally contradict that reinforcement, by accessing memories of the long term cause and effect of resulting negative health. This would cause the state of mind and emotion from the instinctual positive trigger, to become negative.

In order to allow a contradictory resulting perception, it seems to require the opposing reinforcement trigger linked within the circumstances. Perception of negative reinforcement being positive, requires comprehension of that negative, causing an alternate positive (or vice versa). If there is no comprehension of any alternate positive, being caused by the factors within the circumstances in some way, the manual redirection doesn’t seem to be plausible. Perhaps a maximum degree for the manual steering of emotional perception, is relevant to potential alternate positive or negative reinforcement triggers, which can be comprehended as a connected cause of the factors within the circumstances.

Overall, there seems to be a minor distinction between emotion and reinforcement trigger. Emotion requires a state of mind, resulting from the function of the reinforcement trigger. Redirecting that resulting state of mind, seems to be limited to other applicable positives or negatives, in order to allow comprehension of the association of them to the situation. But there does seem to be a lot of potential benefit, for the manual steering of emotional perception.