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. — Kinglord1090

More fundamental than 1) and 2), they do these things before what an organism is is an interaction with its environment. It is in the nature of self-organizing systems to continue to maintain their style
of interaction with their environment , and in order to continue to function as the organism
they are, they must be able to modify and adapt their style of functioning to the novelties of their environment. Otherwise they disintegrate and die. So the organism’s aim isn’t merely to survive, it’s aim is to maintain it’s particular style of interactions. It is driven to protect and preserve its kind of order throughout all the changes and adaptations it must make in a changing environment.

Well, judging from the assumption that this discussion isnt really going to go any deeper, I would close it in a few days. (Probably by15th July)
Also, such a ridiculous situatuion probably shouldnt have been imagined in the first place anyways.
Thank you to everyone who participated and shared their thoughts.
I would ask everyone to love thy neighbour and have a good day.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. (not an actual Ted Talk)

Again, maybe that is how you perceived it, and you might be right.
But my perception could also be right.
We wont know unless a God or a creator tells us about it, i guess.

This has been a very wonderful experience, but like everything, this should come to an end too.
I dont want to overwhelm thephilosophyforum's servers.
I just want my future self to look at this discussion and realise how their perception has changed/not changed over time.
I think that will be good way to pass some time. (Not being disrespectful to anyone)

Well, I guess I might as well conclude it and end the discussion right now.

Conclusion:-
Are emotions unnecessary now?
Not at all.
Can removing emotions from life lead to a peaceful life?
Maybe, with a little hint towards yes.
Do we love Shrek?
Wait this wasnt supposed to be here.
What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
42.
Is everyone, (except some) who posted their opinions here beautiful and amazing people?
Yes.
Will this conclusion ever end?
I hope so.

I, Kinglord1090, with the power vested in me by no one, hereby judge this discussion as closed/concluded.
You may now kiss the bride. (Or anyone close to you, you friend, your wife, your boss's wiife, your parents, your child. Just share love, ok?)

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. — Kinglord1090

Surely the waves they see on the screen are not emotions. That would be an unacceptable reduction. It is like saying, the hot weather during the summer time is the temperature readings on the thermometer. Or the voltage readings on the voltmeter are identical to electricity.

I think emotions are the private mental states in the brain, which are only perceivable by the owner of the state. Others can only read it via the behaviours, linguistic and facial expressions of the individual.

For example, I would only know that you are happy by hearing that your say that you are happy, your facial expression looking happy, and you are jumping up and down making some happyish noise ...etc. There is no other way, that I would know you are happy. Of course, those scientists may look at the brain waves coming out on the device screen connected to your head, and tell ah this is the happy wave it looks like, but that is not the actual happy emotion itself they are looking at, no matter how accurate the device might be, they are just seeing some symbolic quantified representation of the mental states, rather than the emotion as entity itself.

Well, the way our body understands emotions is through chemicals and hormones.
So, it would necessarily be impossible for a device wired directly to the brain to pick up on atleast some of them.
Sure, maybe they wont be able to read exact emotions but only vague ones intepreted from actions, but like Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be amazing.

I would suggest you watch this:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKe53bcyBQY
Its only 8 mins long and very informative.
Its 1:51 am for me now, so unfortuantely i wont have time to refer to it again, but i will make sure to reply to your comment by tomorrow.

Sure, maybe they wont be able to read exact emotions but only vague ones intepreted from actions, but like Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be amazing. — Kinglord1090

I would guess the readings are accurate for the emotions, because they must have gone through many tests, and verified the results. But I still feel that the waves are not identical to the emotions in the brain. :)

I am concerned that the lack of empathy will lead to more non-emotional suffering. If you get rid of the non-emotional suffering in your hypothetical world (which may be possible with gene editing) it will get my vote over this world.

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. — Kinglord1090

There is no reason we would prefer it - goals are not self-justifying.

I don't know what your idea of success is but say it is financial growth, or technological progress, why are these goals any less arbitrary than the goals of having as many parties and making as many banana sandwiches as possible?

I don't know what your idea of success is but say it is financial growth, or technological progress, why are these goals any less arbitrary than the goals of having as many parties and making as many banana sandwiches as possible? — Down The Rabbit Hole

They arent.
Both of these goals are equally important.
That is to say, for people who have these goals.
Since, people without emotions are likely to only have the 2 fundamental goals, they wouldnt work towards anything else.

I didn't say you did say it. In fact you didn't respond to what I wrote in that post here. And emotions do not just increase speed. In fact I am not sure where any speed, slow of fast, would come from without them. Robots or AI would have us, outside them, governing their priorities and functions with our emotions motivating our choices there. There would still be emotions and desires in the causal loop. But that's getting ahead and you still haven't responded to what came before.

Well, the way our body understands emotions is through chemicals and hormones. — Kinglord1090

Sounds like someone did their homework and educated themselves on some biology. Good for ya.

So your decision to "close" the thread, is well-timed. It's time you saw the absurdity of what you were proposing in the OP, and in your subsequent posts.

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. — Kinglord1090

Evolutionary theory is specifically and clearly non-teleological. You said

If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.

Now perhaps you weren't really thinking of what words you were using, but you are talking about emotions being intended for something. But that is confused. Emotions arose, if one is thinking within evolutionation theory, through natural selection and mutation, etc.

And sentences like....

I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.

means nothing in context. It comes off as an attempt to put me in my place somehow. If I say something, correct I would add, that evolution in evolutionary theory is not teleological, this actually means I have heard of Darwin and understand something your wording implies - but does not necessarily entail - you are confused about.

If you think evolution is teleological you could have said that.
If you agree it is not, then you could have mentioned that.
All this posturing on your part is not a response.

Since, people without emotions are likely to only have the 2 fundamental goals, they wouldnt work towards anything else. — Kinglord1090

People without emotions would not be people. We are social mammals that have limbic systems. Further people without emotions wouldn't have goals. They would be capable, I suppose, of trying to find water when thirsty. IOW some primitive desires cold be argued to remain, though even then they would have no fear and no aggression.

We should never have split off emotions from intellect. They were never separate to begin with. Some psychologists and philosophers have done away with the distinction completely.

I think the distinction can be useful but I do think they are interwined phenomena. I just find the idea that we would be better off without emotions bizarre. It wouldn't be we and better off in relation to whose values - and these values would, of course, be intertwined with the emotions of those people thinking we would be better off.

Wel,, I did announce that this post is closed, but people are still commenting.
Not only that, you guys just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though I did give appropriate replies already.
I have got what I wanted, which is atleast 1 person who thinks that my thought is correct.

I just want to talk about one topic, which I guess people still can't seem to understand.
Are emotionless humans really humans?

My answer is yes, they are still humans.
I have said this over and over and over again, emotions and logic arent the only things that make humans different from robots and/or other organisms.
Thus, getting rid of emotions, only removes a part of what makes a human, human.
You could argue that this part is a big part, and I wouldnt oppose that opinion.
However, I believe that by getting rid of that part, we can open up space for a new part or maybe just let logic or other parts take over, which seems like a reasonable choice.

Now, let us consider, that emotionless humans will not be humans, but rather robot-like creatures who have no sense of consciousness or anything.
What is wrong with that?
There are a load of organisms that live on this planet who arent even capable of having thought or consciousness, yet their lives arent exactly 'useless', as if they never had existed, we would never have been able to even have this discussion.

Hitler has killed many people, many kings of old eras have done unthinkable things to humans, people believed the earth is flat, and even if you argue that they were inhumane in their behaviours, you cant argue that they were not humans.
So, please stop saying things which has already been discussed in the post.

I just want to make this clear.
This post is closed.
You are free to discuss with one another, but I wont be able to reply.
So, keep discussing if you feel so, but dont target me specifically.
I know its difficult, since I seem like the only one who is taking this side of the debate, but thats just how the world runs, I wont have enough time and energy to devote to this one thought I believe in.
I cant live my life, by only focusing in one thing forever, because of these emotions, which as lovely as they are, I dont deem them to be necessary.

Not only that, you guys just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though I did give appropriate replies already. — Kinglord1090

And those replies led to criticism also. Which is, of course, fine. But your sense that your replies were appropriate might be biased. That's what discussions like this try to work out.

I just want to talk about one topic, which I guess people still can't seem to understand.
Are emotionless humans really humans? — Kinglord1090

I weighed in on that issue, so I clearly understood it was on the table. As social mammals with limbic systems humans are emotional. Just as much as our females have teats (giving us the category mammal, if not more so, since both sexes have emotions.)

Thus, getting rid of emotions, only removes a part of what makes a human, human.
You could argue that this part is a big part, and I wouldnt oppose that opinion.
However, I believe that by getting rid of that part, we can open up space for a new part or maybe just let logic or other parts take over, which seems like a reasonable choice. — Kinglord1090

Interestingly however mammals with their limbic systems tend to be the apex predators and also have, in human primates, developed the most incredible adaptions. It seems like we would need some extraordinary evidence to convince us that eliminate a part of us is a good idea.

Now, let us consider, that emotionless humans will not be humans, but rather robot-like creatures who have no sense of consciousness or anything.
What is wrong with that? — Kinglord1090

I don't think that if we eliminate we would have no consciousness. Perhaps someone else argued that. However I think having no sene of consciousness would be a loss. That would be something like dreamless sleep.

There are a load of organisms that live on this planet who arent even capable of having thought or consciousness, — Kinglord1090

It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness.

If you keep posting it is likely you will get responses to your posts. If you want that to stop or at least your experience of it to stop, I would suggest simply not looking at the thread anymore.

I believe that emotions have become unnecessary in this modern world, and that the future doesn't need it anymore. — Kinglord1090

I think this paper is really interesting on that POV: http://faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Human%20Emotions-Universal%20or%20Culture-Specific.pdf . If emotions are unnecessary I don’t think we could call our selves human

It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness. — Bylaw

"Researchers have argued that consciousness in mammals arises in the neocortex, and therefore cannot arise in animals which lack a neocortex. For example, Rose argued in 2002 that the "fishes have nervous systems that mediate effective escape and avoidance responses to noxious stimuli, but, these responses must occur without a concurrent, human-like awareness of pain, suffering or distress, which depend on separately evolved neocortex.""
Source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

Almost as if people are dodging basic evidence to try to prove me wrong, then still debate that they were right.
Some people also mentioned how not having emotions would also lead to people not understanding physical pain, which is just incorrect, but they wont stop saying it, even if i give evidence.

And those replies led to criticism also. — Bylaw

Isn't that just proving my point more?
No evidence can convince you guys.
Cause you are just not ready to listen.
You just want to prove me wrong in any basis possible.
If i tell you to stop commenting, would you? Probably not, even if it meant i can have peace.

If emotions are unnecessary I don’t think we could call our selves human — Oppyfan

A theist can say that people who dont believe in Gods arent humans.
An atheist can say that people who blindly follow a non-existing figure arent humans.
A satanist can say that people who dont worship the devil arent humans.

The point is, we can look at what a human is in 2 ways, subjectively and objectively.
One of the main points atheists bring up in their debates against theists is that, if Gods is true, they must be true in all cases, which as we can see, isnt true. Some people believe God is Jesus(or his father, i am not christian), some believe Allah is God, some believe Shiva is God and some dont believe in it. If God were true in all cases, such diversity shouldnt have existed.
Meaning, objectively, God doesnt exist.

So, if we look at what a human is subjectively, by many people's beliefs its a person with emotions, while from some people's beliefs its a person with reason.

As a result, we would have to look at it objectively.
What is a human? A human is a homo-sapien.

Would an emotionless homo-sapien be human?
Yes- Then its solved. A emotionless human is still human.
No- Then it would be the next step of evolution with a new name like, no-homo-sapien.

I think that the question of whether an emotionless human being would still be human is an interesting question. It is interconnected with that of what it means to be human? We live in a life of the physical and ideas, and, perhaps emotions form the middle ground in this. I do believe that your emphasis on reason is important, because emotions often are based on the lower aspects of human nature. But, if we were cut off from the emotions entirely, we may become unbalanced in seeing everything in logical terms, which may leave us floundering as beings of mind, body and spirit. However, I am aware that all of these categories are arbitrary, but I do believe that emotions are are a useful aspect of guidance.

A theist can say that people who dont believe in Gods arent humans.
An atheist can say that people who blindly follow a non-existing figure arent humans.
A satanist can say that people who dont worship the devil arent humans. — Kinglord1090

These just seem to be positions no one holds. My point was being human would entail emomedia cause what are we without empathy? Simply conscious robots.

Well, is being a conscious robot wrong?
And like I said already, if its not wrong, then wouldnt it be better, since humans with emotions will/can do bad things, while a 'conscious robot' wouldnt do so?

From your own link:

In 2012, a group of neuroscientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which "unequivocally" asserted that "humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neural substrates."[14]

And those replies led to criticism also. — Bylaw

Isn't that just proving my point more?
No evidence can convince you guys.
Cause you are just not ready to listen.
You just want to prove me wrong in any basis possible.
If i tell you to stop commenting, would you? Probably not, even if it meant i can have peace. — Kinglord1090

And look at this, mindreading. You are claiming to have knowledge of our internal mental states. All of us.

And that last bit:

are you really claiming that I, for example, can keep you from having peace?
All you have to do is stop reading replies to your posts here. You are in control of your peace as far as our replies. You are in control.

Bruh, you literally are taking that quote out of context from my source.
I never said animals dont have consciousness, I said 'some' 'organisms' dont.

And look at this, mindreading. You are claiming to have knowledge of our internal mental states. All of us. — Bylaw

I am not making a claim about anything.
I am only making an obvious observation.
You are the one claiming that I have knowledge of everyone's internal mental states by supposedly reading my internal mental state.
Such a hypocrite.

All you have to do is stop reading replies to your posts here. You are in control of your peace as far as our replies. You are in control. — Bylaw

And all you have to do is not reply anymore.
But you dont seem to be doing that either, are you?
Because you dont care how others feel as long as you can feel accomplished, or so I would assume from what is obvious already.

Since, you have said it, and no one seems to be discussing about this topic anyways, i will stop replying.
The only reason I was replying so far was because I get emails that someone mentioned me, and so I end up checking the website and reading the comment anyways.
And I dont want to stop those emails from coming in case that someone actually interested in the discussion wants to talk.

I just want to make a clear statement here, since clearly you might try to comment again, that I still believe that a world void of emotions can be peaceful and function atleast better than real-life if not perfectly and that I have provided enough evidence and arguments to atleast show that what I am talking about is not complete garbage.

5% able-bodied that can't get work — Down The Rabbit Hole

can't get work or won't accept what they can get? I have never met anyone that could not find work of some sort. I have met a great number that refused to accept the work they could get. "Can't work" is very very rare. "I won't do that" is far more common, and deserves no remorse as it is very quickly followed by some version of "take care of me". No chance: take care of yourself.

If that means 5% die, oh bloody well. Seriously, there are enough people. 5% less won't make me lose any sleep.

can't get work or won't accept what they can get? I have never met anyone that could not find work of some sort. I have met a great number that refused to accept the work they could get. "Can't work" is very very rare. "I won't do that" is far more common, and deserves no remorse as it is very quickly followed by some version of "take care of me". No chance: take care of yourself.

If that means 5% die, oh bloody well. Seriously, there are enough people. 5% less won't make me lose any sleep. — Book273

Officially around 5% of people claim unemployment benefit, and to be eligible you must take reasonable steps to find work. The government are in fact even stricter than this, considering around 70% of appeals to a judge against their decisions to terminate benefits are successful.

Don't know where you are from, but if you're in favour of stopping benefits, you'll love the British government.

Actually I think that, rather than stop benefits, those receiving benefits should be put to work and receive additional, functional training in order to secure a better, more suitable wage for themselves. However, when that is an option, those who decline to improve themselves should get no funding of any sort. Step up and take care of yourself or lie down and let someone who will step up take your place.

Where I am from the government assistance programs will only support you if you can prove that you have made no attempt to improve your situation on your own. Once you prove you are useless they are all over supporting you, however, if you ask for a hand up to become self sufficient...not a chance. Never understood that, just baffles me.