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

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

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...

Certainly not without a lot of unnecessary verbiage.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

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

Of course, this is a logical fallacy, and probably one borne of emotion. I didn't think you were coming from any Dualist point of view, and from a monist point of view, whether the emotion is "hidden" or not, it is wholly biological. Can you comprehend that?

reply to post by arpgme

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

I get that you're not saying that. I'm saying that computers are emotionless and it is through logic that they perform their functions.

Logic is not reliant upon emotion any more than emotion is reliant upon logic. The two are separate, one is conceptual, the other "inferredly" so or deductive, is biological.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

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...

Certainly not without a lot of unnecessary verbiage.

EXACTLY!!!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

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

Of course, this is a logical fallacy, and probably one borne of emotion. I didn't think you were coming from any Dualist point of view, and from a monist point of view, whether the emotion is "hidden" or not, it is wholly biological. Can you comprehend that?

I comprehend just fine, it is you that I have questions about
It'll be ok, I just forgot who I was dealing with for a moment and that you are unable to follow certain things.
Have a good evening

reply to post by PurpleChiten

I comprehend just fine, it is you that I have questions about

I am not the argument. This is yet another logical fallacy, one clearly borne of emotion.

It'll be ok, I just forgot who I was dealing with for a moment and that you are unable to follow certain things. Have a good evening

Again, this is not an argument germane to the topic of this thread, merely an emotional response devoid of logic.

See how that works?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I comprehend just fine, it is you that I have questions about

I am not the argument. This is yet another logical fallacy, one clearly borne of emotion.

It'll be ok, I just forgot who I was dealing with for a moment and that you are unable to follow certain things. Have a good evening

Again, this is not an argument germane to the topic of this thread, merely an emotional response devoid of logic.
See how that works?

You're still not getting it, but that's ok....
Shakespere comes to mind......
Of course you wouldn't comprehend that either....

L8R H8R

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I get that you're not saying that. I'm saying that computers are emotionless and it is through logic that they perform their functions.

Logic is not reliant upon emotion any more than emotion is reliant upon logic. The two are separate, one is conceptual, the other "inferredly" so or deductive, is biological.

Yes, computers function through Logic, so too, are the laws of the universe such as gravity. My point was that Logic can not be used with purpose since emotion is what gives the purpose.

The computers are functioning toward a goal (completing a task, being a calculator, etc. ) but their functioning is the result of a goal / intention (will / desire / emotion).

Originally posted by arpgme
Yes, computers function through Logic, so too, are the laws of the universe such as gravity. My point was that Logic can not be used with purpose since emotion is what gives the purpose.

The computers are functioning toward a goal (completing a task, being a calculator, etc. ) but their functioning is the result of a goal / intention (will / desire / emotion).

edit on 27-6-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

But not all goals and intentions are emotionally based.
I take out the trash because the can is full. There's no emotion involved in it. I could care less about the can.
I go to the restroom because my bladder is full, not because I have a love for my restroom. Some things are just basic cause/effect and are not emotionally motivated at all. Emotions can arise from the cause/effect relationship, but they don't create the cause/effect relationship.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


If you can care less about the can, why take it out? Why not just leave it in the house and let it sit?

Probably because it'll get full and dirty and you don't like the dirt or maybe it is because you wouldn't want it to be full because you need it to be empty so that you can put more trash in it. If you like cleanliness, then dirtiness will be undesirable and even a little discomforting.

You go to the bathroom because, yes, your bladder is full, but it also causes discomfort if you don't.

Comfort and discomfort are also about emotion....

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

If you can care less about the can, why take it out? Why not just leave it in the house and let it sit?

Probably because it'll get full and dirty and you don't like the dirt or maybe it is because you wouldn't want it to be full because you need it to be empty so that you can put more trash in it. If you like cleanliness, then dirtiness will be undesirable and even a little discomforting.

You go to the bathroom because, yes, your bladder is full, but it also causes discomfort if you don't.

Comfort and discomfort are also about emotion....

I disagree. Comfort and discomfort can cause emotion, but they aren't emotion in and of themselves.

reply to post by arpgme


im at a [4] and your post didnt make sense. logic does not need emotion for it to exist.
you tie logic into something that really doesnt need logic. there could be many outcomes, and using pure logic emotions are dismissed.

reply to post by arpgme


You are mixing some definitions around here. Intent is not synonymous with desire.

Desire can lead to intent, but wishes/wants/desires/ do not cause the comprehension in logic.
imo - Intent arises out preconceived conclusions that arouse some form of action.
- Your theory is that the arousal is a type of emotion. - fair enough. But that is only because emotion is such an elusive definition that permeates throughout sensory description. Do you think that when we learn something, that the learning itself is an emotion? There is also the use of the definition of value. All information is essentially valuable and relative, so upon discovering information, there is really no way to differentiate its importance until you use logic to discredit false conclusions, and that includes evaluating emotions through logical reasoning.

In reality....I do not believe it to be possible to have a grasp on what your emotions mean without logic. Then again...most emotions are Biochemical in nature but emotional response can be obtained through interpretation of events of Human or Animal interaction as well as the minds ability to assign emotional value to anything from a thought, a sensory input or even a possibility.

Split Infinity

My conclusion: Logics are not reliant on emotions, rather vice versa

This has been my main philosophical question since early childhood. As I have Aspergers it goes hand in hand with learning how to relate to the world around you. Thought I'd add my thoughts on the matter.

Before even starting any discussion on the topic at hand one must start at the following question,
What is emotions?

My research has drawn me to this.
Emotions are a tool for decision making in collaboration with logics. To address a problem from a logical perspective one must start from scratch and work with the data on hand. This is a reliant but slow process and would on it's own make the brain non-effective. The amount of information processed by the brain on a daily basis can not support this structure. To increase effectivity the brain outsources data evaluation to emotions who in the end returns it's conclusion as data. To effectively process information the emotions acts as a relative point in time, a secretary in a way. This enables you to exponentially increase the speed of problem solving. And as logics are slow but reliant, emotional conclusions are fast but less reliant due to it's nature.

One may compare it to website development where the logical structure would be creating a website from scratch, giving you total oversight over it's strengths and flaws. Emotional structure would on the other hand be like basing your site upon a pre-built system and therefore reducing development time but also loosing oversight and therefore increasing the risk of unknown flaws in the final product.

In the end it always comes back to logics to reach a conclusion based on the final data-set collected from feelings, emotions and logics itself.

It is important to have in mind the difference between emotional and general needs. Emotions are really not much more than an indicator. And most important of all, it's not absolute.

As a side note:
Within this context the concept of happiness would have two possible occurrences. In a state of nothing and everything. But thats off-topic. Just thought I'd add it anyways.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I've already responded to someone who said this.

Computers are TOOLS, they are there to help fulfill human DESIRE/INTENTION (Emotion).

The mind is a TOOL that makes humans believe they can fulfill human desire. The mind tells stories because it has language and most humans respond to these stories with emotion.
Without the stories the mind tells there is pure intelligence but humans listen to and believe the stories about past and future and then get excited or scared by the story.

The mind has language (words) that can use logic to predict the future but it does this based on the past experiences, so tells stories about what might happen. If you are experienced fear in the past you will experience fear when you hear the stories the mind is telling you, this causes emotion (feelings in the body).

I remain unconvinced by the OPs assertion that logic cannot exist without emotion. It is human nature to place emotion on logical relationships, but this does not mean one is dependent on the other. If person C is born to person A and person B, then logic dictates that person C is the biological child of persons A and B. Where is the emotion in that?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Of course logic can exist without emotion.

What do you think computers are???

Where do computers come from?

reply to post by arpgme


arpgme, I agree. Logic cannot exist w/o emotion. For those who disagree consider this, if the universe was managed or influenced by non emotion beings w/ logic then to some of them the LOGICAL WAY to EXIST would be who ever is more stronger then the rest BASICALLY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT (take what they want from any species to provide for their species) because logic SAYS TO THEM MINUS EMOTION THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO AS THEY WISH WITH ANY SPECIES THEY CAN CONQUER. Emotionless LOGIC OKs this type of thinking / behavior because to them its logical they were given POWER over ALL weaker then them and CAN do what they want.

Sorta like how SOME not all humans (that may lack emotions or empathy) seem to LOGICALLY come to the acceptance that its OK to destroy rainforest/LARGE SEA ZONES like the G.O.M/and land masses areas like FUKUSHIMA with unsafe buildings designed in unsafe areas, to pave way for BIG business to build in these areas or extract from these areas MINERALS/CLOTHING-SHOE MATERIALS/PHARMACEUTICALS ECT. To 1 its not REALLY logical to DIG into the EA*RTH sea ZONES for OIL for example that in turn can destroy much of the sea life in those areas if SOMETHING WENT WRONG AS IT DID. But again TO THE SEEMINGLY EMOTIONLESS ITS A GOOD DEAL BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE MONEY WHICH TO SOME IS LOGICALLY MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE ANIMAL LIFE AND HUMAN LIFE THAT MAY BE EFFECTED FROM FEEDING ON THE ANIMALS FROM THESE AREAS.

On the other hand you have people who make LOGICAL decisions based off of CARE thru emotions that will say hey if you RECYCLE your plastic waste you WILL help the EA*RTH thrive instead of letting it build up in plastic masses in the oceans Or if you throw away your plastic waste on the beaches you WILL help some of the birds and animal life in those areas, help them by preventing them from being suffocated by your waste LOGICAL INTELLIGENT THINKING influenced by EMOTION or CARE for other CREATOR CREATIONS. Further there are people who WILL RALLY and TRY to PREVENT WARS based off of some strange logic. Those trying to prevent the wars are the LOGICAL thinkers CARING for others care influenced again from emotions considering how they would feel if the wars were at their home lands or if they had to deal with heavy pollution or oil waste on the regular. BUT to others its more logical to make this money and take this land for what ever reason NO MATTER WHO GETS KILLED IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE TO THEM ITS LOGICAL TO WAR FOR WHAT EVER ASSETS even if lives are lost to get to the goal.

So to 1 YES TRUE LOGIC cannot exist w/o emotion. good call OP sNf

NAMASTE*******

We as a species here on planet earth should be eradicated because we are killing the planet and have been for a very long time now. The hope that we could ever live in balance with mother earth is slim to none. We are a very bad horse to bet on. That's logic devoid of emotion. Now on the other which is my brothers argument logic would be that we utilize our resources responsibly. We live in balance with earth. I say that this is human logic and still contains emotion because obviously most of us don't want to die.