Logic vs emotion

[BillHoyt]

ok, then I will be more specific. Not everyone who uses deductive logic is making an effort to get to the truth. Sometimes they are deliberately using false premises along with logic to "prove" their own version of what they want to be true.
IndigoRose

The "tool problem" you cite is well known. Deductive logic only promises a true conclusion if given true premises and produced through a sound syllogism.

How does such behavior reflect on the tool? How does the behavior of some reflect on the motives of the rest? This is specious.

 

[IndigoRose]

The "tool problem" you cite is well known. Deductive logic only promises a true conclusion if given true premises and produced through a sound syllogism.

How does such behavior reflect on the tool? How does the behavior of some reflect on the motives of the rest? This is specious.

It doesn't ... no more than someone using a screwdriver for a hammer would. I said that logic is not always used to get to the truth. I did not say that this was because there is some flaw in logic.

Back to my original question however... When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.
IndigoRose

 

[Dymanic]

Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision?

I would say, "Whenever time allows".

Emotions are not something to be consulted prior to making a decision -- they are the end result of a decision-making process which has already taken place. In a real-world environment, decisions must often be made based on incomplete information, and in the hostile envoronments of our ancestors, survival usually favored speed over precision. Running from a hundred lions which turn out to be imaginary is preferable to hesitating in the face of a single one which turns out to be real.

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I would say, "Whenever time allows".

Emotions are not something to be consulted prior to making a decision -- they are the end result of a decision-making process which has already taken place. In a real-world environment, decisions must often be made based on incomplete information, and in the hostile envoronments of our ancestors, survival usually favored speed over precision. Running from a hundred lions which turn out to be imaginary is preferable to hesitating in the face of a single one which turns out to be real.

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

I agree.

 

[IndigoRose]

I would say, "Whenever time allows".

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

hmmm....maybe I should reword the question....ok.... Do *you* ever make a decsion where you say, "I *feel* like doing ...whatever? Or is every decision based on some kind of logical analysis? If so, what is the logical analysis going on when you are making decisions such as vanilla vs chocolate?
IndigoRose

 

[Batman Jr.]

So then we're now talking about parsimonious logic as opposed to more extensive logic?

Vanilla vs. Chocolate:

I'll use my two-part-decision-making archetype:

1. I desire chocolate
2. a) If I eat chocolate, my desires will be satiated
   b) If I eat vanilla, I will not have satiated my desire
   c) Therefore, I choose the chocolate.

I guess this would be classified as parsimonious as the logical processes involved in coming to the conclusion in item 2c in the list are performed instantaneously and discreetly.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by IndigoRose

hmmm....maybe I should reword the question....ok.... Do *you* ever make a decsion where you say, "I *feel* like doing ...whatever?

Of course. (Doesn't always work out all that great either, btw).

Or is every decision based on some kind of logical analysis?

As I said above, I think even an emotional decision is based on some kind of logic, at some level. Plus, since the type of logical analysis for the type of decision you are referring to is really a cost/benefit analysis, to produce realistically viable results it must take into account possible emotional costs and benefits.

If so, what is the logical analysis going on when you are making decisions such as vanilla vs chocolate?

I think it can get complicated. Decisions often involve competition between various sub-processes, some concerned with short-term goals, others with long-term goals, and with a lot of feedback in both directions. Vanilla vs chocolate is trivial enough to be settled by some sort of mental coin toss; ice cream vs sit-ups might be a more interesting struggle.

 

[BillHoyt]

When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.
IndigoRose

In some ways, the question begins with a false premise. Viewed one way, it assumes one can make a wholly emotional decision, wholly devoid of logic. Viewed the other way, it assumes one can make a wholly logical decision, devoid of emotion.

To resolve this, you need to trace back to fundamentals. In deductive logic, what informs the premises?

 

[IndigoRose]

So then we're now talking about parsimonious logic as opposed to more extensive logic?

Vanilla vs. Chocolate:

I'll use my two-part-decision-making archetype:

1. I desire chocolate.....

1. 
   
   What I am talking about is making decisions based on emotion, as in "I desire chocolate."
   IndigoRose

 

[BPSCG]

When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.

If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

 

[BillHoyt]

What I am talking about is making decisions based on emotion, as in "I desire chocolate."
IndigoRose

I desire chocolate, therefore...?

 

[IndigoRose]

If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".
IndigoRose

 

[IndigoRose]

I desire chocolate, therefore...?

Yes, I am talking about the "I desire chocolate" part of that, "desire" being an emotion. I am not saying that emotion prevents one from applying logic, but that the decision is based on the emotion.
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".
IndigoRose

So what you are really talking about is using emotion to feed the premises, which is the point I've been driving at.

Deduction yields no new information, it merely uncovers the truth hidden inside things already known or assumed. We must always use something else to feed it new premises.

What you're grappling with here Antonio Damasso has dubbed Descartes' Error: Cartesian dualism. It is a false premise.

 

[IndigoRose]

Of course. (Doesn't always work out all that great either, btw).
As I said above, I think even an emotional decision is based on some kind of logic, at some level. Plus, since the type of logical analysis for the type of decision you are referring to is really a cost/benefit analysis, to produce realistically viable results it must take into account possible emotional costs and benefits.
I think it can get complicated. Decisions often involve competition between various sub-processes, some concerned with short-term goals, others with long-term goals, and with a lot of feedback in both directions. Vanilla vs chocolate is trivial enough to be settled by some sort of mental coin toss; ice cream vs sit-ups might be a more interesting struggle.

This is an excelent answer. Yes, an emotional decision is not illogical. The original question was worded poorly. I am still trying to figure out a better way to word it. Maybe, how often does your logical decision making start with "I desire, therefore..", making it an emotional decision but not an illogical one.
IndigoRose

 

[Rob Lister]

So what you are really talking about is using emotion to feed the premises, which is the point I've been driving at.

Deduction yields no new information, it merely uncovers the truth hidden inside things already known or assumed. We must always use something else to feed it new premises.

What you're grappling with here Antonio Damasso has dubbed Descartes' Error: Cartesian dualism. It is a false premise.

Wow! The only reason I answered "always" and "never" in my original answer was to promote the debate. It never occured to me they may have been the correct answers - in a circular sort of way.

 

[BillHoyt]

Wow! The only reason I answered "always" and "never" in my original answer was to promote the debate. It never occured to me they may have been the correct answers - in a circular sort of way.

When confronted by a false dichotomy, "yes" is often the correct answer.

 

[Suggestologist]

When confronted by a false dichotomy, "yes" is often the correct answer.

"Both .. and" rather than "either.. or". A generic way to break out of a paradox.

 

[Batman Jr.]

This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".

This is still a decision driven by emotion. You just have a stronger desire to lose weight than you do to eat chocolate.

 

[rppa]

If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

That's a very important but possibly subtle point. I can think of management examples where somebody thought they were making a quantifiable decision because they assigned numbers to things and added them up. This is a way that people fool themselves into thinking they are being "objective" and "logical" and "quantitative".

The problem is that the numerical model, the scoring algorithm, and thus the logic may be deeply flawed and in fact highly subjective, or even representing the opposite of either an emotional or logical decision would be.

My preference for a dichotomy would be between "logical" and "intuitive", because intuition really stands for a decision basis that you might at first have a great deal of trouble quantifying, but if you do, it's the better and more logical basis.