A Reasonable Emotion

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

 

[none]

Never gave this subject much thought, but who'd of figured we'd be better of with Mork from Ork than with Spock from Vulcan?

 

[Davka]

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.

 

[Horatio Parker]

We can't help what we feel.

But we can control our actions.

 

[Nexus]

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.

Computer algorithms make choices without emotion so his conclusions are clearly false. While that man's case is interesting, the decision making part of his brain was also damaged which could be solely responsible for his indecision. Obviously emotions form a foundation for peoples actions but their chances of achieving their goals is enhanced once reason takes over guiding them. Humans without reason would be like every other animal in this world using its instincts simply eat and procreate for a little while longer.

 

[none]

I think she was talking about intelligent sentient beings... but there is always hormonal sentience.

 

[Kharakov]

We can't help what we feel.

But we can control our actions.

You've been con trolled by e- motions.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Computer algorithms make choices without emotion so his conclusions are clearly false. While that man's case is interesting, the decision making part of his brain was also damaged which could be solely responsible for his indecision. Obviously emotions form a foundation for peoples actions but their chances of achieving their goals is enhanced once reason takes over guiding them. Humans without reason would be like every other animal in this world using its instincts simply eat and procreate for a little while longer.

I find that passion is also necessary to to reach your goals. In world with way too many distractions, naysayers, and general bad luck, logic will often dictate quitting. What is there then to make one persevere?

 

[Rilx]

Computer algorithms make choices without emotion so his conclusions are clearly false.

Computer algorithms don't make choices, they follow explicit rules.

The article seems to point that non-emotional people try to "calculate" the right answer because they have no subjective relationship with the question. Zombies, I'd say.

 

[Juma]

Computer algorithms don't make choices, they follow explicit rules.

no true scotsman? Really? To make a choice is to select one of many possible actions. Generally no emotion is needed to make a decision. It is just that humans are hardwired in that way. Emotions is just input to the selection process as anything else, nothing magic.

 

[untermensche]

Computer algorithms don't make choices, they follow explicit rules.

no true scotsman? Really? To make a choice is to select one of many possible actions. Generally no emotion is needed to make a decision. It is just that humans are hardwired in that way. Emotions is just input to the selection process as anything else, nothing magic.

Emotions serve as a guide to making decisions that increase the likelihood of survival and reproductive success.

Animals use emotions to influence decisions.

Things that are not animals may make decisions but they don't make them the way animals do.

 

[ronburgundy]

The article in the OP confuses 2 qualitatively different types of choices that basically map onto the is/ought distinction. Choices about what is true or accurate (scientific questions) do not require emotion. Logical analysis of the available evidence and competing theories/claims is sufficient to determine the most plausible answer. In contrast choices about one ought to do (preferences, morals, policies, etc.) are inherently emotional and cannot be made without some form of what is ultimately an emotional preference between the assumed properties of the various options. The example of choosing a pen in the OP is the latter "ought" kind of choice. No amount of objective knowledge and logic can ever lead to a conclusion about which color pen to choose. Facts and logic can come into play and have an influence, but they are never sufficient for "ought" choices. Emotion, or at least the approach/avoidance system at the core of emotion, is the root of all wants, desires, goals, and preferences. Facts and logic can only tell us how to best achieve a goal and which goals and sub-goals are compatible, but it cannot ever tell us which ultimate goal is better, because that is not an objective quality of goals but nothing other than an emotional preference of beings capable of having preferences.

 

[EricK]

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?

Emotion tells us what we want to do or achieve; reason tells us how best to go about it.

You can't use reason to determine what you want to achieve as ultimately there is no objective way of saying outcome A is better than outcome B other than it is what you prefer (or if you have a rational reason for preferring A to B it only because there is some consequence C which you prefer for emotional reasons)

And you shouldn't use emotion to tell you how best to go about things as the actual consequences of your actions are not what you want or hope or feel them to be, but can, potentially, be rationally deduced (given enough information).

It's possible that the reason Eliot couldn't decide what pen to use was not just that he had to make a decision, but that he had no way to determine what the desired goal was - i.e. that one pen was as good as any other. I wonder if he could, say, play chess, which involves a lot of decision making but has a definite goal.

ETA: I've just noticed the post above mine, from ronburgundy, which says the same as what I wanted to, only more eloquently.

 

[untermensche]

...Choices about what is true or accurate (scientific questions) do not require emotion...

Is this really a choice?

Or does the evidence force us to believe something?

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

The fallacy here is to consider our reason and emotion to be two distinct parts of the brain and through some system of checks and balances, they compete for the will.

When I read the story about the man's post tumor impairment, I see a man who is operating with less than his whole brain. Why would anyone expect it to be as it was before. The impaired emotional response and the inability to make choices are parallel symptoms. I don't believe emotion is required to make quick choices. What is needed is an intact brain.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The article in the OP confuses 2 qualitatively different types of choices that basically map onto the is/ought distinction. Choices about what is true or accurate (scientific questions) do not require emotion. Logical analysis of the available evidence and competing theories/claims is sufficient to determine the most plausible answer. In contrast choices about one ought to do (preferences, morals, policies, etc.) are inherently emotional and cannot be made without some form of what is ultimately an emotional preference between the assumed properties of the various options. The example of choosing a pen in the OP is the latter "ought" kind of choice. No amount of objective knowledge and logic can ever lead to a conclusion about which color pen to choose. Facts and logic can come into play and have an influence, but they are never sufficient for "ought" choices. Emotion, or at least the approach/avoidance system at the core of emotion, is the root of all wants, desires, goals, and preferences. Facts and logic can only tell us how to best achieve a goal and which goals and sub-goals are compatible, but it cannot ever tell us which ultimate goal is better, because that is not an objective quality of goals but nothing other than an emotional preference of beings capable of having preferences.

You sure do type a lot to say fairly little.

 

[J842P]

The article in the OP confuses 2 qualitatively different types of choices that basically map onto the is/ought distinction. Choices about what is true or accurate (scientific questions) do not require emotion. Logical analysis of the available evidence and competing theories/claims is sufficient to determine the most plausible answer. In contrast choices about one ought to do (preferences, morals, policies, etc.) are inherently emotional and cannot be made without some form of what is ultimately an emotional preference between the assumed properties of the various options. The example of choosing a pen in the OP is the latter "ought" kind of choice. No amount of objective knowledge and logic can ever lead to a conclusion about which color pen to choose. Facts and logic can come into play and have an influence, but they are never sufficient for "ought" choices. Emotion, or at least the approach/avoidance system at the core of emotion, is the root of all wants, desires, goals, and preferences. Facts and logic can only tell us how to best achieve a goal and which goals and sub-goals are compatible, but it cannot ever tell us which ultimate goal is better, because that is not an objective quality of goals but nothing other than an emotional preference of beings capable of having preferences.

Exactly this. Perhaps we could make an analogy to mathematics. Ultimately, an emotionally derived proposition will serve as the basis for any ethical claim or deduction - or any "ought claim" more broadly. This is the same as an axiom in mathematics. We might use the example of a claim like "killing sentient beings is wrong." This is just an emotional statement - it says nothing objective about the real world and merely states an emotional preference of a person. In an analogy with mathematics, group theory for example, we can compare these moral axioms to the group axioms. One can use these axioms along with logic and reasoning to arrive at other conclusions (group theory).

 

[Underseer]

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?

If you say something is true because of an emotion, then that is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Otherwise, there's nothing inherently wrong with emotions per se.

 

[Kharakov]

If you say something is true because of an emotion, then that is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

It is true that I am amused at your comment because of the amusement I feel at your comment.

 

[bigfield]

Appeals to emotion keep a lot of the wrong politicians in power.