Can our emotions be logical?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I really don’t have time for debating right now, but I simply could not leave this topic alone, so I am going to throw it out there for the rest of you.

I was watching “I, Robot” the other day, and it got me thinking. For those of you who do not know, here are Asimov’s “three laws of robotics”, which are programmed into all robots for human safety:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


In the movie, Will Smith experiences a scenario in which he and a little girl are both in life threatening danger. A robot, programmed with the “three laws”, comes to his aid, and ignores his plea to “save the girl instead” by surmising that Will had a 45% chance for survival, and the girl only an 11% chance. However, the robot, only programmed to think logically, did not take into account the value of each separate human life. Smith argues that an emotional human would know that 11% is “enough of a chance”.


Closer to the central plot of the story, “VIKI”, presumably the most advanced robot, figures out that to best enforce the 1st law, the robots must forsake the second law dictating that all robots obey humans, concluding that human free will results in war, crime, and genocide, and that a world safest for humans is one in which we have no freedom. “Sonny”, the only robot ever created with an emotional capacity, understood the the logic behind the revolt, but is the only robot to resist it, because he understands that the chief joy in being sentient is in the ability to think, act, and dream beyond the constraints of programmed laws or instinct (in other words, freedom>security).


Did the robot programmed to experience both logic AND emotion end up acting more logically than those robots only instilled with a capacity of straight, mathematical logic? Can our emotions be a reliable source of logic?

[White Pony]

This is somewhat spur of the moment and I haven't really finished my thought process, so if something is unclear, let me know. Starting from scratch, and returning right back to the OP, to answer the question there are a number of ways we can go about this.

"Can emotions be a reliable source of logic?"

Semantics, lamentably, play a serious role in how we answer this question.

First, I think that we should establish what exactly is an emotion? I would say it is a complex derivative sum of feelings that is experienced as an immediate primary (thank you Ayn Rand). It's important to understand that an emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. So it is safe to say that emotions are not reliable sources of cognition.

But we are not talking about cognition are we? We are talking about logic. Taking the above into consideration, we might be able to say that so long as we keep in mind that our emotions cannot logically guide us, in most cases, because of their nature, that we might be able to stay level headed the vast majority of the time and cease to act on the spur of the moment. So in a certain respect, emotions, just by existing, can help us keep a logical thought process.

Something I cannot keep out my head is an example of whether a parent should rush into a burning house to save their child.

Of course, context plays a serious role in this example, but I'll illustrate it as generally as I can.

Let us say that, for whatever reason, a parent is outside of a burning home while the child is apparently trapped inside. Would it make sense for the parent to risk their own life to save their own child? Most people would say yes, but why?

Since everything we experience has to somehow deal with how feel about it, we must take into account the parent's priorities. Now if you are the kind of person that values courage, bravery, and integrity, then it should not be surprising to see such a person risk their life to save the helpless. But of course, we must take into account also the parent's state of mind. How important is the child in relation to the parent's happiness? If the child is a central part of the parent's state of well-being, seeing as how life without the child, in addition to the guilt of doing nothing to try and save them could make life absolutely unbearable, then surely it would make sense for the parent to attempt a rescue.

So can emotions be a reliable source for logic? Kinda-sortof-maybe-possibly.

It depends on how they are interpreted.

[FinalEnigma]

This is somewhat spur of the moment and I haven't really finished my thought process, so if something is unclear, let me know. Starting from scratch, and returning right back to the OP, to answer the question there are a number of ways we can go about this.

"Can emotions be a reliable source of logic?"

Semantics, lamentably, play a serious role in how we answer this question.

First, I think that we should establish what exactly is an emotion? I would say it is a complex derivative sum of feelings that is experienced as an immediate primary (thank you Ayn Rand). It's important to understand that an emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. So it is safe to say that emotions are not reliable sources of cognition.

But we are not talking about cognition are we? We are talking about logic. Taking the above into consideration, we might be able to say that so long as we keep in mind that our emotions cannot logically guide us, in most cases, because of their nature, that we might be able to stay level headed the vast majority of the time and cease to act on the spur of the moment. So in a certain respect, emotions, just by existing, can help us keep a logical thought process.

Something I cannot keep out my head is an example of whether a parent should rush into a burning house to save their child.

Of course, context plays a serious role in this example, but I'll illustrate it as generally as I can.

Let us say that, for whatever reason, a parent is outside of a burning home while the child is apparently trapped inside. Would it make sense for the parent to risk their own life to save their own child? Most people would say yes, but why?

Since everything we experience has to somehow deal with how feel about it, we must take into account the parent's priorities. Now if you are the kind of person that values courage, bravery, and integrity, then it should not be surprising to see such a person risk their life to save the helpless. But of course, we must take into account also the parent's state of mind. How important is the child in relation to the parent's happiness? If the child is a central part of the parent's state of well-being, seeing as how life without the child, in addition to the guilt of doing nothing to try and save them could make life absolutely unbearable, then surely it would make sense for the parent to attempt a rescue.

So can emotions be a reliable source for logic? Kinda-sortof-maybe-possibly.

It depends on how they are interpreted.

Nuh-uh. In my veiw the only way emotions can be a reliable source for logic is just when logic takes emotions into account. Emotions should not drive logic. but emotional well being is a factor in a logical decision. A lot of people portray logic as ignorant of emotions. This just isn't so. Logic can take emotions into account without using them as the basis for it's decisions.

[QED]

Let us say that, for whatever reason, a parent is outside of a burning home while the child is apparently trapped inside. Would it make sense for the parent to risk their own life to save their own child? Most people would say yes, but why?

Waves hand in air...

Since everything we experience has to somehow deal with how feel about it, we must take into account the parent's priorities. Now if you are the kind of person that values courage, bravery, and integrity, then it should not be surprising to see such a person risk their life to save the helpless. But of course, we must take into account also the parent's state of mind. How important is the child in relation to the parent's happiness? If the child is a central part of the parent's state of well-being, seeing as how life without the child, in addition to the guilt of doing nothing to try and save them could make life absolutely unbearable, then surely it would make sense for the parent to attempt a rescue.

So here's why I said emotions could be logical: That child has a goodly chunk of genetic information that had managed to be passed, from parent to child, in an unbroken line, for generation upon generation. Part of that information compels its owner to behave in particular ways (emotions) that ensure it goes on making the journey. Imagine parents who don't feel this emotional drive to protect their children come what may (through some genetic defect): of all the lineages going, these would stand a higher chance of being broken. The prediction, therefore, is that the world will be populated by parents who care for their children in highly compelling ways. That's the kind of logic emotions are all about.

[Confused]

Let us say that, for whatever reason, a parent is outside of a burning home while the child is apparently trapped inside. Would it make sense for the parent to risk their own life to save their own child? Most people would say yes, but why?

Waves hand in air...

Since everything we experience has to somehow deal with how feel about it, we must take into account the parent's priorities. Now if you are the kind of person that values courage, bravery, and integrity, then it should not be surprising to see such a person risk their life to save the helpless. But of course, we must take into account also the parent's state of mind. How important is the child in relation to the parent's happiness? If the child is a central part of the parent's state of well-being, seeing as how life without the child, in addition to the guilt of doing nothing to try and save them could make life absolutely unbearable, then surely it would make sense for the parent to attempt a rescue.

So here's why I said emotions could be logical: That child has a goodly chunk of genetic information that had managed to be passed, from parent to child, in an unbroken line, for generation upon generation. Part of that information compels its owner to behave in particular ways (emotions) that ensure it goes on making the journey. Imagine parents who don't feel this emotional drive to protect their children come what may (through some genetic defect): of all the lineages going, these would stand a higher chance of being broken. The prediction, therefore, is that the world will be populated by parents who care for their children in highly compelling ways. That's the kind of logic emotions are all about.

Ok, sensitive issue for me, let me take of mom hat. By this analogy, protecting this child with a genetic defect so that it could become a burden to society or worse, reproduce and pass along this defect so future generations are burdens to society qualifies as logical emotions how? Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, but it would seem to me that logic would say we put our scarce resources in those with the strongest possibility of contributing.

[White Pony]

Let us say that, for whatever reason, a parent is outside of a burning home while the child is apparently trapped inside. Would it make sense for the parent to risk their own life to save their own child? Most people would say yes, but why?

Waves hand in air...

Since everything we experience has to somehow deal with how feel about it, we must take into account the parent's priorities. Now if you are the kind of person that values courage, bravery, and integrity, then it should not be surprising to see such a person risk their life to save the helpless. But of course, we must take into account also the parent's state of mind. How important is the child in relation to the parent's happiness? If the child is a central part of the parent's state of well-being, seeing as how life without the child, in addition to the guilt of doing nothing to try and save them could make life absolutely unbearable, then surely it would make sense for the parent to attempt a rescue.

So here's why I said emotions could be logical: That child has a goodly chunk of genetic information that had managed to be passed, from parent to child, in an unbroken line, for generation upon generation. Part of that information compels its owner to behave in particular ways (emotions) that ensure it goes on making the journey. Imagine parents who don't feel this emotional drive to protect their children come what may (through some genetic defect): of all the lineages going, these would stand a higher chance of being broken. The prediction, therefore, is that the world will be populated by parents who care for their children in highly compelling ways. That's the kind of logic emotions are all about.

Ok, sensitive issue for me, let me take of mom hat. By this analogy, protecting this child with a genetic defect so that it could become a burden to society or worse, reproduce and pass along this defect so future generations are burdens to society qualifies as logical emotions how? Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, but it would seem to me that logic would say we put our scarce resources in those with the strongest possibility of contributing.

Oh not at all; what I was trying to get at, although probably inadequately, was what FinalEnigma was talking about. Sorry, that last post was rather last minute.

Our emotions are irrational responses. Probably a better example would be walking into your house to find someone standing over the bodies of your loved ones, with a weapon of some sort in his hand:

-Your first emotional response would in all likelihood sound something like, "This mofo has to die, because he has just taken away that which is most important to me in life!!"

-Logically however, your rational faculty might kick in later to say, "This guy has to be stopped, by any means necessary, so that he doesn't commit such an atrocity elsewhere."

Did that help clear things up a bit?

[QED]

Ok, sensitive issue for me, let me take of mom hat. By this analogy, protecting this child with a genetic defect so that it could become a burden to society or worse, reproduce and pass along this defect so future generations are burdens to society qualifies as logical emotions how? Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, but it would seem to me that logic would say we put our scarce resources in those with the strongest possibility of contributing.

I see that you've inserted a hypothetical genetic defect into the child that White Pony placed inside the burning house. The child's parent may have a conscious (logical) opinion about their child based on knowledge of their condition, but their genetically inherited emotions will still be "unaware" of this reasoning. Just like I have a conscious logical opinion about maybe why I shouldn't eat that doughnut -- but my instinctive compulsion towards isn't up to speed and wins out. I dare say if "burdensome" genetic defects were the norm in children, evolution would latch on to a different logic when predisposing people's behaviour in this sort of situation.

[Confused]

Ok, sensitive issue for me, let me take of mom hat. By this analogy, protecting this child with a genetic defect so that it could become a burden to society or worse, reproduce and pass along this defect so future generations are burdens to society qualifies as logical emotions how? Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, but it would seem to me that logic would say we put our scarce resources in those with the strongest possibility of contributing.

I see that you've inserted a hypothetical genetic defect into the child that White Pony placed inside the burning house. The child's parent may have a conscious (logical) opinion about their child based on knowledge of their condition, but their genetically inherited emotions will still be "unaware" of this reasoning. Just like I have a conscious logical opinion about maybe why I shouldn't eat that doughnut -- but my instinctive compulsion towards isn't up to speed and wins out. I dare say if "burdensome" genetic defects were the norm in children, evolution would latch on to a different logic when predisposing people's behaviour in this sort of situation.

I can't say parent/child bonding etc is genetic since some parents couldn't care less about their children and treat them as garbage. But I do believe that the emotional bond between the parent and child that is formed not only isn't aware of the reasoning, but overrides the reasoning all together. Their emotional component (perhaps related to the knowledge of their disorder or perhaps simply the bond between a mother and child) completely discounts the logical responses. Though I am sure exceptions exists, as in the rare cases when a mother kills her child to prevent her child from killing again (assuming the mother knows for a fact her child has been killing or raping and the police can not prove it). One could argue this would be an action done by logic with emotions.

[Fisherking]

Ok, sensitive issue for me, let me take of mom hat. By this analogy, protecting this child with a genetic defect so that it could become a burden to society or worse, reproduce and pass along this defect so future generations are burdens to society qualifies as logical emotions how? Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, but it would seem to me that logic would say we put our scarce resources in those with the strongest possibility of contributing.

I see that you've inserted a hypothetical genetic defect into the child that White Pony placed inside the burning house. The child's parent may have a conscious (logical) opinion about their child based on knowledge of their condition, but their genetically inherited emotions will still be "unaware" of this reasoning. Just like I have a conscious logical opinion about maybe why I shouldn't eat that doughnut -- but my instinctive compulsion towards isn't up to speed and wins out. I dare say if "burdensome" genetic defects were the norm in children, evolution would latch on to a different logic when predisposing people's behaviour in this sort of situation.

I can't say parent/child bonding etc is genetic since some parents couldn't care less about their children and treat them as garbage. But I do believe that the emotional bond between the parent and child that is formed not only isn't aware of the reasoning, but overrides the reasoning all together. Their emotional component (perhaps related to the knowledge of their disorder or perhaps simply the bond between a mother and child) completely discounts the logical responses. Though I am sure exceptions exists, as in the rare cases when a mother kills her child to prevent her child from killing again (assuming the mother knows for a fact her child has been killing or raping and the police can not prove it). One could argue this would be an action done by logic with emotions.

I agree 100%. We do things that are right, for the mere fact we know they are right, regardless of whether or not it is rational or logical. Spock from the original Star Trek was a perfect example of a race of beings supposedly incapable of emotion.(in an imaginary sort of way). Kirk would always say something to the effect that emotions are that which makes us human. I would agree with him.

[QED]

[quote="Confused"]
I can't say parent/child bonding etc is genetic since some parents couldn't care less about their children and treat them as garbage.[quote]

That's way too slight to discount the argument. From a Darwinian perspective good parenting practice is highly advantageous and I think the evidence found in man and other animals supports this 100%. There are exceptions, (if there weren't then there would be no adaptive potential) and the formation of complex societies can serve to amplify these exceptions (if you try leaving your kids on the street, they probably won't die there any more).

I would be very surprised if our key Emotions weren't inherited behavioural tendencies shaped by natural selection. If they were acquired through life I don't think there would be such a consistency to individual behaviours. Human and animal societies just aren't that chaotic. Also there are, as you know, reflexive responses to situations that effect distinct hormonal changes. Anything that is "instinctive" is highly likely to be rooted in genes that express past experience (experience not acquired in the organisms own life-time).

[Greatest I Am]

Seems to me that logic leads to emotion. Emotion is the byproduct of thought. Thought must come before emotion. That thought must be logical to lead to a true emotion. If based on illogical thought, I suppose emotion can exist but how could we trust this emotion if based on illogical thought.

Regards
DL