At 4/13/09 01:44 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: I already am apathetic, and rather robotic. I do not have that much emotion either. In my eyes, this would be my perfect life.

This Is the problem. To have emotion is to be human, therefore you sound like you would rather be machine than person. I may hate humanity, but I must accept that I am human.

At 4/13/09 02:04 PM, Bighead8 wrote:

At 4/13/09 01:44 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: I already am apathetic, and rather robotic. I do not have that much emotion either. In my eyes, this would be my perfect life.

This Is the problem. To have emotion is to be human, therefore you sound like you would rather be machine than person. I may hate humanity, but I must accept that I am human.

Why accept you are human? You have the very depths of human depravity, and can you not say that a robotic society would be so much better? I know I may be human, but it does not mean that I must keep hold of the negative aspects of my humanity. Much better to replace them with cold, hard logic.

At 4/13/09 01:24 PM, aninjaman wrote:
But emotions exist for a logical purpose. We developed them through evoloution.

Evidence???
A logical purpose for emotions? My....asss... its frigin hilarious how this evolution theory switches back n forth, how the fuck would emotions ensure reproduction? Seems like out emotions get in the way alot don't they? I stress about this evidence, since there is none.

Heres the other funny story, evolutionists believe in random chance right? Well they say cells n organisms as well as evolution are random chance, sometimes, they don't even understand their own theory, well how does random chance come up with things that are able to do anything let alone survive?

Its no surprise why an intelligent designer would be the most logical path.

(getting onto the topic a bit)
But sadly we humans have the will to do what we want n thats where all the bad shit comes from, noe alt of people would bitch about that n say "free will doesn't exist" then I shoot them in the head, lol not really, I don't bother with those people.

At 4/13/09 02:07 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Why accept you are human? You have the very depths of human depravity, and can you not say that a robotic society would be so much better? I know I may be human, but it does not mean that I must keep hold of the negative aspects of my humanity. Much better to replace them with cold, hard logic.

Why Accept I am Human? Hmmmm. Maybe because I am and always will be. You are too. And no, a robotic society may function better, but human emotions have changed the world, and not just for the worst. Most of humanity is stupid and sucks, but it is the smart, dedicated ones that are worth living.

At 4/13/09 02:26 PM, Bighead8 wrote:

Why Accept I am Human? Hmmmm. Maybe because I am and always will be. You are too. And no, a robotic society may function better, but human emotions have changed the world, and not just for the worst. Most of humanity is stupid and sucks, but it is the smart, dedicated ones that are worth living.

Unfortunatly I am human yes, and as such I, as well as you, am capable of horrific acts, which would furthur pull down society. I agree with your post, partly due to the fact that I strive to be one of the smart and dedicated ones.

Finaly, and slightly off topic, shaggytheclown17, I do not want you to come in to this thread, and ruin it with your illogical creator arguments, so kindly fuck off.

Of course I must add, I too consider myself a smart and dedicated person. But we must remember intelligence and dedication can lead too evil far worse than evil caused by stupidity and ignorance. The difference is stupidity and ignorance cannot lead to great good.

At 4/13/09 02:43 PM, Bighead8 wrote: Of course I must add, I too consider myself a smart and dedicated person. But we must remember intelligence and dedication can lead too evil far worse than evil caused by stupidity and ignorance. The difference is stupidity and ignorance cannot lead to great good.

Yes, just like the expression the bigger they are the harder they fall. The key is to ground yourself sufficiently as to not to fall. That is almost, if not more important than dedicating yourself in the first place.

For the first since this all started, I agree with you. By the way off topic, I must thank pyromaniac616 for starting this conversation, it has been quite fun. Anyway, it is true you must keep yourself grounded or you will lose yourself in the chaos.

At 4/13/09 12:54 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

At 4/13/09 12:44 PM, Ytaker wrote:

His logical mindset is due to his lack of social skills. If they behaved like him, then they would not have social skills. There's a trade off between logic and emotion, and large benefits to emotional.

Given the choice, I would be logical, no matter at what expense. I have no social skills anyway.

So I am similiar to him in a few ways, and in mindsets.

There's a place for people with the ability to manipulate logic. Scientists, mathematicians, the host. But if everyone was like you, the grease would fly off the wheels of society. Social interactions are much more important to a groups survival than pure logic.

Emotion is just some very sophisticated behavioural automation that makes complex decisions for you. Quite often, your emotion will be a better judge of a situation than you, because the situation will be new and novel to you, and while your emotions are evolved to deal with it, you don't know the logical thing to do.

Everyone knows, of course, of the stereotype of the intellectual who cares more for ideas than people. A lack of emotion can cause problems. If that intellectual is your local policeman, say, it would suck.

At 4/13/09 02:56 PM, Ytaker wrote: There's a place for people with the ability to manipulate logic. Scientists, mathematicians, the host. But if everyone was like you, the grease would fly off the wheels of society. Social interactions are much more important to a groups survival than pure logic.

Yes, but a society of people like me would regulate each other. One of us does something illogical, another of us penalises them.

At 4/13/09 02:59 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

At 4/13/09 02:56 PM, Ytaker wrote: There's a place for people with the ability to manipulate logic. Scientists, mathematicians, the host. But if everyone was like you, the grease would fly off the wheels of society. Social interactions are much more important to a groups survival than pure logic.

Yes, but a society of people like me would regulate each other. One of us does something illogical, another of us penalises them.

It would be illogical to risk yourself, especially if the harm wasn't directed at you. Best to keep to your own business doing logical things.

Logical thinking is flawed. If you only think logically than it would only take someone who can think illogically to beat you. Before you argue, which someone probably will, think about it, if you can.

At 4/13/09 03:10 PM, Bighead8 wrote: Logical thinking is flawed. If you only think logically than it would only take someone who can think illogically to beat you. Before you argue, which someone probably will, think about it, if you can.

That is why this is a currently hypothetical situation.

One problem I see is that logically an individual will do whatever is in his best interest, even if that interest is to the detriment of the state and its government. Of course, the individual will act in the interest of the state from time to time, possibly even more often than not, because often the interest of the state coincides with one's self-interest. Regardless, the only logical solution to such behavior is its extermination through whatever means necessary; therefore, any individual whose pursuit of their self-interest harms the interest of the state will be neutralized (not necessarily killed but removed from society). Unfortunately, if everyone acts purely through logic, everyone will, therefore, act in their self-interest to the detriment of the state. At which point, everyone must be neutralized. Also, a major conflict of interests emerges when the interest of the state and one's self-interest diverge. The state must logically neutralize any deviations from the interest of the state, but the killing of deviants, which will be everyone eventually, is detrimental to the state. In that case, the state must neutralize itself. Although the irony of this is that situational logic is the answer to these quandaries.

At 4/13/09 03:10 PM, Bighead8 wrote: Logical thinking is flawed. If you only think logically than it would only take someone who can think illogically to beat you. Before you argue, which someone probably will, think about it, if you can.

I definitely agree. But, I would say that in such a situation (being a situation in which you must defeat someone using pure logic) being illogical is the logical thing to do.

At 4/13/09 03:22 PM, Shintogoru wrote:
I definitely agree. But, I would say that in such a situation (being a situation in which you must defeat someone using pure logic) being illogical is the logical thing to do.

Whils't that is a paradox, it may be right, but it is possible to realise that logicaly you need to defend yourself.

Some people say they don't want to be robots, and therefor reject a society centered around logic.

What do you think you are now?

Spoiler: You are already a machine. A machine made out of 'organic' materials. A bio-machine.

Just because we could all have no more emotions and nothing but logic one day does not mean we will no longer stimulate our senses on purpose. People will still have sex with eachother or with a device because it feels good and stimulates our brains. People will still want our food to taste good. People will still want to protect eachother.

Besides, what could there possibly be bad about not having emotions? It's not like you know what they are in the first place when you are born in a world without emotions with never having known them, now do you?

At 4/13/09 04:24 PM, Aughiris wrote: Some people say they don't want to be robots, and therefor reject a society centered around logic.

What do you think you are now?

Spoiler: You are already a machine. A machine made out of 'organic' materials. A bio-machine.

The obvious difference is that robots and other machines we've made only perform operations they were specifically programmed to perform, not really anything else outside of their given parameters. Are WE "programmed" to do things? Sure, of course we are... except paradoxically, the language our instructions are written-in is more precise than any human-created language by orders of magnitude whereas our eventual functional operation itself is less specific by orders of magnitude.

In any case, I think when some people claim (however few actually have) they'd actually prefer to be like emotionless robots that's just codeword for "I'm deathly afraid of interpersonal relationships." I mean, It's easier to completely avoid a potential problem than it is to meet it head-on and try to hash things out from there... whether it's dealing with people and their irrational emotionality, dealing with addictive substances, or dealing with anything else for that matter.

At 4/13/09 02:21 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 4/13/09 01:24 PM, aninjaman wrote:
But emotions exist for a logical purpose. We developed them through evoloution.

Evidence???
A logical purpose for emotions? My....asss... its frigin hilarious how this evolution theory switches back n forth, how the fuck would emotions ensure reproduction? Seems like out emotions get in the way alot don't they? I stress about this evidence, since there is none.

You want evidence? Check out how emotions like fair and anger acts on animals and helps them to survive any dangers.

At 4/13/09 04:24 PM, Aughiris wrote: Just because we could all have no more emotions and nothing but logic one day does not mean we will no longer stimulate our senses on purpose. People will still have sex with eachother or with a device because it feels good and stimulates our brains. People will still want our food to taste good. People will still want to protect eachother.

Pleasure is an emotion. People often do stupid things just to pleasure themselves. In a world where logic is the only judge, pleasure is redundant and even dangerous, so it is useless. We will no longer have sex. We will also no longer search for tasty food and be satisfied with easy and cheap ways out. If we find filthy sludge to be nutritious and healthy enough to sustain us and it can be mass produced, this would be logically preferred over icecream.

Logic is a lose word. The government may call it logical to have absolute power, a society whose every move is controlled by the higher ups. In this sort of society, opinion and free thinking could drive citizens to call for a form of revolution. The government would call this illogical, but the revolutionaries would call it the only logical thing to do. Logic is opinion based. Logic, is the final opinion people reach after reviewing both biased sides of an argument, then deciding which one is correct. In a government run by logic, the government is then in turn run by the opinion of what the powerful people believe is logical. You can't really use the word logic, as for a government to be illogical would mean that the government is run by opinions that are thought of by the controlling powers as incorrect.

At 4/14/09 02:06 AM, Fierce-Deity wrote: Logic is a lose word. The government may call it logical to have absolute power, a society whose every move is controlled by the higher ups. In this sort of society, opinion and free thinking could drive citizens to call for a form of revolution. The government would call this illogical, but the revolutionaries would call it the only logical thing to do. Logic is opinion based. Logic, is the final opinion people reach after reviewing both biased sides of an argument, then deciding which one is correct. In a government run by logic, the government is then in turn run by the opinion of what the powerful people believe is logical. You can't really use the word logic, as for a government to be illogical would mean that the government is run by opinions that are thought of by the controlling powers as incorrect.

In other words, the results of ANY logical process depend entirely upon what the starting values are.

So? Garbage in... garbage out.

At 4/13/09 05:24 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

In any case, I think when some people claim (however few actually have) they'd actually prefer to be like emotionless robots that's just codeword for "I'm deathly afraid of interpersonal relationships."

Not necessarily, and not emotionless. Some emotions are good, but emotions like anger are not. If people are jaded and cynical enough of the world and humanity, then surely becoming more robotic is good.

At 4/14/09 05:54 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Not necessarily, and not emotionless. Some emotions are good, but emotions like anger are not. If people are jaded and cynical enough of the world and humanity, then surely becoming more robotic is good.

Every emotion serves a purpose and can be channeled in a productive manner, even anger. Love and anger are probably the two most effective and impelling emotions people have. Like everything else in the world, neither are good or bad in-themselves, it's all the different ways we use them that can individually be considered good or bad.

"Becoming more robotic" is dumb, sorry.

At 4/14/09 10:46 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

"Becoming more robotic" is dumb, sorry.

Why?
A "robot" is completely undefined. We're robots if you stretch far enough.
So presumably, in the future, we can make robots like us, but better. Robots who can use less energy and be more efficient at every task.
Robots that are smarter than us and capable of experiencing more things.

In short, strictly better beings.

At 4/14/09 10:55 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/14/09 10:46 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

"Becoming more robotic" is dumb, sorry.

Why?
A "robot" is completely undefined. We're robots if you stretch far enough.
So presumably, in the future, we can make robots like us, but better. Robots who can use less energy and be more efficient at every task.
Robots that are smarter than us and capable of experiencing more things.

In short, strictly better beings.

LOL gay.

A robot isn't "undefined", lol what are you even talking about? I've seen you use online dictionaries before so, please don't drag me through this stupid process with you again.

Data from Star Trek doesn't exist nor does his Emotion Chip, the movie "I, Robot" is a fairy tale, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is too. Presumably, in the future, Will Smith will save the world, then Keanu Reeves will, and then Will Smith will save the world again. That will promptly be followed by Keanu Reeves saving the world again too.

Oh and like, holograms and stuff. Oh wait we have those already nevermind YOU'RE RIGHT lol ugh

ok wait, i'll make an amendment to all that --

being a robot would be awesome if and only if the robot i could be is MEGA MAN.

Mega Man is like the Highlander of robots.

all ur special powerz are mine

At 4/14/09 11:07 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

Data from Star Trek doesn't exist nor does his Emotion Chip, the movie "I, Robot" is a fairy tale, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is too.

Well.
For now it is. I don't see any reason why, in the future, you couldn't enhance humans to the point of blurring the line completely between robot and animal. AND MANIMAL, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME OF ALL.

Man I just remembered how incredibely shitty 2001: A Space Odyssey is. What a terrible, terrible movie. The first 15 minutes is just actors in crappy monkey suits screaming.

15 minutes. Holy shit.

How would evolution apply to a species of robots.

At 4/14/09 05:54 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

At 4/13/09 05:24 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

In any case, I think when some people claim (however few actually have) they'd actually prefer to be like emotionless robots that's just codeword for "I'm deathly afraid of interpersonal relationships."

Not necessarily, and not emotionless. Some emotions are good, but emotions like anger are not. If people are jaded and cynical enough of the world and humanity, then surely becoming more robotic is good.

Yes. It's bad to be angry at things like poverty, misgovernment, rape, and murder. Very bad.

It's not like being angry at those things could every catalyse change.

(hint, anger helps.)

At 4/14/09 11:59 AM, Ytaker wrote:
Yes. It's bad to be angry at things like poverty, misgovernment, rape, and murder. Very bad.

It's not like being angry at those things could every catalyse change.

(hint, anger helps.)

And what happens when ypur anger goes over the top? You can kill things. I have never heard of people being killed from being overly happy, and generaly, anger is a bad emotion. I agree with poxpower about animals and robots.

One of my threads has actually now got 3 pages!