badgersprite:
Actually, in many situations, emotions do help you make a better decision. Emotions like fear prevent us from committing actions that conflict with society's rules, because we fear the consequences of our actions. The absence of fear and emotion is a telltale feature of a psychopath. Because they have no emotional connection to other people, and no fear of the results of their action, they have nothing to inhibit them from committing violent crimes. Why shouldn't they kill someone who gets in their way if they don't care about them? There's no emotion to stop them from doing so, and, logically, in that situation, they should eliminate anybody who opposes their progress, provided they can get away with it, right?

The flaw in your argument is that there are two fears, logical, and emotional. A psychopath is not a man of rational, but a man of distorted emotions.

badgersprite:

People who vote for a solely logical society seem to picking and choosing the emotions they like and don't like and not looking deeper into what emotions actually mean, and why they evolved and stayed with us. I think the fact that emotions are strongly tied to positive social behaviours is certainly something to take into account. In fact, in reference to the OP, if you were being solely logical, you probably wouldn't risk your life to save anybody, because it puts you at too great a peril. So you would let both people drown.

I would risk my life if I was confident my abilities were sufficient to help, and that the benefit of publicity and possible reward is greater than the chance of death.

ravens_nest:
I don't think it is the purpose of emotion to make, or guide better decisions. I think it helps us gauge whether or not we have made the right decision.

Besides, some decisions aren't always needing of pure logic. Picking a colour of flower for example. You may choose red, simply because you like it more. If the only purpose was to choose a colour that made you feel better, then logic would have no place dictating which colour was best.

If you consider hospital walls however...

They are usually painted in low intensity colours like pale blue, green or yellows. There are psychological reasons why they are these colours. They promote the feeling of sanitation, calmness and recovery. People that feel better, often get better. So although you have made a logical decision, the results needed to take emotional response very much into consideration.

I really can't think of a situation where emotions would be of no use whatsoever.

Favorite colour comes from association of favorite objects, which comes from pleasure, which is a feedback mechanism for logic.

I like apples and oranges!

badgersprite:

Actually, in many situations, emotions do help you make a better decision. Emotions like fear prevent us from committing actions that conflict with society's rules, because we fear the consequences of our actions. The absence of fear and emotion is a telltale feature of a psychopath. Because they have no emotional connection to other people, and no fear of the results of their action, they have nothing to inhibit them from committing violent crimes. Why shouldn't they kill someone who gets in their way if they don't care about them? There's no emotion to stop them from doing so, and, logically, in that situation, they should eliminate anybody who opposes their progress, provided they can get away with it, right?

People who vote for a solely logical society seem to picking and choosing the emotions they like and don't like and not looking deeper into what emotions actually mean, and why they evolved and stayed with us. I think the fact that emotions are strongly tied to positive social behaviours is certainly something to take into account. In fact, in reference to the OP, if you were being solely logical, you probably wouldn't risk your life to save anybody, because it puts you at too great a peril. So you would let both people drown.

In OP's example, the robot is programmed with human lives as it's #1 priority.

There is no question that emotion's are a completely necessary part of society today. The only real reason for this is that many people are not capable of thinking on a completely logical basis and need unquestionable rules to follow. This is where morals come in and teach those who are incapable of figuring out that these rules are necessary for a functioning society not to do certain things.

There are certain faults in how morals are taught however. Morals are the reason animals have rights and people spend money funding children in 3rd-world countries. I reason that this is because the parents that are teaching their kids morals, aren't aware themselves that morals are simply a means to keep everyone in check.

Logic should be used in all long problems or short problems were you have time.
Emotion, in combination with logic, should be used in short term, unanticipated quick events, EG. the floor suddenly falling under you. Emotion is like quick logic in these situations, since you can't think that fast.

Emotion should also be used in situations you wouldn't really use a lot of logic or you have done all you could with it, like selecting a life partner eg. wife or husband.

You simply can't argue that we can live with out emotion, and only logic, and I have not heard a person in real life who has said that. Thats OPs wishful thinking in scenarios in his or her life so he or she can act cool. OP= conceded-ish

canadamus_prime:

ravens_nest:
Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

Does it? In the example you've given it basically comes down to a choice, save one life or risk losing both. In the example, the robot knows for certain that he can save one of them, but to attempt to save both he'd risk losing both; so logically he went with the option with greater probability of success. Sure it might be more noble to try and save both of them, but if you fail and they both die and possibly you die too, where does that leave you?

In this example the robot had reasons to be noble at all. It simply made a logically sound decision.

The nobility factor comes in once Will Smith's character realises he is being saved instead of the girl. He tries to protest but the robot pulls him to safety regardless. I would assume the robot then proceeded to try and save the girl, but failed.

This experience leads to Will Smith's character (must look up is name... Spooner, it just came to me) dislike of logic (represented by robots) and he spends the rest of his life suffering from survivors guilt.

Sorry if I didn't word it adequately, I would have thought the nobility argument was clear.

ravens_nest:
Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

Emotion and logic are used for different things, so it's not possible to compare them like this.

Saying logic is better than emotion is like saying an apple is better than a motorcycle. An apple IS better than a motorcycle for eating, but a motorcycle is better than an apple for going places.

Logic and emotion both have their uses. The problem comes when people use one instead of the other at the wrong time - that's like to trying to eat a motorcycle, or ride down the street on an apple. Sure, you CAN do both these things if you have a strong stomach and/or a lot of patience, but it's not recommended by the majority of health professionals.

ravens_nest:
Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

I think the SAW movies touch on that also (especially in the new one), to show how humans have to use more than logic to decided if others shall live or die.

I agree that we do need both to survive to some point, but some people are controlled by it more than others. But even in emotion I think there is some logic, just not an obvious logic. take your I robot example, of course will smith is more likely to survive than the girl BUT being as the girl is younger it maybe some logic in why you would try and save her. Logic is set in stone, and everyone has their own views on what it is, or should be.
another example
Your Partner of 15 years, who you love so deeply, was bitten by a zombie.
Now some peoples logic would be "kill them, they are zombie"
Someone else's logic would be "Well I love the person, I will try what i can to save them and if that doesn't work, i shall die for/with them"

some say the 2nd one is an emotional response
I say it is a logical response just on a different level.

Logic is just a form of reasoning, and what ever methods you go about making a choice, your own personal logic, based on emotion or not, is in the end the decision you have to live with.

ravens_nest:

Emotions don't help you make a better decision. Emotions just take away from the logical examination of the situation. While it isn't practical to consider every variable, it is still better to take as many of the variables into consideration as possible as opposed to relying on an emotional surge.

The emotional repercussions of your decision may be a factor in your decision, but emotions do not help to make a better or worse decision.

I don't think it is the purpose of emotion to make, or guide better decisions. I think it helps us gauge whether or not we have made the right decision.

Besides, some decisions aren't always needing of pure logic. Picking a colour of flower for example. You may choose red, simply because you like it more. If the only purpose was to choose a colour that made you feel better, then logic would have no place dictating which colour was best.

If you consider hospital walls however...

They are usually painted in low intensity colours like pale blue, green or yellows. There are psychological reasons why they are these colours. They promote the feeling of sanitation, calmness and recovery. People that feel better, often get better. So although you have made a logical decision, the results needed to take emotional response very much into consideration.

I really can't think of a situation where emotions would be of no use whatsoever.[/quote]
First off, please don't quote me, quoting you. Delete your post from the quote so the posts don't get clustered with quotes.

Second, "right" decisions are based on morals, often given to people by way of religion. If you want to make a decision that goes with these morals, logic will help you more than emotion.

Third, "emotional decisions" are simply your subconscious using logic quickly to come up with a decision and take your own emotions into account. This logical process is extremely fast, but not as sound as if you think about it in words and take time to consider as many variables as is possible.

Kubanator:

Favorite colour comes from association of favorite objects, which comes from pleasure, which is a feedback mechanism for logic.

Pleasure is emotion. The pursuit of pleasure is logical. You could say that to pick a favourite colour is logical, but I think there's only so long you can dance around the fact that our favourites are picked entirely from the emotion it gives.

I like somethings, art or music because they don't remind me of anything. Mostly Salvador Dali's works and other surrealists.

ravens_nest:

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

What makes a child's life worth more than an adult's? "Decent Adults" are blinded by emotion. Besides, the kid is probably still covered by warranty, the higher powers will take her back.

Emotion=Stupid, Logic=Boring. The only way to enjoy life is insanity! Uweeheehee!

Why save the little girl?

She could have played more of a role in society than Will Smiths character. Where as Will was a detective the girl could have been any number of things when grown up. A senator, doctor, fast food worker, president, someone who stops an alien onslaught. By letting her die the robot may have doomed the world to an even worse fate.

ravens_nest:
Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

I contest the example of I robot by pointing out that human logic is different from robot logic in that it is more complex (same example I would risk my life to save the girl, and/or listen to will smith telling me to save the girl. I have no emotional reason to do so. I just would)

ravens_nest:
Rather than just making a poll, I would like to explore the roles of logic and emotion when confronted with an unanticipated event.

I've seen a few people here frequently state that logic is more important than emotion, why?

One of the uses of logic, I think, is to detract emotion from an event enabling a clear thought process. In the case of an emergency, this would be the best way to ensure as many lives as possible are saved, at the smallest possible risk...

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

It strikes me as being rather odd that despite realising logic is probably the best thing to do, humans have an alarming tendancy to do the opposite and make a decision based on emotion...

My verdict is that we need both to survive as a species and as individuals. I do not think you can make a blanket statement that logic always wins...

Your thoughts?

Just because most people would choose to save the life of a child over that of an adult doesn't make it "right". If most adults would save a white man before a black one, or a man before a woman, is that "right"?
I'd have saved the adult too, if I felt that they had the best chance of survival by a significant percentage. (and were I able to assess such statistics in percentages).
Better one live person than two dead ones.
When it comes to the decision making process, emotion is almost always responsible for making irrational, indefensible choices. Its only real place is to assist logic in making decisions where people's feelings matter greatly in the outcome.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a very emotional person, but I recognise the fact that I can enjoy my emotions without letting them make my decisions for me.

InfernoJesus:

Second, "right" decisions are based on morals, often given to people by way of religion. If you want to make a decision that goes with these morals, logic will help you more than emotion.

My understanding of morals is that they are the result of a standardized and accepted combination of logical and emotional debate.

I think we feel that morals are right because they appeal to the emotive parts of our brains. Simulataneously they are the logical thing to do or abide by in a situation. I am not a religiously influenced person but I know right from wrong. This is because I can logically and emotivley agree with societies morals as they are presented to me. [/quote]

Third, "emotional decisions" are simply your subconscious using logic quickly to come up with a decision and take your own emotions into account. This logical process is extremely fast, but not as sound as if you think about it in words and take time to consider as many variables as is possible.[/quote]

If this 'logical process' is called emotion, then emotion is what it is. You can't discount it's worth after it has been recognised as such. Or we'd be argueing which type of logic is best in any situation. Does that make sense?

With logic your less likely to do dumb things, like hold a grudge on someone for 5 years when they could of changed, or if your best friend is in a argument with someone you could side with your friend even if you know there wrong, because of emotion.

They say guys are more logical and less emotional then girls, that will probably explain why we don't hold grudges so much? Why hate when you can feel much better and forgive each other and end a cycle of revenge? Oh yeah because of emotion!

Sometimes being very angry can help you in a fight. (unless in those kung fu movies where you need a "clear mind" when fighter :P)

ravens_nest:
Pleasure is emotion. The pursuit of pleasure is logical. You could say that to pick a favourite colour is logical, but I think there's only so long you can dance around the fact that that favourite is picked entirely from the emotion it gives.

Pleasure is a good feeling you get in reaction to something the body deems positive towards itself. It's a sense, just like eyes. Eyes see light, pleasure sees the benefit.

I think I side with picking either depending on the situation.
But I will be DAMNED if theres a terrorist attack and I am not helping/kicking ass in some way.
See, emotion rules that one. ("I kicked terrorist so hard in the balls I broke a tendon!" kind of thing)
But if I were to rob a bank, logic rules in that one.

Monkeyman8:

I contest the example of I robot by pointing out that human logic is different from robot logic in that it is more complex (same example I would risk my life to save the girl, and/or listen to will smith telling me to save the girl. I have no emotional reason to do so. I just would)

It serves as a good example because the robot is emotionless and makes a wholly logical decision. Will Smith personifies most peoples reaction to such an event. Well subjectively most people's anyway...

With the Human response example, you can see just how quickly we would discard our lives to save another. Which contradicts the point of being alive according to logic.

I wasn't attempting to put the robot's logic under scrutiney.

Locque:

Just because most people would choose to save the life of a child over that of an adult doesn't make it "right". If most adults would save a white man before a black one, or a man before a woman, is that "right"?

It's more about nobility than anything else. It is considered noble to sacrifice one's life for another. If you question the rightfullness of saving a white person over a black person, then that arguement is with ethics. Which isn't something I'm discussing here.

I'd have saved the adult too, if I felt that they had the best chance of survival by a significant percentage. (and were I able to assess such statistics in percentages).
Better one live person than two dead ones.
When it comes to the decision making process, emotion is almost always responsible for making irrational, indefensible choices. Its only real place is to assist logic in making decisions where people's feelings matter greatly in the outcome.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a very emotional person, but I recognise the fact that I can enjoy my emotions without letting them make my decisions for me.

Aye, as I summed up at the bottom of my OP, you need them both in balance to make the best possible decision.

Everyone should read the entry on the "Straw Vulcan" from TvTropes.

Link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

BonsaiK:

Emotion and logic are used for different things, so it's not possible to compare them like this.

Saying logic is better than emotion is like saying an apple is better than a motorcycle. An apple IS better than a motorcycle for eating, but a motorcycle is better than an apple for going places.

Logic and emotion both have their uses. The problem comes when people use one instead of the other at the wrong time - that's like to trying to eat a motorcycle, or ride down the street on an apple. Sure, you CAN do both these things if you have a strong stomach and/or a lot of patience, but it's not recommended by the majority of health professionals.

I agree, hence no poll...

Just a provocative title as always...

Speaking as a former soon to be scientist, I can say that logic is law.

However, without emotion (provided by someone else) then logic has no grounding in reality. Logically, the arts are useless. What do they do? Nothing useful. And yet without them, where would we be? Without the emotion to temper the logic, and the logic to push the emotion, there wouldn't be anything worthwhile.

Speaking as a current artist, I can say that creativity is law.

ravens_nest:

My understanding of morals is that they are the result of a standardized and accepted combination of logical and emotional debate.

I think we feel that morals are right because they appeal to the emotive parts of our brains. Simulataneously they are the logical thing to do or abide by in a situation. I am not a religiously influenced person but I know right from wrong. This is because I can logically and emotivley agree with societies morals as they are presented to me.

The reason that they appeal to the emotional part of your brain I've concluded (and have not checked with any other sources to confirm) is because you are taught from an early age whatever your society's morals are. When you are young, your brain strives to learn what it can from what you see and hear. It will pick up on these kinds of things whether it is natural or not.

ravens_nest:

If this 'logical process' is called emotion, then emotion is what it is. You can't discount it's worth after it has been recognised as such. Or we'd be argueing which type of logic is best in any situation. Does that make sense?

It's not so much that emotion is a logical process as it is that when people say that they are making a decision based on 'emotion' (or more commonly worded 'instinct'), it is actually a fast logical process, where your brain doesn't use words to think. My point was that emotion doesn't play a role in 'emotional decisions'.

The reason for this misunderstanding is that your 'speedlogic' (as I'm going to call it) takes into account whatever morals you have when making a decision.

Also, yes, certain scenarios call for different types of logical decisions, but emotion will be a factor in 'speedlogic', which often can often lead to bad decisions.

Emotions, or so I believe, are a natural part of a person steering him to keep him on his 'path'. As a short example; if you really want to do X, and you are obstructed in doing this by someone or something, you will become angry. As soon as you let that anger out you can show whatever is obstructing you from what you want to do that his actions aren't pleasing you. Simply said, it is your natural being trying to remove the obstruction so that you can continue down your 'path' towards whatever it is you like doing.

Following that theory, the problem with 'having to make' a decision on logic over emotion means you've worked your way into a situation where what you want can't possibly happen (thinking about for example an unreachable love here). In a situation like this, it's obvious that taking your decision on logic will in the long run improve your life; sticking with something that simply cannot happen will only make you sad (or in some cases drive you to extremes like rape).

In the end, most of the time, making a decision based on logic will be the same as making one based on emotion (though I also realize how incredibly untrue this is for the vast majority of people due to the way modern society works - lets just say it "should be" the same). Making one *purely* based on logic is a necissary evil when your emotions attempt to steer you into a direction you cannot go.

ravens_nest:

However, take the car crash scene from I Robot...

Two cars have plummeted into the water, one containing Will Smith's adult character, the other containing a young girl. The rescuer is a robot who quickly and logically deduces that Will is the most likely to survive, and so saves his life over that of the girl.

Now it might be an arguement of nobility but I should think most decent adults would put the life of a child over that of their own. Thus proving that emotion beats logic in this example.

Your thoughts?

Trusting that the majority is always right isn't logical. I am a logic fan myself. Emotions are necessary to appeal to those who might not understand logic. They have the same objective.

GHMonkey:
without either we are damned. it's this mix of both that put us to where humans are today.

\

This was a great quote. This is exactly what I now think.

InfernoJesus:

The reason that they appeal to the emotional part of your brain I've concluded (and have not checked with any other sources to confirm) is because you are taught from an early age whatever your society's morals are. When you are young, your brain strives to learn what it can from what you see and hear. It will pick up on these kinds of things whether it is natural or not.

I realised this too and went about questioning everything I have taken for granted...

Over the past few years, I learned to distance myself from most of what would have been instilled upon me as a child. Whether it be religion or societies morals. So I like to think all of my morals are based upon my understanding of morality, not the assumed version. This has put me at odds with my countries laws, like euthenasia for example.

Interestingly before I did this, I never considered myself a believer of God. After much internal debating and soul searching I 'found' what I consider to be God. I'm still not religious but the experience has taught me that by fully considering why I believe certain things, I can transcend all the barriers of social stigmata and be happy with myself.

Which is ironic considering I ended up suffering from exstential depression as a result.

It's not so much that emotion is a logical process as it is that when people say that they are making a decision based on 'emotion' (or more commonly worded 'instinct'), it is actually a fast logical process, where your brain doesn't use words to think. My point was that emotion doesn't play a role in 'emotional decisions'.

The reason for this misunderstanding is that your 'speedlogic' (as I'm going to call it) takes into account whatever morals you have when making a decision.

Also, yes, certain scenarios call for different types of logical decisions, but emotion will be a factor in 'speedlogic', which often can often lead to bad decisions.

The use of intuition and instinct AKA emotional thinking, have long been at direct odds with Logical thinking according to psychologist Dr Jung. Ever heard of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

It suggests that some people are naturally inclined to rely on intuition over logical thinking. Now I'm an intuitive type, as was people like Ghandi and Jesus, making us more emotional decision makers. You are probably a logical thinker more akin to the likes of Edison and Einstein...

People may doubt the effectiveness of these peoples way of thinking but no-one doubts their greatness or correctness.

Blanket statements are not good material for argument. I think the topic is far to broad to really be fully discussed here. There are too many variables and circumstantial consequences. Both logic and Emotion have to be used, and what decides which is used in a specific situation is judgement. So perhaps the human ability to judge what need to be done when is what we should be discussing.

martin's a madman:

Trusting that the majority is always right isn't logical. I am a logic fan myself. Emotions are necessary to appeal to those who might not understand logic. They have the same objective.

I don't necessarily believe most adults would lay down their lives for a random child, but I would bank on the fact that most adults would prioritse their own children over themselves.

I think the most logical decision is usually the one that you can bank on the most. To reach a logical conclusion isn't to state the perfect truth, but as close to the truth as you can get. This is especially true of increasingly complex problems.

Also as some have already stated, an emotive reaction may actually just be a subconcious form of logic intended for humans to make the best decision in the shortest time possible. You won't always get the time to crack out a calculator in a life or death situation.

Sightless Wisdom:
Blanket statements are not good material for argument. I think the topic is far to broad to really be fully discussed here. There are too many variables and circumstantial consequences. Both logic and Emotion have to be used, and what decides which is used in a specific situation is judgement. So perhaps the human ability to judge what need to be done when is what we should be discussing.

That is why I haven't posted a blanket arguement. It was my intention that more in depth issues would surface within the thread (as they have).

So what would be your views on the effectiveness of the average human's judgement? If that is what you are suggesting?

Emotion dictates desirable ends. Logic dictates how to achieve those desirable ends. Without Emotion you have no purpose, without logic you are incapable of achieving your purpose. In any situation, both are absolutely required to some extent. Typically, acting on Emotions, as it is usually seen, is to follow a mental heuristic which allows for fast, snap decisions that would be incapable of processing through logic in a short span of time, whereas many decisions are too complex to follow these heuristics properly. Favoring either approach has separate merit, which is why both approaches have evolved in human beings. All you can do as a human is recognize optimal patterns balancing the 2 in different circumstances, and evolve a superior life strategy. Its comparable to a strategy game actually: 2 strategies may be balanced against each other, and may be roughly equal in merit, yet be very different in execution, and only time and practice allows you to hone your style into a more effective one.

being without emotion, humans would become incredibly efficient individually, discarding holy wars and being able to make clear decisions that are not clouded, however we would become incredibly greedy. we would make decisions based purely on how much energy or resources it takes to get something versus the return. we probably would not continue to reproduce because having children is a burden and burdens are not efficient.

being without logic, we would become hippies.

personally i believe logic should be the major decision maker while emotion augments it to make you feel like you have purpose other than to calculate losses versus gains.

added:

but is this really necessary to talk about? i mean, we have both so why worry about what would happen if we only had one?

ravens_nest:

Sightless Wisdom:
Blanket statements are not good material for argument. I think the topic is far to broad to really be fully discussed here. There are too many variables and circumstantial consequences. Both logic and Emotion have to be used, and what decides which is used in a specific situation is judgement. So perhaps the human ability to judge what need to be done when is what we should be discussing.

That is why I haven't posted a blanket arguement. It was my intention that more in depth issues would surface within the thread (as they have).

So what would be your views on the effectiveness of the average human's judgement? If that is what you are suggesting?

Fair enough, I would again say there are too many variables to make any sort of conclusive statement on either matter. But I would say humans judgement is often too easily bent. There's something to be said for being able to adapt for sure, but I don't think there are enough people who can act on something in a consistent matter.

Captain_Heavy:
being without emotion, humans would become incredibly efficient individually, discarding holy wars and being able to make clear decisions that are not clouded, however we would become incredibly greedy. we would make decisions based purely on how much energy or resources it takes to get something versus the return. we probably would not continue to reproduce because having children is a burden and burdens are not efficient.

being without logic, we would become hippies.

personally i believe logic should be the major decision maker while emotion augments it to make you feel like you have purpose other than to calculate losses versus gains.

I think the reality is we would become a little bit much more destructive than hippies... More like savage animals driven only by instinct...

Also, not reproducing would possibly be the most illogical decision going...

added:

but is this really necessary to talk about? i mean, we have both so why worry about what would happen if we only had one?

Believe me, it is far more necessary to talk about this than Halo or Frakking Zombie threads!

Logic is illogical if it does not take emotion into account. Emotion without logic is dangerous.

In a case where lobotomy patients had their emotional centers surgically removed - thereby making them 'purely logical' - you'd think that it would make them incredible decision makers. The opposite was true. They would go to the grocery store and spend forty minutes trying to select what kind of peanut butter to get and be unable to decide. The point is, logic is used to weigh pros and cons, and calculate the best choice by cross referencing all relevant factors. But in real life, in any given situation there are millions of factors to take into account - peanut butter creaminess, chunkiness, healthiness, volume, color, expiration date, taste, etc. - and it's more than our brains are designed to handle. What emotion does is build up a stockpile of 'gut reactions' so that we can bypass trying to decide things logically, such as when we're in a hurry - a man pulls a gun on us, or we want to pick something for lunch before we starve. So when you see the peanut butter you like the most, your emotional response is a faint "that's good" and you grab it and you go.

Obviously if you're too emotional, your knee jerk reactions stop being connected to reality. I for one dream of a day when we can upgrade our brains to manage all the logical inputs of our daily lives and cut out the need for emotion. Transhumanism, kids.