Raw Take: To the Person Who Said Logic is a "Guy Thing"

The notion that logic and emotion are opposed is itself illogical. In rational decision-making, a course of action which failed to account for all variables would be incomplete, and where those variables are as commonplace and inevitable as the emotions of people, grossly insufficient--such a process would be appropriately recategorized as irrational for failing to treat all relevant factors as such. A perfectly logical process would see weight given necessarily to emotional aspects, treating emotion both as a factor contributing to some system, and also as a dimension of value in the outcome. A proof by contradiction can demonstrate that emotion is not contrary to reason, since emotions are highly correlative, following patterns, attributable to causes, measurable, and deeply connected to the decision-making neural processes--all attributes indicative of rational thinking. The two--logic and emotion--are inseparable, being only different interpretations of a deeply related thing, so that splitting them is like trying to treat the wavelength of light as irrelevant to its color. The misconception can explain not only delays to progress in artificial intelligence, but also to the perpetuation of sexism in STEM disciplines, particularly Computer Science.

Comments

  1. CotcanOctober 28, 2020 at 10:05 PM

    I like what you said about emotion just being a different interpretation of logic. If you look at a rainbow with red tinted glasses; you will never see the other colors. You will believe that all rainbows are red and that is the end of it. Your mind becomes closed to all the other colors and interpretations.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

It is absurd that replicating an idea or performance can be litigated against . The rationale for intellectual rights certainly does not hold up universally to reason, indicating it does not succeed in protecting something of inherent value without also producing at least some harm. Suppose that the first person to walk upright had claimed that action to be a novel and creative feat, and forbade anyone to mimic their style--with only the exception of this first-doer , or so-called "artist," the entire human race would be reduced to crawling (assuming  that was not also copyrighted). This imposes severe restrictions on human attainment, and more importantly their wellbeing. The rationale behind intellectual property is that it incentivizes innovation within a capitalist system, to justify the overhead cost in speculative research and development. In truth the necessity for such laws indicates a severe shortcoming of capitalism . The initiative to innovate is not naturally ac...
Read more

How the Sausage Gets Made

Cancel Culture is the manifestation of a revolution currently under way!  Essentially the domination of one sentiment over the other, at large scale and with unsettling instances of collateral damage , it is exactly what one might expect to occur if a social revolution was enabled by modern technology . The digital aspects particular to this  revolution aside, the essence of the phenomenon has analogues in history: during the American Revolution, the sentiment that was silenced was British sympathy-- not all colonials were supportive of the push for independence, and expressing that sentiment exposed oneself to serious harm. For the sake of self-preservation, non-sympathizers find themselves trying to not get trampled. Revolutions are characteristically messy, the very best causes will still make one's stomach churn when looking too closely. Even where a revolution is necessary to right horrendous systemic problems, my heart goes out to the ones so unlucky as to be "tied up ...
Read more

A Petty Problem

One would think that there existed a topic out there in the world which was so inconsequential that people would not even bother expending energy to come to a resolution over it--some disagreement whose subject just plain does not matter . If this were the case, then we could prioritize issues whose resolution makes real improvements to society. Unfortunately even the silliest distinctions seem to provoke heated discussion around them to justify one side and fault the other. The significance of the smallest sentiments is regularly inflated, even to the suggestion that normative ethics could be derived from the smallest issue. For example, elaborate sketches can be designed to denigrate entire generations  over a distinction in just vernacular, as if during this  two minutes, fifty-seven seconds  one imagines that the only thing that mattered in the world was the inflection one used during conversation; and countless programming convention standards will tirelessly war ov...
Read more