So, the way the scientists worked around it is by adding a piece of code which imitates curiosity.
With this code in place, the A.I. no longer needed an indication to motivate it, the concept of being able to gain knowledge itself became its motivation — Kinglord1090

it shows how even giving fake emotions can sometimes lead to unwanted things. If we consider the A.I.'s curiosity to be an emotion, we can also make the assumption that emotions are coded in the same way in humans like it has been done in A.I.'s.
In both cases, emotions play a very important role and help facilitate logic faster, however it either needs some correction or we have to lose accuracy/efficiency. — Kinglord1090

You seem to be forgetting one thing. We can talk about coding for logic and coding fro curiosity-emotion as two entirely separate things. But we don’t have any way of knowing what a machine is doing when it is programmed solely for logic except by interpreting the machine’s behavior in relation to what we want it to do, and what we want it to do is framed by our own goals. Goals, aims, desires and needs are built into our understanding of what our machines are. They are just an intent heap of parts without a purpose that they serve for us. What they do cannot be simply separated from why we want them to do what they do.
It’s the same thing with our understanding of a logical proposition. The logic is driven by the axioms , but the axioms themselves are framed by more encompassing axioms and principles It s a hall of mirrors, an infinite regress of meanings defines by more encompassing meanings.

Emotions are private mental state, that is not directly accessible to the other beings. — Corvus

I do not believe this claim to be true as humans have been able to read brain waves which are caused by logic as well as emotions, for quite some time now.
Yes, we aren't able to do it quite well, but as Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, according to the theory of papers, if we go 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be astounding.
Neuralink, which is a company created by Elon Musk is already showing amazing progress in this field.

Outside of your hypothetical post emotion world, if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Of course not.

If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, it would be logical, but in a world with emotions, i.e. real life, emotions often precede logic.
We can take Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame as an example, of course using movie logic isnt a good thing, but i am pretty sure that the logic and emotions part of it can be applied as a valid example.
Thanos wanted to kill 50% of all population is a painless way, so that the other 50% could thrive.
As logical as it sounds, people would never agree to something like this.

There is no logical reason for us to do anything as an end in itself. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think we have reached an impasse here, as by my reasoning and evidence, I cant see how co-operation cant lead to success, and how success wouldnt be preferred.

True.
I agree with your notion.

If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse. — Book273

I see what you are saying here, but we have already discussed this before, and I have made the argument that in a world void of emotions, no one would commit crimes.
The simplest way I can put it is that, one themselves will understand that living a life without gaining knowledge and leeching off of resources is wrong, and they themselves would either not do it, or if they are incapable of work, accept death.

No one here said anything about emotions not playing a huge role in what we do and how we experience them.
The only thing being said here is that, those emotions, no matter how important part they play, if removed, could make world a more peaceful place.
Also, we have discussed this before, but emotions are basically like an alpha build of logic.
Meaning, emotions and logic arent so different from each other.
And because of this, there are many similarities to the way a human thinks and to the way a robot thinks.
These similarities can be used to make the educated assumption that on the most basic level, human mind isnt that different from robotic mind.

"The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves. That is, we are extraordinarily complex self-controlling, self-sustaining physical mechanisms, designed over the eons by natural selection, and operating according to the same well-understood principles that govern all the other physical processes in living things: digestive and metabolic processes, self-repair and reproductive processes, for instance. It may be wildly over-ambitious to suppose that human artificers can repeat Nature's triumph, with variations in material, form, and design process, but this is not a deep objection. It is not as if a conscious machine contradicted any fundamental laws of nature, the way a perpetual motion machine does."
Source:-https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/concrobt.htm

in a world void of emotions, no one would commit crimes.
The simplest way I can put it is that, one themselves will understand that living a life without gaining knowledge and leeching off of resources is wrong, and they themselves would — Kinglord1090

So you think that criminality equals emotionality? That the motivation for theft is the satisfaction of an emotion rather than the pursuit of a rational purpose? You can’t think of any situation in which someone would decide that it is necessary from a rational point of view to commit a theft?
Is it possible that you are failing to understand the logic that someone else is using from their point of view?
My favorite psychologist calls this hostility, the attempt to force someone else’s thinking into your logical categories because you can’t understand their own logic. They are ‘emotional’ and ‘irrational’ in your mind because their form of rationality. is at odds with what you are familiar with. I think the issue here is you believe that there is a one-size-fits-all logic to the world and any. eh wipe that deviates from this single frame is illogical to you.

Its not non-sensical to think about evolution in this way at all.
There are thousands of years of research put into this by scientists from all over the world.
I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.
He theorized 'The Theory of Evolution' and his theory has been used for more than a century now.
So, saying that these attributes are wrong would be saying that all scientists and the research formed for over a century is also wrong.

I have always looked at hypotheticals, as something where we can assume the wildest of things, yet with reason still find an answer.
If you are saying that it is not the correct definition of a hypothetical, i would gladly back off. — Kinglord1090

Nothing about it is incorrect. It is what would be called a unique or novel approach to 'doing' philosophy. Feel free to engage however you like within the rules I have never bothered to read.

I apologize if I sounded like I meant religion wasnt based on logic. — Kinglord1090

No apology needed; and much of religion is an intuitive emotive response. I was countering a possible oversimplification.

In response to the question as I understand it. So much of capitalism is centered around optimization that believing it would increase and compensate for the loss of empathy is difficult to support. It seems you may be trying to define a "perfect world" which was the goal 60 or 70 years ago, but it's been understood to be a flawed notion. But, in this case; suppose it worked. Removing emotions lead to a peaceful and productive society; who could truly enjoy it?

I think my words completely went over your head here.
By 'science', i obviously meant people who follow 'science' or reason.
And I completely agree that science is open to revision. I never said it wasnt.
I said that it is believed that even if we keep revising, we would still get one answer that will no longer need to be revised.
For example, chameleons were thought to change color magically at first, then thought to change color by chemical reactions that happen inside its body, and now it is thought to be because chameleons can change the cellular structure of their outer skin, which change how light reflects/absorbs off of it, thus changing their color. This last explanation could or could not be the absolute truth and the final explanation we need. And science is all about finding this answer, i.e. the absolute truth.
I am pretty sure everyone else here understood that this is what I meant.

You are not looking at the subject of matter here.
The simple and cold truthful answer is that, in a world void of emotions, people who are able-bodied will work till death, and the non-able-bodied will accept death.
They wont feel bad about it, as they dont have emotions.

You have made such a long topic discussing about everything, yet you still didnt follow the most important rule of the post.
Stop thinking about it in an emotional point of view.
We are here to discuss only on a world void of emotions, where the emotions are happiness, guilt sadness, etc and not the one defined by the psychologist you mention of.
So, for this discussion i ask you to not use different definitions of emotion, as it can create a lot of confusion and stay at the topic in hand.
And also, dont make imaginary situations where emotional thinking would be a must, as in a world void of emotions such situatuions cant exist, because there are no emotions, you understand what i mean?
For example:- If we think about a universe where Jupiter doesnt exist, you can bring up an imaginary situation where Jupiter is required for your situation to work. That just doesnt make sense.

I have said this multiple times already, and I am honestly just getting bored now.
Stop assuming stuff i dont say.
I never said emotions arent a part of how we make decisions, I only said that they arent required anymore.
Emotions were built as a way to learn logic faster, but it had a drawback, and that was accuracy.
Giving up speed for accuracy seems like a perfectly logical choice to me.

in a world void of emotions, people who are able-bodied will work till death, and the non-able-bodied will accept death.
They wont feel bad about it, as they dont have emotions. — Kinglord1090

Describe for me what the experience of being motivated is like in the absence of emotions. To be motivated is to make distinctions on the basis of which to make a decision or choice between two or more options. Whichever choice we make , we make it because we prefer it over the alternative. What is this experience of preferring like without emotions? One would presumably always prefer one option over another because one finds it more rational, more logical. You could say one is impelled toward the logical over the illogical. We look in one direction and see a fog of chaos and disorder. We look in another direction and see predictability , order and harmony. It’s not much of a choice really. We simply can’t continue, can’t function according to our goals in a fog of chaos and disorder. So we don’t really even choose order and log over the alternative. We fall into it. The world is only recognizable to the extent that it is predictable. So we really have no choice but to make the world more recognizable , ordered, predictable lest we lose the world and ourselves entirely. Notice that I haven’t mentioned ‘feeling ‘ at all here. But we are talking about conscious awareness of experience. We are talking about meanings when we talk about order and disorder , chaos and predictability.

Question ; how much does it add to our experience to say that we ‘feel’ chaos and disorder as opposed to having a rational awareness of it ?

I guess I forgot to mention that that comment wasnt actually meant as a point of discussion for this post, rather it was just something I found interesting.

But, since you already replied to the comment, i guess we can talk a look anyways.
First of all, I just want to apologize as I cant understand what you are trying to say half of the time.
So, I am just gonna make an assumption and debate according to it, and you can just tell me if i intepreted your comment correctly or not later.

I am assuming that you are trying to say that robots dont have 'free will' or the power of 'choice' like humans do, for which I only have one answer.
The answer is that humans dont have these either.
All of our decisions are based on some factor or the other.

You and others might be pulling at a different feather of the same bird.

Lol, no.
The reason i summed up so short there is because I already talked about it in detail in a different comment.
I am not saying that all criminal acts are done because of emotions, rather, I am saying that without emotions to cloud logic, logic can prevail, and criminal acts would never have a solid ground against pure logic.
In a way, i guess i am saying that somehow emotions even if not directly causing it have some part in every criminal act.
Robbery? Done because of greed
Murder? Done because of anger, etc
Of course, we can try to justify them with logic, like, 'Oh, the person robbed the house because doing so would mean he doesnt have to worry about his medical bills anymore., but note that such logic is still based on emotions. Why is the person robbing instead of earning money? You could say because it is easier, but logic would say that it is because he/she/they are lazy. And laziness is an emotion.

Removing emotions lead to a peaceful and productive society; who could truly enjoy it? — Cheshire

No one.
But no one will hate it either.
And that in its own way is beautiful.
Just as a world (real-life) where some people enjoy the world while some people hate it, a world opposite to it would also be just as beautiful.

Quick edit:- There could be an argument made that capitalism wouldnt exist in a world void of emotions either, as greed and/or profits often seem to be the cause of it.

you still didnt follow the most important rule of the post.
Stop thinking about it in an emotional point of view. — Kinglord1090

I am not thinking about it in an emotional point of view, I am thinking it in a logical , rational point of view.
I think the issue here is, before you are ready to talk about the difference between logic and emotion, you have to get straight what logic is.
I think your notion of logic is an old , outdated one. Are you aware of Godel’s work on logical proof , or Wittgenstein , Putnam, Quine and Sellar’a claim that logic has to be understood as an aspect of language?
Basically , they’re pointing out the frame problem in A.I. That any logical scheme that a machine uses must be interpreted by a human , and that interpretation will get its sense by reference to a larger scheme, or frame. Think of how words in a dictionary are defined by reference to all the other words in the dictionary. A logical scheme that we program into a computer is like a word in a dictionary. The computer doesn’t ‘know’ the meaning of its scheme , only we do, because it’s meaning is defined by us in relation to a whole network of purposes.

When you say there would be peace and no suffering in a world without emotions , you’re saying it would be like a single logical scheme. We would all tap into and live on the basis is of that single universal
scheme. The problem with that idea is that , just like the xomuter doesnt ‘know’ the meaning of its logic , if all of humanity were running what would essentially be a single universal logical program to live our lives , there would be no meaning to be aware of. We would not in fact be alive , but only the program itself would remain to function automatically.

But the world of experience never doubles back on itself. No momwnt of experience ever duplicates the content of a previous moment. Humans have to devise constructs with a very different kind of logic than a computer uses. The logic of living systems like us requires that we device schemes that anticipate patterns and regularities in the world , but also constantly adapt to the changing logic of that world. Every time we construct a pattern to apply to the world, the very successful of our pattern changes our relation to the world. This means that we have to make our logical schemes so that they are not hermetically sealed. The rules of the game are always shifting , and successful human rationality means the rules of our schemes must adjust to these changes in the world. We will always have to prepare for periods of time when we are plunged into the darkness and fog of incoherent understanding, of a failure of our logical scheme of the moment. This ever present risk of breakdown and inadequacy in our construing of the world is what leads to violence , discord , wars and injustice, not ‘emotions’. When you call other people emotional, illogical, irrational , you are expressing a breakdown in your own logical schemes , their failure to adapt to the differences in others ways of thinking rationally.

Again, your words just seem mumbo--jumbo to me, but that's just because i am not smart enough to ingest so much info at once, so i would really appreciate if you try to make your words concise.

Lets just focus on the motivation part here.
In the previous comments it has been clearly stated that there are 2 goals to any living being and that motivation for it isnt required.
And before you think without motivation, goals cant be met, just listen to my example.
But before that, lets just summarize the 2 goals again.
Goals-
1) Gain knowledge.
2) Reproduce and pass on knowledge to the offspring.
Now for the example,
Micro-organism.
Done.
What?
Ok, I will explain it in more detail.
Micro-oganism gained knowledge and passd it onto thier offsprings without needing motivations.
Only because of their such action were we able to evolve from them to humans.
This proves that motivations arent required for achieving something.

Please note that, in these few discussions, we are ignoring death to be a factor of motivation as every living being will have that.
If we were to make discussions where considering death as an important factor of motivation is necessary, then we can conclude that the only motivation required for humans in a world void of emotions is death, and that death is what motivates them to achieve their goals.

Your honest; I appreciate that in a philosopher. You should look into Fahrenheit 451 its a book and old movie available on youtube. They try to make society perfect by removing books. It's one of a few examples of Utopian hypotheticals. "A Brave New World" is another one. Both entertaining; but highly suspect of engineering the

No one.
But no one will hate it either.
And that in its own way is beautiful. — Kinglord1090

This idea drove a lot of the movements that serve to explain how the world is currently set up. I think it's interesting because it is at the same time from a place of goodness and somehow very dangerous in practice.

Quick edit:- There could be an argument made that capitalism wouldnt exist in a world void of emotions either, as greed and/or profits often seem to be the cause of it. — Kinglord1090

I think your correct, but without capitalism we lose a tremendous known reason for optimization. Which is an opposition to your positions expected outcome. Without profits driving production or empathy to remove suffering where does the motivation come from; an intuitive idea of what society ought look like? But, does it remain intuitive?

Again, please be concise. i cant understand anything you are saying.

I think whats happening here is just mis-communication.
I am trying to tell you something with my definition of logic and emotions, and you are trying to do it in your own way.
Since this is my discussion, i assume its only fair that you try to understand it from my level, meaning from the same definitions that I am using.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing.

I am assuming that you are trying to say that robots dont have 'free will' or the power of 'choice' like humans do, for which I only have one answer.
The answer is that humans dont have these either.
All of our decisions are based on some factor or the other. — Kinglord1090

Yes, but are you thinking that the world is one gigantic deterministic causal machine, and these are the factors you are talking about? Do you believe the idea that Stephen Hawking believed in, that if and when we finally arrive at a theory of everything in physics we could in principle merely run the world off a computer program?

The alternative to this way of thinking comes from
biology and the idea that time is irreversible. The living world only moves in one direction , toward the creation of novel possibilities that can’t be deduced from a deterministic formula. Life is truly creative , bringing forth patterns that never existed before and can’t be predicted on the basis of any prior scheme. Human rationality is like that too.

Micro-oganism gained knowledge and passd it onto thier offsprings without needing motivations.
Only because of their such action were we able to evolve from them to humans.
This proves that motivations arent required for achieving something. — Kinglord1090

micro-organisms do have motivation. They have bodily goals and aims, and interact with their environment in such a way as to maximize the attainment of those aims. A single called animal will be motivated to move toward the light , for example, because it maximizes the organism’s functioning. This isnt a simple reflex , because the animal can adjust and adapt this behavior to changes in the environment. All living creatures are self-organizing. That means they don’t just respond to their environment reflexively, machine -like. They change their environment to suit their needs, They are motivated. Human emotions and logic originate in these functions of learning and motivation in the simplest animals

You should look into Fahrenheit 451 its a book and old movie available on youtube. — Cheshire

Thank you for the recommendations.
I would definitely check out Fahrenheit 451, but i dont know about the other one as i am not really into old timey movies. (I was born in 2004)

Without profits driving production or empathy to remove suffering where does the motivation come from; an intuitive idea of what society ought look like? — Cheshire

For the motivation, I would say that death itself is a motivation good enough to cause people to live.
It has been said before, in one of the comments, that the person who wrote the comment was going through a tough time in thier life and the only thing that motivated them to wake up the next day wwas their fear of death.
So, i guess if death can be a motivation for a person whose emotions and logic told him to stop living, it can be for someone who only uses logic as well.
As for the connection between capitalism and optimization, you made a brilliant point, it does seem like capitalization will occur in such a world, but i guess it wouldnt the same way we think it is in the real-life.
In real-life, capitalization often occurs for profit and monopoly whereas I think the reason for capitalization in a world void of emotions will be because of the lack of preference that people there possess.
For example:- Since people wouldnt have a preference over what food they consume, the company that creates food will become a monopoly.
And maybe because everyone wants to achieve their goals, the companies will turn over all the profits to the government or to R&D.
Thus creating something which is halfway between capitalism and communism.
Where it is about monopoly, but not about profit, and also not about giving money to people but to humanity as a whole.

try to understand it from my level, meaning from the same definitions that I am using.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing. — Kinglord1090

You have just hit on the key skill that is needed to produce peace in the world, being able to see the world from the other’s way of thinking, and being able to see the logic in it from their point of view. It is not emotions that prevent people from being able to do this , it is the fact that it is the most difficult breaks there is, and most people fail badly at it. You can eliminate every ounce of emotion in the world and it won’t make a dent in miscommunications and breakdowns in understanding. It wont change the fact that people will still accuse
others of ‘laziness’ and irrationality when they have difficulty living up to our expectations of them.

I would personally believe in the same way you described Stephen Hawking believes.
That if we collect all pieces of a puzzle, we will be able to solve it as well.

I am also one who mildly believes in the Many World Intepretations theory.
This theory basically states that for every choice that has been made, a new parallel version of it will exist.

So, i guess one could summarize my way of thinking to be similar to Stephen Hawking's.
Of course, i am in no way even near to his intelligence level.
But, maybe we might be very similar in the way we think.

You are looking at the broader idea rather than focusing on the fundamental one.
Why do micro-organisms do all the things you just mentioned, i.e. move towards light or maximize their functioning?
The answer is that they do it because - 1) they want to gain knowledge and 2) they want to reproduce and pass on this knowledge.
And both of these are so, because organisms arent immortal, and the only way to immortality seems to be to know how to become immortal.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing. — Kinglord1090

Excellent use of hypothetical.

Well, as thought out as that seems, i still dont think its enough evidence for your claim.
I can only assume at this point that your belief is that proper communication can bring peace and mine is that ridding of emotions can bring peace.
And i am fine with it as long as they are just opinions.