So, many messages, damn.
I wont be able to reply to all of these.
And I see, me saying we should end the discussion, since its not really going anywhere, didnt really work.
I will try to put some of my thoughts here, however, dont expect me to reply to all. (I apologize for that in advance)

I will try to translate this better, for once. I am translating this by how I understood it, so if its wrong, feel free to correct me.
@Book273 is trying to say that financially there are 3 types of people. Rich, middle-class and poor. The rich have worked at some point in tie to earn money. (Be it ethical or not). Middle-class people have to work constantly and work to earn money. And poor people have to work even harder. So, the government trying to help just the poor people (Poor including people who cant or refuse to work), is kinda unfair. Either everyone should be equally helped, or like Book273 said, no one should be helped at all.
I kinda agree with it. The meaning of equality is kind of subjective. So, giving a poor person chance to earn money is a way for equality to someone, while to someone else, helping just poor people is inequality.

Now, I would like to reply to some of @Nickolasgaspar's messages, because I liked their perspective.

Feelings are the result we get when we try to reason and understand our emotions. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok. Understandable. I have nothing against this at all.

So in my opinion, the opening statement should ask whether feelings are unnecessary and the obvious answer is of course they are. — Nickolasgaspar

No, the opening statement should be are 'emotions' necessary. You just explained what feelings are. Feelings are results or answer or conclusion. Emotions are the source. I was asking if that source is necessary.

That would be like trying to ignore our attempt to understand our emotions thus remove "meaning" from our thoughts and behavior. — Nickolasgaspar

I agree with half of this statement.
Yes, it is like trying to ignoring the attempt to understand emotions.
And I am all for that. I dont want to know about emotions, and I dont see how they will help, since we are talking about a world without emotions..... A world without 'emotions', wont have 'emotions'. So, there is nothing to understand about them. Since, they dont exist. Do you understand?
Now for the part which I disagree with,
Acoording to you doing so removes 'meaning' from our thoughts and behaviour.
First of all, this assumes that you know the meaning to thoughts and behaviour and life and basically everything. So, either you think you are God, or you didnt give a second to think about what you typed.
Secondly, 'meaning' of thoughts and behaviour, as well as of life, is subjective. If for you, removing emotions removes meaning, then for me, not working towards removing emotions removes meaning. So, that statement doesnt hold up.
Thirdly, even if we take your subjective meaning of 'meaning', i totally disagree that removing emotions will remove meaning, as you are assuming that emotions are the only part of human thought. Reasoning, personality, deduction, etc. are all as equal part of human thought as emotions. If anything they are a bigger part, as they existed longer and in more quantity than emotions.
So, no, removing emotions wont remove 'meaning'.

Now, some extra things,
@Joshs, you know that you agree with Mr. Nick, but your ego isnt allowing you to accept. You think that somehow, your answer has to be better than Nick's answer. If you here to just disagree with anything and everything you can see, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

Finally,
To @Bylaw,
You were literally the one who said to stop replying to this discussion, yet here you are rpelying to my message expecting me to answer.
As I said, if I get an email, I am likely to check it, and ending up coming here. For 2 months, I didnt receive any, and I genuinely thought no one was interested anymore.
But today, I received mails regarding to you replying to my messages, and I ended up coming here.
So, at the very least, please follow your own principles.

Necessary to whom and what does that person or those people have as values?
When were they necessary and to whom and for what purpose and according to what values? — Bylaw

There's literally liike atleast 20 messages explaining all of this, and I honestly tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I will reply to it one last time here.
*According to me, emotions are unnecessary to everyone, and people without emotions, have the same values as humans with emotions had, which werent related to their emotions.(Saying humans without emotions have no value, is like saying, orange juice without sugar doesnt have value and should be free of cost). If anything they have more value, as they wont do unethical stuff. Emotions were necessary for survival as they helped in rapid progress of humanity in a short amount of time. (They dont do anymore as we dont face existence threatening issues as much anymore).

Nicely said.
According to you, emotions are below conscience.
According to me, emotions are below the line of necessary.
So, they are unnecessary. (According to my reasoning that is)

-"No, the opening statement should be are 'emotions' necessary. You just explained what feelings are. Feelings are results or answer or conclusion. Emotions are the source. I was asking if that source is necessary."
-I don't think that we have a choice.....They come with the biological body we rock..lol
This is why I took the liberty and changed "emotion" with "feelings" because although we can not switch our reasoning of emotions completely of, we know that humans can be tried to either ignore them or dumb them down.
i.e. solders through training and combat can do things that emotionally would be impossible for many others. Also we see western women mourning the death of their only child for the rest of their lives while women in third world countries, lose a child and they keep on with their lives.
At least its the only question I find applicable to a real world scenario....since we can not have mental function without emotions.

-"Yes, it is like trying to ignoring the attempt to understand emotions.
And I am all for that. I dont want to know about emotions, and I dont see how they will help, since we are talking about a world without emotions..... A world without 'emotions', wont have 'emotions'. So, there is nothing to understand about them. Since, they dont exist. Do you understand"
-I guess you are making a "what if" hypothetical question...right?
Since emotions are currently accepted as fundamental for triggering any conscious state we have, I guess the answer to your initial question is no. Emotions are necessary in our mental functions as humans (and in animals). We even discovered primitive "emotions" in flies guiding their behavior.

-"According to you doing so removes 'meaning' from our thoughts and behaviour.
First of all, this assumes that you know the meaning to thoughts and behaviour and life and basically everything."
-No I didn't use that word in that specific meaning!. What I was saying is , we feel an emotion and we reasoning it in to a feeling. i.e. We are thirsty. So we find meaning in going out and buying a soda!
an other example. We feel an attraction to a person. Our behavior to approach and "win" her affection makes sense to us(is meaningful) if our goal is to satisfy that initial emotion(attraction). So "meaning" is what we "scan" our emotions for and "meaning" is what we see in our acts to satisfy it.
I.e. its not meaningful to eat when we are thirsty because the emotion will still be there after having a lunch.

This is the huge difference between AI and Biological intelligence. The first is guided by algorithms that are updated( try and error) with the intention to reach the defined goals set by the code, while the second guides an organism to select a behavior that makes senses(meaning) in relation to satisfying a specific emotion.

-"Thirdly, even if we take your subjective meaning of 'meaning', i totally disagree that removing emotions will remove meaning, as you are assuming that emotions are the only part of human thought. "
-Emotions trigger human conscious thought, they are not the only part of human thought. They are foundational (according to Neuropsychoanalysis) . Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion.
Almost all of our thoughts that pop in our brains an emotional underlying cause. From how we did last night at the bar, to being hungry, bored tired, nostalgic, happy, sad, anxious, responsible for a problem...etc etc.

-I don't think that we have a choice.....They come with the biological body we rock..lol — Nickolasgaspar

I guess you didnt read the entire discussion word by word properly, cuz we are assuming that a world without emotions exists. And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality.

I guess you are making a "what if" hypothetical question...right? — Nickolasgaspar

Duh.
Do you think there is a way to make humans stop showing emotions, peacefully?
As long as emotions exist, logic can be cast away. As long as logic can be cast away, peace cant be true.
The only exception is if every human only showcases good emotions only.
But we both know that wont happen.

Emotions are necessary in our mental functions as humans (and in animals). We even discovered primitive "emotions" in flies guiding their behavior. — Nickolasgaspar

This statement is just factually incorrect. Emotions arent necessary in our mental functions as humans.
I wrote a lot here, but it got deleted and I am bored, so I will shorten it.
Computers can do stuff better than us without emotions.

So "meaning" is what we "scan" our emotions for — Nickolasgaspar

Since emotions dont exists in our 'hypothetical', we have nothing to scan.
So, basically, you are saying that most of what you said was not related to the discussion.
Weird flex, but ok.

This is the huge difference between AI and Biological intelligence. The first is guided by algorithms that are updated( try and error) with the intention to reach the defined goals set by the code, while the second guides an organism to select a behavior that makes senses(meaning) in relation to satisfying a specific emotion. — Nickolasgaspar

My brain left the chat while reading this.
I dont know where you learned about AI from, but its literally about re-creating biological intelligence.
Both work on the same principles.
What you call 'algorithms' for computers, is what exists inside our brain as well.
What you call 'defined goals' is also taken from humans. As organisms, our brain doesnt work to satisy our emotions, it works to reach a defined goal. I feel weird that me(an organism), has to tell you(also an organism), about why we exist. Or rather, why we dont just go extinct. Its because we are meant to do 3 things. Collect info, breed, and pass on that info. All that to gain immortality. Before you think i am talking about some pseudo-science or some religious stuff, let me assure you that I am not.

Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion. — Nickolasgaspar

Bruh, did you even read this before sending?
Starts with - "Without emotions", Ends with - "Address that emotion"
Where did emotion come from?
You were supposed to assume they dont exist.
If there is no emotions, they is nothing to address, thus, nothing to understand about them.

Also, I have already said this before that this discussion has been closed.
Please look for another discussion or open one of your own if you want to further discuss it with people.

-"I guess you didnt read the entire discussion word by word properly, cuz we are assuming that a world without emotions exists. And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality."
-In order to evaluate whether that "world" would be better or worse without emotions....you need to use your feelings to see why it would be better or worse than this reality. And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you.
I am saying that the question is non sequitur.

Again, emotions arent the only thing humans have. Using logic also works. And i dont know about you, but humans for centuries have used logic to evaluate situations. So, no, emotions arent necessary for evaluation.

And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you. — Nickolasgaspar

Wouldnt, unable.
2 negatives, meaning you do agree that evaluation can be made.
But i know thats not what you meant.

Also, we arent evaluating it from the inside perspective anyways, as a world without emotions wouldnt have a reference of emotions to evaluate it from that perspective.

-"Duh.
Do you think there is a way to make humans stop showing emotions, peacefully?
As long as emotions exist, logic can be cast away. As long as logic can be cast away, peace cant be true.The only exception is if every human only showcases good emotions only.
But we both know that wont happen."
-I don't even know a way to remove emotions and still have human beings.
You can not have human reasoning without emotion because after a day or two you won't have any humans left. This is the foundation behind human conscious states where reasoning "lives".
How humans will survive from dehydration if they don't have the ability of producing the homeostatic emotion of thirst????
I can see your argument making some sense if you were referring to feelings but not with emotions.

-"This statement is just factually incorrect. Emotions arent necessary in our mental functions as humans.
I wrote a lot here, but it got deleted and I am bored, so I will shorten it.
Computers can do stuff better than us without emotions."
-Emotions are the driving force for our conscious states. This is what science tells today.
Try listening to Mark Solms lectures on the new Theory of Consciousness and what mechanisms are responsible for the flow of thoughts in human brain.
Mark Solms is the founder of Neuropsychoanalysis and the author of a groundbreaking paper on understanding the mechanism of dreams.

-"Since emotions don't exists in our 'hypothetical', we have nothing to scan."
-Correct without emotions, you won't be able to know that your environment doesn't provide food and shelter for you and you would die on the spot. So Again this hypothetical is scientific ignorant and useless. In fact you are talking about a reality without sentient beings....and without sentient thinking beings evaluation judgments do not exist. So my objection is on your hypothetical. Its pseudo philosophical in my opinion.


-"My brain left the chat while reading this.
I dont know where you learned about AI from, but its literally about re-creating biological intelligence.
Both work on the same principles."
-Yes I have heard that arrogant claim before. The principles are the "same", the way we make reason and make decisions is different. We assign meaning to everything, while algorithms are executed based on the set goals.

-"What you call 'algorithms' for computers, is what exists inside our brain as well."
-Sure I can agree with that, the different though is on how you make decisions...through meaning.

-"What you call 'defined goals' is also taken from humans. As organisms, our brain doesnt work to satisy our emotions, it works to reach a defined goal."
-Yes this is what Homeostasis and Thirst(emotion) do. But then you have reasoning telling "I will have a coffee, but it is late and the caffeine will keep me up all night, but Annie will be here this evening and se loves that brand of coffee...." and in human reasoning things "bubble" really easy and most if not all are fueled by reasoning our emotions and finding meaning in our actions.


-" Without emotions we won't have organisms trying to understand what it means to feel that way and what he/she should do to address that emotion. — Nickolasgaspar
Bruh, did you even read this before sending?
Starts with - "Without emotions", Ends with - "Address that emotion""
-I really don't know why this is so difficult for you ! Stimuli(organic or environmental) produce Emotions. Emotions are addressed by the center of symbolic thinking and reasoning where concepts emerge and we make sense of the stimuli through our mental models(memory, pattern recognition etc) that we have been constructing since we were infants and as thinking agents we decide how to address that stimuli/emotion....usually irrationally, by trying to find a quick fix.

-"Where did emotion come from?
You were supposed to assume they dont exist."
-They do exist and we can not get rid off them. This is why I believe this hypothetical is scientifically ignorant on the role of emotions as foundation for human cognition...so we are just practicing pseudo philosophy by talking about it.

-"If there is no emotions, they is nothing to address, thus, nothing to understand about them."
-...and without emotions we wouldn't be alive since we wouldn't be able to address our essential needs! lol So I can not see the value of making a scenario of a sentient beings without emotions and talk about reasonable behavior. If we really want to see a world without emotions...just look at the moon!

-"Also, I have already said this before that this discussion has been closed.
Please look for another discussion or open one of your own if you want to further discuss it with people. "
-What do you mean "I have already said that this discussion has been closed". what does it MEAN?
Is this thread under North Korean type of rules? What happen to our democratic western societies?
Is this a general rule of this platform that when the guy who opens the thread call it off everybody should stop posting their opinions?
I really don't get the "meaning" of your statement sir. Pls educate me if this is indeed a rule of this platform and I will unsubscribe at once!

-"Again, emotions arent the only thing humans have."
-I agree and this is why I never said that!

-"Using logic also works. And i dont know about you, but humans for centuries have used logic to evaluate situations. So, no, emotions arent necessary for evaluation."
-Again without emotions informing us for our basic needs and drives we would have been extinct.
I think you are confusing "sensationalized feelings" with the foundational role of emotions in human survival.

And if such a reality existed, you wouldn't be unable to make any evaluation on how that world appears to you. — Nickolasgaspar

"Wouldnt, unable.
2 negatives, meaning you do agree that evaluation can be made.
But i know thats not what you meant."
-So you reason and find a meaning to what I said. Try that in an algorithm...lol!

"Also, we arent evaluating it from the inside perspective anyways, as a world without emotions wouldnt have a reference of emotions to evaluate it from that perspective."
-Well you literally wrote , I quote "And the discussion is about how it will be better or worse than reality."
So you are trying to make an evaluation from a different perspective......and what perspective would that be? I think this is the more important point we can discuss....define and analyze that perspective!

Unnecessary or not, those are there and in my consideration the only guidance I found to do not get overcome by them is to act in acordance of my conscience.

Bruh. Now all you are doing is saying baseless statements without giving any reasons to anything.
I am not interested in discussion with someone who cant give proper reasoning behind their statements.
So, I am out.
Also, by saying the discussion is closed, I mean, I am not going to be replying to any messages anymore, so even if you want to talk in this discussion dont tag me.

Tell me, which world do you prefer,
A world with emotions that exists with pain and suffering as well as happiness.
Or
A world without emotions that exists with eternal peace.

No arguments here, just a choice.

Well, I wont be coming back to this site for quite some time probably, so I am just gonna say that I choose a world with eternal peace, even though by some people who dont use reason it is also a world without humans, i will take it over seeing people suffer.
We were never meant to exist. The probability of all of what is happening right now is lower than 1%. We are nothing in comparison to the universe. If to have life, is to have suffering, then i dont want it.

I think, we don't have a choice and if we do ever have anyone by twisting our bodies with some trickery in genetics or farmaci. To this I just could say no, not for me. I prefer to handle by myself my emotions. However if we talk about an imaginative situation, then I take the emotions. Otherwise it will get too boring.

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. — Kinglord1090

No it doesn't.
Unsubstantiated claims are just that.
What you believe is not evidence of anything.
There are many possible logical reasons for killing people. Have you heard of psychopaths and their regard for other human beings? They have no regard for them.

I would recommend reading up on Antonio Damasio and his contributions to the cognitive neurosciences. In fact, you're probably good reading ANY scientist invoplved in the cognitive sciences to come to the understanding that 'emotions' and 'logic' are NOT mutually exclusive items.

Have fun :)

HAHA!! :D

The nihilistic tendencies of youth ;)