I just want to remind everyone that, if i could choose a world void of suffering, which still has happiness, i would choose it.
We are not here to talk about the best case scenario.
We are here to talk about one of the worst, if not the absolute worst case scenario.

That is where you understood me wrong sir.
I do not believe we could ever reach the point of a world without emotions.
I do not believe there will ever be a time, where people would be 100% happy or satisfied or peaceful with their lives.
I am just a mere human who tries to hide the pain of this world through a medium.
And this just happens to be my poison. (Poison meaning choice)
I just happen to love hypotheticals, no matter how impossible they seem, and make the most of it using logic.

If we were to logically think about how to improve real-life, i 99% agree with you.
(1% being my own personal beliefs)
I do believe if we want to make our current world a better place, which would still have suffering here and there still, would be to not eradicate or supress emotions, but to learn to understand them.
Learn to love yourself and others for what they are, not what you want them to be.
Learn to help others and teach them to help more.
We can form strength as unity but this strength will never be enough to 100% get rid of suffering.

I love this life (and also sometimes hate it), and I am thankful for it.
But, if i ever were given a choice, i wouldnt hesitate to ask for a world void of suffering, even if it is meant to be a world void of emotions.

Unfortunately, yes.
As beautiful as empathy is, it often requires a person to do something illogical.
So, it wouldn't exist in such a world.
Also, it wouldnt be requires either.
For example:- You see a person who is homeless, so you buy him food for a day.
This is a very kind act, and in the real life, i would certainly tell others to do the same.
However, in a world void of emotions, a person would try his/her/theirs best to earn money utilizing any skill they have, and wouldnt become homeless in the first place, or atleast wont be for a long time.
And suppose they become homeless and not have food for some time because of bad luck, they will nfortunately, just have to die.
Its not like this is a new thing though, as luck is as equal a factor in the real life as well.
Sometimes, people just get so unlucky that nothing can help them.

Both worlds have different ways to face bad luck,
In real life, people will help each other persevere, but also create a lot of situations where people will become homeless such as corruption.
In a world void of emotions, people will face it by not having such emotion-related things like corruption, and also, work together to find out how to reduce it, as the more people go homeless, the more bad it will be for existence of humanity as a whole.

I will reply to your comment line by line.

Well, our world does have emotion, and me, as well as others on this discussion being humans, have emotion, and it would be practically impossible that no one brings there emotions to the table at some point. And I am fine with that, as long as people dont refuse to listen to logic because of it.
Personally, I do believe that emotions are instinctual responses to stimulus that help us survive as a species, and as a social group.
"Emotions become more of a digest, and a guide. If I feel angry at a situation, instead of just reacting, I think about it."
Well said.
However, you didnt pay attention to your own words.
You are telling us how grown ups can make rational decision by controlling/reducing emotions and how young people often can't.
Isn't that proof that if emotions didn't exist, then even the younger population would give some thought towards a situation without jumping to a wrong conclusion and do something horrible because of their emotions?
Why should we use emotions to guide us towards logical conclusions, if we can just use logic to do so?

I often discuss stuff with my brother who is a bit younger than me, but still makes excellent points and is very smart.
He made the same point about reflexes, and so, I already have answer to your point.
You and him assumed that reflexes, i.e. the ability of doing something without thinking was developed only because of emotions.
And i tell you, that it is a misconception.
He gave me the example of this query, and so, i will use it here as well.
Imagine a car is moving at a very high speed and is about to hit you, you only have enough time to either move away instantly and be safe or think about the situation and be lead to death.
He used this example thinking reflexes can only be developed in a situation where emotions exist.
I 100% agree that in our world, reflexes where in fact developed because of emotions.
However, assuming that logic can't make its own version of reflexes isn't a good assumption.
It is logical that death is not preferrable in most conditions.
As a result, in a world void of emotions, reflexes will be created.
Another point to note is that, accidents are often a case of people not obeying traffic rules, which is in itself an illogical thing to do, so in a world void of emotions, accidents would be atleast 99% more unlikely to happen.
If you are familiar with any sort of creative work, like video and photo editing, or programming ,or 2d and 3d designing, you will know that there are multiple ways to get the same result.
Reflexes are such a case.
Existence of emotions isnt the only way for reflexes to exist.

Now, talking about depression.
You say that even after having depression, you know that some days, you just gotta persevere through.
Some days, its just about existing and not about being happy or sad at every little thing. And as someone who has had experience in this situation, I know what it feels like, even though maybe what I have been through or what someone I care has been through wouldnt have been as bad as your or someone else's situation
But i presume, you will agree, that when you were facing this situation, you must have thought about doing anything, no matter how bad, to get rid of it. Some people do it by commiting suicide, but some like us, dont have the courage do it and hope that somehow it sorts out itself.
So, if I were to ask you this same question back then, i can guarantee or atleast make a good guess, that you will have agreed with me, and wanted a world without pain and suffering, even if it meant that you cant be happy either. Anything to ease the pain going through your heart, stabbing it a million times over and over.
Also, you yourself are stating that, some days are not exciting or happy to live through, yet you do.
So, why cant you do the same in a world void of emotions? Live it just because you have to as the only other choice is death.

Now, lets talk about violence.
This paragraph is simply just wrong, as you are only talking about one side of the coin.
You talked about how one emotion-less person can conclude that another emotion-less person doesnt not deserve to live.
But you didnt specify how it would happen, i.e. how someone will conclude such a thing.
If we look at it logically, in a world void of emotions, there would be no preferences.
No one would have a favourite color or a favourite taste or any sort of favouritism towards anything.
Meaning, everyone would share the same likes, same dislikes and uniqueness would cease to become a factor.
If there is no uniqueness and people are practically the same person, there would be nothing to disagree about and thus, nothing to conclude if someone is worth living or not, as by doing it they aren't just concluding such a thing about one person, but about the entire population.
So, with these in mind, we can assume that your statement has been proven wrong or atleast will not be considered as an absolute right, not unless my side of the statement can be proved otherwise.
Now, towards the next statement.
You say that violence is a good way to get things you need.
And there are already a lot of things disproving this statement.
For one, violence often requires more energy and time than just talking it out and using logic.
In a world void of emotions, people wouldnt do stuff that can decrease their energy and time unless its worth it.
Now for the seconds point, i would like to state what you said again, 'Violence is still an effective tool for getting things that you need.'
The only things someone would need in a world void of emotions is knowledge.
So, there would be no violence for land, money or any other sort of control of power, and there would be no reason for someone to keep knowledge for themselves and not share it, as it is a sign of greed.
So, I guess this statement has been disproved as well.

Now lets look at this - "I think it would severely hinder development from a child to an adult."
Like i have metioned before, if anything, it would help children to mature faster and spend more time gaining practical knowledge instead of learning how to control emotions and often supress them.

Also, from my message where i pointed out some topics of disccussion, i would like to bring out the 4th point again, as you might have missed that.
"4) Even if we consider that violence is possible without emotions, we still have ways to work with it. Just as we have a police force in our world, there would be a police force in a world void of emotions. There will be certain rules that descibe that any sort of killing or harming other is strictly not allowed."
So, we can be certain, that in a world void of emotions, there would still be law or atleast that there would be no need for one as there will be a guarantee that the rules will never be broken.

Really nice view on this discussion.
I will try to answer your question.

"would a world of sentient AIs that can't emote be a moral world?"
If we consider that morals stem from emotions, then in a world void of emotions, morals wouldnt exist.
Of course, morals aren't based off of only emotions.

I am going to take example from life that existed before us, ones which existed without emotions, namely micro-organisms.
Ever since they are created, they only have 2 goals, these goals are the 2 most fundamental goals of life which can also be intepreted as the only logical meaning to life.
These 2 goals are- (can also be intepreted as 3)
1) Collect information and knowledge about the world.
2) Reproduce and pass on this information to the offsprings.
The reason these goals exist is because of mortality.
If living things didnt die, these goals wouldnt exist, or atleast reproducing would be unnecessary as well as harmful as the more population there is, the more space and resources it will take.

Now, you might be thinking why i am talking about this instead of answering the question.
The reason is that, I want to show some perspectives that might defeat the purpose of the question in the first place.
So, I ask you (rhetorically) -
Would a world of micro-organisms be a moral world?
See?
Now it has become a difficult answer once we know that micro-organisms are the same living things we evolved from.
They don't have emotions.
But they aren't mindless robots either.
So, then, if we cant differentiate micro-organisms with robots, yet know that something is different, how can people easily assume that a human without emotions would become a mindless robot?

So, my answer to your question is,
If we use the above 2 fundamentals to be the morals of such a world, then yes, such a world would be moral.

Well, God made made me.
So, I guess Gods can make mistakes.

Before I leave this post, I would like to say one last thing to everyone.

Thank you for taking your time to share your opinions on this discussion.
And, Mr Protagoras, get a life, mate.
You wont get anywhere in life if you dont care about others.

Well, seems like we reached an impasse.
Seems like clearly, you never had any hardships in your life since you cleary dont care about other humans.
I wont be replying to here anymore.

I dont think you are understanding what the article states.
The reason they said it like this - "emotions experienced by one's self.", isnt because they actually experience it, its because it is how they have to try to communicate with other people.
In layman terms, they are being forced to try to experience it even though they cannot.

"Alexithymia is a personality trait characterized by the subclinical inability to identify and describe emotions experienced by one's self. The core characteristic of alexithymia is marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relation. Furthermore, people with high levels of alexithymia can have difficulty distinguishing and appreciating the emotions of others, which is thought to lead to unempathic and ineffective emotional responses."
Source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

Ok, so you are just saying science is wrong?
That years of medical research and development is false?
Or the wikipedia and all websites are just full of lies?

First of all, comedy is subjective, so i get it if you didn't like it.
But that doesnt mean that my sarcasm was bad.
It just means your understanding of humor is flawed.

I called you beautiful because i didnt wanna swear.
Take a hint.
Even a person like you who believes so much in the power of emotion can't understand sarcasm.

I am gonna guess that you will say that the impossible assumption is that emotions and logic can be seperated.
And I already gave the answer for that.
There are people who suffer from Alexithymia who dont have emotions, yet are as humans as any one of us.

That you are capable of reason?

Look at my reply, you beautiful man.

Oh, and what would perhaps your username mean?
Identity Theft, thats what it would mean.

I don't understand.
I framed the questions in a way, that i could still be opposed.
Also, like i said before, if you dont wanna be here, just leave.

Oh, so we are using 70 year old movies made for the purpose of 'entertainment' as our sources now?
How can you sink so low?

Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I literally said in the message that people should point out how an emotionless world will not be able to function properly.

Either you didn't read it, or you just want to act like you are smart by throwing random accusation at me.

Ok.
This is not what I wanted.
Maybe its because of my lack of ability to make you guys understand what I am talking about.
So, I will try again.

I am trying to discuss about how a world without emotions will exist and if that world would be better or worse than this current one.
Unfortunately, I would have to put on some rules, since you guys aren't helping the discussion anymore and are just targeting to make me feel bad.
1) I know that emotions are good. I know their importance. Yes, I made some dubious points to try to say otherwise, and I apologize about that. So, stop saying how important they are and start talking about how getting rid of them will make a difference.
2) I am not saying humans=robot, thats just a wrong fact. I am saying that the making of the brain, and the principles it stands on is similar, and one day in the future, maybe science will be able to make a proper humanoid A.I. even with emotions.
3) Stop assuming that emotions are deeply connected with consciousness. There are people who suffer from Alexithymia, which causes theem to not have emotions. And they still have perfectly good logic and consciousness. Or would you guys go as far as calling them robots/animals, and say that they aren't humans?
4) Stop thinking about how we will get rid of emotions. That is not the point of interest of this discussion.
This post should only discuss about how a world without emotions would function.

I think we will have to do this all over again.
Also, before someone says - "Oh, but your post question says 'Are emotions unnecessary now', clearly stating that we should talk about the necessity of emotions first.", like i said, i wasn't able to frame my question properly, and i agree that that was due to the lack of my ability.

I will the first points of discussion now-
1) In a world without emotions, there will be no negative emotions such as greed, jealousy, sadness, etc.
So, we can guarantee that no one will those emotions. Meaning, world is already a better place.
2) There would be no positive emotions either. No one would help each other, unless it profits them directly. (which is the same case as a world with emotions, as well)
3) There will be no violence in such a world, as violence requires emotions as well as energy. In a world without emotions, energy would become a large decider, and people won't waste their energy on something that doesn't matter to them.
4) Even if we consider that violence is possible without emotions, we still have ways to work with it. Just as we have a police force in our world, there would be a police force in a world void of emotions. There will be certain rules that descibe that any sort of killing or harming other is strictly not allowed.
5) This discussion is a hypothetical with the rule being humans wont have emotions. So please dont make arguments like humans would magically start to have emotions out of thin air.
6) I hope you guys will help me make this a better discussion where we can talk about the correct thing. If anyone here has any problems with how I want this discussion to go, please kindly leave.


Edit:- Just wanted to add that emotional pain and physical pain are 2 different types of pain. So, even in a world void of emotions, people would feel physical pain.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

Isnt that better tho?
Or would you rather live in a world with murder and crimes instead of choosing peace?

Please read the statement properly again.
It doesnt state that animals dont have emotions.
It states that their emotions are on the same level as humans.
Also, some animals, especially micro-organisms, dont have emotions at all, and yet they live their life without a reason to live.

Please just leave.
I dont want to reply to you anymore.
You arent even ready to listen to any argument even if i give you proof and explanation.
If you didnt come in here with an open mind, then why even bother?

I dont understand how this has anything to do with the discussion.
You are just stating what emotions are.
Not how we should deal with them.

We dont need emotions to tell us how we are coping with stuff anymore.
In a world void of emotions, if someone borrows a car, and smashes it, he woul pay the money to repair it.
And the person the car blengs to will accept the money and repair it.
Which would be the most logical thing to do.
In this case, there would be no unncessary hate against someone and everything would be peaceful.

I dont diagree with the notion that emotions play an important part in human life.
What I am saying is that that important part isnt enough to compete with eternal peace.

You are just proving my point further.
I said emotions 'were' necessary for survival. They are not anymore. And thats why we should get rid of them.
So, i dont need it to assist me by telling me to move out of the way of a train now.
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.
Well, thanks for that actually. You just made it easier for me.


"The argument seems to be 'my statements are incorrect' by arbitrary measure."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing as well?
That is how debates/discussions work, so I dont see anything wrong in this.
Also, if anything, everyone else is using arbitrary measures.
I have been using measures from correct sources and objective truth.
Its you guys who are basing it on personal belief and thinking i am wrong for having a different opinion.

How do you think people came to know about logic and matheatics in the first place?
Everything human has built was an inspiration from nature, building planes to mimic birds, and computers that can mimic brains.
Yes they were inspired by maths and logic, but math and logic were inspired by the human brain in the first place.

Well, i am trying to reply to all messages before going to sleep, but people just keep replying.
Its 1:32 pm for me now, and I should better get sleeping soon.

Like i said, the first question to tackle is if humans can survive without emotions.
You have merely stated the importance of it, but that doesnt prove its usefulness.
Alexithymia is a disease where people lose the ability to feel emotions, and the only problem they face is not being able to understand others, but if everyone were to lose emotions, this wont be a problem anymore as no one would need to understand other's emotions to form an effective communication.

Also, what you are stating would be meaningless in this scenario as my side of belief guarantees peace.
So, if its a trade between a part of intelligence for infinite peace, i am pretty sure you know which one people would choose.

I am glad that you are taking a scientific route on this discussion.
It's a good ponit of view.

Well, I dont know how to respond to your message.
Even a simple Google search comes up with this result.
"delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

I have been giving rational arguments to all the questions, so if anyone's being delusional it would be Mr. Protagoras.
Hope you get well soon. : )

Well, animals and plants don't have emotions like humans do.
Are they any higher or lower of an entity than us? -No
If they can survive like this, why can't we?

A delusion would be believing in something with no proof.
I have proof and explanation.
You don't.
So, please leave this post.