Do you think without emotions life would simpler for us humans?
What say you?
Regards,
Lote
Printable View
Do you think without emotions life would simpler for us humans?
What say you?
Regards,
Lote
Beauties of life comes from emotions. Without emotions we would be walking dead, which is why i dislike people with low sensivity and blind emotions. A man without emotions is not even a human for me.
Now I am going to be pickyune, Lote.
Why is "simpler" equated with "better"?
You title the thread asking the question would we be better off without emotions, but then ask if life would be simpler without them.
Simplicity may be superior in some contexts, while complexity may be superior in others. Would life be simpler without emotions? Perhaps...although that would be a tough question to answer in general terms...considering that emotions impact people in different ways and there are a couple of billion people roaming around the planet...tough to speak for all them.
Would life be better? I don't think so..and again, tough question based on what I just wrote above. For my own life, it would of course be much easier to be an emotionless automaton, but life would seem to lack quite a bit of richness, complexity and joy. Kinda boring....Of course if I was an emotionless automaton, I suppose I wouldn't care because those terms "richness" and "joy" would be meaningless to me.
kathycf, right in the nose :D
It certainly would be simpler, but would you call it a life at all then? Unfortunately, I happen to be acquainted with one or two people who just don't care about anything....nothing, nothing at all can stir their emotions, they don't need or want anything...or enjoy anything...that is a very pathetic sight. I certainly wouldn't like to experience that kind of emotionless existence.
i believe that the only thing that really distincts us from animals is capability of feeling, which means that without emotions we would no longer be humans
Trees seems to have quite a beautiful existence without emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Better and Simpler in this context are the same thing Kathy. I should have used the same word to be consistent.Quote:
You title the thread asking the question would we be better off without emotions, but then ask if life would be simpler without them.
There would be no wars? hate anger jelousy. We would all be logical and world would be such a peaceful place with billiosn of people.Quote:
Would life be simpler without emotions? Perhaps...although that would be a tough question to answer in general terms...considering that emotions impact people in different ways and there are a couple of billion people roaming around the planet...tough to speak for all them.
Without feeling life still goes on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demona
It would not have to be like this though. We can be perfectly logical and live that way. Without emotions getting in the way - words such as caring would not come into play.Quote:
Unfortunately, I happen to be acquainted with one or two people who just don't care about anything....nothing, nothing at all can stir their emotions, they don't need or want anything...or enjoy anything...that is a very pathetic sight.
Perhaps not. But think of the advantages? No hate or jelousy, Anger. No more pain etc...Quote:
I certainly wouldn't like to experience that kind of emotionless existence.
Perhaps. But we can make descisions without any emotions involved. We can still live as humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durgamol
i don't have any argument for this one. It is true. But making decisions without feelings would make us similar to machines....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
But Durgamol we are indeed machines. Biological Machines. At the level of DNA this machinary is Digital :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Durgamol
Sense of beauty and estetic is directly connected to emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
and since when have trees been aware of their own existence? :p
well, maybe they are ... for all we know, they might actually be...
ok... if we based our decisions on logic alone, wouldn't our decisions still be aimed at reaching the maximum good/ convenience for ourselves and/or others?
how could we judge the results of our actions without emotions?
e.g. if i wanted to buy a new bike and there was a choice between a cheap low-quality bike and an expensive high-quality one...
if I picked the cheap one, the advantage would be that I'd spend less money.
if I pick the expensive one, the advantage is it will last longer and be better quality.
in other words, if I pick the cheap one, my *ss will hurt but if I pick the expensive one, my wallet will hurt ;)
at first glance, this is a purely "economic" decision. but can/do these decisions really take place in a vacuum?
but how does the individual register these (dis-)advantages without there being emotions involved? in either case, I will be either grumpy because of the disadvantages or happy because of the advantages.
or would those considerations be called "self-interest" or something, as distinct from emotions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I'm with Turk on this one. The trees only seem to have a beautiful existence because we perceive beauty through our senses. Beauty is much like an emotion: it requires a well-developed brain to perceive it. If there were no emotions we wouldn't think them beautiful. In fact, there would be no beauty at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turk
Lote, as for the original question, I do agree with you, life would be simpler. We would be like birds. But, as Big K "spot-on"ly pointed out, the question of whether it would be better if we were birds, even though we couldn't be conscious of our own selves, let alone have complex emotions, is one for the ages :)
Have you read Dream of a Ridiculous Man by Dostoevsky? :p Because when I read it, the same question occured in my mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
No. I must read it now though :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
It might not have a direct connection with your question, but it's a fine read. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I think that Brave New World deals with this. In order to maintain a perfect society they did away with any strong emotion, like the love between husband and wife, or mother and child because these can both cause sorrow. They took away any kind of real intimacy with everyone belongs to everyone. They used state sanctioned drugs to numb the emotions that conditioning couldn’t control, A gram is better than a damn. But to make this work they had to retard the majority of the population so that they did not have the ability to think or ask about their existence.
I don’t think things would be simpler. When a person is younger it would be simpler if emotions did not run so hot and cold. That’s a rough time, but it levels out. In maturity emotion serves a lovely function because it is tempered in understanding. Life would not be simpler without emotion once that level has been reached.
They seemed not to grow in each other shadows :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Not really. Logic would suggest "cooperation" for mutal benefit instead of selfishness.Quote:
ok... if we based our decisions on logic alone, wouldn't our decisions still be aimed at reaching the maximum good/ convenience for ourselves and/or others?
Computers already do this judging for us. When you drive your car the car airbags makes non-emotional decision to keep you safe in an event of accident.Quote:
how could we judge the results of our actions without emotions?
Logic would have dictated one that protects your backsides and is economical.Quote:
at first glance, this is a purely "economic" decision. but can/do these decisions really take place in a vacuum?
You can use a objective method which does not involve emotions. Scientific Method is based on that.Quote:
but how does the individual register these (dis-)advantages without there being emotions involved?
Without emotions there would not be grumpyness :-)Quote:
in either case, I will be either grumpy because of the disadvantages or happy because of the advantages.
yep.. but even if I could use an "objective" method to decide which bike to buy or how to act for the common benefit etc, wouldn't the aims I want to reach by making this decision still be coloured by emotion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
e.g. if I bought the bike that is both cheap and high quality, wouldn't the aim be to avoid both pain to my bum and waste of my money? how can I decide that these are desirable aims without emotions?
buy a bike that meets both criteria can only be considered "good" when we compare it to the other scenario.. in which my bum hurts and my purse is empty, both of which are unpleasant (= a word conveying 'emotion'*)...
so i may be able to make an "objective" choice, but the aim of this choice is still to avoid something that wouldn't exist without emotions...
*do a hurting bum and grumpiness about waste of money count as emotions in this context? or were you aiming at more lofty emotions, like love etc?
Biologically yes. of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Live that way...in the name of....what? *"exist" is more appropriate in this context, don't you think so? *Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Somehow i see the other side of the question: there would be no love, caring, liking, enjoying, having fun, laughing. In other words that would be very boring. :DQuote:
Perhaps not. But think of the advantages? No hate or jelousy, Anger. No more pain etc...
As humans? A human is humane. Without emotions you'd be rational.Quote:
Perhaps. But we can make descisions without any emotions involved. We can still live as humans.
Without emotions can there be 'better'?
Doesn't the concept of 'better' have an emotional aspect to it?
I'd question whether the species would survive without fear.
hey, cool, I think that's what I meant, only I didn't know :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
Spot on! That never occured to me. I, like others, I believe, was conceiving 'emotions' as happiness and sadness, and not as much as survival mechanisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
Obviously, fear is an emotion, in fact one of the most basic ones. But I was thinking: can self-preservation be regarded as an emotion? I bet someone would answer me that it's an instinct. It is an instinct, but then again, isn't laughing for joy a primitive, sometimes irrepressible instinct?
EDIT: didn't see Sleepy's comment before I posted. Funny how we took a different slice of the same cake :p
yep.. you could always argue, fear is a primitive instinct, not an emotion...Quote:
Originally Posted by kandaurov
but then, if I'm scared of an exam, my survival in biological terms is not at stake. I won't get eaten by a tiger or be robbed of my food supplies, if I fail an exam...
hehe, I think Lote should define what counts as an emotion and what doesn't for the purposes of this discussion.
I manage to live quite happily without exhibiting the majority of my emotions. The only one I cant contain is anger, however I am a lot less angry than I ever used to be and can channel it better than before
but not exhibiting your emotions is different from not feeling them/being incapable of emotion, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Not really after a while it gets to the stage where you might as well not have them because they stop impacting things - the abscence of them effects things instead.
isn't that just apathy? that's one emotion I think we would be better off without!
Nah, its not apathy. A good percentage of it is learned response to external stimuli & the rest is thinking with my head rather than my heart.
Building on what Bii posted regarding "better" having an emotional aspect....Dissatisfaction, want, the urge to create (if that isn't an emotion or feeling, then perhaps someone else has a better definition?) emotional desire....are we "better off" without them? If people never wanted anything better, perhaps we wouldn't have these nice computers we are typing on?
If nobody has emotions, then they wouldn't have been exploring new ways of doing things...because they would not have experienced dissatisfaction with the old ways. The old saying is "necessity is the mother of invention" but once you invent the wheel, why bother wanting more?
Just putting it out there...;)
Also known as desire, lust, pleasure. All of which require an emotional response.Quote:
Originally Posted by kathycf
What is the difference between emotion and rationality? Is emotion the instinctive reaction which rationality seeks to override? If that's the case then presumably one can't exist without the other.
What would happen to morals? Rationally it may be acceptable to murder a person because their needs conflict with your own. Morally, and emotionally, this would be wrong. Take out emotions and morality ceases to exist.
exactly. e.g. the Holocaust was based on this kind of rationality. it was also very "rational" in the way it got rid of thousands and millions of people using very cheap, economical means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
but nevertheless it was absolutely wrong in moral terms, as wrong as it can get, actually.
Emotion: I feel 2+2 = 5Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
Rationality= 2+2 = 4
Primal Emotions are instinctive. Others can be consciously evoked eg. compassion.Quote:
Is emotion the instinctive reaction which rationality seeks to override?
Morality based on pure emotions is not good idea. Morality kept in check by rationality is best bet.Quote:
What would happen to morals?
Really? Is it that simple?Quote:
Rationally it may be acceptable to murder a person because their needs conflict with your own.
Really?Quote:
Take out emotions and morality ceases to exist.
So if I give you an injection that knocks your ability to feel anything.
Would you still murder?
So, emotions are wrong, and rationality is right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
So, you accept that morals have a basis in emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Absolutely, if it served a rational purpose. Mainly I don't murder people because I'm squeamish (emotional), I don't like the thought of causing someone pain (emotional), I wouldn't want someone to murder me (emotional), I wouldn't want to permanently extinguish someones existence, because I assume that the person experiences consciousness the way I do (emotion - a very wordy way of saying empathy). Would it be murder if there was no emotional angle? Isn't the concept of murder, in itself, an emotional concept? If I had no emotions to hold me back then what would stop me? Edit - sorry, forgot to mention fear of getting caught (emotional!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Without emotion life is valueless, because value in these terms is an emotional concept (value, as opposed to quantum).
Rationality is objective. Emotions subjective. And we can only agree on objective truths...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
I believe that is how it evolved. But should we base our morality on emotions? I say perhaps not. We should strive for an objective standard.Quote:
So, you accept that morals have a basis in emotions.
I find that little disturbing. That if your emotions fails you, you can murder. I would have thought one would have arrived at intellecutally that murder may be wrong. I believe that many people at some point in their life go through a period where they feel nothing, do they turn murderers?Quote:
Mainly I don't murder people because I'm squeamish (emotional), I don't like the thought of causing someone pain (emotional), I wouldn't want someone to murder me (emotional), I wouldn't want to permanently extinguish someones existence, because I assume that the person experiences consciousness the way I do (emotion - a very wordy way of saying empathy).
Yes. We can class one individual taking the life of another individual - murder. There need not be any emotions involved.Quote:
Would it be murder if there was no emotional angle?
Your intellect - which goes beyond your emotions?Quote:
If I had no emotions to hold me back then what would stop me?
Really? Is life of a tree valueless? Is all life apart from human's valueless because we have decided valueless? How arrogant of us is it not to state that?Quote:
Without emotion life is valueless, because value in these terms is an emotional concept (value, as opposed to quantum).
but what do you mean by objective? something eveyryone in the world actually agrees to? then you would have to ask everyone's opinion, which isn't possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
something everyone could agree? In this case you'd be speaking for others and you can't really be sure they would agree if they were allowed to speak for themselves.
or is it something from the outside that was given to humanity by a god or alien:alien:?
how do you apply it to a concrete situations? especially when there are people with a different power statues involved?
let's say there is a rich plantation owner who exploits his workers. Now his workers demand higher wages and better treatment. But the plantation owner doesn't grant them. For him it is rational not to pay higher wages because that way he would make less money himself. For the Minister of Economy of this imaginary country, the plantation owner's decision is rational because it is good for the economy of the country in some way.
So what are the workers supposed to do?
Something that is Verifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
But that way he will not get happy workers and happy workers mean better workers - hence more productivity and quality - see Robert Owen (?) Experiments of 18th Century.Quote:
For him it is rational not to pay higher wages because that way he would make less money himself.
I agree, morality should be based on a balance between emotion and an objective/rational judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
But right and wrong are emotional judgements. Without emotion you have this or that and either choice is an option depending on what is expedient/efficient/necessary. To quote your own example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
"Computers already do this judging for us. When you drive your car the car airbags makes non-emotional decision to keep you safe in an event of accident."
With one slight alteration, car airbags don't 'decide' to keep you safe, they function or they don't. Either way it's a non-emotional issue. Take your computer example, say you have a computer which is designed to launch nuclear missiles in the event of certain pre-set criteria being met. One day those criteria are met so the missiles are launched. Does the computer 'care' if 100,000 people are killed? Is the computer a murderer? Of course not, but it's human 'emotional' intervention that would prevent it.
I was, of course, speaking of human life. That being said, the way we treat trees I'd argue that we must believe their 'lives' to be valueless. Otherwise we wouldn't chop them down and burn them, or shread and pulp them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
2+2=4 This right.
2+2=5 This is wrong.
You can choose the right answer without emotions. But if you say that your emotions dictates that the answer should be 2+2=5 then you are not interested in right or wrong but just how you feel.
Yes. That decision is a non-emotional issue but it is a decision nevertheless based on your current speed at the time of your crash.Quote:
With one slight alteration, car airbags don't 'decide' to keep you safe, they function or they don't. Either way it's a non-emotional issue.
Or you could enlarge the criteria where it is says Death of thousands to be avoided.Quote:
Take your computer example, say you have a computer which is designed to launch nuclear missiles in the event of certain pre-set criteria being met. One day those criteria are met so the missiles are launched. Does the computer 'care' if 100,000 people are killed? Is the computer a murderer? Of course not, but it's human 'emotional' intervention that would prevent it.
But we also treat human lives as valueless that's why we have wars and kill many millions. So even with our emotions we still find human life valueless. So it's not a surprise that we treat other life as valueless. But trees themselves - are they valueless themselves? I think not...Quote:
I was, of course, speaking of human life. That being said, the way we treat trees I'd argue that we must believe their 'lives' to be valueless.
I think the use of the term 'right' or 'wrong' is inappropriate here, as these terms imply a moral angle. And using maths is a poor comparison as the 'answers' in maths are absolute, i.e. they are correct/true, or incorrect/ false. Generally when dealing with issues of logic you would work with true or false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Take a different example, and perhaps a more appropriate one. You are walking down a path and it comes to a junction. It forks left and right. Both paths are the same length and arrive at the same location. In this scenario your choice is left or right. Either choice is possible. Neither is right or wrong.
Yes, but that would take an 'emotional' programmer to make that choice. Also begs the question whether the missiles would fire at all, after all, isn't the point of a nuclear attack to kill? My point is that without the emotional interjection, the logic tree would go through it's selections of true and false and, arriving at true it would fire, without the necessity to consider whether it was right or wrong. It would consider whether it was true - have the criteria been met? If so it would fire, if not it wouldn't. Humans without emotions would be just the same - it's just hard to conceive of it because our emotions are so intrinsic to our being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I suppose what you are arguing for is more 'emotional rationality' rather than an absence of emotion entirely.
nope, it's not right or wrong. it's defined to be right or wrong. mathematicians use numbers as a tool/ language to describe the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
they have agreed to treat 2+2=4 as a truth so they don't need to question or revise this assumption every single time they want to calculate something.
it's working assumption that happens to be accepted by many mathematicians. it's a kind of convention. just like we use the word "cat" when we want to refer to a cat. it's a kind of terminology. they agree not to question or redefine it, so they have a basis to work on.
But the thread is about getting rid of emotions. So when you get rid of emotions - we can only use logic for decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
Then logically it is irrelevant as to which way you go is there?Quote:
Take a different example, and perhaps a more appropriate one. You are walking down a path and it comes to a junction. It forks left and right. Both paths are the same length and arrive at the same location. In this scenario your choice is left or right. Either choice is possible. Neither is right or wrong.
Not really. It is illogical to wipe out species of animals for example. So logical thing would be to minimise deaths?Quote:
Yes, but that would take an 'emotional' programmer to make that choice.
But we can think intellectually without emotions involved?Quote:
Humans without emotions would be just the same - it's just hard to conceive of it because our emotions are so intrinsic to our being.
It is the intellect that frees us from the emotional bondage?
On serious note - yes. Emotions needs to be controlled by Rationality and guided to mutally beneficial ends... :-)Quote:
I suppose what you are arguing for is more 'emotional rationality' rather than an absence of emotion entirely.
I guess we will have to wait for consciouss androids to see if an emotiona-less existence is feasible. I guess it will be but perhaps intelligent machines too will develop emotions in time.