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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


It is a mistake to equate pure logic with pure objectivity. Even with a limited understanding of the cosmos we can still use pure logic as a tool. It is difficult to master our emotions, but not impossible.

We'll never ever be perfectly objective. Science has conclusively proven that people lie to themselves on a daily basis about small things, but we're not talking murder or anything of that calibre.

This lying is true for everyone, including scientists. We're all liars.

We're untrustworthy. Science reels us in, but our nature triumphs evenso.

It may not even be possible for life to ever exist without emotion. I liked one post that someone made here. It reminded me of the divide between left-brain and right-brain. A lot of times we have limited information and we have to make fast decisions and canot afford long pauses to be more objective. So we use our intuition. The question I wonder is whether intuition and emotions are related? Are emotions a kind of survival instinct that has been stored in our DNA and repeated through history and integrated with our intuition? Could they be two sides of the same coin?

In other words, perfect objectivity requires too much time. We NEED intuition. And if emotions aren't in some way intuition then I'm not sure what they're or why they're there.

Thought: Maybe emotions are DNA's intuition, if they're not our own?
edit on 27-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tadeusz
Och, this only reinforces my view that much of philosophy is bombast and mental masturbation...

Emotion, by my definition, exists outside of logic. Emotion can't be observed. Emotion can't be measured. Emotion is nothing and serves no purpose in the natural world.


It is not entirely true that we cannot observe emotions, the chemical oxytocin is something physical that is associated with love, and the chemical endorphine is something physical that is associated with happiness; but that is beside the point, my point was that it is emotion which gives meaning to things. Sure, logic would exist, but goals can only be formed through intention/desire (emotion).

Emotions have a HUGE purpose in the natural world. It helps living beings survive with fear when a predator is around and it helps a species survive with compassion and it helps a person survive with discomfort when they are starving or thirsty.


Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Because we aren't computers. Our brains are. Our minds aren't. Survival isn't about fear of death. It is about flourishing the Universe with life. We do not fear being dead but the act of dying because it is associated with an incomprehensible pain. Pain is obviously not pleasant and so we avoid it at all costs. All those things you listed are somewhat correct. You just need to remember the usage of the word "logical". It would be a logical response to eat if you are hungry. It would also be a logical response to eat if you want to eat food, for whatever reason. It would not be logical to eat if you do not want to eat or are not hungry.


I would argue that the universe is already filled with life, but I don't want to digress. Again, Logic is just a method of how things are operating, using Logic for a goal, intention requires emotion. If you are eating for survival, that is logic for the desire of survival



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:18 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.


Actually, it matters that people are healthy because of self-preservation. What happens in India eventually comes around and impacts every other place on earth. You don't have to have emotions to know that if somebody is killed wrongly somewhere that this wrongdoing will eventually find its way to you. So it's in everyone's best interest to reduce crime. But why do we have this self-preservation impulse? You would say emotions, I assume? You might be right. I don't know. I still stand by what I said that humans are inseparable from emotions and we'll never known perfect objectivity. Neither is this discussion conclusive and we cannot say much at all until we see the rest of the life in this universe so we can see how it behaves and whether emotion is present and if it's how much of it?

On a sidenote, they've already established that we join communities and help each other because it benefits self-preservation. People live longer with others - for many reasons - and by helping the community you ensure your status as a member. Many emotional things we do lead to positive self-preservation. The question is whether we could ever do these things without emotions? Sure, it makes sense to help others if it benefits self-preservation, but we don't know what it's like to not have emotions, so we cannot really say how'd we react if we didn't have them.

I also still think that some of this might be DNA's sense of intuition.

So in the last post I'm kind of arguing that we NEED gut feelings and intuitions (and probably emotions) to make a lot of our choices since there's not enough time afforded to us to be completely objective. Thus, if a person were to be detached from their emotion entirely then it might be that they'd be unable to make choices quick enough to survive well or maybe that their choices would eventually catch up with them and result in negative self-preservation.

Intuitions and emotions might just be nature's way of correcting for our limited information as individuals. Sort of like how libraries and government correct for our limited information.
edit on 27-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 





We'll never ever be perfectly objective. Science has conclusively proven that people lie to themselves on a daily basis about small things, but we're not talking murder or anything of that calibre.

We're untrustworthy. Science reels us in, but our nature triumphs.


Going back to the notion that we do not speak language but that language speaks us, we have to question the term "nature" in this regard. The Tao (the way, the path, the route) is a discipline that asks that we remain undisturbed and understand that everything is as it should be. This is not illogical, but is a logical method of learning to overcome our emotions, and why would we lie to ourselves on a daily basis if we we were in charge of our own emotions?

The Tao is a discipline, so it is not easy, but it offers a path where emotions can be used as tools as well. We can, not only possibly, but very probably and plausibly be cause over our emotions rather than the effect of them. Being cause over our emotions would be a logical path, and once on that path, and once mastering our emotions, this then becomes our "nature" and nature triumphs.




edit on 27-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I think what you said make most sense. The using of Logic and Emotion depend on each other because it is our Emotion from instinct that motivates us for self-preservation and Logic is how we do it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

So in the last post I'm kind of arguing that we NEED gut feelings and intuitions (and probably emotions) to make a lot of our choices since there's not enough time afforded to us to be completely objective. Thus, if a person were to be detached from their emotion entirely then it might be that they'd be unable to make choices quick enough to survive well or maybe that their choices would eventually catch up with them and result in negative self-preservation.

Intuitions and emotions might just be nature's way of correcting for our limited information as individuals. Sort of like how libraries and government correct for our limited information.

Indeed have we approximation schemes for when the situation gets too complicated. They give us answers which may not be optimal but work reasonably well. Need to make a crash landing in a plane? No time to calculate the best course, just do something reasonably right. But there is still an underlying system of logic beneath this approximation. It may even be probabilistic. That does not stop it from being logical. To paraphrase Carl Sagan: if you want to create a gut feeling from scratch you must first invent the universe.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by TRGreer
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.


No, that is not devoid of emotion. Once you said that humans are killing the planet therefore they should be eradicated, you are thinking with emotion. You are showing concern for earth, otherwise you wouldn't care about eradicating humans to protect earth.

Your statement shows apathy for the human race but it is still showing concern (emotion) for earth...
edit on 27-6-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by TRGreer
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.


Actually I make a distinction between what I consider pure logic (devoid of emotion) and human logic which I believe is fallible because of emotion. You didn't show my whole post. What I am getting at here is when someone has cancer they try to kill it or remove it. This is logical. Humans have been compared to a cancer on earth. Logic dictates that the cancer has to be killed or removed to insure the health and well being of the infected. Logic without emotion is cold and uncaring. Not a world I really want to live in. By the way I totally agree with my brother. I was just trying to make a point.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TRGreer
 


Isn't the quest for survival and the concern of the infected a quality of caring?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


It is a common characteristic among physicians that they lack emotinal intelligence:


Physicians, both male and female, often have hard-driving, type A personalities and may have little training in interpersonal skills. We may have high IQs but occasionally lack emotional intelligence.


Eotional Intelligence For Physicians, Most requested CME Course


Healthcare Organizations Have Adopted Emotional Intelligence As A Proactive Course For Physicians The most frequently requested topic for Continuing Medical Education for Physician staff development is Emotional Intelligence For Physicians.


This is because:


A recent commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests training in emotional intelligence could help medical residents and fellows become more sensitive toward their patients. Patients are less likely to complain and more likely to have positive health results if their physician communicates well with them. For these and other reasons, medical schools include interpersonal and communication skills in their training programs.


Why is it that so many patients feel their doctors don't care?


Feeling like your doctor is rushed, distracted, or just doesn't care? You're not alone, and it may be hurting your health and your pocketbook.


Surely physicians did not become doctors because they had no desire to help people. I suppose some simply became doctors for the money, but just like police, who will also show a detachment, many joined to serve and help. Why is it then that so many physicians are seeking emotional intelligence courses to better serve their patients? Is it possible that their compassion lacks the needed emotion many patients crave, and because of that compassion they are now learning how to show emotion, or learning how to be empathetic so they can achieve their initial goal, which was to help?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I remember an article I had read several months ago in Discover magazine.

It's called The End of Morality. It appeared on pg. 32 in the July/August 2011 issue.

READ IT. It's directly related to this topic thread.

Its conclusions were that, yes, nature gave us some emotions and intuition to make snap judgments, but it turns out that they're not very good ones. Those who override them make better choices.

Basically, evolution hasn't caught up? It fell behind? (it has faulty intuition?)

I'll have to re-read it again but I have to go to bed. I recall another article as well from another issue date. But I'll have to go through them. I think I made a post about it somewhere too.
edit on 28-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Heart carries emotions , brain uses logic ?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Emotions "uncontrolled" is the reason why things are the way they are today, not from the lack of them, but from the "raw emotional states" that people are born with no control over...

Start Trek was just a T.V. series, emulating suppositions of life, but their are lesson that can be gleaned from the shows earlier writings dealing with emotions, as they were embedded into different characters as "flaws"...

Logic exist "regardless" of emotions, while emotions are what either assist (when directed) or interfere (when allowed to freely roam unhindered)...

Most of this caused by basic Pituitary gland functions in response to external stimulant and internal consciousness and subconsciousness interactions with the outside world, versus the internal one..

The biggest issue is on the form of organic production of "adrenalin" mixed with estrogen for women, and testosterone for men..

Most emotional states are based upon chemical interaction within the body of a human, the differentiations are on a case by case bases...

Even the so called feelings of love, is a chemical state of existence brought on by various drugs released into the human body, it does wear off, leaving only the "after effects" remaining fore which by that time, the two individuals are caught up an a state of emotional reconciliation as they try to reconcile by overriding the chemicals states with "illogical and emotional reasoning" as to why they should continue onward, rather then looking at it as a true "logical" decision...

True logic (like mathematics) cannot lie, cannot deviate from the raw evidence presented as physical data for proof of concept, as a "true scientist" would care not a whit over what another "feels" over some subject matter presented, they would simply be concise, raw, and non emotional in the presentation of the data (information) itself...

If everyone actually were to be more unemotional, by learning to control the organic nature of this form more often, and refine it to a point that the human form is of no consequences in decisions based upon emotional content, we would have people actually saying what they mean, mean what they say, and follow through to it's conclusion, good or bad, while still remaining individual to personally directed MO's...

Emotions are "highly" overrated, as they interfere more often, then they ever help in humanities life...

And Love?... Love is not an emotional state, but an existence outside the scope of anyone ability to "quantify"...

What many call love is nothing more then either hormonal or instinctual "animistic" reactions to a given situation(s) no different then any other animal species in the wild...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


very true friend, however, i would like to point out that this very post is a logical work, and that logic very well can tell you why getting form A to B is important, as long as you take into account ever variable, emotion can, at times gives people a bias, but if you are logical with emotion and not like spock then this wont happen, always observe what is fair for everyone.

Has anyone ever watched the show 'the big bang theory' despite being a very clear attempt at glorifying the standard model of conventional science, i find it quite funny sometimes tbh, point being that theres an episode where sheldon tries to come up with an equation to explain why he has no friends and why he keeps offending people, and another character comes up and says you wont understand it with science, and i thought, not true, all he needs to do is actually USE logic to realise that emotions exist and are a real factor when it comes to human relationships, and therefore if he included human emotion in his equation he would understand. Its not very clever blanking out specific factors just because you dont want them to be factors or because they are not 'scientific' enough, logic is always perfect, and if its not its because the person hasn't understood what logic is.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by QuantifedInfinity
 


no offense sir, but people like you are whats wrong with the world in my humble opinion



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by simplyLOVE
reply to post by QuantifedInfinity
 


no offense sir, but people like you are whats wrong with the world in my humble opinion


If I was to have an emotional outburst, that might be taken as some form of offense, but being as I have long since chosen to control emotional states, I take it simply as a "statement" made by someone else in the world we all live through..

It is interesting that when one speak a truth, it is more often then not labeled a lie, or a threat to individuality, when in fact, one only has to say "I choose not to tell you of my own reasonings sir/madam" if they so choose to not engage in an emotional situation, or are being asked for an opinion or some form of evidence an investigation of some kind..

Most lies are from fear (an emotional state brought on by apprehension and self reflection of a given situation they found themselves in)

If I am what is wrong with this particular world, then so be it... It does not affect or effect my life one way or the other...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Tadeusz
Och, this only reinforces my view that much of philosophy is bombast and mental masturbation...

Emotion, by my definition, exists outside of logic. Emotion can't be observed. Emotion can't be measured. Emotion is nothing and serves no purpose in the natural world.


It is not entirely true that we cannot observe emotions, the chemical oxytocin is something physical that is associated with love, and the chemical endorphine is something physical that is associated with happiness; but that is beside the point, my point was that it is emotion which gives meaning to things. Sure, logic would exist, but goals can only be formed through intention/desire (emotion).


This actually brings to mind a conversation I had once with someone speaking of being on anti-depressants. She said it was like her emotions were just "turned off" due to the medication she was taking. Since emotions are strongly connected to chemicals and hormones produced by the body, would it be theoretically possible to "turn off" emotions? If so, that would definitely lend credance to emotions and logic being disconnected.


Granted, the emotions weren't actually "turned off" but actually just supressed, but it does lead to a way to investigate the interaction.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by simplyLOVE
 


Ironically, emotion was being used in order to use emotionless logic. It was his curious and desire that motivated him to ask why he has no friends... without emotion, that would have been of no importance.

So, I guess even the most so-called "emotionless" person is still motivated by curiosity when using logic.

Logic itself may not require emotion, but the use of it sure does.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by TRGreer
 


Isn't the quest for survival and the concern of the infected a quality of caring?



I think survival is instinctual. Could instinct be considered logic? I mean whats the point if there is no drive to survive. It seems logical that life would seek to continue. Any life.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 

As an continuance of my previous post, I'd like to talk about The End of Morality. I implied in one of my sentences that emotions and intuition are obsoleted and should be overriden. But I was typing fast and had to go to bed and so didn't type it the way I wanted and I also was partially in error. First of all, just overriding your intuition (or emotions) is not always going to yield a better answer (as relates to the common good of everyone). Second, the main man referenced in the article is a Josh Greene, neuroscientist (also referenced as cognitive scientist in the article). There're a number of others briefly mentioned along with their research as well. But at the end of the article, this is how Greene's theory is explained (Discover, July/August 2011, The End of Morality, p. 92):
"A bumper sticker reading "Don't believe everything you think" is poised on the edge of the whiteboard in Greene's office. It encapsulates the underlying message of the book he is writing. An analogy carried throughout the book compares the moral brain to a camera with automatic settings for taking a picture of a mountain or an indoor portrait or a close-up of a flower, and manual settings for unusual conditions or when we want a nonstandard artistic effect. Greene believes emotions and intuitions are the auto settings for our morality while reasoning is the manual mode. We need our intuitions to make the millions of quick judgments that fill our lives from day to day or else we couldn't function. But they are not always trustworthy moral indicators, since they were set to handle problems deep in our evolutionary past and are often useless for the newer complexities of the modern world. We need to rely on our manual settings, the reasoning sections of our brain, for more complex or novel situations, Greene says." (these aren't in Greene's own words)

I'd highly recommend Discover magazine. It's very fun to read and full of 'informations'.

When I first posted here about my thoughts this article did not cross my mind. But what I stated is very similar to what's essentially said in this article. Perhaps I remembered it in a subtle way.

Also please note that this is not the end of morality. Rather, what Greene and other's who agree with him are arguing is that snap morality judgments are not always dependable. The reasoning is that they were created over the past million(s) of years at some point in evolutionary history and are not entirely prepared for this more modern and complex world. This does not mean they're wholly inadequate. What it all amounts to is that the brain needs to conserve energy and time, so making quick judgments becomes a necessity. These instinctive judgments require a lot of time to create and so they embody many thousands and millions of years of adjustments, thus there's a limited lifespan associated with them and no guarantee they're accurate at the present time of use.

This reminds me of how obesity is so common. It used to be that the seasons had great impact on how we live. So evolution constructed in his the desire to eat and store fat for winter. But the modern world has conspired to work against us and it has reduced the significance of the seasons, yet our genetics are still thinking the seasons matter and are still inciting us to store fat for winter despite that it's not as necessary as it once was. This is a very similar idea because it shows that there's a lag time in genetics and instinct. In order for them to be appropriate the environment around us has to remain steady for a prolonged period. If dramatic changes occur, as I understand it, then our genetics and instinct begin to fail at correctly estimating moral resolutions.

Not all of this is certain. There's still a lot of theory underlying this, as is stated in the article. But if you do happen to read it, you'll see that there's a lot of tantalizing evidence tied to it.
edit on 28-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Tadeusz
Och, this only reinforces my view that much of philosophy is bombast and mental masturbation...

Emotion, by my definition, exists outside of logic. Emotion can't be observed. Emotion can't be measured. Emotion is nothing and serves no purpose in the natural world.


It is not entirely true that we cannot observe emotions, the chemical oxytocin is something physical that is associated with love, and the chemical endorphine is something physical that is associated with happiness; but that is beside the point, my point was that it is emotion which gives meaning to things. Sure, logic would exist, but goals can only be formed through intention/desire (emotion).

This actually brings to mind a conversation I had once with someone speaking of being on anti-depressants. She said it was like her emotions were just "turned off" due to the medication she was taking. Since emotions are strongly connected to chemicals and hormones produced by the body, would it be theoretically possible to "turn off" emotions? If so, that would definitely lend credance to emotions and logic being disconnected.


Granted, the emotions weren't actually "turned off" but actually just supressed, but it does lead to a way to investigate the interaction.

Umm, they commonly watch emotions unfold in the brain when doing research studies.

In fact, in The End of Morality, one of the research studies did more than that.

Here on p. 36 (Discover, July/August 2011, The End of Morality):
"In a second set of studies, the researchers temporarily disabled the right temporal parietal junction with pulses of magnetism delivered through transcranial magnetic stimulation, a technique used to treat Parkinson's disease and some intractable cases of depression. When that key brain region was disabled, subjects placed more weight on outcome and less on intent and were more likely to judge a bungled murder moral. The researchers concluded that the right temporal parietal junction not only was activated during this kind of moral judgment but was pivotal in adding intent to the moral equation and determining the volunteers' point of view."

In the study they did a scenario where volunteers were asked to judge the morality of a person who tries to kill someone else by poisoning their drink but fails because they mistakenly put sugar in it. This is compared to a person who puts what they think is sugar into the drink but turns out to be poison. This kills the other person. So you have to judge which is more moral. Most people, before they had their right temporal parietal junction disabled, judged the intent of the person as being important. So this means they concluded that the person who tried to poison the drink was more immoral in character than the person who accidentally poisoned the drink.
edit on 28-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join