Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering, so there isn't a reason why they would work together to reduce it.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. — Kinglord1090
"Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering,"
Yes, that makes sense. — Kinglord1090
You are assuming that empathy alone is/could be the reason for working together to reduce suffering.
I believe this to be incorrect.
Suffering leads to slowed development.
In a world void of emotions, development and research is everything.
So, in order to maximize development, suffering will have to be reduced. — Kinglord1090
Yes, that is my position.So, your position is that even though emotional interest in suffering is greatly reduced; the drive to optimize will motivate people to relieve it. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a coherent idea. — Cheshire
But isn't that the point of hypotheticals?Predicting the effect of altering major variables in a macro structure is uncertain in principle. — Cheshire
Evolutions is a process of optimization, for it werent we would still have un-opposoble thumbs and tails.Consider that evolution itself is a process of optimization. If emotions were not in our interest, then shouldn't simply fade on their own? — Cheshire
Yes, that is a good point.It's arguable people might lose the capacity for dialectic thought if emotions are eliminated. — Cheshire
Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.Eliminating emotions would nullify half of the nervous system and seemingly undermine the conflict that drives human intelligence. — Cheshire
So, we should just mindlessly go around killing people and not use logic?emotions are more important than logic — MikeListeral
Ok, so, if I come to kill you and take your money, its ok to do so?and power is more important then emotions — MikeListeral
second comes emotions. an idiot with close foamily and — MikeListeral
Oh yes, of course, the power of friendship is stronger than an atomic bomb.an idiot with close foamily and friends will succeed better then a genius without. — MikeListeral
If people stop caring about money, the richest person in the world would be equal to a homeless person. — Kinglord1090
it is ok to kill someone for power? — Kinglord1090
Ok, and by the same logic, if anyone wants to kill you for power, its totally fine. — Kinglord1090
You can have your belief and I can have mine. — Kinglord1090
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 — Kinglord1090
I agree it's logical. You've placed optimization as a reason for ending suffering in an world without human emotions. One could debate the matter.I am fine as long as you agree that it is logical, as thinking about it logically is all i care about. — Kinglord1090
Actually not so much in this context; hypotheticals are used to illustrate a type of thing one might actually come across. By selecting one of such a massive scale there are plenty of directions that could be imagined, but ultimately it will be difficult to maintain a point of view with any justified confidence. It's the right idea just a very broad application in a semantically sensitive environment.But isn't that the point of hypotheticals? Imagining a situatuion and altering major variables with its macro structure and then trying to predict/imagine the effect using logic and moral explanations. — Kinglord1090
In actuality theology employs the same logical process but starts with some major assumptions. I don't think it's entirely accurate to portray religion as an activity of pure emotion. Drug addiction, perhaps.So, if religion isn't taking care of them, what is? Simple answer, logic. — Kinglord1090
Let me think about it.Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.
For example, if we had a hard disk which contained 50gb of emotions and 50gb of logic, and we deleted emotions, we will now have 50gb more space for more logic to be added. — Kinglord1090
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. — Kinglord1090
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. — Kinglord1090
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.