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
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
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
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
They arent.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
Well, the way our body understands emotions is through chemicals and hormones. — Kinglord1090
Evolutionary theory is specifically and clearly non-teleological. You saidIts 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
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.If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.
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.I am pretty sure that the name Darwin would a ring a bell in everyone's ears.
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.Since, people without emotions are likely to only have the 2 fundamental goals, they wouldnt work towards anything else. — Kinglord1090
Not only that, you guys just keep saying the same things over and over again, even though I did give appropriate replies already. — 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.)I just want to talk about one topic, which I guess people still can't seem to understand.
Are emotionless humans really humans? — 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.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
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.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
It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness.There are a load of organisms that live on this planet who arent even capable of having thought or consciousness, — Kinglord1090
I believe that emotions have become unnecessary in this modern world, and that the future doesn't need it anymore. — Kinglord1090
"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.""It is very unlikely that any animal lacks consciousness. — Bylaw
Isn't that just proving my point more?And those replies led to criticism also. — Bylaw
A theist can say that people who dont believe in Gods arent humans.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. — Kinglord1090
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
I am not making a claim about anything.And look at this, mindreading. You are claiming to have knowledge of our internal mental states. All of us. — Bylaw
And all you have to do is not reply anymore.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
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. — Book273
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.