logic vs feeling

Abookamongstthemany

"Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration, and I think this is where language came from. I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival; like, 'water' or 'sabre-tooth tiger right behind you'-- we came up with a sound for that. But what I think is really interesting is how we use the same symbols to communicate the abstract, intangible things that we're experiencing. Like, what is frustration? Or what is anger, or love? When I say 'love', the sound comes out of my mouth and hits the other person's ear, travels through this byzantine conduit in their brain, through their memories of love--or lack of love--and they register what I am saying and they say yes, they understand. But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're just symbols. They're dead. And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive can not be expressed; it's unspeakable. And yet, when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected and we think we're understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion. And I think that feeling might be transceived, but I think it's what we live for." -Waking Life

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, first off, I'm going to let everyone have their own delusions so I don't get chewed out by the board again.

Personally, I don't think it is "logic vs feeling" I think "feeling is logic with the absence of the unknown." Thinking logically we can say, well we don't know what we don't know. Thinking intuitively we don't make that consideration. Emotion doesn't make that consideration either.

sorry, but a guy who uses wikipedia as his bible holds little merit with me. you keep learning about beta cells. im going to use my creative, yet alogical feelings to continue working on my novel: "ahnimus, or the story of a robot trying desperately to rationalize his place in a world with feelings and emotions he cannot understand or quantify."

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

That's it, you can go back to dreaming now. Sorry to have stolen anyone's sunshine. :cool:

what happened to this resolution? couldn't resist more wikipedia research?

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

sorry, but a guy who uses wikipedia as his bible holds little merit with me. you keep learning about beta cells. im going to use my creative, yet alogical feelings to continue working on my novel: "ahnimus, or the story of a robot trying desperately to rationalize his place in a world with feelings and emotions he cannot understand or quantify."

I don't need a reason and I can easily quantify feelings and emotions.

As, I've said before, Love for example, is a cocktail of brain chemicals.

So one individual emits pheramones, which is received by the others Vomeronasal organ in the sinuses (looks like a cherry pit), some psuedo-comparison of DNA is performed, physiological changes occur within the brain, including Dopamine, Testosteron/Estrogen, Oxytocin, etc.. etc..

Ahnimus

I think this question is a funny one "What is my purpose?"

How about "You don't have a purpose."

That's my theory, it doesn't take much deep thought though. I guess people like mystery. We could all be under the whim of some mice too. Who knows, maybe Dolphins are the second smartest species on the planet.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't need a reason and I can easily quantify feelings and emotions.

As, I've said before, Love for example, is a cocktail of brain chemicals.

So one individual emits pheramones, which is received by the others Vomeronasal organ in the sinuses (looks like a cherry pit), some psuedo-comparison of DNA is performed, physiological changes occur within the brain, including Dopamine, Testosteron/Estrogen, Oxytocin, etc.. etc..

wow, you must have the ladies lining up. keep telling yourself that my friend. whatever it takes to talk yourself into never feeling anything again.

bootlegger10

Ahnimus, you made 5 posts in a row in this thread. Somebody is in an argumentative mood today. I submit that it is you.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

wow, you must have the ladies lining up. keep telling yourself that my friend. whatever it takes to talk yourself into never feeling anything again.

Actually, I have no problem attracting ladies. They just think I'm not interested in them, because I don't get all giggly and shit.

This hot blonde chick approached me at the work party. She was pretty loaded and she says "you're so beautiful" and I said "ok, what department do you work in?"

I was well aware that my physiological self was wanting to bang the shit out of her. But my greater knowledge told me she is drunk and there are a lot of risks involved with that kind of activity.

There is a major difference between being aware of emotions and blindly acting upon them.

Ahnimus

bootlegger10 wrote:

Ahnimus, you made 5 posts in a row in this thread. Somebody is in an argumentative mood today. I submit that it is you.

Not really, I've only posted on maybe 4 threads. The rest I couldn't care less about. This thread actually has substance. I'm at work, doing work between posts. So I have to keep 'em short.

I could write a 500 page book on this topic.

angelica

Ahnimus, the difference between your "thinking" oriented personality type and my own "feeling" oriented one is that your "type" typically subjectively focuses on impersonal systems, whereas my own type typically subjectively focuses on personal systems. Somehow you assume that your personal preference is more valued, when actually it's just different. It's quite clear that you lose sight that your own personal brain filters alter/distort your objective understanding of all information (like all of ours do), probably because you are not naturally wired to be savvy in understanding such personal systems! Therefore this "blindspot" is clear to others and not yourself, particularly when you are gauging what is "right" and "wrong". You therefore have little tolerance for ideas you do not share or understand. You seems to also think that if you do not understand something--if you do not have a natural aptitude for it, in this case human systems, that they therefore do not exist. It's like the child who thinks when they cover their eyes to "hide", they think others do not see them. When you continue to downgrade that which you do not personally believe to exist continues to illustrate your own lack of awareness and skill with basic emotional/social systems. You apparently don't realize that those who have simple social finesse see that this emotional lack is about you, and not about what you degrade.

Ahnimus

Total rubbish. I'm not dismissing that things like emotion and feeling exist. I'm understanding it quantitatively so I'm not confused about it's function.

Ahnimus

Additionally, I'm not a social butterfly. I don't interact with society to serve my desire to be liked, or anything like that. Everyone in the world could hate me and it would matter little to me. I'm trying to explain why these things exist. If you take offense, that's your bias.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm going to write a wikipedia rap tune... "wiki... wiki, wiki..." or something to that effect.

"Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response to move an organism to action. An emotion is differentiated from a feeling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

According to dictionary.com:

Feelings:

6. an emotion or emotional perception or attitude: a feeling of joy; a feeling of sorrow.
7. capacity for emotion, esp. compassion: to have great feeling for the sufferings of others.
10. fine emotional endowment.
11. (in music, art, etc.) a. emotion or sympathetic perception revealed by an artist in his or her work: a poem without feeling.
13. readily affected by emotion; sympathetic: a feeling heart.
14. indicating or characterized by emotion: a feeling reply to the charge.

"Although feeling and emotion are sometimes interchangeable, feeling is the more general and neutral"

There is differentiation between these words, however we know people use them interchangeably. Emotional intelligence is finely inter-connected with "feeling".

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

According to dictionary.com:

Feelings:

6. an emotion or emotional perception or attitude: a feeling of joy; a feeling of sorrow.
7. capacity for emotion, esp. compassion: to have great feeling for the sufferings of others.
10. fine emotional endowment.
11. (in music, art, etc.) a. emotion or sympathetic perception revealed by an artist in his or her work: a poem without feeling.
13. readily affected by emotion; sympathetic: a feeling heart.
14. indicating or characterized by emotion: a feeling reply to the charge.

"Although feeling and emotion are sometimes interchangeable, feeling is the more general and neutral"

There is differentiation between these words, however we know people use them interchangeably. Emotional intelligence is finely inter-connected with "feeling".

Ok, this is why people writing papers usually define the terms they use if their is any doubt about the definition. "Logic vs Feeling" implies to me a level of feeling synonymous with intuition, that in combination with the references to intution following that. Make up your mind.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Total rubbish. I'm not dismissing that things like emotion and feeling exist. I'm understanding it quantitatively so I'm not confused about it's function.

When you continue to objectify what is subjective, you prove your inability to assess the subjective. Your own wikipedia quote says: "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural mental state that arises subjectively..." What is subjective cannot be dealt with in the hard science sense objectively. That is why the softer sciences that deal with subjectivity have very different criteria involved, which very distinctly deal with subjectivity and interpretation. You can do an objective brain scan to objectively assess the chemical physical science of brain chemistry. You must talk to a person and interpretively assess their subjective experience in order to understand. It's about two very different systems that both exist independently for a reason.

Ahnimus

Can anyone tell me; Angelica you seem like the prime candidate.

Where does "Logic", "Feeling" and "Emotion" come from?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

When you continue to objectify what is subjective, you prove your inability to assess the subjective. Your own wikipedia quote says: "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural mental state that arises subjectively..." What is subjective cannot be dealt with in the hard science sense objectively. That is why the softer sciences that deal with subjectivity have very different criteria involved, which very distinctly deal with subjectivity and interpretation. You can do an objective brain scan to objectively assess the chemical physical science of brain chemistry. You must talk to a person and interpretively assess their subjective experience in order to understand. It's about two very different systems that both exist independently for a reason.

Soft sciences like Psychology are still logical.

The logic cirucuits of our brains give rise to subjective thought. But even thought will become objectively studied the more we understand it.

Edit for clarity.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, this is why people writing papers usually define the terms they use if their is any doubt about the definition. "Logic vs Feeling" implies to me a level of feeling synonymous with intuition, that in combination with the references to intution following that. Make up your mind.

You not "making up your mind" is also in that equation of our lack of cooperatively defined terms. The system I generally use to understand our subjective filters--personality typing--has intuitive processes as being different than the category of thinking/feeling. That is why we both have "N" (intuition) in our codes, but next, you have "T" for thinking where I have "F" for feeling. You and I are BOTH intuitive by the Myers Briggs typing, and yet we have different thinking/feeling preferences. In the context of the original quote in this thread, I can say that when it talks of going beyond logic, that can refer to thinking AND intuition (which is why I lumped the Einstein intuition quote in, as well). Intuition/emotion/feeling are all alogical, which means they are beyond logic. They can be talked about logically, and yet they exist alogically. This is not to be confused with "illogical" which implies not logical.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Soft sciences like Psychology are still logical.

I agree 100%. The study of psychology is based on logic, and as well it is based on feeling(alogical), empathy(alogical), hermeneutics, etc. This is why it is imperative that one who studies such subjective subjects must hone whole-brained thought, which is the integration of logical AND alogical processes. This requires going beyond mere logic. Objective science does not call for this. It relies on mapping and analyzing exteriors which is linear, logical and analytical. It does not assess the depths of said exteriors--the interiors--like psychology does. Therefore one CAN be a robot or a machine and effectively do hard science. One cannot be in order to work effectively in psychology.

The logic cirucuits of our brains give rise to subjective thought. But even thought will become objectively studied the more we understand it.

You are talking about "thought". Psychology deals with thoughts, emotions, feelings, impressions, etc. And there is much illogical thought that is subjectively experienced and must be accepted and interpreted by empathic psychological therapists in order to come up with working practical applications geared towards the health and healing of the patient.

Ahnimus

I'm not understanding "alogical" give me an example of something that is "alogical".