"Human minds are based on things like prediction and auto-associative memory."
AI and Predictive Analytics. The smartest AI technologies are, quite literally, prediction machines. They use algorithms to analyze large sets of data, in order to optimize towards a goal. As they optimize, they learn over time to improve their results.
Source:-https://www.marketingaiinstitute.com/blog/ai-for-predictive-analytics

"Human brains are part of a body that needs to regulate energy appropriate to circumstances."
So would an AI if you programme it that way.

"Human beings are a social species and emotion concepts are largely social constructs."
Exactly.
And this is exactly, what i think is unecessary now.
We dont need to be a social species anymore.

If you can just justify humans as just emotions, you are just a bad rep on humanity, my dude.
Humans are much more than just emotions and personal beliefs.

But i would have needed it back when lions and mammoths existed as i would have no other way to determine the seriousness of a situation. — Kinglord1090

Do you mean there was a point in our history when emotions were essential? Or do you in fact believe this statement is an accurate description of that time.

I have been using measures from correct sources and objective truth. — Kinglord1090

It's possible you may be confusing objective truth with a rapidly produced opinion.

That is how debates/discussions work, so I dont see anything wrong in this. — Kinglord1090

And thats why we should get rid of them. — Kinglord1090

Generally, there is a singular point. You have at least two or three running at the moment.
1. Emotions were completely necessary for pre-history human survival.
2. Number 1 became false.
3. Reason 2 is a good reason to get rid of emotions.
I don't think you have actually proved 1 with sufficient evidence. There is no account for when or how 2. And lastly, 3 ignores the human experience as being desirable.

Do you want to narrow it down a bit?

that important part isnt enough to compete with eternal peace. — Kinglord1090

We don’t get eternal peace by eliminating emotions , since they are not irrational. Instead we need to listen to what our emotions are telling us about the gap between our way of looking at the world and the way others do. The next time you feel anger or guilt or some
other emotion, rather than seeing it as illogical, try and see it as attempting to educate you that your frame of rationality needs to reconfigured. What you are doing f is blaming the messenger( emotion) for the message ( there is something in your world that you are failing to cope with )

@Kinglord1090

It's wonderful to be human with desires,beliefs hope's,dreams,ambitions,emotions and Family and social relations.

You think you can eliminate those and stop man being a social species?

You are deluded!

You should get out more.

You should get out more. — Protagoras

battery needs to be recharged

"They are integrated deeply into our thinking processes--so integrated that without emotion we wouldn't be doing much thinking."|
If we wouldnt think about some stuff without emotions, are those stuff important enough to begin with?

All robots are written in code.
All humans are also written in code, also known as DNA.
Robots take inputs, be it entered manually or giving it a camera to process information itself.
Humans do the same using their eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, brain etc.
Both humans and robots then process this info and give some output.
I dont know if you know about coding, but all the choices humans make are basically if..then statements.
If hugry, then eat. I thirst, then drink.
We just happen to have a much more complex code with millions and billions of variables and inputs.
So, saying that humans and computers arent alike is weird.

@Joshs

Maybe the man is tired and overemotional.

That's a logical sign he should relax and maybe adjust his views.

See,emotions are logical!

What do you mean why is it logical to preserve resources?
The more resources we have, the better we will perform, and the btter we perform the better we will be able to help humanity.
Helping humanity has nothing to do with emotions, btw.
As humans, we only have 2 goals in life, and both goals are scientifically proven to be void of emotions.

You answeed your own question.
Its logical to refrain from doing so, because it would cost energy.
And no, in a world void of emotions, there would be no need for killing per say, disabled people.
Because they no one will be against them, nor with them.
If even after being diabled, they find a way to earn money, (without breaking any rules), people wouldnt care.
People wouldnt care what color you are, what caste you are, what gender you are, as long as you dont bother them.

would you rather live in a world with murder and crimes instead of choosing peace? — Kinglord1090

The cause of such violence is not irrationality but rationality. That is to say , that there is only one correct version of the rational , the belief that the rational and the logical is not based on the subjective, that the order of the world has already been laid down for us as a perfect machine and all we have to
do is apprehend this perfect order. Because if that’s what you believe , then every time someone disagrees with your model, you will attribute their deviation as irrationality and emotionality.

I dont even understand what you are talking about anymore, so i will just give you 2 choices.
Would you rather -
1) Live in a world with emotions, where people suffer and commit murder.
2) Live in a world with eternal peace, but no way of being happy.
My choice is clearly the second world.
I dont want to see anyone suffer.

Funny you are saing that I am getting emotional as if you didnt think i was human.
Of course, i am human.
I have emotions and i know how bad they can get.
And how some people would just choose to die than live.
I am merely showing a better choice.

This is some serious level of utopian bullshit.

I haven't laughed this much at a thread ever i think.

So these are your folks who prize "logic" and science over everything else?!

This is as funny as that guy who said he fed 5000 with a few subways and surfed on the sea barefoot.

Next up,OP reveals he's jesus and turns members likes into wine and cryptocurrency.

2) Live in a world with eternal peace, but no way of being happy.
My choice is clearly the second world.
I dont want to see anyone suffer. — Kinglord1090

Maybe you should check out the anti-natalism threads.

@Kinglord1090
Oh,I know your human. Very human.

I don't share your false choices.

I love being human,I love my emotions.

What are you going to do with people like me?

Isn't laughter an emotion?

And joy?

And pride?

And happiness?

And love?

Sure.
1) Here is more proof that emotions were built for survival.
"The popular answer is the evolutionary one — that emotions have helped us survive. When we lived in the wild — with monkeys and mastodons and tigers — we needed emotions in order to react quickly to dangerous stimuli. If faced with a tiger, it's better to be rocked with a fear so strong it triggers a rush of blood than to sit around and theorize about the threat. We developed an emotional system because it could induce quick responses to danger (for theorists on emotion and evolution, see Antonio Damasio, Joseph LeDoux, and Robert Trivers)."
Source:-https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-literary-mind/200911/why-do-we-have-emotions

2) Yes we stopped needing these emotions once we learned how to make weapons and fight back against these dangers.

3) Yes reason 2 is a good reason for it.
Of course, it alone isnt enough.
But getting ridding of emotions also means, getting rid of murders and crimes.
Its a win-win situtauion.
You said 3rd ignores human desire to experience life.
Ok, so i am asumming that you think some human is fine with living his whole life being tortured, simply because he/she/they get to experience it.

Ok, give me 1 reason on how a life without emotions wouldnt be peaceful, and if i am not able to solve it logically, i would accept that emotions are necessary.

I dont even understand what you are talking about anymore — Kinglord1090

Why do you think the word would be at peace without emotions ? Give me an example from
today’s politically polarized situation. Let’s say we remove
the emotional capacities from Trump supporters and Critical Race Theory supporters. How do you envision this to change their relationship and understanding of each other?

woahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you cant just say that
do you want everyone to die?
there is covid outside dude.
kids stay inside and dont do drugs.
and pay attention to class

i need to recharge.
its 2:30 am.
I am going to sleep.

@Kinglord1090

You are a great advert against the school system.

Because your reasoning is awful.

I ain't scared of no covid,or drugs.

Ok, give me 1 reason on how a life without emotions wouldnt be peaceful, and if i am not able to solve it logically, i would accept that emotions are necessary. — Kinglord1090

It wouldn't be peaceful as people could still suffer?

If you're getting rid of suffering, it defeats my foregoing objections.

give me 1 reason on how a life without emotions wouldnt be peaceful, and if i am not able to solve it logically, i would accept that emotions are necessary. — Kinglord1090

Without emotion as you are understanding it, every major political conflict on earth would remain exactly as it is today. Keep in mind that violence doesn’t just consist of temper tantrums There is institutionalized violence. The justice system dispenses violence in the form
of punishment , law, incarceration. These are not ‘emotional’ and yet they are violent. Many wars are decided on via rational calculation of what is is in one’s county’s economic interest.

All of these conflicts are over ideas , not emotions.

Alright, I do appreciate you adopting my organization of your argument.

1) Here is more proof that emotions were built for survival. — Kinglord1090

1. Emotions were completely necessary for pre-history human survival. — Cheshire

Do you notice how your argument changed slightly in order for it to escape criticism. We do it naturally all the time to rationalize that we haven't made a mistake. The brain is full of so many little tricks. How about this as our number 1.

1. We can get rid of emotions without eliminating ourselves as a result. (I think it's agreeable)
2. Number 2 is no longer necessary because our ability to persist is covered in number 1.
3. There exist a human condition in which a person would choose to eliminate their capacity for emotion.
Do you see the revisions as an improvement in the right direction?

Do you see the antimonies (bullshit) of pure reason now!

This thread is better than anything kants critique of pure reason could ever muster.

And those who henceforth still have faith in "logic" let them be considered religious and superstitious in their worship of aristotle,plato and hegel over good old beautiful trusty emotions.

Who says emotions and body are one and the same?
Do you have any scientific proof or sources to back your claims?

Animals were never born with emotions to begin with.
We go through surgeries to remove appendix and wisdom teeth as they are vestigial.
Why can't we do the same with emotions, then?

Also, we are talking about a hypothetical here.
Which means we don't have to think how it is done before we know if it will even be a good choice or not.

How can you say its not worth it?
A bit of pain for infinite peace.
Or would you like to see war and murders happening as long as you get to live without pain?

Charles Darwin and William James said it, but I thought it was a matter of common sense. Emotions are an act of the body. It’s why our heart races when we fear something or our eyes tear up when we are sad. When we study emotion we study bodies. I can’t see what suffices as a better answer, to be honest.

I say “it’s not worth it” because the procedures to do so would cause more injury than it would eradicate. Psychological life is so intertwined that to remove one would hinder the other, as in lobotomy patients. They might not have felt emotion, or at least expressed it, but they were incontinent and unintelligent.

If you think about it, if I did not feel pain I might not be able to recognize an injury. If I did not feel anger I might not be able to recognize an injustice. If I did not feel fear I wouldn’t know which situations to avoid, or when to pay attention. Sure, our emotions can guide us astray, but they also let us know. Doing away with emotions would render us stupid, in my opinion. Maybe I just get weirded out when people seek to mess with things that took millions of years to evolve.

No matter how you look at it, the second option is the most logical option.
Also, emotions are at play here because the reason people choose not to do anything is because they dont want to feel guilty. And guilt is an emotion. — Kinglord1090

Good point! I'm so glad you pointed that out.

However, it doesn't seem to add up. It's like this:

1. To kill an innocent person is wrong [true]

2. If you pull the lever you save 5 people and kill an (innocent) person [obvious]

3. You pull the lever [assume you do]

4. You save 5 people and kill an (innocent) person [2, 3 MP]

5. You kill an (innocent) person [4 Simp]

6. To kill an innocent person is wrong and you kill an (innocent) person [by pulling the lever]

What should follow from 6? You've done something wrong and that's why you'll be guilt-ridden. The guilt serves as an indicator of your wrongdoing. It's absolutely ok to not want to pull the lever because you don't want to be burdened by guilt because what you really want is not to be immoral.

Another issue with utilitarianism is the following:

Suppose you pull the lever and save the 5 people by killing one. You're a good person, right? Now, imagine yourself as the lone person who must be killed to save 5 other persons. By your reckoning, you should be killed which basically means someone killed you, a good person.

Taking this one step further, imagine a bad man (say he threatens to kill 5 people) is the single person who must be killed to save the 5. According to you, this bad person too must be dispatched without the slightest hesitation.

Here's the deal. In utilitarianism, once the so-called greater good comes into play, there's no difference between a good person and a bad person. What kinda moral theory is that?

Like should be treated alike but then good and bad must be like each other. Preposterous!

I have often thought about existential thoughts and meaning of life, .etc.
I believe that emotions have become unnecessary in this modern world, and that the future doesn't need it anymore. — Kinglord1090

If you acquaint yourself with the philosophical zombie argument, you will see that without emotion, there would be no experience, and so there would be no consciousness. Experience = Consciousness. You cannot have one without the other. Every moment of consciousness has its corresponding feeling / emotion. A being without emotions / feelings has no impetus to act, since they are indifferent to everything - whether they live or die or anything in between is all the same to them.

DNA is a code, true enough -- vastly more complex than a batch of IF/THEN codes. DNA and brains are both extraordinarily complex. Remember, the idea of a human being like a robot is based on a diminution of the concept of "human". Robot = human is far more of a crappy metaphor than a helpful comparison.