• Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like this is kind of just arbitrarily picking and choosing again. We do not fully understand how emotional processing happens either, and the mechanics behind it are arguably more complex to the layperson than vision is. There are different types of adrenaline rushes (excitement, fear, athletic focus, etc.) and most people don’t know how noradrenaline and other chemicals influence your emotional state, whereas I’d argue that far more people understand the basic mechanics of sight (rods and cones) and when getting blinded by light there is only one potential sensation.

    If you want to have fun with the idea of what fictional/fantastical ghosts do or do not experience, that is completely okay, but you don’t need to try and make some justification or explanation as to why it is that particular way and not any other way or why that way makes more sense than any others.

    In my head, I can also kind of see how it could make sense that if ghosts existed then there’d likely be certain emotional stimuli that they’d be missing, But that’s just in my head with my reasoning, doesn’t mean that it has to objectively make more sense than anything else or that that’s how it would be if they actually existed.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well of course its arbitrary. I just picked it because it was used in the meme that we are talking about. I could’ve also used physical pain or sexual desire or hunger. It just has to be something that people have experiential experience with. Sight possibly could’ve worked, but I don’t think so. Maybe for you?

      Also, I’m not sure there actually are different kinds of adrenaline rushes. Regarding my explanation, I was asked, so I provided it. Just because you do not like it does not make it bad. My point stands. People “get” fear pretty easily, if they want. People cannot “get” sight, without the aid of science training. It’s a key difference between the two, which makes picking one over the other pretty easy.

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say that I don’t like it or that it’s bad, just that it’s not better or worse, or makes objectively more sense, than anything else.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it definitely does not make objectively more sense, that is 100% true. Subjectively, and maybe, only. Subjectively is what’s important though. Only a fairly smallish percentage of humans care about trying to be objective most of the time. Most just don’t bother. So unless you are a student (where we have to keep your options open) or adult working in some sort of technical field, you can actually dispense with it.

          This is one of the big reasons why our world is so fucked up, as a side note.