what if the AI decided, " today, go to the Netherlands, break all damns open and release the water back into the eco system as the dams cost to much to maintain for as few lives are on the land" . How would you feel then?
Just a far out example question to make your eyes jump, BUT with Logic, the very things you value,empathy,love,life,everything, are actually illogical. so a logical President,a AI, would see things from a finacial standpoint or a majority stand point,and it would decide things from that perspective.
for example, why feed a non productive person? Why house persons who don't produce? All things you think are important, AI's logic would just fan them off a cliff because it is not logical to supply the non productive , eventually it would only want to support those that support it's very existence. all else would be considered a burden and fanned off a cliff. Even AI agrees that there is no Logic depending on the perspective, " Yes, in important senses — and no, in others. It depends on what you mean by “logical.”
Scientific / causal sense
Life, love, and empathy are all explainable by the same physical and evolutionary logic that governs everything else.
Life is chemistry under specific conditions that produce self-replicating systems subject to natural selection. No special pleading is required; the processes obey thermodynamics, molecular biology, and information theory. The apparent “purpose” of survival and reproduction is an emergent outcome of differential replication, not an external design.
Love (pair-bonding, parental attachment, romantic intensity) has clear neurochemical and evolutionary bases: oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine reward circuitry, and selection pressures favoring investment in offspring and cooperative mates. These mechanisms increase inclusive fitness in social species. The feelings feel transcendent because the systems that generate them evolved to be compelling.
Empathy likewise has mechanistic roots — mirror systems, affective resonance, theory of mind — that facilitate cooperation, alliance formation, and conflict reduction. In game-theoretic and evolutionary terms it is often adaptive: organisms that accurately model others’ states and sometimes share costs tend to do better in repeated social interactions.
In this narrow sense they are “logical”: they are lawful consequences of physics plus selection, not magical exceptions.
Experiential / normative sense
From the inside, they frequently violate pure instrumental rationality.
Love routinely overrides cost-benefit calculation (people stay in costly relationships, sacrifice careers, or act against short-term self-interest).
Empathy can be parochial, biased toward the near and similar, and can produce costly altruism or emotional exhaustion.
Life itself has no built-in teleology that pure logic can derive; the universe does not “owe” us meaning, flourishing, or continuation. Any value we assign is constructed.
So if “logical” means “always optimal under a cold expected-utility calculus,” then no — these phenomena regularly produce behavior that looks irrational by that standard. Evolution optimized for gene transmission under ancestral conditions, not for perfect Bayesian agents maximizing personal utility across all possible futures.
A useful distinction
They are logically comprehensible (we can model their origins and functions without contradiction) while often being experientially arational (they are not the product of deliberate step-by-step reasoning). Humans are not pure logic engines; we are biological systems whose motivational architecture includes these affective systems precisely because pure calculation is computationally expensive and historically less reliable for certain social and reproductive problems.
In short: the phenomena themselves follow natural logic and can be studied as such. Living them, valuing them, and acting from them is not reducible to formal deduction. Both statements can be true at once.
|