The various comments thus far seem to revolve around whether or not thought (intellect... cognition) is superior to emotion. If one makes the case that intellect is the controlling or superior factor, then the implication is that an unfeeling robot would be superior to a human being? Many important and socially beneficial decisions are made at the level of emotion and compassion, versus in an unemotional, robotic or utilitarian fashion. Thus, if a single child goes missing, we feel compassion for the family, and we even come to care about the child in the same way the child's family do... a huge search party is mobilised. Police from neighbouring towns come on board to help the effort. Helicopters are used to sweep the area. Neighbours keep an eye out --and the local (or even national!) milk company might print a picture of the missing child on each and every carton...
But at the level of pure intellect, it could be said that the costs (police salaries, choppers, search parties, hundreds of people losing sleep...) outway the single benefit: finding the child. But our best feelings --out humanity-- keeps us on track, and makes sure we do the right thing. Otherwise we might coldly think it all a waste, or that the money spent on choppers and search parties could be spend instead on building a new school, and benefiting not a single child, but a hundred children. If we were too calculating and lacked all compassion... that is exactly what we would do! But it's a monstrous thought. Therefore, I say feelings --our sense of compassion and empathy-- are often, crucially, superior to the calculating intellect.
but is it a feeling?...is touch a feeling?
