A Reasonable Emotion

[surreptitious57]

One should strive whenever discussing specific subject matter to be as logical and as non emotional as possible because
emotion can compromise lucid thinking. So one should be aware of committing logical fallacies or engaging in emotional
reasoning. Sometimes given the subject matter it can be hard. If one for example is discussing the death penalty that is
a particularly emotional subject but is still possible to discuss it from a predominantly logical perspective. One could cite
miscarriages of justices which are facts and so any appeal to emotion is unnecessary. But the very nature of the subject
however means that it is by definition an emotional subject and so allowances should have to be made for that. On other
subjects where the only contention is just facts themselves then appeals to emotion of any kind should not be necessary
And so for example if one is discussing the age of the Earth. There is scientific evidence that it is 4.6 billion years old and
as such has to be accepted as fact. Anyone thinking otherwise because of Genesis is evidently wrong and are themselves
appealing to emotion to justify their view. But where facts can be demonstrated then such appeals are simply superfluous

I find myself that it helps not to have fixed opinions on anything unless it can be objectively demonstrated through either
observable fact or the use of reason or logic. Not having fixed opinions removes one from the binds of emotional thinking
and allows one the freedom to consider all opinion on a particular topic not just the ones one finds most favour with. And
the way to do that is use critical thinking as the default position to test the reliability of some thing so not relying on false
comfort of emotional thinking. Although it should also be pointed out that as we are emotional beings then it is impossible
to eradicate emotion. Which is fine if it does not impinge upon ones ability to determine what is and is not objectively true

 

[untermensche]

Jefferson and his ilk lived like kings on those illusory profits.

It is very rational to continue living like a king.

And the other factors to consider are the emotional factors. The empathy for the slave.

Industrialisation provided a better economic alternative to slavery.

The landowners and capitalists had as much empathy for the slaves as they did for the working class that replaced them.

I agree.

So any condemnation of slavery and it's alternative, wage-slavery, must come from emotion.

It is rational to exploit somebody else for your ends. You get more.

 

[bigfield]

Industrialisation provided a better economic alternative to slavery.

The landowners and capitalists had as much empathy for the slaves as they did for the working class that replaced them.

I agree.

So any condemnation of slavery and it's alternative, wage-slavery, must come from emotion.

It is rational to exploit somebody else for your ends. You get more.

Sometimes you get more than you bargained for. Like La Guillotine.

It is not rational to keep the working class in poverty. It is bad economic policy.

An impoverished workforce commits a great deal of crime, including against the rich; they cannot participate in the consumer market; they cannot provide anything but the least skilled forms of labour; they die young, and can't afford healthcare.

 

[untermensche]

I agree.

So any condemnation of slavery and it's alternative, wage-slavery, must come from emotion.

It is rational to exploit somebody else for your ends. You get more.

It is not rational to keep the working class in poverty. It is bad economic policy.

In hindsight statements like this can be made.

But at the time slave owners lived nicely. For them, the system was perfectly rational. And minus a huge civil war, an unforeseeable event, the system would have lasted a long time more.

An impoverished workforce commits a great deal of crime, including against the rich; they cannot participate in the consumer market; they cannot provide anything but the least skilled forms of labour; they die young, and can't afford healthcare.

This is the big picture. But there is nothing that says one must look at the big picture to be rational.

If one's lot is improved by oppression then the oppression is rational. Crime and the other stuff, that is just uncontrollable randomness, like a tornado.

If a tornado destroys a persons crops we don't say they behaved irrationally in growing them.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

See: hume
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I agree.

So any condemnation of slavery and it's alternative, wage-slavery, must come from emotion.

It is rational to exploit somebody else for your ends. You get more.

Sometimes you get more than you bargained for. Like La Guillotine.

It is not rational to keep the working class in poverty. It is bad economic policy.

An impoverished workforce commits a great deal of crime, including against the rich; they cannot participate in the consumer market; they cannot provide anything but the least skilled forms of labour; they die young, and can't afford healthcare.

A guy named herbert gans wrote a really interesting essay called "positive functions of the undeserving poor" which I first read in the 80s and have read quite a few times since.

 

[fromderinside]

Appeals to emotion are what make us human. But they are also used to manipulate opinion and create effective propaganda. Some balance between reason and emotion is needed.

That, and not being a jerk.

Jerk here.

Just a bit of scienty orientation. Humans are animals. So emotion isn't what makes us human. It might be what makes us different from self aware computers. If that is what this is all about then what's the meaning of the below?

from OP by AthenaAwakened:

As a result of all of these effects, we can see that Eliot is pathologically indecisive. The answer to the original question of whether it would be beneficial to be completely logical is no. The only way to cut down to a choice is to go with a feeling. The feeling of emotional yeses and nos is what allows us to make a decision. Without emotion we would be stuck. This could be supportive evidence for the evolutionary basis of emotions. If we always got stuck on making simple decisions, it would be an evolutionary disadvantage.

Take it as scienty fact that human and other living thing emotions are evolutionary based. The random intervener tends to choose between what it can choose among when making fitness decisions. That said we are mammals with a autonomic and parasympathetic neural and hormonal systems which have stayed basically the same since fishes. We are emotional because our neural systems sense and use these vertebrate features just as do all other vertebrates. Emotions are definitely not what makes us human.

Is anyone sure we make decisions? I mean every day decisions like choosing this or that person to be attempting communication right now, to be writing on a secular forum, to be making this argument? "I'm here doing this because ...." is where we try to insert a rational argument for free will is it not. Casual observation of causality and free will arguments and the science undoing the 'it exists' positions right now should be enough to cause one to pause.

Discussing making choices about how we make choices has a similar history to that of free will in that science has taken it over and objectified it as a system based on ideals; outcomes based on defined parameters in a closed model. Do decisions come down to choices or are they just part of how the chemical machine works. Can we treat facets of behavior called choice in the moment at the same time treat then as how humans work. Or need we always go back to ten thousand year old observations about this became part of human this or that then; like we became lactose tolerant about 55 hundred years ago or blue eyes entered the human genome about 10,000 years ago.

If you haven't got my orientation yet consider me one of those who believe we justify what we do with after the fact rationalizations. Decisions are not a central element of being human. Decisions are probably a nice sub discussion under humans being social.

For the sake of this discussion I only want to point these things out. I certainly don't want to argue them. Yet, these observations corrupt this entire discussion since they are obviously not part of it. Perhaps if some of you who know about evolution and emotion at a professional, treating or researching, level were to interject your takes we might actually get beyond an essentially he says she says circle event.

Thanks for reading.

 

[ronburgundy]

Jerk here.

Just a bit of scienty orientation. Humans are animals. So emotion isn't what makes us human. It might be what makes us different from self aware computers.

Also, most animals species from reptiles to primates have something that is closer to and the foundation of human emotion than they do something close to human abstract thought and reasoning. Ultimately, our entire emotional system is just a variant of the basic approach or avoidance system of most animals. Emotions are a conscious experience of bodily states triggered by stimuli for which we have learned or innate positive versus negative associations. Many of our behavioral reactions related to experienced emotions could still occur without human levels of self-awareness. They are epiphenomena. In contrast, reasoned thought inherently entails the conscious control of attention and cognitive processes to manipulate abstract conceptual tokens that stand for experienced entities and events. Thus only emerges among organisms with these capacities for constructing abstract concepts via induction and conscious control of reasoned thought. Lacking consciousness, computers can no more engage in reasoning processes like humans can than computers can experience emotion. All computers can do is to execute their programming commands which can be made to follow rules of logic or follow programmed preferences for various ideas or features of ideas (which is the essence of what emotion-influenced decision making is). The source of the preferences comes not from within the computer but the preferences of humans, but that is no different than the source of the logic rules in programming.

 

[fromderinside]

Jerk here.

Just a bit of scienty orientation. Humans are animals. So emotion isn't what makes us human. It might be what makes us different from self aware computers.

Also, most animals species from reptiles to primates have something that is closer to and the foundation of human emotion than they do something close to human abstract thought and reasoning. Ultimately, our entire emotional system is just a variant of the basic approach or avoidance system of most animals. Emotions are a conscious experience of bodily states triggered by stimuli for which we have learned or innate positive versus negative associations. Many of our behavioral reactions related to experienced emotions could still occur without human levels of self-awareness. They are epiphenomena. In contrast, reasoned thought inherently entails the conscious control of attention and cognitive processes to manipulate abstract conceptual tokens that stand for experienced entities and events. Thus only emerges among organisms with these capacities for constructing abstract concepts via induction and conscious control of reasoned thought. Lacking consciousness, computers can no more engage in reasoning processes like humans can than computers can experience emotion. All computers can do is to execute their programming commands which can be made to follow rules of logic or follow programmed preferences for various ideas or features of ideas (which is the essence of what emotion-influenced decision making is). The source of the preferences comes not from within the computer but the preferences of humans, but that is no different than the source of the logic rules in programming.

Not to quibble too much, but, when does a computer that was designed by a computer that was designed by a computer break away from the need to be human conceived? This could get us on a Catholic God discussion donchano. For instance, was it properties of clay that enabled the formation of DNA that, with chance and time, led to humans that is the source of human intelligence? I'm thinking no. It wasn't time or chance either btw.

 

[Juma]

Industrialisation provided a better economic alternative to slavery.

The landowners and capitalists had as much empathy for the slaves as they did for the working class that replaced them.

I agree.

So any condemnation of slavery and it's alternative, wage-slavery, must come from emotion.

It is rational to exploit somebody else for your ends. You get more.

No, that is also emotional. There are NO goals that is not results of emotion.

 

[NobleSavage]

You would think that choices would be made easier if emotion did not conflict with our ability to reason, but Radiolab concludes that this is not the case. They wonder if a "Spock" or "vulcan" like person who is completely logical would actually be beneficial. They bring the question to a neurologist and psychologist named Antoine Bechara. Antoine then tells the story of Eliot who is a completely normal man, but had a tumor in his orbital frontal cortex that was removed. This part of the brain plays a key part in decision-making and emotion.250px-OFC.JPG After it was removed Eliot was still relatively normal but took a long time in making the most simple decisions. He couldn't even decide what color pen to use at work. It would take him half an hour to decide. Eliot eventually visited a neurologist who realized he spoke normally but had no emotion to it. So the neurologist presented him with disturbing images and saw that he had no emotional responses in the brain.

As a result of all of these effects, we can see that Eliot is pathologically indecisive. The answer to the original question of whether it would be beneficial to be completely logical is no. The only way to cut down to a choice is to go with a feeling. The feeling of emotional yeses and nos is what allows us to make a decision. Without emotion we would be stuck. This could be supportive evidence for the evolutionary basis of emotions. If we always got stuck on making simple decisions, it would be an evolutionary disadvantage.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/meyer769/section16&17/2011/11/emotion-and-choice.html

Often we pit reason against emotion. But what if they are simply halves of a whole? In debate, appeals to emotions are the great taboo of rational discourse, or is it?

What do you think?

This is cool and all, but I think our crude understanding of the brain, like X spot does Y, is grossly oversimplified. When neurologists see a section of the brain light up in an EKG machine I can't help but think, "What medieval technology".

 

[Underseer]

You know what kept black folk walking in Montgomery for over 13 months? Passion
You know what kept the suffragettes on their hunger strike in Lawton Prison? Passion
You know what kept the auto workers in that plant in Flint during the sit down strike of '36-'37? Passion

Appeals to emotion are what bend the moral universe toward justice.

Emotions, like story, are powerful, necessary components to living in and changing the world. So is logic. there is not inferior or superior between passion and planning, but when either is missing the other doesn't work.

Passion? Nah.

As said in that Rage Against the Machine song, "anger is a gift."

Rage over injustice can be a powerful motivator in such political movements.

However, rage and/or fear (they're pretty closely linked) is dangerous stuff to mess with. Get too much of it, and you don't think so clearly. That's why conservolibertarian propaganda outlets use so much fear to convince their audience to vote against their own best interests. This is why fascist regimes from Germany to Spain to Italy and elsewhere used fear of external populations and/or minority groups so heavily in their propaganda. This is why Soviet propaganda used fear of "counter-revolutionary subversives" and "capitalist saboteurs" to manipulate their audience.

Small amounts of fear make humans more predictable. You can talk them into things they would otherwise never agree to under the influence of fear. The problem is that every human has a breaking point beyond which fear makes them less predictable rather than more predictable, and I'll bet every human has that breaking point in a different place.

That's why reason-destroying emotions like fear or rage are dangerous toys to play with.