1. If one person out of seven billion cracks it, then seven billion people can access it - e.g. DVD Jon cracks DVD encryption and now we all watch DVDs on our PCs.
2. Refusing to use Microsoft-only formats/protocols to recieve media sends a strong message to the media provider that they should offer something else if they want his attention. This works for news-outlets and entertainment,
If you're suggesting that he is seriously impairing his learning or life-quality by cutting off these sources, then that would be a counter-point to point two. But I think it's unlikely that he can't get the same information or entertainment elsewhere.
I realize this is anecdote vs. anecdote, but I'm using KDE here and I find it no different to Windows XP in terms of speed. In fact, the Kubuntu system I'm on at the moment is actually on a slightly lower spec.
But then both systems have reached the point where the GUI works as quickly as I do, so improvement past that point is invisible.
No, what DVD Jon is doing, is helping make Microsoft proprietary protocols and formats become the standard. The true form of resistance to this would be to not use it and compete with a different format.
No offense to him intended - what he's doing has merit, and breaking the DVD encryption was a favour to everyone. But the wider implications of this particular effort should be at least considered,
it seems we cannot agree simply because of different definitions of calculation. It is my belief the calculation is something you do, based on stored data, resulting in an answer, not a decision.
You have defined an area of what I call decision and excised it from the concept because you feel that it is not an act of will, but merely deducing an answer. In what way is this different from emotion in which you assess the input and deduce an answer (happiness, fear, etc)? I can and have done things that make me feel bad - putting the wrong answer in essence. I've done this because logic has shown me that it is ultimately to my benefit despite my emotions' limited view on the situation. This illustrates that both the logical mind and the emotional mind can conflict. Surely you do not deny these conflicts? And if you do not, then what else can such a conflict be over, if not the choice of what action to take? And if there is conflict over this, then logically, not all decisions derive from emotion.
Why do you play chess, and what is your goal in playing?
Why do you feel emotions and what is your goal in feeling them? That's not facetious linguistics, I assure you. If we apply the principles to your argument for emotions that you have applied to my argument for logical decisions then you quickly find that no decisions are based on emotion - really they are based on breathing, or on digestion, or blood-circulation, or oxidisation, or the filling of electron shells. And ultimately, we arrive at the conclusion that the only reason for anything is because is (not a typo).
Do you understand my point - you have not reduced your argument to the lowest point, the equation is not yet solved. When you expand your argument, we find that it is logically and philosophically void - the equivalent of 1 = 1.
The only remaining interesting point is whether the logical mind can substitute the emotional mind now that it is sophisticated enough, and I believe that I have shown at least one example where it can. Decisions only manifest in our actions and some of our actions are based on emotional logic and some of them are based on more abstract logic (what you have been calling "logic" throughout).
I'm afraid that I'll have to draw this to a close now, for myself. I understand what you are saying and have addressed everything in it in previous posts. Anything further from me on this would be merely repetition. If you want clarification on it, please re-read my earlier posts. I promise you that everything is there and that it does not come down to a disagreement on the definition of calculation.
Ah, so I've been trolled! That's a rare event, well done.:)
Anyway, what you are saying is much closer to the point I am making - I have seperated the logical decisions required to accomplish something from the emotional decisions that make me want to accomplish something. Put like that, it seems to me that the logical set are much more actual decisions than the emotional set, which are more like mere value judgements.
However, as this thread is splintering, I'm posting the rest of my comments below, 'cause they are more addressing BD's disagreement with what I've said; whereas I feel that in your case, you understand my point, which is where I stop arguing. I've no need to proceed in an attempt to make you agree with it - that would be a purely emotional decision.;)
Fundamental difference - The current certification is (a) proprietary and (b) varying from organization to organization. What this means is that the certification industry goes into lock-down with a few (or one) major vendors being sole suppliers of that certification that says your worth employing. This has all the potential for price-hiking and standards distortion you would expect.
A community maintained certification would mean a much lower barrier of entry to independent groups keeping prices sane, better maintained standards of excellence, possibly even making certification mean something,
Because assessment would no longer be tied to the course (which it currently is because its the same people who want to sell you both), people like myself who already know a Hell of a lot and don't want to have to fork out money for a course I don't want will simply go and get their accreditation for much less.
Umm, PMS, Pregnancy, Birth-control side-effects? Pretty much _anything_ to do with female hormones?
So let me get this straight - snapping at people is not a logical result of having your body cramped up and the inner-lining of one of your internal organs bleeding its way out of your body? *LOL*
There's the problem in a nutshell - the certification is a way for competing authorities to milk money out of people, and worse, if the model takes off amongst employers, then it will become a compulsory way to milk money out of people because independent learning will not be recognized.
The Open Source community should start a project to establish a set of knowledge that must be demonstrated in order to acquire certain levels and areas of certification. There's no better way to make sure that the knowledge is up to date and comprehensive.
That way, the accrediting bodies are little more than employed examiners who confirm that the applicant does indeed possess the knowledge on the checklist. This pulls the rug out from under any "educational" bodies that want to establish their own de facto certification scheme that they have a monopoly on.
I'd be happy to help with organizing / co-ordinating such an effort, though I lack the skills to deal with the knowledge itself in most areas.
Maybe we should look at beginning something like this. There is enough documentation out there for all this - it just has to be turned into a exam-style and gradeable format
Sorry - I'm not content for you to say the example is not a good one and pick something that more fits your point of view.;) Either we will be able to resolve this using the the example given or else not at all, I think. After all, I only require one case of a decision based on logic and not emotion to prove my point. And I believe that this is one such case.
First to clear up a couple of things that you rephrased and which I would like returned to their original form (and hence meaning):
Your stored knowledge already knew which one was correct, so that was not a decision.
Nope - not stored knowledge, but as I originally stated, logical deduction. I used logic to make the leap between what I knew (a sphere is a three dimensional entity) to something I could deduce (therefore the radius will act on properties in three dimensions).
It would be much more clear. It is difficult when we start viewing calculation as decision.
You have likewise decided that what I did was "calculation" which you feel is something that falls under a different definition to decision. I would say calculation is following a set procedure to derive an answer. My insight might not have been deeply profound, but it was certainly not calculation - it was a leap of insight born of logic. I do not have the difficulty with this that you do. And, no offense, I believe that the reason it is difficult for you and not for me, is that you are trying to fit it into your pre-formed belief that emotion is the basis of all decision. Remove this belief and there is no difficulty. Try it. (That's not rhetorical, by the way).
Your point that emotion formed the basis of my choosing to put the correct answer as opposed to the wrong one, has two problems with it.
Firstly, the emotional desire to choose the right answer does not assist me in actually doing so. Logic is the only factor that enabled me to decide between two possible answers. You have conflated the emotional decision to do well (one decision) with the logical decision to write r^3 (another decision). I.e. Two seperate decisions, and my original example, is the latter one. You can add as many other emotionally based decisions to the exciting story of H.'s maths exam as you like, but this decision in it remains a logical one.
The second problem with your point requires a slightly more epic explanation. You are stating that emotion is the required force behind all decisions of the concious mind. I would argue that this is not the case. I have frequently been in a state of mind where emotional factors in my actions are minimal, yet the concious factors are strong. Examples would include studying, playing chess, or playing a sport at school. Now you would tack on an emotional reason to each of these - the desire to succeed, to win, or get fit, but I would dispute it. I do not feel an emotional impulse in these examples. The concious mind is operating on its own and I'm in a state that actually feels quite emotionless. The emotional level has given up control to the concious mind in a very real way. It is erroneous to say that the concious-logical mind does not have it's own goals. Perhaps they have developed in accord with the emotions throughout the journey to adulthood, and perhaps they have in part their goal of ensuring that the human organism does not experience negative emotions, but the source and the purpose do not matter when the argument is that it is capable of operating without emotional guidance.
I hope both the above points are clear (and if you choose to address either, please address both), but if the second one is not, an illustration might be this man. You might argue that it was fear that drove him to cut off his own hand to save his life, but fear is a primitive emotion. How does fear say endure this agonizing prolonged pain as you sever nerves one by one? The climber hi
Firstly, pleasant to have a constructive argument on/. instead of the common slanging match. That said, I'm afraid I'm about to accuse you of circular reasoning.
"We are now confusing calculations with decision making>"
You are now defining decisions as those things that do not depend on logic but on emotion and then using this to say that decisions depend on emotion.
Consider: In the exam I can tick the box that says r^2 or I can tick the box that says r^3. I tick one. How is that not a decision. It may be useful to agree a definition of decision so I'll offer the following:
A decision is the deliberate choice of one course of action over [another|others].
You are conflating the motivation for making some decision with the reasons that the decision is based on. As stated, you might as well say that breathing was the ultimate basis of the decision as it was a pre-requisite for making it, but clearly breathing did not offer guidance as to which option to take. The sole factor that influences the choice of one option over the other is logic.
Changing your answer was a decision, clearly made to make the answer correct (clearly emotionally motivated).
Just to clarify, I never changed the answer. I came to the question and had to pick A or B. Emotion played no part in that decision in the same way that the engine of your car plays no part in whether you steer left or right to avoid an obstacle.
Moving on, I'd say that emotion plays much less of a role in people's decision making than it once did, with logic taking its place. Of course emotion plays a huge role in decision making in our lives, but consider how often the modern human attempts to place her "head over her heart." Emotion evolved to help us make good decisions to the benefit of the organism and species. With the concious mind's increasing ability to do this on a logical basis, perhaps we will see a diminished influence of emotions. After all, nature abhors waste and duplication of effort.
I can imagine the war *cough* middle east destabilization efforts *cough* is a preemptive attempt to prevent consolidation and collusion efforts in the middle east with the chinese.
Yes - this was a part of it. There is an extra part to the plan that you haven't spotted however. As well as the Iraq invasion sending a strong message of "you sell to us, or else," to the Middle East and a strong message of "They're ours," to the rest of the world, both of which are in part an attempt to deprive China of the oil it needs to develop industrially, it also has the purpose of opening up Russia's oil fields to the American market. This is because Afghanistan and Iraq are needed to secure a pipeline route for oil to the Persian Gulf. It's not possible to transport oil economically by plane, but by ship is fine. Without this pipeline, the US cannot legitimately compete with China to purchase this oil.
I remember sitting in a small public lecture on this subject a few years ago when Afghanistan was invaded. And we discussed how long it would be before Iraq was invaded. I recall there being about fifteen of us attending.:( Hopefully, a few more than that will read my comments here.
You don't just have to look to the future for this - you can look to the past also. What we see existing in potential here are similar to the medieval guilds. European guilds in the middle ages were very protective of their areas of expertise and raised Hell for outsiders who dared to compete (assuming they got access to the knowledge and skills they needed in the first place).
The modern view of the guilds tends to be very critical - they stopped people earning a living unless they were members?"
However, it's very similar to the situation that this would logically lead to - locked into a profession; and Heaven help you if you loose your place in the organization because with this sort of legal precedent, the threat of being sacked from a corporation becomes even more powerful.
For those who are interested in the guilds in history, it might be worth noting the following:
They began as business alliances that through their increasing wealth eventually brought into law their privelleged right to a monopoly on certain areas. Sounds familiar?
They used their influence in Europe to choose local leaders, dissolve town councils that interfered with them, etc. Sound familiar?
They were frequently criticised for interfering with free trade and innovation. Sound familiar?
One of their best known critics was the arch-prince of Capitalism, Adam Smith. Well, Adam Smith is dead, but I believe he would have found modern corporate practices like this to be just as anti-capitalistic as the guilds.
I agree with your first point, in fact it is my point - there is no example of an illogical cause because all the emotions follow logically from their causes. An example of an illogical cause would be feeling guilt after nearly being hit by a car. Does it make sense? No - fear followed by relief would be a logical result. The former doesn't happen, the latter does - hence emotion has a logical basis.
Again you are correct in stating that a logical cause must not also mean understanding of the cause, but this is not relevant to whether there is a logical cause of not. Naturally this applies to post-action rationalization also.
The original post I was replying to in the part you quoted had stated that women tend to favour emotion and men tend to favour logic. I took exception to the mindset that saw these as an opposing scale. I think you would agree with that yourself from your post. Within its own frame of reference the human emotional system is perfectly logical and valid. Perhaps the concious mind can see further than the emotional mind (I'm seperating something that is a sliding scale here for the sake of clarity), but that does not mean that one is inherently more logical than the other. Logic inputs evidence and outputs assumptions, and it is a mistake to think that because one part of the human psychology takes a wider (more abstract) input than the other and thus reaches different conclusions, that this is because the process (logic) has varied and not the evidence.
I've carefully considered the usage of the word "cunt" as an insult, along with the other insult "pussy." Both have negative connotations for something that should not have them. There is no good reason why the word "cunt" should be an insult.
Therefore, I've concluded that we should start from scratch with a new word for female genitalia that has not been spoilt. Furthermore, in order to prevent this word being appropriated, I believe it should be something that could not be used as an insult.
I have settled on the word WOOHA! This to me, conveys a sense of fun and is equally nothing that could be yelled in anger (try it - you see?). However, it works in a flitatious-dirty talk-sexy way.
E.g.: "I touched her woo-ha," "I want to [adjective][verb] your wooha," "Ooh, yes - kiss my woo-ha!" Etc.
I call on/. to spread this meme as I believe it would help counter the use of female genitalia as a term of abuse.
Can you name 1 decision you have made which was not based on emotion, and justified with logic?
Well, I was unsatisfied with your dismissal of my original example where you said "a better example might be... [Bob buys breakfast cereal]
There is actually a (forgive the use of the word) logical difference between Bob's cereal and the original example that was stated.
The logical difference is this: Bob has immediate emotional feedback for his decision. In my GCSE exam, I did not. My motivation in that exam was to pass, and you can attribute emotional reasons to that, of course. But - and this is the important point - the emotional motivation is identical for all the mathematical formula that I am deciding between and the only factor that makes the difference in my choice is the power of logic.
I.e. I think the formula ends in either r^2 or r^3. My emotions may say pick the right answer but they offer nothing to suggest which one it is. However, logic told me that for the volume of a sphere, the radius must surely have a consequence in three dimensions, not two, therefore the second choice is best.
Hence a decision has been made on a basis of logic, not emotion. To say that it still ultimately derives from emotion, is to miss my point - you might as well say it ultimately derives from breathing. It might be the reason for wanting the outcome of the decision, but the choice itself, was only influenced by logic.
Logic is not a motivation by itself. Logic is not an anything by itself - it is simply a process and a tool. However, it is a process and tool that we are able to base decisions on where emotions have nothing to offer us, e.g. choosing a mortgage.
Logic is a higher function than the emotions, by which I mean it is capable of greater abstraction. This gradiation exists even within emotions themselves. For example, a woman trapped in the fear-reward seeking emotion trap of an abusive relationship finally escapes it when her pride or self-respect, a less-immediately gratified emotion overrides the lower emotions. Likewise, logic can override the emotions.
The conscious mind is like the high-vantage point that can pick out the best route through the valleys and hills below, and sometimes guide the emotional animal out of dead-ends. And at the bottom of the spectrum, fight-or-flight pulls us out of the occasional quagmire or landslide.
Yoga asanas were mentioned and these are a means by which the conscious mind can exercise it's control over the less abstract emotions. But you should try these for yourself, as you've raised the spectre of subjectivity and the only counter to that argument is and always will be experience.
But if as you say, everything is subjective, then that proves that I am right, yes?
At least you spotted that it was middle french and not modern, as I keep getting people telling me it's wrong.
Yep - it's as you translated it, although I've heard variations on it attributed to her. I'm not big on putting things in a foreign language to make them sound profound - truth shouldn't be dressed up. But in this instance, Joan of Arc is a particular inspiration of mine and the source is part of the message for me, so I kept it as it is.
Well, I'll be stealing your analogy next time the subject of intelligence tests comes up. It's hard for me to argue against IQ tests as I've scored blatantly highly on them in the past, but *sigh* they really are a flawed idea.:(
Ahhh, who can resist the lure of correcting someone's physics.;)
But it's fine - the whole point I was making is that the forces ARE indistinguishable to the passenger in the box. The passenger can apply logic as stringently as he likes, and still reach the wrong answer because the input he bases it on is false. This is the basis of my comparison with emotion. Many people here are saying that emotion is somehow illogical, but in fact it always makes sense within the bounds of its own experience.
People's height and weight tend to correlate. Taller people tend to be heavier. But let's take the product of height and weight to get a Size Product, or SP. Now we can rank everyone in the world by size from Biggest to Tiniest. The problem is that our ranking doesn't really say anything---we've squished two factors into one, and have lost a great deal of information. We've manufactured a number that seems to reflect size, but it's just an abstraction.
Analogy is grossly misused on/. but this is a very good one. It describes well one of the two big problems with "intelligence" test. The other problem being the opposite case where many of the factors are exluded, but the result is still expected to encompass all the shades of meaning that intelligence denotes.
Anyway, if the ability to produce useful analogies is included as one of those composite factors, then I think you've just raised your score a little higher.
You have misunderstood me. Emotions can be explained logically. In the instance of me taking MDMA (and it would be politer just to offer it to me, btw), you have stimulated a release of serotonin and dopamine in my brain. These produce an emotional effect called "Fuck, yeah!"
Hence I have explained the emotion as being the logical consequence the circumstances.
All emotion makes sense in the terms of its environment. Ignorance of all the factors influencing an emotional state in someone (including yourself) may make it seem illogical, but that doesn't mean it is so. Logic is a process and knowledge is the input and output. Put incomplete knowledge in, get incomplete knowledge out.
Your MDMA example is merely another way of lying to the emotional machine with faulty input. But in the context and awareness of that machine, the logic is impeccable. And how is that different from any other circumstance that you apply logic to?
For someone arguing the universal superiority of logic, you get surprisingly emotive in your arguments, but to answer your question, no I don't cry when I don't get a piece of candy. Do you?
And if you answered "no" does that indicate you lack emotion? Because if it doesn't, then what does this have to do with what I said? If your definition of emotion a total lack of proportion, then your definition is so far removed from the consensus that you're talking about something else entirely.
You are aguing a case of logic versus emotions. But where is this division except in your mind? Emotions derive from logical reasons.
How do you think that dancing with a good-looking girl "has nothing to do with logic." You specified good-looking, so we can infer that there is some sexual satisfaction in dancing with her. Why is there sexual satisfaction in this? Because your body thinks it may have found a good and viable mate. Why does your body generate this feeling of satisfaction (an emotion) in these circumstances? To encourage you to seek out such situations and hopefully progress to sexual reproduction (the human instinct has not yet adapted to the existence of the pill).
You see the emotions can be explained logically.
How can you argue that logic is universal and then in the same sentance declare that there is something that doesn't obey logic?
Albeit I guess there is a "logical cause" in perception, but if I told you that someone close to you died and you believed me, you would probably be upset to some degree regardless of the truth of the person being alive or dead.
How is that different to a "logical" argument. You can only deduce based on the information available. If you were in a box accelerating unifomly in space, you might logically deduce the presence of gravity, but you'd be wrong - it would be the force of acceleration.
And if you lie to me about a loved one dying (you bastard, you), then how is my reaction flawed in a way that "logic" is not. There is no logic vs. emotion. Emotion has a logical basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not the OP but two things to consider:
1. If one person out of seven billion cracks it, then seven billion people can access it - e.g. DVD Jon cracks DVD encryption and now we all watch DVDs on our PCs.
2. Refusing to use Microsoft-only formats/protocols to recieve media sends a strong message to the media provider that they should offer something else if they want his attention. This works for news-outlets and entertainment,
If you're suggesting that he is seriously impairing his learning or life-quality by cutting off these sources, then that would be a counter-point to point two. But I think it's unlikely that he can't get the same information or entertainment elsewhere.
I realize this is anecdote vs. anecdote, but I'm using KDE here and I find it no different to Windows XP in terms of speed. In fact, the Kubuntu system I'm on at the moment is actually on a slightly lower spec.
But then both systems have reached the point where the GUI works as quickly as I do, so improvement past that point is invisible.
No, what DVD Jon is doing, is helping make Microsoft proprietary protocols and formats become the standard. The true form of resistance to this would be to not use it and compete with a different format.
No offense to him intended - what he's doing has merit, and breaking the DVD encryption was a favour to everyone. But the wider implications of this particular effort should be at least considered,
it seems we cannot agree simply because of different definitions of calculation. It is my belief the calculation is something you do, based on stored data, resulting in an answer, not a decision.
You have defined an area of what I call decision and excised it from the concept because you feel that it is not an act of will, but merely deducing an answer. In what way is this different from emotion in which you assess the input and deduce an answer (happiness, fear, etc)? I can and have done things that make me feel bad - putting the wrong answer in essence. I've done this because logic has shown me that it is ultimately to my benefit despite my emotions' limited view on the situation. This illustrates that both the logical mind and the emotional mind can conflict. Surely you do not deny these conflicts? And if you do not, then what else can such a conflict be over, if not the choice of what action to take? And if there is conflict over this, then logically, not all decisions derive from emotion.
Why do you play chess, and what is your goal in playing?
Why do you feel emotions and what is your goal in feeling them? That's not facetious linguistics, I assure you. If we apply the principles to your argument for emotions that you have applied to my argument for logical decisions then you quickly find that no decisions are based on emotion - really they are based on breathing, or on digestion, or blood-circulation, or oxidisation, or the filling of electron shells. And ultimately, we arrive at the conclusion that the only reason for anything is because is (not a typo). Do you understand my point - you have not reduced your argument to the lowest point, the equation is not yet solved. When you expand your argument, we find that it is logically and philosophically void - the equivalent of 1 = 1.
The only remaining interesting point is whether the logical mind can substitute the emotional mind now that it is sophisticated enough, and I believe that I have shown at least one example where it can. Decisions only manifest in our actions and some of our actions are based on emotional logic and some of them are based on more abstract logic (what you have been calling "logic" throughout).
I'm afraid that I'll have to draw this to a close now, for myself. I understand what you are saying and have addressed everything in it in previous posts. Anything further from me on this would be merely repetition. If you want clarification on it, please re-read my earlier posts. I promise you that everything is there and that it does not come down to a disagreement on the definition of calculation.
It's been good exercise - thank you.
-Harmony.
Ah, so I've been trolled! That's a rare event, well done.
Anyway, what you are saying is much closer to the point I am making - I have seperated the logical decisions required to accomplish something from the emotional decisions that make me want to accomplish something. Put like that, it seems to me that the logical set are much more actual decisions than the emotional set, which are more like mere value judgements.
However, as this thread is splintering, I'm posting the rest of my comments below, 'cause they are more addressing BD's disagreement with what I've said; whereas I feel that in your case, you understand my point, which is where I stop arguing. I've no need to proceed in an attempt to make you agree with it - that would be a purely emotional decision.
I was attempting humour.
Fundamental difference - The current certification is (a) proprietary and (b) varying from organization to organization. What this means is that the certification industry goes into lock-down with a few (or one) major vendors being sole suppliers of that certification that says your worth employing. This has all the potential for price-hiking and standards distortion you would expect.
A community maintained certification would mean a much lower barrier of entry to independent groups keeping prices sane, better maintained standards of excellence, possibly even making certification mean something,
Because assessment would no longer be tied to the course (which it currently is because its the same people who want to sell you both), people like myself who already know a Hell of a lot and don't want to have to fork out money for a course I don't want will simply go and get their accreditation for much less.
Winners all round, especially the employers.
Umm, PMS, Pregnancy, Birth-control side-effects? Pretty much _anything_ to do with female hormones?
So let me get this straight - snapping at people is not a logical result of having your body cramped up and the inner-lining of one of your internal organs bleeding its way out of your body? *LOL*
Maybe you should try it and come back to us.
few vendor supplied multiple guess exams.
There's the problem in a nutshell - the certification is a way for competing authorities to milk money out of people, and worse, if the model takes off amongst employers, then it will become a compulsory way to milk money out of people because independent learning will not be recognized.
The Open Source community should start a project to establish a set of knowledge that must be demonstrated in order to acquire certain levels and areas of certification. There's no better way to make sure that the knowledge is up to date and comprehensive.
That way, the accrediting bodies are little more than employed examiners who confirm that the applicant does indeed possess the knowledge on the checklist. This pulls the rug out from under any "educational" bodies that want to establish their own de facto certification scheme that they have a monopoly on.
I'd be happy to help with organizing / co-ordinating such an effort, though I lack the skills to deal with the knowledge itself in most areas.
Maybe we should look at beginning something like this. There is enough documentation out there for all this - it just has to be turned into a exam-style and gradeable format
Sorry - I'm not content for you to say the example is not a good one and pick something that more fits your point of view.
First to clear up a couple of things that you rephrased and which I would like returned to their original form (and hence meaning):
Your stored knowledge already knew which one was correct, so that was not a decision.
Nope - not stored knowledge, but as I originally stated, logical deduction. I used logic to make the leap between what I knew (a sphere is a three dimensional entity) to something I could deduce (therefore the radius will act on properties in three dimensions).
It would be much more clear. It is difficult when we start viewing calculation as decision.
You have likewise decided that what I did was "calculation" which you feel is something that falls under a different definition to decision. I would say calculation is following a set procedure to derive an answer. My insight might not have been deeply profound, but it was certainly not calculation - it was a leap of insight born of logic. I do not have the difficulty with this that you do. And, no offense, I believe that the reason it is difficult for you and not for me, is that you are trying to fit it into your pre-formed belief that emotion is the basis of all decision. Remove this belief and there is no difficulty. Try it. (That's not rhetorical, by the way).
Your point that emotion formed the basis of my choosing to put the correct answer as opposed to the wrong one, has two problems with it.
Firstly, the emotional desire to choose the right answer does not assist me in actually doing so. Logic is the only factor that enabled me to decide between two possible answers. You have conflated the emotional decision to do well (one decision) with the logical decision to write r^3 (another decision). I.e. Two seperate decisions, and my original example, is the latter one. You can add as many other emotionally based decisions to the exciting story of H.'s maths exam as you like, but this decision in it remains a logical one.
The second problem with your point requires a slightly more epic explanation. You are stating that emotion is the required force behind all decisions of the concious mind. I would argue that this is not the case. I have frequently been in a state of mind where emotional factors in my actions are minimal, yet the concious factors are strong. Examples would include studying, playing chess, or playing a sport at school. Now you would tack on an emotional reason to each of these - the desire to succeed, to win, or get fit, but I would dispute it. I do not feel an emotional impulse in these examples. The concious mind is operating on its own and I'm in a state that actually feels quite emotionless. The emotional level has given up control to the concious mind in a very real way. It is erroneous to say that the concious-logical mind does not have it's own goals. Perhaps they have developed in accord with the emotions throughout the journey to adulthood, and perhaps they have in part their goal of ensuring that the human organism does not experience negative emotions, but the source and the purpose do not matter when the argument is that it is capable of operating without emotional guidance.
I hope both the above points are clear (and if you choose to address either, please address both), but if the second one is not, an illustration might be this man. You might argue that it was fear that drove him to cut off his own hand to save his life, but fear is a primitive emotion. How does fear say endure this agonizing prolonged pain as you sever nerves one by one? The climber hi
Firstly, pleasant to have a constructive argument on
"We are now confusing calculations with decision making>"
You are now defining decisions as those things that do not depend on logic but on emotion and then using this to say that decisions depend on emotion.
Consider: In the exam I can tick the box that says r^2 or I can tick the box that says r^3. I tick one. How is that not a decision. It may be useful to agree a definition of decision so I'll offer the following:
A decision is the deliberate choice of one course of action over [another|others].
You are conflating the motivation for making some decision with the reasons that the decision is based on. As stated, you might as well say that breathing was the ultimate basis of the decision as it was a pre-requisite for making it, but clearly breathing did not offer guidance as to which option to take. The sole factor that influences the choice of one option over the other is logic.
Changing your answer was a decision, clearly made to make the answer correct (clearly emotionally motivated).
Just to clarify, I never changed the answer. I came to the question and had to pick A or B. Emotion played no part in that decision in the same way that the engine of your car plays no part in whether you steer left or right to avoid an obstacle.
Moving on, I'd say that emotion plays much less of a role in people's decision making than it once did, with logic taking its place. Of course emotion plays a huge role in decision making in our lives, but consider how often the modern human attempts to place her "head over her heart." Emotion evolved to help us make good decisions to the benefit of the organism and species. With the concious mind's increasing ability to do this on a logical basis, perhaps we will see a diminished influence of emotions. After all, nature abhors waste and duplication of effort.
I can imagine the war *cough* middle east destabilization efforts *cough* is a preemptive attempt to prevent consolidation and collusion efforts in the middle east with the chinese.
Yes - this was a part of it. There is an extra part to the plan that you haven't spotted however. As well as the Iraq invasion sending a strong message of "you sell to us, or else," to the Middle East and a strong message of "They're ours," to the rest of the world, both of which are in part an attempt to deprive China of the oil it needs to develop industrially, it also has the purpose of opening up Russia's oil fields to the American market. This is because Afghanistan and Iraq are needed to secure a pipeline route for oil to the Persian Gulf. It's not possible to transport oil economically by plane, but by ship is fine. Without this pipeline, the US cannot legitimately compete with China to purchase this oil.
I remember sitting in a small public lecture on this subject a few years ago when Afghanistan was invaded. And we discussed how long it would be before Iraq was invaded. I recall there being about fifteen of us attending.
You don't just have to look to the future for this - you can look to the past also. What we see existing in potential here are similar to the medieval guilds. European guilds in the middle ages were very protective of their areas of expertise and raised Hell for outsiders who dared to compete (assuming they got access to the knowledge and skills they needed in the first place).
The modern view of the guilds tends to be very critical - they stopped people earning a living unless they were members?"
However, it's very similar to the situation that this would logically lead to - locked into a profession; and Heaven help you if you loose your place in the organization because with this sort of legal precedent, the threat of being sacked from a corporation becomes even more powerful.
For those who are interested in the guilds in history, it might be worth noting the following:
I agree with your first point, in fact it is my point - there is no example of an illogical cause because all the emotions follow logically from their causes. An example of an illogical cause would be feeling guilt after nearly being hit by a car. Does it make sense? No - fear followed by relief would be a logical result. The former doesn't happen, the latter does - hence emotion has a logical basis.
Again you are correct in stating that a logical cause must not also mean understanding of the cause, but this is not relevant to whether there is a logical cause of not. Naturally this applies to post-action rationalization also.
The original post I was replying to in the part you quoted had stated that women tend to favour emotion and men tend to favour logic. I took exception to the mindset that saw these as an opposing scale. I think you would agree with that yourself from your post. Within its own frame of reference the human emotional system is perfectly logical and valid. Perhaps the concious mind can see further than the emotional mind (I'm seperating something that is a sliding scale here for the sake of clarity), but that does not mean that one is inherently more logical than the other. Logic inputs evidence and outputs assumptions, and it is a mistake to think that because one part of the human psychology takes a wider (more abstract) input than the other and thus reaches different conclusions, that this is because the process (logic) has varied and not the evidence.
I hope that clarifies what I mean,
-H.
That's a daft idea - you silly wooha.
Point proved! I am amused not offended! Henceforth, let us all use wooha (um, as in use the word, though use otherwise is fine too.)
It's fun redesigning the English language.
I've carefully considered the usage of the word "cunt" as an insult, along with the other insult "pussy." Both have negative connotations for something that should not have them. There is no good reason why the word "cunt" should be an insult.
Therefore, I've concluded that we should start from scratch with a new word for female genitalia that has not been spoilt. Furthermore, in order to prevent this word being appropriated, I believe it should be something that could not be used as an insult.
I have settled on the word WOOHA! This to me, conveys a sense of fun and is equally nothing that could be yelled in anger (try it - you see?). However, it works in a flitatious-dirty talk-sexy way.
E.g.: "I touched her woo-ha," "I want to [adjective][verb] your wooha," "Ooh, yes - kiss my woo-ha!" Etc.
I call on
Can you name 1 decision you have made which was not based on emotion, and justified with logic?
Well, I was unsatisfied with your dismissal of my original example where you said "a better example might be... [Bob buys breakfast cereal]
There is actually a (forgive the use of the word) logical difference between Bob's cereal and the original example that was stated.
The logical difference is this: Bob has immediate emotional feedback for his decision. In my GCSE exam, I did not. My motivation in that exam was to pass, and you can attribute emotional reasons to that, of course. But - and this is the important point - the emotional motivation is identical for all the mathematical formula that I am deciding between and the only factor that makes the difference in my choice is the power of logic.
I.e. I think the formula ends in either r^2 or r^3. My emotions may say pick the right answer but they offer nothing to suggest which one it is. However, logic told me that for the volume of a sphere, the radius must surely have a consequence in three dimensions, not two, therefore the second choice is best.
Hence a decision has been made on a basis of logic, not emotion. To say that it still ultimately derives from emotion, is to miss my point - you might as well say it ultimately derives from breathing. It might be the reason for wanting the outcome of the decision, but the choice itself, was only influenced by logic.
Logic is not a motivation by itself. Logic is not an anything by itself - it is simply a process and a tool. However, it is a process and tool that we are able to base decisions on where emotions have nothing to offer us, e.g. choosing a mortgage.
Logic is a higher function than the emotions, by which I mean it is capable of greater abstraction. This gradiation exists even within emotions themselves. For example, a woman trapped in the fear-reward seeking emotion trap of an abusive relationship finally escapes it when her pride or self-respect, a less-immediately gratified emotion overrides the lower emotions. Likewise, logic can override the emotions.
The conscious mind is like the high-vantage point that can pick out the best route through the valleys and hills below, and sometimes guide the emotional animal out of dead-ends. And at the bottom of the spectrum, fight-or-flight pulls us out of the occasional quagmire or landslide.
Yoga asanas were mentioned and these are a means by which the conscious mind can exercise it's control over the less abstract emotions. But you should try these for yourself, as you've raised the spectre of subjectivity and the only counter to that argument is and always will be experience.
But if as you say, everything is subjective, then that proves that I am right, yes?
-H.
At least you spotted that it was middle french and not modern, as I keep getting people telling me it's wrong.
Yep - it's as you translated it, although I've heard variations on it attributed to her. I'm not big on putting things in a foreign language to make them sound profound - truth shouldn't be dressed up. But in this instance, Joan of Arc is a particular inspiration of mine and the source is part of the message for me, so I kept it as it is.
Well, I'll be stealing your analogy next time the subject of intelligence tests comes up. It's hard for me to argue against IQ tests as I've scored blatantly highly on them in the past, but *sigh* they really are a flawed idea.
(Sorry, could not hold back.)
Ahhh, who can resist the lure of correcting someone's physics.
But it's fine - the whole point I was making is that the forces ARE indistinguishable to the passenger in the box. The passenger can apply logic as stringently as he likes, and still reach the wrong answer because the input he bases it on is false. This is the basis of my comparison with emotion. Many people here are saying that emotion is somehow illogical, but in fact it always makes sense within the bounds of its own experience.
People's height and weight tend to correlate. Taller people tend to be heavier. But let's take the product of height and weight to get a Size Product, or SP. Now we can rank everyone in the world by size from Biggest to Tiniest. The problem is that our ranking doesn't really say anything---we've squished two factors into one, and have lost a great deal of information. We've manufactured a number that seems to reflect size, but it's just an abstraction.
Analogy is grossly misused on
Anyway, if the ability to produce useful analogies is included as one of those composite factors, then I think you've just raised your score a little higher.
You have misunderstood me. Emotions can be explained logically. In the instance of me taking MDMA (and it would be politer just to offer it to me, btw), you have stimulated a release of serotonin and dopamine in my brain. These produce an emotional effect called "Fuck, yeah!"
Hence I have explained the emotion as being the logical consequence the circumstances.
All emotion makes sense in the terms of its environment. Ignorance of all the factors influencing an emotional state in someone (including yourself) may make it seem illogical, but that doesn't mean it is so. Logic is a process and knowledge is the input and output. Put incomplete knowledge in, get incomplete knowledge out.
Your MDMA example is merely another way of lying to the emotional machine with faulty input. But in the context and awareness of that machine, the logic is impeccable. And how is that different from any other circumstance that you apply logic to?
Name a decision you have made, and it can easily be linked to the emotional reason you made it.
GCSE Science Paper, long ago asked for how to calculate the volume of a sphere. I decided to put: 4/3 * pi * r^3
Emotions can be defined by Logic ~: Logic can be defined by Emotions.
For someone arguing the universal superiority of logic, you get surprisingly emotive in your arguments, but to answer your question, no I don't cry when I don't get a piece of candy. Do you?
And if you answered "no" does that indicate you lack emotion? Because if it doesn't, then what does this have to do with what I said? If your definition of emotion a total lack of proportion, then your definition is so far removed from the consensus that you're talking about something else entirely.
You are aguing a case of logic versus emotions. But where is this division except in your mind? Emotions derive from logical reasons.
How do you think that dancing with a good-looking girl "has nothing to do with logic." You specified good-looking, so we can infer that there is some sexual satisfaction in dancing with her. Why is there sexual satisfaction in this? Because your body thinks it may have found a good and viable mate. Why does your body generate this feeling of satisfaction (an emotion) in these circumstances? To encourage you to seek out such situations and hopefully progress to sexual reproduction (the human instinct has not yet adapted to the existence of the pill).
You see the emotions can be explained logically.
How can you argue that logic is universal and then in the same sentance declare that there is something that doesn't obey logic?
Trying to imitate hip-hop or rap or whatever they're calling the bunch of guys with a rhyme dictionary and a drum machine nowadays.
It's funny 'cause of your sig.
No offense - just like the "poetic" irony
Albeit I guess there is a "logical cause" in perception, but if I told you that someone close to you died and you believed me, you would probably be upset to some degree regardless of the truth of the person being alive or dead.
How is that different to a "logical" argument. You can only deduce based on the information available. If you were in a box accelerating unifomly in space, you might logically deduce the presence of gravity, but you'd be wrong - it would be the force of acceleration.
And if you lie to me about a loved one dying (you bastard, you), then how is my reaction flawed in a way that "logic" is not. There is no logic vs. emotion. Emotion has a logical basis.