|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 23, 2009 14:53:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Feb 23, 2009 14:57:01 GMT
Incorrect conclusion, Patrick. Not all decisions influenced by emotion are necessarily the wrong one  |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 23, 2009 15:02:44 GMT
Incorrect conclusion, Patrick. Not all decisions influenced by emotion are necessarily the wrong one Precisely! Though that's what I gleaned from reading about that study. You could say that they've "Taken the emotion" out of their conclusion? |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Feb 23, 2009 15:03:33 GMT
Incorrect conclusion, Patrick. Not all decisions influenced by emotion are necessarily the wrong one Precisely! Though that's what I gleaned from reading about that study. You could say that they've "Taken the emotion" out of their conclusion? Or that because an emotional response is counter to a purely rational one, they automatically dismissed it as their own emotions rebelled against it Ooh, this gets confusing  |
|
|
|
Post by chrislord on Feb 23, 2009 15:34:49 GMT
Most decision making is formed on reaction isn't it? Wether that reaction is emotional or rational given to any specific situation.
Oh I don't know. Wasn't it Freud who said everything we do is down to sex?
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 23, 2009 15:51:37 GMT
Most decision making is formed on reaction isn't it? Wether that reaction is emotional or rational given to any specific situation. Oh I don't know. Wasn't it Freud who said everything we do is down to sex? Oh, I don't know.  |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Feb 23, 2009 17:47:58 GMT
Most decision making is formed on reaction isn't it? Wether that reaction is emotional or rational given to any specific situation. Oh I don't know. Wasn't it Freud who said everything we do is down to sex? That explains all this talk of eggs! |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 2, 2009 17:13:45 GMT
Just to let you know that the article came in handy this afternoon at my "Philosophy for Grannies" course. We were asked to comment on something said by Blaise Pascal, who said : Civil war in man between reason and passion: If there were only reason without passion.
If there were only passions without reason.
But since he has both he cannot be free from war, for he can only be at peace with the one if he is at war with the other.
Thus he is always torn by innder divisions and contradictions. It also had some bearing on "Pascal's Wager " which very roughly (and I cribbed this) says: "It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way. " Anyway, the tutor was highly impressed to think that someone had done some research.  |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 2, 2009 18:27:32 GMT
That's what the Stubby's all about! One minute pancake recipes - the next? French Phil o' Sophy! Brilliant  |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 2, 2009 18:39:03 GMT
Except your sanity.   |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 2, 2009 19:48:47 GMT
But then you're dead, so it doesn't matter!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Mar 2, 2009 21:15:54 GMT
I've found Pascal's Wager convincing. It is actually a double wager, that God exists and will punish you for doubting it. A just merciful forgiving God will not punish for backing your own intellect against contradictory ancient texts of doubtful accuracy in other respects. It's even possible to imagine a God who rewards for disbelief based on evidence and punishes for belief based on blind acceptance of scripture. In fact I think Frank Herbert came up with something of the idea in the fourth of his (interminable) Dune series where the eponymous God-Emperor of Dune devotes his near immortal life to overtly demanding blind devotion while covertly encouraging rebellion that will lead the human race to handle its own affairs instead of trusting to Messiahs. (I think - I never could get to grips with the stories following the trilogy).
If Pascal's god might exist, why not any number of others all jealous of why you chose him over them? I might not be too worried about Vishnu or Apollo feeling upstaged but I don't fancy meeting an irate Sebek the Crocodile or Lord Smoking Mirror Huitzilapochtli!
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 2, 2009 22:06:07 GMT
Some people see this as a big flaw in the theory but I don't because the theory doesn't preclude this. It is just that the people who picked the wrong God get a double dose of misery for not only did they devote their lives to something that didn't exist but they end up in eternal hell anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 3, 2009 13:32:30 GMT
One interesting part in the article was the story of the man who, as a result of a brain tumour, was left without any means of expressing emotion.
"Elliot endlessly deliberated over irrelevant details, like whether to use a blue or black pen, or what radio station to listen to, or where to park his car.
When choosing where to eat lunch, Elliot would carefully consider the restaurant's menu, seating plan, and lighting scheme. He would then drive to each restaurant to see how busy it was.
But all this analysis was for naught. Elliot still didn't know what to do. Pure reason is a disease. "
One student commented "He drove? How did he decide whether to stop at a red light?"
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 3, 2009 14:10:52 GMT
No decision needed if there's a rule.
|
|
stephan
Lovely, Happy & Gorgeous!
Posts: 278
|
Post by stephan on Mar 3, 2009 17:48:26 GMT
Emotion and Decisions-google `Cognative Dissonance`-it was popular in the 50s,fell from grace but is back again.
The brain is a very strange place-I remember reading this when I was doing my PhD
This chap used to pound bits of paper to pieces with a pencil and said he did it to communicate with the Ancient Egyptians.
He was then put on a course of Methylphenilate(Ritalin)
He stopped pounding the paper but when asked if he still communicated said
"Yes but if I pounded the paper you would think I was mad"
|
|
)
A.P.P.S
S C 
