It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic can not exist without Emotion, but Emotion can exist without Logic...

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


"Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." - Wish is from Desire. It stems from emotion.


Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


They were designed by human intention/desire (emotion).


I'm not sure how that changes anything.


It was The Emotion - The Intent - Desire - which made the use of logic important. Without any intention/ desire , Logic just is.

Logic can not be USED unless there is some type of Intention / Desire.


Originally posted by TRGreer
Since when did computers become human?


The fact that people keep asking this and others flag it, is evidence that people did not read through the thread. I answered this more than once in the beginning of the thread, now I am responding to responses about my response.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Yeah I saw that. I just wanted to clarify because from what I read in the OP I got the distinct impression that we were discussing human logic and emotion. Not computers. Carry on.


I wanted to add that some one once told me about the 3 minds of humanity. Picture 2 large circles overlapping each other on one side. The larger portion of the right side is called the emotional mind. The larger portion on the left side is called the logical mind. The small section created by the to circles overlapping is called the rational mind. A balance of both.

edit on 26-6-2012 by TRGreer because: Added a thought.

edit on 26-6-2012 by TRGreer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





"Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." - Wish is from Desire. It stems from emotion.


It is true that wish is heavily linked by lexicographers with desire, but a simple computer program, say a calculator will be given a problem, say one plus one, and it will when asked solve the problem and answer two. Anthropomorphized one could argue that the calculator has compassion, is deeply aware of the suffering caused by the lack of knowledge on the answer to the problem of one plus one and wishes to relieve that suffering by answering. Or, logically, a non emotional being can be deeply aware of the suffering of another and in response to that make attempts to relieve that suffering. Anthropomorphized it would be easy to ascribe wish or desire as the motive of that being, and to call that compassion, but is it any less compassionate if the motive lacks wish or desire?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
It is impossible to be completely "Logical" without emotions, although some claim this. Logic can only have purpose when it is combined with Emotion.

Logic can tell you that "A leads to B", but it doesn't explain whether it is important at all or why?


Logic without Emotion will make you run in circles...


For example:

If people were compassionate to each other, there would be less suffering...

Why does it matter whether there is suffering or not?

Probably because less suffering can make yourself and other people healthier...

Why does it matter if people are healthy?

It is important for the human species...

Why is the human species important?

...and why is that important? and why is that important? and what makes that important?

Without Love Compassion, you can not use logic. You run in circles...

Only The Emotion can give Importance to something... Unless you actually have Compassion for the human race, "Health", "Happiness", means nothing.

So for the people that do not believe in Emotion, and believe that the Logic is more important, we must keep in mind that it is The Emotion which gives the meaning and that The Emotion can exist without Logic because Logic is just understanding and designing a path from The Emotion.



I agree that emotions are important. But Logic is a tool. Emotions aren't. They're instinctual.

Maybe you mean Reason? If that is the case, wouldn't one need reason to control their emotions?

I'd say animals have emotion, but not the reason to control them.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Logic is a process, emotion is learned behavior, two very different things that aren't really dependent upon one another

Logic can exist without emotion, and does in most cases. Emotion ignores logic and in fact increases when logic isn't used.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Logic is a process, emotion is learned behavior, two very different things that aren't really dependent upon one another

Logic can exist without emotion, and does in most cases. Emotion ignores logic and in fact increases when logic isn't used.


The infant who cries is exhibiting emotion. This is not learned behavior but is the natural impulse generally evidenced right after birth. The first time that infant shows fear, that fear is not a learned response but a natural impulse of emotion. Emotions are not learned behavior.

The latter part of your statement is probably spot on.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


One what ? Two what ? How do we know whether they are separate entities, or in what way their separateness is meaningful to the calculation ? Epistomology- you know the subject. Pure logical form is to a large (and to some real extent unknowable) artifact of natural language and a system for regulating the idiosyncracies of the natural language, Understanding and knowledge are always made through the lens of natural language and human perspective. Thus, we cannot entirely remove the human element (emotion) from the equation.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not a descent into solipsism, merely a discussion of the persistence of our humanity throughout our efforts and pretenses to exclude ourselves from the equation. Logic and mathematics may well have independent reality, but we use them as tools, through systems we create, based on our natural language. So the OP has made a good observation- We can have emotion without logic, but the only logical structure we can comprehend derives from our humanity. Our humanity cannot be separate from emotion,.

It's always been a subject of debate



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seaside sky
 


It's pretty obvious that logic cannot exist without emotion. Humans have emotion. Humans are also capable of logic. I don't think there is such a thing as an emotionless human. It is safe to say that if all humans have emotion, the ones who use logic will also have emotion.

Animals exhibit emotion, yet don't use what humans call logic. There are even humans who are capable but refuse to use logic. Therefore, emotion can exist without logic.

Fairly self-evident I would say.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by seaside sky
 





We can have emotion without logic, but the only logical structure we can comprehend derives from our humanity. Our humanity cannot be separate from emotion,.


It is agreed that our humanity cannot be separate from our emotion, but it is merely anthropomorphizing to suggest that logic as we comprehend it can only come from our humanity. We are, by our very nature, subjective beings. We could not ever be objectively objective in that we could never know the cup from all angles at all times and that admission is one of logic, not necessarily of emotion and/or humanity. Our inherent subjectivity, however, does not preclude having objective thought.

I would suggest that when we employ both logic and emotion together yet restraining both so that one does not overpower the other we can have objective thoughts that seem to stem from our emotions, such as the idea that a universe merely filled with objects is wholly objectionable. We cannot allow objectivity to become merely a perception of objects, and if we do, chances are we are missing data that will only misconstrue the logic.

Quantum mechanics was born, in part, due to a failure of physics to measure on subatomic scale. That failure of measurement can logically give rise to the thought that a universe merely filled with objects is wholly objectionable and yet, objectively speaking, it is the objection itself that rings of emotion.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I do see what you're saying, and I will agree with you on most points. However, I do wonder- you said:

"Our inherent subjectivity, however, does not preclude having objective thought."

We think in our natural language, which is colored with our humanity in all its shades of meaning, value and priority.

Does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it ? No- it creates only the conditions that, if one were present, would be perceived by the observer as that familiar sound. If there was a squirrel there, the "sound" would be perceived by the squirrel, but it wouldn't be quite the same sound we'd know. So yes, you are right in that we can imagine (to some extent) the possibility of experiences outside our realm of perception, but even discussing or contemplating them requires the concept to be brought back to our own frame of reference. We create systems to help us understand reality, but these systems are by their very nature human systems.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seaside sky
 





We think in our natural language, which is colored with our humanity in all its shades of meaning, value and priority.


This is the key. Martin Heidegger once asserted that we do not speak language but that language speaks us. Of course, logically speaking, why on Earth would humanity create language only to fall prey to it? Yet, all too often this is precisely what we do, fall prey to the language we've created.

Earlier, when I suggested that the notion that a universe filled merely with objects is wholly objectionable smacks of emotion even if it has a logical foundation, I was speaking to the language. It would be more logical to suggest that a universe filled merely with objects is suspect, but this is more prosaic than to declare it is wholly objectionable (it was Alan Watts, by the way, who made this declaration) which has an artfulness to its logical stance. It is not a flaw in the language, but to some degree it is falling prey to the language. I believe Watts intention was to be poetic with the language, so I don't mean to argue he fell prey to the language or that he was allowing language to speak him, and more than likely he was speaking language and very precisely so.

Heidegger's assertions serves a prudent caveat to speaking language. One, in defense of being objective, can declare: "We can know objectively that the sun rises and that the sun sets", and the emotional side of our own logic might react with laughter at such a subjective declaration in defense of objectivity. Of course, it was through the ever increasing collection of data that allows seeing the irony in declaring that we can objectively know that the sun rises and the sun sets. At some point it would seem to be wholly objective to declare that the sun rises and the sun sets. Today we know better, and the sun does not rise, nor does it set, but it is a perception we hold due to the Earth's orbit around the sun, and even this is not a wholly objective understanding of our human perception.

It has all ready been stated, not just by myself, but by another member, that pure formal logic is used in computer programing. In formal logic we can state: If A and B then C, but if A but not B then not C and this is not an emotional response it is a logical one. It was not an emotionless computer that taught us formal logic, it was the emotional human who calculated it.




edit on 26-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Logic is a process, emotion is learned behavior, two very different things that aren't really dependent upon one another

Logic can exist without emotion, and does in most cases. Emotion ignores logic and in fact increases when logic isn't used.


The infant who cries is exhibiting emotion. This is not learned behavior but is the natural impulse generally evidenced right after birth. The first time that infant shows fear, that fear is not a learned response but a natural impulse of emotion. Emotions are not learned behavior.

The latter part of your statement is probably spot on.



If they didn't get what they wanted when they cried, they wouldn't cry to get the result they were looking for, so it can be honed by learning....so it's dependent on logic. Cry=get picked up, so the baby cries when it wants to be picked up.
we'll just go with emotion is a reaction in order to clarify, logic is a process that's not dependent on emotion.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaside sky
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I do see what you're saying, and I will agree with you on most points. However, I do wonder- you said:

"Our inherent subjectivity, however, does not preclude having objective thought."

We think in our natural language, which is colored with our humanity in all its shades of meaning, value and priority.

Does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it ? No- it creates only the conditions that, if one were present, would be perceived by the observer as that familiar sound. If there was a squirrel there, the "sound" would be perceived by the squirrel, but it wouldn't be quite the same sound we'd know. So yes, you are right in that we can imagine (to some extent) the possibility of experiences outside our realm of perception, but even discussing or contemplating them requires the concept to be brought back to our own frame of reference. We create systems to help us understand reality, but these systems are by their very nature human systems.


Sound is energy in a wave, the energy is produced whether whether there is anything there to measure it or not, so yes, if a tree falls in the woods, it does make a sound. It's the same sound regardless of who or what hears it, only the perception would be different, not the sound itself.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





If they didn't get what they wanted when they cried, they wouldn't cry to get the result they were looking for, so it can be honedby learning....


(Emphasis added)

Indeed, it can be and is honed. However...




so it's dependent on logic.


I never said it wasn't and disagreed with your assertion that emotions are learned behavior.




we'll just go with emotion is a reaction in order to clarify, logic is a process that's not dependent on emotion.


I can accept that but would add that emotion is a physical process, but logic is not dependent upon any physicality in order to be logic. Logic is ethereal - for lack of a better word - emotions are physically real.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I can accept that but would add that emotion is a physical process, but logic is not dependent upon any physicality in order to be logic. Logic is ethereal - for lack of a better word - emotions are physically real.



No, emotions can be hidden, so they aren't always physical, they are "mental", the physical display is a result of the mental presence.
It can be inferred that emotions are biological, but not necessairly "physical" if it's semantics we wish to focus on.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Logic is a process, emotion is learned behavior, two very different things that aren't really dependent upon one another

Logic can exist without emotion, and does in most cases. Emotion ignores logic and in fact increases when logic isn't used.


The infant who cries is exhibiting emotion. This is not learned behavior but is the natural impulse generally evidenced right after birth. The first time that infant shows fear, that fear is not a learned response but a natural impulse of emotion. Emotions are not learned behavior.

The latter part of your statement is probably spot on.



If they didn't get what they wanted when they cried, they wouldn't cry to get the result they were looking for, so it can be honed by learning....so it's dependent on logic. Cry=get picked up, so the baby cries when it wants to be picked up.
we'll just go with emotion is a reaction in order to clarify, logic is a process that's not dependent on emotion.


In my opinion a child cries to stimulate an emotional response from its parents. Most children cry as soon as they are born. Children cry when they are in the womb. The child could be using logic "I want to be held" or strictly emotional "I'm hurt" but I'm thinking its more instinctual than anything else. The parents respond with emotion "Oh no! the baby is crying." I'm thinking from a human stand point that logic and emotion go hand in hand.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





No, emotions can be hidden, so they aren't always physical, they are "mental", the physical display is a result of the mental presence.


I am not clear what you mean by this. Are you arguing from a Dualist point of view where the "mind" is a substance separate from the body?




It can be inferred that emotions are biological, but not necessairly "physical" if it's semantics we wish to focus on.


It is difficult to "infer" the emotional state of a rock, or dirt. So, in this regard, "physical" in itself is ineffective language and perhaps it is better said that emotions are part of a biological process.

Given that anti-depressants in the form of pharmaceuticals are heavily prescribed it would seem this "inference" has become "conventional wisdom".

I do no subscribe to the use of pharmaceuticals to treat depression, so I am with you on the "inference" to some degree, but other options then include "inferring" that emotions are a separate substance in the same "mental" state that produces logical thought. Perhaps this is the case, but if we are "inferring" it seems, at least impliedly so, that it is our biology that produces such emotions as "fight or flight" reactions to danger, and that it has taken great discipline to learn how to control this fight or flight mechanism.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


1 + 2 = 3.

Logic dictates this to be a logical, and true statement. There is no need for an emotional response. Whether I love the mathematics, hate the work required, am mystified by the nature of numbers, or uninterested by the concept of arithmetic, the equation will always remain the same.

The logical use of emotions, however, is entirely dependent on emotional receptivity. In the case of your example, our dependence on compassion depends entirely on people understanding the emotion known as compassion. If someone lacks compassion, then any equation using compassion seems illogical to them.

Don't confuse the two though. Logic is a thing, whether we're observing it (and thereby reacting) or not.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 





No, emotions can be hidden, so they aren't always physical, they are "mental", the physical display is a result of the mental presence.


I am not clear what you mean by this. Are you arguing from a Dualist point of view where the "mind" is a substance separate from the body?


no...I don't think you'd be able to comprehend it, so we'll just leave it at that...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm not saying that computers are compassion. My point was, the use of logic is through the will of intention (emotion).


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

I agree that emotions are important. But Logic is a tool. Emotions aren't. They're instinctual.

Maybe you mean Reason? If that is the case, wouldn't one need reason to control their emotions?

I'd say animals have emotion, but not the reason to control them.


Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that emotions are important, rather, that emotion gives importance. With logic, we can figure out that without water we'll die, but without emotion, that situation just "IS". If we understand that it causes pain and suffering and that most creatures and human do not like it, then through emotion we can call it "bad".


reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Emotions are not a learned behavior, they are instinctual. A baby will cry from discomforted when it needs its diaper changed or when it is feeling comfortable due to hunger.

Emotion is arbitrary to Logic, just because a person is living through emotion / passion, does not mean that they aren't using logic, but without intention toward a goal (desire/emotion), the use of logic can not be.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by seaside sky
 


Animals exhibit emotion, yet don't use what humans call logic. There are even humans who are capable but refuse to use logic. Therefore, emotion can exist without logic.

Fairly self-evident I would say.


I would argue that they do use logic, just not as complex. All beings use logic to some degree. Without it, we would have a much lower chance of survival. Even inanimate object work through Logic since this include the laws of the universe such as gravity and so on...

So in nature, I guess the laws of the universe is an example of logic without emotion, but I am talking about the USE of logic. This can not be done without intention / will / desire / emotion.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join