I've also read the #1 comment on the content on imgur.

Don't you think it's a problem that emotion takes precedent (no matter the real cost) in society though? Everybody KNOWS logic takes the backseat, but I doubt few people realize the implications. Eugenics (which could make humanity strong, healthy, and help us evolve is a wonderful thing). All we have to do is give babies genetic upgrades, but people cry that this is immoral and dangerous. They refuse stem cell research because "it's against god" and "it's bad" even though it could help soldiers get their limbs back or cure countless diseases.

Morality has always led to shortsighted and consequential decisions.
People will choose what feels good over what actually IS good.

If humanity was logical we wouldn't:
-Be destroying countless ecosystems. (I want this I want that)
-Consuming vast resources at an unsustainable rate. (I want this I want that)
-Putting the biosphere and climate in jeopardy with global warming (I want modern life's conveniences and none of the responsibility)
-Polluting the earth severely (because I want etc. etc. etc.)

Is feeling right really more important than being right?
the best decisions usually don't feel so good, sacrifices are often required, but nobody wants to sacrifice, nobody cares. To me, this is the true evil. And why our world is bound to come crashing down.

But see, this is yet another issue with logic. Sometimes we get it confused with opinion, and then it is very easy to call anyone that speaks out against us emotional, unstable, or even evil.

I would argue that Humanity HAS been largely logical. The root of this discussion stems from one using only logic to combat issues and being heartless, taking little or no account of emotions or morals involved. That is exactly what I think is happening with your points there, pure logic, not emotion.

It is logical for Humanity to only want to benefit Humanity. If we were beings of pure logic, we would ONLY be looking out for human causes and likely be a space faring species by now. However, many humans are concerned with the environment and the ecosystem and the Earth itself. Love for animals, and the desire to protect them, is not logical. Love for nature, and the desire to protect it, is not logical. Love for ecosystems, beauty, art, and the Earth itself, is not logical. Love is not logical, love is an emotion.

Those people that pollute are acting logically in the sense that they are only seeking to benefit themselves and the rest of Humanity, **** anything that gets in their way.

Don't mistake moral righteousness and logic. They are two very different things.

I think my main complaint about eugenics is that enforcing at set of traits to have/to avoid would be dictated by a government,which can make it both a bit totalitarian and a bit beurocratic. Plus, prone to corruption (say, corporations selecting for more addictive personalities in the general population).
Secondly, narrowing the gene pool runs the threat of making us less adaptable to unpredicted future circumstances..

Part of being logical is considering the emotional side. If you think that you're being logical while you are ignoring the fact that people have feelings, you are an idiot. But I don't think that's what op meant.

Logic is subjective anyways. Always see people thinking of logic as being only one option, when in reality, logic depends on the individual, and their specific goals.

One person might say the logical thing to do is to work harder so that you can advance your career. This is true. Another might say the logical thing to do is to work enough to take care of your needs so that you can enjoy your life. This is also true.

It's really ******* late so I can't really express myself very coherently right now, but I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently. Any questions I'll respond to once I have some ******* sleep.

As a salesman let me tell you , the first thing we approach is the emotional side, if the buyer doesn't trust you it doesn't mean **** . Humans are emotional beings with logical cases.

Logic and reason isn't the simplest way. It is the most accurate way but neither as easy nor as quickly as an intuitive approach. And if you can formulate the entire emotional and social side in a structured way feel free to do it but i think the argument we can do the entire thing in a completly formal mathematical way is being misused way too often to dismiss the social and emotional side rather than reformulate it in a way you prefer and then actually consider it.

We are able to make emotional decisions because logic and reason take time and in many situations you simply do not have that luxury. Also, there are countless times throughout your day when you don't have adequate information to make a rational choice, so you "go with your gut." This might not always be the best choice, but something doesn't always need to be the best, sometimes good enough is all you need to get the job done.

Lol I studied with some extremely intelligent people (first class honors engineering, medicine, lawyers etc), none of them would say you can solely use logic, you can use logic to presume how someone may react to something but you can never model it exactly and if you exclude human perception and think you're the epitimy of intelligence you're an idiot - humans aren't robots dude

"Humans aren't robots, dude"

[ _ Paladin Danse loved that_ ]

it may or may not be in your joke, but.

Mr. Roboto

See on one hand I agree with the theory that technically speaking we can theorise / statically predict a human action(s) but on the other we have a "conscience". Now this have may be built in over millennium as a way to survive. But you watch some people save someone's life who they don't know and benefit nothing from saving them (except self gratification). I just think (obviously thinking about how we think is mind boggling enough) that with this "conscience" and "opinion", yes mathematically it may be possible but the probability of correctly foretelling (reading the future) is so minute eg 0.00000x10^x ie approaches a zero chance of ever getting it correct using mathematics alone?

Pic relatively related

The first Law of Biology didn't factor in Quantum Randomness. Newtonian Physics (Which the Laws of Biology are based on) is basically the average of all results from Quantum Randomness which is still inaccurate for electrons,quarks etc. and since neurons respond through electrical impulses (aka electrons moving) quantum randomness exists. So yes you can try to predict, but Quantum Randomness is still a thing.

"The culture says it was enlightened through modern science, now our knowledge is heightened with new information reshaping our conscience. Now we live autonomously to our liking."

Ever read Yevgeny Zamyatins "We"?

one day you'll turn 13

get over yourself.
every middle schooler can come up with this.

i don't think you understand what i meant.
a literal middleschooler has enough knowledge of physics to come up with the same
post, albeit better worded.
I assure you, everyone understood it perfectly fine, even if it is a little convoluted.
It's just not that impressive.
And people are complaining about your choice of words because it is pretentious and entirely unnecessary.
Stupid people talk like that to seem smarter.
It doesn't make anyone seem smart, let that be a lesson.

look, your point is all well and good, but it isn't as mindshattering as you seem to think.
yes, you can try and explain the universe in mathematical terms, but all that is ever going to be is a best guess abstraction of the true circumstances.
because believe it or not, this world we live in is way beyond our comprehension,
and i would wager that it always will be.
what you suggest is a simplification, really.

i don't get what you want from me then.
approval?

i do try.

They believe they do in an attempt to sound smart and enlightened.

I don't give two ***** about this argument but, aside from verisimilitude and aggrandizement, I don't see any other 'big words'...
Step your game up, anon and those who thumbed him.

Said the pot to the kettle

I'm talking about kitchenware dude

Hey man sorry I thumbed you down on accident, I evened it back out though. just saying it wasn't on purpose.

Wtf? Stop thumbing this idiot up. What kind of ******** logic is that? Humans multitask, holy **** . You know what your logic just did? It killed the brother, know why? It takes the ambulance about 5 minutes to get to the scene from dispatch.

Oh **** , your brother collapsed! What do you do?

Emotion: Help brother! Commence First Aid!
Logic: Help brother! Call 911!

As a Security guard, this is exactly what you should do:

1. Assess the situation, is it safe?

2. Assess the injured, in this case your bro.

3. Immediately call 911, or if you have others, tell them to call and begin helping the injured immediately.

4. If it's safe, and you have consent from the injured (Unconscious is an automatic YES! **** anyone that tries to sue you for "Molesting me in public" because you removed their shirt and bra in public. Any sane person will trade embarrassment to stay alive)

5. Apply First Aid. You've gotta know what you're treating for. If a person needs an insulin shot, don't do the Heimlich! There is one spot you can do it and significantly reduce the risk of broken ribs. If you're breaking ribs, you've got the wrong spot.

If you need to do chest compression, keep doing them until you're exhausted or the help arrives. If you tire, switch with someone else. Do not hit the incorrect spot, or you'll injure your wrist, and possibly break their bones. When emergency services arrive, let them take over and tell them what injuries they have.

FIRST AID IS GENERALLY A 10% INCREASE IN SURVIVABILITY. Think about that. That's an extra 1 in 10 chance because of you.


TL;DR: The most common sense, logical thing to do is to take both actions. Call the proffessionals, and help him yourself. First Aid saves lives too. It will also keep the brain alive, so the person isn't a vegetable later. Don't call the cops and just watch. Don't help and not call! AND NEVER DO WHAT THAT ******* DUMB ASS BELOW SAID! NEVER CHASE THE ASSAILANT!

The emotional relative, literally the number one person inadvertently rooting for the death of the injured since forever. Yes, we know that's your son/daughter/mother/father/lover get the **** out of the way and let the professionals save their lives so you can continue cheating on your wife/husband at the club...

When you see the "Security" or "Paramedic" lettering on our shirt, know that it's our job to keep people healthy and safe. Your panic, is only making things worse. We will work our asses off to keep your loved ones alive, because even the most heartless of us will still help them because paperwork and reports are a bitch. Plus, saving people is a good mark on our record. Once again though, most security and para's will do it because it's human nature to help. I tell you to back away because you're crowding the professionals. It's much in the same way the hospital tells you to sit down and shut up until we fix what's wrong with your loved one.

That's where we come in. We as Security and Para can grab you and remove you from the scene. We can raise our voice and "jolt you back to reality". At least until you calm down. Because, even if you're panicked, a strong, loud voice can get you to listen up and realize the case. No more of this, I've moved on to other things.

Apparently I can't call emergency services AND help my brother.

Your point is flawed because of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. This type of argument is generally employed as a fear mongering tactic. Below are listed the reasons why you should consider entering yourself into an institute for the mentally impaired.

> You assume that because A happened, eleven-two billion must come afterwards.
> The reader did not kill their brother, whomever stabbed him did. Your claim would not hold up in any civilized court of law.
> You are assuming that immediate action won't save a life. Many professionally advocated courses of action in an emergency call for the nearest person (you) to at the very least try to alleviate the main source of damage and then calling for help.
> You are assuming that because he is stabbed, he will immediately die. Depending on the size and severity of the wound, he can have between ten minutes to an hour to live. That is assuming the wound is life threatening in the first place.
> You are assuming that there are medical professionals close by enough that they can respond quickly enough to prevent his death, if his wound is severe enough to be fatal.
> You are assuming that the reader is not a professional medicinal practitioner.
> You are assuming that the state of immediate danger has passed (is the stabber still around?).

Your entire argument is short, lacks information, and only serves to make an ass out of yourself.

Ironically, whereas you are an advocate of logic, you fail in it almost completely. The best solution would be to allow your emotion to instead temper your logical decisions.

TL;DR: I hear they're bringing back tater-tot Tuesdays at your local Autism Speaks institute.

He didn't say act entirely on emotion, he said that both logic and emotion must be taken into consideration. In this case it would simply mean that it's fine to cry and be sad about it while it's happening because of the emotions, despite the fact that it would be optimal to act entirely calm.

emotional reaction would be to go and help your brother.

logical reaction would be to see if the stabber is still around

True. Balance between both ideals must be achieved, to better the outcome for as many people as it can. There's this quote of a man, whom I believe is Bertrand Russell, that while speaking of mathematics, says that the problem with them is that you will always know that you're "right", but never know what you are talking about (reality). Because of this, the "human factor" is as important as the logical one.

I'm pretty sure logic isn't an ideal. It's more truth than anything.

The truth is, your entire neighborhood is more important than your family, but your emotions would save your family over your entire neighborhood in a heartbeat.

Logically my family is more important to me because their existence has a far larger influence on my life and is much more helpful in my survival. What you're thinking about is some sort of idealistic somethingsomething, 2>1, no perspective.

Utilitarianism.

"To you" is a subjective term. It's subjective because it's subjected to emotion. Logically, the neighborhood is more important for the survival of the species. But to you, someone with emotion, your family is more important.

If I had no emotions my main goal would be self preservation, meaning my family would logically be more important. As a goal the survival of the species is extremely illogical if one doesn't consider emotions or how the rest of the species benefits you. You're taking the perspective of an excluded party, not a participating one.