When talking about our feelings and a sense of morality, most materialists/atheists will tell you that these are evolved traits, 'artefacts' of natural selection. That ultimately, there is no such thing as morality, except within the sense of those organisms affected by the evolution of altruism, which have been 'programmed' (for lack of a better word) to be 'kind' and 'good' to one another, sometimes.

But how might the onset of such a new awareness/knowledge affect humanity, especially if it becomes prevalent? That is, if an intelligent human becomes conscious that his feelings are being imposed upon him/her by biological processes, then why shouldn't he/she willfully reject such feelings? That is, why should he/she remain an obedient slave to them?

Certainly, conscious thoughts and will are strong enough to control one's emotions. So, in principle there's no reason why we couldn't 'shake them off'.

It occurs to me, though, that an organism without feelings for his fellow man, would be completely selfish, which must be detrimental to his survival, not to mention our survival. So, is this indeed a 'dangerous idea' after all?

Seriously?

jamest wrote:But how might the onset of such a new awareness/knowledge affect humanity, especially if it becomes prevalent? That is, if an intelligent human becomes conscious that his feelings are being imposed upon him/her by biological processes, then why shouldn't he/she willfully reject such feelings? That is, why should he/she remain an obedient slave to them?

Certainly, conscious thoughts and will are strong enough to control one's emotions. So, in principle there's no reason why we couldn't 'shake them off'.

It occurs to me, though, that an organism without feelings for his fellow man, would be completely selfish, which must be detrimental to his survival, not to mention our survival. So, is this indeed a 'dangerous idea' after all?

1) We achieve enjoyment through our emotions, so that's one reason to keep emotions around.
2) I think we can condition ourselves to feel less, but it's not easy, and it's not guaranteed to be effective all the time, unless maybe we cut chunks out of our brain or something similar.
3) As you note, emotions are extremely useful for social animals, and not just in an enjoyment sense.

I'm a Stoic, so I do think we should blunt the hell out of a good deal of our emotions to the extent that we can, save for the ones that are useful to enjoyment (though even those I prefer to rein in a bit, so that we don't fall into an insatiability loop).

Animavore wrote:Seriously?

The problem is, we 'robots' have the capacity to control/reject our feelings. Hence, if those feelings are imposed upon us and do not reflect the state of reality as a whole, why remain obedient to them? Why not shake them off?

So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:Seriously?

The problem is, we 'robots' have the capacity to control/reject our feelings. Hence, if those feelings are imposed upon us and do not reflect the state of reality as a whole, why remain obedient to them? Why not shake them off?

So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

More like why shake them off? They work for the most part (except when they don't).

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:Seriously?

The problem is, we 'robots' have the capacity to control/reject our feelings. Hence, if those feelings are imposed upon us and do not reflect the state of reality as a whole, why remain obedient to them? Why not shake them off?

So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

We can? So if I was to shoot a loved one dead right in front of you you could just turn off your feelings about that? Are you a Vulcan?

Loren Michael wrote:
1) We achieve enjoyment through our emotions, so that's one reason to keep emotions around.

We also 'achieve' misery through our emotions. Indeed, people are jumping off bridges as we speak.

2) I think we can condition ourselves to feel less, but it's not easy, and it's not guaranteed to be effective all the time, unless maybe we cut chunks out of our brain or something similar.

It's not easy, but it's doable. That it would require a sustained effort is not a reason not to want to retain emotions.

3) As you note, emotions are extremely useful for social animals, and not just in an enjoyment sense.

Yes, this point is true. But then, why would/should 'a robot' care about any of it?

Ultimately, if morality/emotions are forcing you to act this way or that, do you think that it is dangerous to know this, given that you have the capacity to reject this force?

jamest wrote:So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

So what's your preference? Special knowledge allowed only for an elite of some stripe or eradicated completely?

Rome Existed wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:Seriously?

The problem is, we 'robots' have the capacity to control/reject our feelings. Hence, if those feelings are imposed upon us and do not reflect the state of reality as a whole, why remain obedient to them? Why not shake them off?

So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

We can? So if I was to shoot a loved one dead right in front of you you could just turn off your feelings about that? Are you a Vulcan?

I'm not a materialist/atheist. But if I was, I would have to reconcile myself with the meaninglessness of it all. Or, not think about it too much, and remain the slave that I've always been.

jamest wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:

jamest wrote:
The problem is, we 'robots' have the capacity to control/reject our feelings. Hence, if those feelings are imposed upon us and do not reflect the state of reality as a whole, why remain obedient to them? Why not shake them off?

So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

We can? So if I was to shoot a loved one dead right in front of you you could just turn off your feelings about that? Are you a Vulcan?

I'm not a materialist/atheist. But if I was, I would have to reconcile myself with the meaninglessness of it all. Or, not think about it too much, and remain the slave that I've always been.

My attitude towards the meaningless of everything is So fucking what?
I don't know why you think meaning in the universe, outside of your own life, is important.

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:So yes, the notion that we are robots is potentially a dangerous idea.

So what's your preference? Special knowledge allowed only for an elite of some stripe or eradicated completely?

As most people know, I'm an idealist. For me, none of this is an issue - my feelings and sense of morality emerge from me, as opposed to them being imposed upon me.

I'm just asking questions. There are consequences to all mindsets. It occurrs to me, that the consequences of accepting the mindset of materialism/atheism, are dire. We are (according to this mindset) evolving into self-aware robots. Ones that have the capacity to escape their programming.

That's dangerous.

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:

We can? So if I was to shoot a loved one dead right in front of you you could just turn off your feelings about that? Are you a Vulcan?

I'm not a materialist/atheist. But if I was, I would have to reconcile myself with the meaninglessness of it all. Or, not think about it too much, and remain the slave that I've always been.

My attitude towards the meaningless of everything is So fucking what?

So what? Well, it's a meaningless existence and yet you're a slave to imposed meaning. Gonna do anything about that?

I don't know why you think meaning in the universe, outside of your own life, is important.

Meaning is only meaningful if it's of relevance to everything, imo. I don't want to help the old grannie cross the road because I am compelled to do so. I want to do it because it's right.

We can no more escape our programming as we can suffocate ourselves by holding our breath.

And there are already people with no morality. They are called sociopaths, and they make up an estimated 4% of the human race. The telling thing is when one is found there is no recourse. There is no cure and no treatment because nothing can be done for them. They have no conscience and never will. The same can be said for us in reverse.

Everything from the growth of the internet to how many children you have is decided for you by external factors and your own biology. Pretending that you can escape it through force of will or something is ignorant to how our "programming" really works.

jamest wrote:So what? Well, it's a meaningless existence and yet you're a slave to imposed meaning. Gonna do anything about that?

Nah. Too lazy.

jamest wrote: I want to do it because it's right.

What if the aul bat doesn't want your patronising help?

jamest wrote:As most people know, I'm an idealist. For me, none of this is an issue - my feelings and sense of morality emerge from me, as opposed to them being imposed upon me.

But in this thread you have started with different premises. Please continue from these.

I'm just asking questions. There are consequences to all mindsets. It occurrs to me, that the consequences of accepting the mindset of materialism/atheism, are dire. We are (according to this mindset) evolving into self-aware robots. Ones that have the capacity to escape their programming.

That's dangerous.

I'm just asking questions too. Given the dire consequences you foresee for the situation that you have presented here, what is your preference for the handling of this knowledge?

jamest wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:
1) We achieve enjoyment through our emotions, so that's one reason to keep emotions around.

We also 'achieve' misery through our emotions. Indeed, people are jumping off bridges as we speak.

2) I think we can condition ourselves to feel less, but it's not easy, and it's not guaranteed to be effective all the time, unless maybe we cut chunks out of our brain or something similar.

It's not easy, but it's doable. That it would require a sustained effort is not a reason not to want to retain emotions.

3) As you note, emotions are extremely useful for social animals, and not just in an enjoyment sense.

Yes, this point is true. But then, why would/should 'a robot' care about any of it?

Ultimately, if morality/emotions are forcing you to act this way or that, do you think that it is dangerous to know this, given that you have the capacity to reject this force?

I don't think our emotions are a package deal. It's not an all-or-none problem. As I noted in the bit you cut off at the bottom, I think we should do what we can to avoid the negative emotions while retaining the ones that give us enjoyment.

No, I don't think it's dangerous to be aware of how we are affected by emotions. I think it's actually extremely useful.

Is this another "life without the objective morals of gawd is empty and meaningless" type thread?
Excuse me, I have babies to eat before they get cold.

Control emotions? Really? So you can just decide to be happy or sad then? Wow! Please let me know how this works. A cure for depression & mania awaits, as does a Nobel Prize.

trubble76 wrote:Is this another "life without the objective morals of gawd is empty and meaningless" type thread?

No it's not. That's just what you want & need it to be, so you can focus upon that instead of the consequences of your own thought.

jamest wrote:
I'm just asking questions. There are consequences to all mindsets. It occurrs to me, that the consequences of accepting the mindset of materialism/atheism, are dire. We are (according to this mindset) evolving into self-aware robots. Ones that have the capacity to escape their programming.

That's dangerous.

It's like realising that language is just a bunch of rules and conventions that allow us to mediate thoughts to one another. The word 'tree' is not a tree. It's just a sound that we use to describe something that we English speakers have been programmed to associate with a particular set of objects in the world.

But now that I know it's just a programming convention, I can choose to escape my programming. I will now use whatever word I want to express my thoughts:

Dog mundy over anana bbbook fjjffj '1'kd. Under gloo. bob.

Oh wait, if I just disregard the rules, conventions and programming, that I've inherited by being raised in this social system, then I won't be understood by other people in this social system. The consequences of escaping that programming would suck. Oh well, cancel the escape.

chairman bill wrote:Control emotions? Really? So you can just decide to be happy or sad then? Wow! Please let me know how this works. A cure for depression & mania awaits, as does a Nobel Prize.

^This too.