Will our species evolve to an emotionless state?

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

But if this actually did happen. Would we as a species not deem governments as illogical and therefore be removed from existence.
Government is there to govern those who need it. When all the species are logically driven then the need for police/army/government will be removed.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

But if this actually did happen. Would we as a species not deem governments as illogical and therefore be removed from existence.
Government is there to govern those who need it. When all the species are logically driven then the need for police/army/government will be removed.

There wouldn't be a government as we know it today. probably more like a arbitrating counsel. Sometimes theirs more then 1 logical choice to be made for the same problem, And even in a world of logic there would be disagreement that needs to be arbitrated.

a reply to: VP740

The idea of a best possible outcome isn't exclusively driven by emotion. The rules of chess are driven by logic. These are set rules where certain pieces can do certain things with the goal of the game is to win or draw. Whatever is logically the best option.
Now those playing chess play with emotion. However take chess paying computers. They play purely with logic and are more effective for it. A computer playing a chess master is a mixture of logic and emotion. Whereas a computer vs a computer will create a perfect game. Why? Because every move will be the best logical move. No emotion.

Now imagine a world like this. No mixture of logic and emotion. Just logic with logic. Would it literally be a perfect game/world?

a reply to: Tjoran

I don't think any governing body would be required. Yes the idea of logic decision making will be different for every individual. But the idea of individual decision making is usually driven by emotion, for what more beneficial for the self. However when decisions are affecting others it will be logical for the decision makers to come together and make the best logical decision together. There would be no need for a governing body to overlook this. This would be wasteful and illogical to the process as the individuals will automatically come to the best outcome for the whole. A nest of ants may provide some structure for a logic orientated society. Everyone will be working together for the logic advancement of the species. If it is local for the species to remain as it is and not progress and further then a society of maintain mentioned will be put in place.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Your example is the best example for a non-perfectable game. To our computer technology, there are still enough limits so that a complete game-tree can't be calculated in a given timeframe. And this with only 32 pieces and very fixed rules..

Now extrapolate that to a system with a near-infinite number of pieces and conditions/states. Unsolvable.

P!=NP.


And btw, let me be the very first to hail our great new leaders, the Robots!
(just in case)

originally posted by: Tjoran

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: liteonit6969

"We would think logically without letting emotions hinder the best possible outcome."

How do you have a best possible outcome without emotion? Without emotion, what would you care about religious wars or any other problems? A world without emotion would be a world where extinction is no better than survival. No one would care one way or the other.

I think long term thinking and encouraging desire for healthy sustainable life styles would be more in line with evolution. As in Chess, emotions aren't very good for deciding moves; but how do you set the goal without them?

I don't think that's the case. Just as a race of robotic artificial life forms could be programmed with the desire to reproduce and continue existence, Humans ARE programmed with this base desire. I don't think emotion really comes into it in that respect.

Emotions are a very influential part of human programming. Yes, we could program machines to do things without emotions or desire; how do you decide what they do without emotions influencing the decision? I see no inherent reasoning that requires self propagation for its own sake.

What goals do you imagine being pursued in this emotionless world?

originally posted by: VP740

"We would think logically without letting emotions hinder the best possible outcome."

How do you have a best possible outcome without emotion? Without emotion, what would you care about religious wars or any other problems? A world without emotion would be a world where extinction is no better than survival. No one would care one way or the other.

I think long term thinking and encouraging desire for healthy sustainable life styles would be more in line with evolution. As in Chess, emotions aren't very good for deciding moves; but how do you set the goal without them?

I don't think that's the case. Just as a race of robotic artificial life forms could be programmed with the desire to reproduce and continue existence, Humans ARE programmed with this base desire. I don't think emotion really comes into it in that respect.

In this context, Assume when I say desire I mean a genetic need programmed into our DNA.


Edit: Think i broke formatting somehow

a reply to: Tjoran

Sorry, my post was unfinished when you responded. What goals do you think would be pursued without emotional drive. What pure logic demands the accomplishment of these goals?

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Tjoran

Sorry, my post was unfinished when you responded. What goals do you think would be pursued without emotional drive. What pure logic demands the accomplishment of these goals?

Sorry about that quick reply! hehe.

Hm, The need to self replicate is it's own logic, At least to build up to the point were we don't need to replicate any further (Think immortal). Wouldn't that be the most logical goal? Keep going until we don't need to nay more?

a reply to: Tjoran

What requires us to keep going? Depression (marked by a lack of emotional strength), often leads to suicide.

a reply to: Tjoran

It would be illogical to allow unlimited breeding. It's the whole species who see this as they all think logical. This would make me think that sex would be removed all together and when it seemed logical to breed only selected sperm compatible with carefully selected eggs will be chosen. The idea of family may be deemed illogical also. This would bring it the idea of children being raised in education institutes. This would prove logical as it would be better to educate and shape the minds of children to maximise the potential of the working mass. It would be completely illogical for a huge number of people to remove themselves in order to raise children.

Wow from my emotional based view this is looking very much like a terrible place. But from the view of this logic driven species it would be the most efficient way to progress a species.

a reply to: liteonit6969

You fail to allow for the larger impact of pure intelligence on general behavior. We tend to think of terms such as empathy and compassion as emotions. They are not emotions. They are intellectual responses to stimuli. They are not limited to humans, however, empathy and compassion can be found in many lower animals. (Perhaps why we fail to accept them as mere rather than for what they really are.) The more intelligent (read wise) a creature becomes, the more empathy and compassion can be a hallmark of intelligence while the old raw emotions of hate and rage are bypassed as misdirection acts of basal "intelligence."

When we are without emotion we also lack compassion and love. How would our society be if we are all emotionless sociopaths? I'd rather not find out.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Straight away Im thinking Vulcan.

But also an amoeba. An amoeba exists without emotion. Its sole purpose is to procreate/split, nothing more, nothing less.
What does it need to accomplish this? A suitable environment, thats all, nothing more, nothing less.
It is illogical for it to do anything else. It doesnt "need" anything else. It is safe, it exists. Its logical.

Anything beyond its "needing" is a "want". A "want" is always accompanied with an emotion, (eg. envy, covetness, lust) stemmed from a feeling of "lack of" or a "desire to". This is illogical to an amoeba, so the amoeba stays in a perpetual state of sameness/stasis.

Unless its environment changes.
Then it adapts to its environment and repeats the process. This requires no emotion only logic.

It doesnt create anything, no art, no music. It doesnt invent anything, it doesnt write novels. It doesnt need to. And it is unaware of "want". It is logical.
It doesnt need to express itself in any way. Expression is full of emotion.
Remove expression and thus emotion and we become like the amoeba. Stagnant, unchanging, non-evolving.

I dont want to be an amoeba

I like my illogical emotions...

Seriously though, without emotion there is no compassion or empathy, joy or love. We become cold, calculating, sociopathic automatons.

No thanks

Star and flag. That got my over emotional illogical brain working..

a reply to: Aliensun

How do u know these emotions aren't limited to humans? By YOU a human observing characteristics you associate as human?

I'm not saying there will be no emotion as in zero. What I am meaning to say is just having 1 emotion on the vast emotional spectrum. Perfectly in the middle between happiness and sadness. The feeling of nothing almost. So although I say emotionless I should really say the some kind of mono-emotion. No emotional change. A perfectly stable emotional state. No happiness no sadness. Nothing to cloud a judgement or decision in a decision making.

Joy, pleasure, happiness are emotions. If you have no emotions, then you simply exist, like a machine, you can't enjoy life and therefore your life is completely pointless.
This movie illustrates the problem pretty brilliantly:

I just want to quickly add that although this state of logical thinking without emotion it is not some kind of created robot. It is the human species which has evolved through time to a place where emotional instability gradually is removed from our dna.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the idea of chemistry is perfect balance and stability. Would this idea of no change in emotion almost emotionless not be seen as a stable and perfectly balanced state. I understand it sounds robotic and without love etc. But in terms of basic chemistry and biology is create perfect balance and stability.

a reply to: mkpetrov

Yes I agree with you. But we are emotionally driven species. In the terms of nature is the idea of perfect balance and stability not what is wanted on every level?

a reply to: liteonit6969

So emotionally balanced would be a better description for what you're thinking than emotionless? People becoming harder to offend, less likely to become depressed etc... but also harder to excite? Kids would be less interested in video games and action shows, and it would be easier to get them to do their homework? It seems possible.

Are you expecting evolution to continue to be primarily natural? I think eugenics and engineering will play a strong role in generations to come (probably called by different names). Have you considered other branches sprouting from the human race (like the Eloy and Morlock)?

If you had the sort of resources depicted in GATTACA, what sort of offspring would you go for? What characteristics do you think the wealthiest one percent would want in their descendants?

a reply to: liteonit6969

Maybe, but I really have no feelings about this (or anything else)...