Like I have said before.
I don't believe in mind and body are same, or that the mind and body share some sort of spiritual connection.
But, thats just my view.

I personally see consciousness and 'mind' as just neurons firing in the brain and nothing more.

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?

I should apologize as I should have mentioned that the trolley problem I was talking about was a modified version by some science show.
In it the host would go upto random people on the show and ask people about this dilemma.

There are 2 rail tracks connected to 1 rail track. There are 5 workers on one of the rail tracks, and just 1 person on the other track. A train is about to pass and you are standing by the lever which can change the track, the train will move onto.
If you decide to not do anything 5 people will die.
If you pull the lever only 1 person will die.
Some people answered that they will not pull the lever in this case, probably because of the reasons that you just said, that is, they didn't want to feel responsible for causing someone's death ,as if they hadn't done anything, the 5 people were destined to die anyways.
Some people decided to pull the lever to kill the 1 person, so that 5 people can survive.
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.

The host then tells them the second stage of the problem.
What if the person that is alone is someone you know?
After hearing this, suddenly, a majority of people decide they want to save the 1 person, even if it meant 5 innocent deaths.
This sudden shift from using logic to not using it because higher emtions were involved is what i meant when i said that emotions often goes against logic.

I apologize if this isnt exactly how it went in the show, as it has been a while since i watched it, but i was intrigued by it, and i am pretty sure that ths is what had happened.


The two reasons you gave for rationality aren't correct.
for one, you just framed emotions into two words that is, fun and happiness and decided to present them as seperate.
If you think, that thinking rationally is only possible with emotions, you are just wrong.
Computers and even animals do it everyday, without having emotions at all.

Yes, I did go overboard with my hypothetical of you killing the entire world for your own peace, it was because there was a communication error between us.
I thought you were disregarding the trolley problem, but after your last message that has been rectified.

Hello. It is currently 12:41 am for me now.
But i will surely check the track tomorrow.
Thank you for welcoming me on this site, i feel much appreciated here, even if 99% of the comments are against my belief.
I will definitely check out your thread as well.

I apologize but i am not into meditation and stuff.
I believe that humans can think in a higher consciousness just the way they are, if they try.
But, i like and respect our view on it.

Yes.
Use good emotions more and bad emotions less.
And if its impossible, like happiness and sadness will always be equal kind of thing, just agree that a world void of emotions will be better.

Yes, computers and robots are not human.
But the inspiration for making them was taken from human brain.
Scientists tried to replicate the way a human brain works, and they ended up with computers.
Which is an undeniable proof that the way a computer works, that is, by logic, is an essential part of humans.

Your notion that logic and emotions are inseperable, without giving me any reason to why you think this is not appreciated.
You telling me that I have no option seems that you are trying to hide the fact that you dont have enough resources to prove it, so you are just bruteforcing it without giving any proof or explanation and hoping it works.

I am sorry, but it thats how you want to communicate, i would have to ask you to leave the post.
The point of hypotheticals are that they aren't real.
They are just mere tools to help us understand ourselves better.
Ao, if you think my hypotheticals are meaningless, so be it, I think they offered great insight and helped shed some light towards the often unethical seeming topic.

I agree that emotions are great. I like them. But I feel like i dont need them.
Also, not that the post clearly states that this discussion is about wherether we 'need' emotions and not about whether we 'want' them.

The question isnt about how happiness is created, its about whether we need them or not.

EQ stands for emotional quotient.
I feel like you don't understand what this discussion is about.
Yes, I believe EQ is an important part of human life, but i also think that it is not essential anymore.

I like your way of thinking.
I am sorry that I am not able to put what I mean into words in a easy to understand form.
I am still trying to uderstand myself and the world.

I have a simple hypothetical which might help in understanding what i am trying to say, maybe.
Consider you have 2 choices-
1) Make a world, in which people have emotions, and never be guaranteed if they will live a happy life or not.
2) Make a world, in which people don't have emotions, but be guaranteed that they will live a peacefull life. (peaceful, not happy)

I think my brother(not on this website) explained it better.
He wants a world where people use logic before emotions.
Save 4 people, instead of 1 person, even if that 1 person is emotionally attached to you.

So, i guess you are correct when you said that I want a world where humans have a greater stage of awareness and consciousness.

Also, just wanna make it clear, I am not against emotions. I like to feel happy and loved just as much as any other. But, its my dislike towards murder and other inhumane stuff thats forces me to believe that a world without any emotions would be better than a world with it, especially if it means people can be sad or angry.

Your statements is only seeing one side of the coin.
Just as there would be no reason to refrain from causing others suffering, provided we can get away with it, there wouldnt be a reason to just let others mind their own business.

Yes, emotions are *one of* the foundation of our moral principles, but so is logic.
And now in a world where we have better form of communication and survival is easier, logic and other stuff would be more than enough to shape our moral principles.

And logically speaking, it takes much less resources to not kill someone.
And the moral priciple would be to not kill anyone.

Other thing people seem to disregard is that, just because there are no emotions, it doesnt mean there are no rules either.
There would be police force finding criminals and punishing them.
The rules can be simple stuff like
1) No killing is allowed
2) No robbing is allowed, etc
And since many people are wrongly comparing emotionless humans to robots, i will use it too for the sake of debate.
If you tell a robot to choose between 2 choices while retaining most of its energy, it will choose the one that requires less energy. Because its based on logic.

"Biologically and evolutionarily, all “negative,” or distressing, emotions, like fear, disgust, or anxiety, can be thought of as “survival-mode” emotions: They signal to the body and brain that our survival and well-being may be at risk, and are specifically designed to motivate behaviors and bodily responses"
Source:- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-embodied-mind/201209/emotions-survival-and-disconnection

I don't think i need to say anymore, but i might as well.
Emotions were created to help humans survive back when we had to fight animals like lions and mammoths.
Now that we don't have those happening everywhere, it seems like it is unnecessary to have emotions anymore.
Just like wisdom teeth and appendix, i feel like it has just become a vestgial part of humans.

Also, if anything being necessary for survival is an excellent measure for value.
A diamond jewellery is highly unnecessary for survival.
Thats why people dont buy it unless they have excess money.
Food and shelter on the other hand are highly necessary for survival.
Thats why no matter how poor you are, those are your prorities.
I believe people should just use this method to understand the difference between needs and wants.

I don't believe emotions have anything to do with rationalism.
If anything, if often goes against logic.
It's best shown in experiments like the Trolley experiment, where a human would rather save 1 person with whom he/she/they have emotional connection with rather than save 4 strangers, which far disobeys logic by simply not giving a damn about 4 lives over 1 life.

Also, I think you just contradicted yourself with this statement -
"there's no way someone would ever be rational if it hurt like hell.",
as if you meant it, you are just saying that its better for everyone in the world to die, if it means you can have peace and not be in pain.
I feel like thats an excuse for saying that you are weak and/or a coward.

We don't need to emotions to be rational anymore.
We have logic and other tools to help us do it.

I could ask you the same question.
Why think logic and emotion are inseperable?
I mean robots and computers can follow logic without having emotions, right?

Also, i don't understand your this statement -
"So what's your plan to how to live without emotion?"
The reason is same.
I could ask you the same question.
What was your plan to live with emotion?
There was none, right?
We just happened to be born with one, and we followed it, no questions asked.
This discussion isn't about how we will live a life like that anyways.
Its about if that life will be better than the current one.
So, answer this-
Would you rather live in a world with emotions, where sufferring is guaranteed with no guarantee of happiness?
or
Would you rather live in a world which is guaranteed to be peaceful as no one can feel emotions.

I have seen enough people suffering to choose the second option without thinking much.

Whenever, I talk about this topic, I feel like I am an atheist trying to tell a believer that God doesn't exist.
That is why I am glad, that you atleast had some logic in your comment.
However saying, 'I can't possibly think what would happen if emotions were cast aside completely.', just seems like an excuse for not having a valid point against my statement.
Just like if an atheist says God doesn't exist, a believer can just say that he can't imagine a world without God, even though the atheist thinks that they are living in one.

I strongly disagree with the notion that humans are somehow makes us machines.
Humans are much more than just robot+emotions.
We have a consciousness, the ability to think from different standpoints, and much more.
Also, even if we consider for the sake of debate that humans without emotions would turn into machines, how is it bad?
I mean, i have never seen a machine choose to kill others unless its programmed to do so.
Whereas, a human on the other hand would do it if he is in a bad mood. (An extremely bad one)
Btw, I also disagree on your notion that emotions are a guide, an interface between mind and matter.
I think the better definition would be that emotions are a way to express physical conditions easier.
For exaple:- People will understand you fear of heights easier by seeing your shivering feet, rather than just looking at a still human. People will understand that you are hurt physically if you cry, rather than if you just stand still. Emotions exist long before languages. So, by my view, its basically just a language that predates spoken and written langauges.

Another thing to note is no one seems to compare a human with other animals, just robots.
There are plenty organisms apart from humans which don't show emotions and don't need a meaning in life.
Why can't we just be like them.

Last thing, I have noticed that you have diverged a bit from the topic.
The topic isn't about if we should supress or repress emotions or that we should practice anything mentioned here.
Its only about if it would be a logical and viable way.

Well, i can't really talk against your claim, but in my experience, the people with lower IQs i have seen generally tend to not use logic.
Also, just IQ isn't a good way to determine someone's intelligence, there is also EQ and other stuff.

Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

I believe that emotions and desires don't define us, our intelligence does.
A murderer has reasons to do crime, he did it because of his desire to kill or emotion.
Whereas if he just used logic, he would have come to the conclusion of killing someone.

Here is the link to my post:- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11369/are-emotions-unnecessary-now

I am really sorry if this feels like i am trying to get audience towards my post i some way.
I just want the OP to make a comment on my post, and I cant DM them unless they follow me back.

Hey.
I had to make an account just to comment on this post.
And then not be able to because i spelt my email Id wrong, and spend 10 mins trying to figure it out.
But finally I am here.

I am surprised that I happened to stumble upon this post as i made a pretty similar post in reddit today.
Well, not really, but some elements of this post vibe with the elements of my post.
Unfortunately, it got removed as according the rules, I wasn't supposed to post discussions there. (oopsie)
Since, its been removed there, i guess i will post it here and hope people give more info on it.
Btw, I like OP's way of thinking so i hope they comment on my post.

Anyways,
I would like to talk to the OP directly, or just have this post be lively and get more input.
Here's my input about your question:-
I don't think logic is a matter of intelligence.
I think logic is just a tool to find the solution to a problem.
And intelligence is a way to measure someone's ability to use such tools.