The Human Rock

[Nestharus]

I am starting to think that a bi-product of being virtually emotionless is enlightenment..

I say bi-product though, because it is more in a sense of absolute death that it occurs, rather than living in search of separating desire from will. Absence of desire is true when there is no desire to begin with, or much of a will. In this sense, that type of person can be likened to a rock, unmoving, unchanging, only acted upon but never acting. The rock never responds to any around it, it just sits there and lets the world pass by.

In the case of a human rock, the human might do things simply to pass the time, rather than out of a true desire to do that thing. This type of person would be fine just sitting there for days on end waiting to die. They wouldn't quite care either way. and would, like the rock, be carried about by external factors. For example, an animal wants to play, so the human rock plays with the animal for no better reason than to simply do it, not enjoying it in the slightest, but not aggravated either.

Is it possible for such an entity to exist in the world without relying on anyone for support? I say probably not, if at all, for people work to satisfy their own desires and responsibilities, and a human rock, lacking desire and responsibility, may only work because the work is there to be done, and because work must mostly be chased after, the human rock will never have work in front of it because they will never look for the work. In this way, the person will simply and eventually die, not out of suicide or desire, but simply because they stop eating/drinking since there is no work for sustenance.

on the happenstance that misunderstanding(s) should arise
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1752439-post25.html

 

[ZirzoR]

wow.....just wow...this really got to me.

i basicly am this kind of person, the only emotion i have left is happiness, and thus i want to live for it i dont care about anything else but having fun because its the only thing i have left in this world.

so judge me all you want people of the forum, but this man got to me and this is how i am


GL & HF.

 

[Nestharus]

Living to have fun is living for something, and working to sate happiness spawns the desire to do various activities that might make you happy.

I think you meant to say

modified

i basicly am this kind of person-> the only emotion i have left is happiness, and thus i want to live for it i dont care about anything else but having fun because its the only thing i have left in this world.

On my own belief, I don't quite think that the "human rock" is something to aspire to. It is a life of feeling empty but seeing nothing that could possibly fulfill you. I've actually solved the train of thought that leads to this type of person as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the job you are currently working for or working at. It is your dream, your goal. The job seems fantastic, you love it. Will there come a time when you grow tired of that job? Probably. Will you be working that job until retirement (and far after you grow tired of it)? Probably. In this way, as soon as you grow tired of your job, it becomes a torturous routine with no way out. The only possible way to justify the job is to have some sort of hobby outside of the job, something to live for, but people can easily grow tired of any hobby. In fact, once they see similarities between hobbies, they grow tired of them even faster. At this point, everything becomes a tiresome routine, empty, and unfulfillable. What about friends and family? Why do friends and family make people happy? Obsessions, like all things, end eventually. People slowly grow tired of each other's company, and that same person can manifest the same types of meetings over and over again. Finding spice to make everything nice doesn't solve the problem: the two+ people have grown tired of each other. Going away for a long time in hopes of missing someone might result in that missing sorta feeling, but going back would only be disappointment: it's the same old crap. New encounters can be fun, but there are only so many social games or social dealings in the world, so eventually, no matter the person, it becomes the same old same old. Traveling to a new area can be fun, but why on earth would you want to see a landmark? Is it going to drastically change your life in some way? Is it really worth the $3000?? On another note, is it really worth working a job that you hate for the rest of your life just to enjoy "the small things," mediocre things that only last for an instant and might occur once a week (if that). Is it worth putting in 40+ hours to enjoy that small, tiny, insignificant moment? Who are you kidding, of course it's not!! Joy in material possessions also doesn't last. You are going to grow tired of it quickly. What seemed so fantastic 10 minutes ago when you first bought it doesn't seem as great now. You begin wondering, "what is really worth the money?". Possibly, possibly not. In that regard, what is worth buying? Is there anything that will just be so grand that you're going to love it forever? Probably not. Why even buy it then? Does spending $100.00 on something that'll hold your attention for possibly 1 day seem like a good idea? Not really. What should money be spent on? Things that make you happy? What could possibly make you happy? Things eventually become tools so that you can do your job better, or do this better, or do that better, but none of those activities, and certainly not the tools, actually make you happy. Without happiness, what is there to live for?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above train of thought can eventually lead a person to grow detached, lose their goals/desires, and sort of become empty. Eventually, they also lose emotion (an uncaring nature does not raise emotion in any regard. The emotion may be present within the individual, but nothing can stimulate it).

They may spend their entire lives debating on why they are living in the first place if they have nothing to live for and could not possibly live for anything (once lost in that train of thought, it's impossible to go back, because no argument can overcome it). We are then left the the "human rock," a person that does what happens to be there for no particular reason, uncaring, detached, and just waiting to die, all the while internally debating on why they want to live to begin with. Eventually, they end their debate, realizing they are entirely content with how things are. Without desire, emotion, or anything else, they can be regarded as enlightened, but in reality, they have internally killed themselves (they died the moment they stopped their life debate because that was the moment they 100% stopped caring), turning into objects and losing their humanity (no longer living****). You could kill these people for fun to sate some desire and it wouldn't matter because they wouldn't care since they're already dead on the inside with no hope of revival.

Is there a cure for this ailment? An argument to overcome their's, which doesn't exist.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Can't believe I read all that. Only thing that was revealed to me was OP is attention whoring like in his other thread regarding emotions.

OP, go do one of the three:

A) Cry in the corner
B) Write a blog
C) A then B

I HATE threads like this, because it just shows the OP is rather pretentious. I don't care about your "I have no emotions" crap, I live in reality okay?

The only way you can have NO EMOTIONS is to carve out half your brain, reducing you to a REAL human rock, except you won't do anything at all because you're brain dead. Emotions are controlled by significant portions of your brain, including the deep limbic system, the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate gyrus, basal ganglia and temporal lobes. If you take out these things that's like you're literally dead, human emotions are linked to human functionality.

And also, your situation is HEAVILY influenced by perspective. My cousin loves doing his job every day, and he has a good time with his friends and family. I have friends whom I've known since I was like 3-4, and I still enjoy being their 13 years later. As much as I hate to admit, I don't grow tired of my family. Maybe occasionally I wish I was a single child, but that's natural stuff. I also enjoy wasting my money on overseas trips, wasting my money to go sight seeing. Because they provide memories of good times that last a long time, so yes, that cash is worth it. Its as you say, material possessions doesn't last, memories last very long though, even if we lose it or forget it, that memory remains stored in our brain (though if you lose the temporal lobes I think you'll the ability to remember since it controls memory).

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Memories last a long time, and then you die =p

 

[Nestharus]

Actually, the above is how I normally talk when I talk philosophy. I'm not trying to be eloquent, that's my plain speech... that's how I talk in real life too when I talk about anything serious... the first post was actually cnp'd from my ramblings in a chatroom, so believe me when I say I wasn't putting anything extra in there ;P.

Now back to the topic ;D.

->The human rock could never exist as it has a mental defect that pretty much kills you.
So, let's modify the theory a bit then to change it into a more realistic human rock. Why is it that they play with an animal? Why is it that they eat. Perhaps they do these things to sate their body, but only with minimal effort (they're not going to go out in search of food if it even requires an iota of work on their part). Perhaps the human rock is the epitome of laziness coupled with a lack of desire other than those desires spawned from the impulses of the body?

 

[Tyranid]

Now back to the topic ;D.

->The human rock could never exist as it has a mental defect that pretty much kills you.
So, let's modify the theory a bit then to change it into a more realistic human rock. Why is it that they play with an animal? Why is it that they eat. Perhaps they do these things to sate their body, but only with minimal effort (they're not going to go out in search of food if it even requires an iota of work on their part). Perhaps the human rock is the epitome of laziness coupled with a lack of desire other than those desires spawned from the impulses of the body?

As said above laziness ISN'T the lack of emotions, it's the lack of MOTIVATION. People are lazy because they lack MOTIVATION to do something. This usually manifests as NEGATIVE FEELINGS towards the thing they're supposed to do, but are lazy about it.

The Human Rock is a nonexistant creature with a fatal disorder.

 

[mrzwach]

Is it possible for such an entity to exist in the world without relying on anyone for support?

well maybe if you consider attention whoring on a forum to be not relying on anyone for support, yeah
otherwise no.

Anyways, you probably aren't "virtually emotionless", more like apathetic + pessimistic. Pretending you don't have emotions doesn't make them not exist.

 

[Nestharus]

This debate wasn't about me at all, it was about the concept of the human rock, what may be driving such an entity, and what could cause such an entity to come to exist ; ).


I personally found the topic intriguing, but if you guys don't, then that's fine too ^_^. Although, it begs to question why you'd be posting on a thread you were uninterested in ; P.

 

[Vosty]

Why the fuck is everyone trolling Nestharus for sounding (or trying to sound) intelligent? Would you rather he be a dumb fuck?

Anyways, I find this topic quite intriguing, but like everyone else, I think this type of emotional emptiness would be fatal. To simply "do" is not possible to me. One who simply "does" is a puppet, a shadow of a man. This is no human being.

 

[Devine]

Actually, I believe that these threads are progressive, slowly finding the way to their final conclusion.

Yeah. Go make a progressive forum of your own that you can spam with bullshit topics as much as you want. But don't do it here.

 

[L2love]

Don't blame the trolls blame the person who put this discussion in off topic zone and instead of tower.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Problem being, OP isn't trying to make an intellectual topic with serious discussion, so much as he is attempting to draw attention to himself, and trying hard to impress people with a wall of text and acting like he's something special by creating these threads.

In addition, he brings up really ridiculous ideas, which goes against reality.

 

[Icedrake]

He's not in Tower, which is why I was suggesting for him to join it. Seriously though, is all the flaming really necessary? The author is not being offensive with this topic, and for some reason, all some people are doing (not going to list any names here, but I think we know who) is flaming the author. If all you are going to do is troll in a topic, just don't bother.

At InfiniteSeven that responded a minute before this: How do you know that he is trying to draw attention to himself? Also, your opinion of him bringing up ridiculous ideas is just that. Your opinion. What you have to realize is that you are not the only one here with an opinion, and that it is not necessary to resort to trolling to state your opinion. If you had just simply said that you dislike this idea/topic at the beginning, instead of starting a long chain of flames, your idea would have shown up much clearer.

Just my two cents.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

He's not in Tower, which is why I was suggesting for him to join it. Seriously though, is all the flaming really necessary? The author is not being offensive with this topic, and for some reason, all some people are doing (not going to list any names here, but I think we know who) is flaming the author. If all you are going to do is troll in a topic, just don't bother.

At InfiniteSeven that responded a minute before this: How do you know that he is trying to draw attention to himself? Also, your opinion of him bringing up ridiculous ideas is just that. Your opinion. What you have to realize is that you are not the only one here with an opinion, and that it is not necessary to resort to trolling to state your opinion. If you had just simply said that you dislike this idea/topic at the beginning, instead of starting a long chain of flames, your idea would have shown up much clearer.

Just my two cents.

Your two cents is way off though.

I'm not stating my opinion that he's bringing up ridiculous ideas. I'm stating facts, human functionality is linked to human emotions, that's how the brain works and is structured physically. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Thus its ridiculous that there's this thing that's pretty much a corpse that's being described, because it pretty much has no brain at all. Just show me a real person with evidence that he/she is this corpse with no brain, that would prove me wrong.

I know he's attention whoring because he could sum up everything in like, a paragraph. Instead, he's attempting to sound intelligent, stating things which aren't true, like, for example, his linking of laziness and lack of emotions and the fact that he's writing giant, complicated posts that could fit half an essay.

Second, I never said I was the only one with an opinion, no idea where you got that off. The fact is, OP is over glorifying all this when he can't even answer to my arguments against his 'idea', and all he's trying to do is just impress people with a giant wall of complicated text, when he could just sum it briefly and simply into one tiny paragraph. He's just being pretentious and conceited, acting like he's extremely eloquent.

And you know, I dislike conceited people who try to push their perceived greatness onto others. Go tell me off all you want, still won't change the facts.

 

[Nestharus]

->I'm not stating my opinion that he's bringing up ridiculous ideas. I'm stating facts, human functionality is linked to human emotions, that's how the brain works and is structured physically. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Thus its ridiculous that there's this thing that's pretty much a corpse that's being described, because it pretty much has no brain at all. Just show me a real person with evidence that he/she is this corpse with no brain, that would prove me wrong.

Before treading further, you should build solid grounds on which to stand. I state this because you don't understand the premise of why the individual is void of emotion.

The grounds on which to stand embodies the idea that a person is emotionless only if that which stimulates emotion does not exist.

Now that the grounds have been erected, I suggest you head back and redefine your understanding of the theory that is the "human rock."

--------------------------------------------

Argument on no emotion (touched on in expanding post)
axiom: "without desire, emotion cannot be stimulated."

Argument on the human rock (enlightened or dead?)
Refer to post 1.

---------------------------------------------

Currently, we are arguing whether the first is even possible. People seem to have ignored my entire argument on this matter, simply presenting their own. This is why I have, for the most part, ignored what was stated in regards to emotion, since it was completely disconnected from that which was presented.

The next argument, which has been unconventionally coupled with the first, is that of the human rock. Many have argued that the first is an impossibility, thus the latter can never happen.

Now that most of us are hopefully of similar mind, let us commence hand in hand to the conclusions of these theories, if, that is, anyone is still interested.

 

[Darkzealot_128]

Even if Nestharus is apparently an 'attention seeker' and a 'boaster' we don't need to treat him/her so badly. It is only a thread and I think you guys should cut him/her some slack, who do you think you are, saying that someone can't post something off-topic in the off-topic section? Guys troll me all you want, but i'm still on Nestharus' side.

Ontopic: And no I don't think the human rock could exist because as said, you wouldn't be a human if you didn't have any emotions because humans live on desire and it wouldn't be right to not have any happiness or sadness. And people are ignoring your posts too because we all have to admit they are so DAMN long. =/

 

[Nestharus]

Please, before this progresses any further, refer to post #25.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

So, much fail. If Nestharus is indeed looking for attention, then you are doing EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO DO. If you don't like the thread then go somewhere else. Don't make posts in threads you aren't interested in.

Now, I doubt Nestharus is doing this for attention. And this thread should be here in OT, because too few visit Medivh's Tower.

To be honest, it would seem that the ones accusing Nestharus of attention whoring are attention whoring themselves.

Now go munch on these pictures, you trolls:

images

 

[Anachron]

I completely agree with TRD and Nes.

The thing I am asking myself:
Where the hell is the connection between society and feelings?
Like how do the different stations interact.

But I guess that is just impossible to know yet.

 

[Icedrake]

Your two cents is way off though.

I'm not stating my opinion that he's bringing up ridiculous ideas. I'm stating facts, human functionality is linked to human emotions, that's how the brain works and is structured physically. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. Thus its ridiculous that there's this thing that's pretty much a corpse that's being described, because it pretty much has no brain at all. Just show me a real person with evidence that he/she is this corpse with no brain, that would prove me wrong.

What you don't seem to understand is that I was not referring to the content of this topic in my post. I was talking about how your reference to this topic as 'ridiculous' was followed by a long chain of trolling/flaming caused by you and Devine against the author, which was completely unnecessary and childlike.

I know he's attention whoring because he could sum up everything in like, a paragraph. Instead, he's attempting to sound intelligent, stating things which aren't true, like, for example, his linking of laziness and lack of emotions and the fact that he's writing giant, complicated posts that could fit half an essay.

If you give us some proof to back this up, then we might believe you. However, you don't have any proof to back this up, and yet you still say that he is an attention whore that is trying to sound intelligent. Maybe he is intelligent, you can't prove if he is or if he isn't. Anyhow, it is his right to post what he wants (in accordance to the rules), since this is the off topic section. If you don't want to read his posts, then just don't and go do something productive with your life. All you are doing is trolling, which is in no way helping the topic out.

Second, I never said I was the only one with an opinion, no idea where you got that off. The fact is, OP is over glorifying all this when he can't even answer to my arguments against his 'idea', and all he's trying to do is just impress people with a giant wall of complicated text, when he could just sum it briefly and simply into one tiny paragraph. He's just being pretentious and conceited, acting like he's extremely eloquent.

You really didn't understand anything in my post, did you? When I said "You aren't the only one with an opinion", that was not to state that you were the only one with an opinion. It was to show you that you shouldn't express your own opinion with trolling and flaming, and do it decently, which you obviously didn't. You were ignoring things from any other side of view, but your own, and pushing your opinion. If you think that he is doing everything you stated in the quote above, then just ignore it. There is no need to come here and flame the author about it.

And you know, I dislike conceited people who try to push their perceived greatness onto others. Go tell me off all you want, still won't change the facts.

He was never trying to push his "perceived greatness" onto others. That is your interpretation of the topic, and it is for that reason that you trolled the author. You were the one that thought he was trying to push his "perceived greatness" onto others, and there are some people here that don't think that. No offense, but your attempt at trying to defend your trolling doesn't seem to be working out.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Sounds like somekind of depression to me.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I believe the concept being conceived here is not unlike the Buddhist concept of Nirvana, in which one loses all desire and, consequently, all suffering. I personally don't believe in it, because I believe desire, like all other emotions, are instincts as deeply rooted within our bodies as breathing. Not unlike respiration, it's a scientific necessity for our survival, endowed to us by millions of years of ancestor animals that have survived through these exact means.

Don't blame the trolls blame the person who put this discussion in off topic zone and instead of tower.

If you don't care about something and don't want to contribute anything, you shouldn't reply to it. Is this a concept that should be limited to one small subforum? No, it shouldn't.

 

[Nestharus]

Well, the actual argument likens this state to internal death (hence "human rock")

Your thoughts?

 

[Pyramidhe@d]

what msbb said prety much sums it up. this is budhism or Enlightenment. whatever the case

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Well, the actual argument likens this state to internal death (hence "human rock")

Your thoughts?

A person who has no desire is no different from a person who cannot think at all. Even if he has the ability to process thoughts, he hasn't the desire to do so, and so even involuntary actions are merely thinking for the sake of thinking. Such a person would be dead, or at least comatose. My understanding of psychology is shady at best, so I wouldn't know what could actually be going on inside the mind to make this possible, but I doubt such a person can maintain a conscious state of being.

 

[Rui]

I know, from experience, with Devine, at least, that you care little for other people, so I'm wondering what reason do you have, since there's nothing in it for you, to try to stop the author from getting the attention -- or whatever he intends to get with this thread -- that he wants other than being evil for the sake of it.

As for the first two posts, you might want to revise what you wrote there because sometimes it has a few errors there making it confusing and/or incoherent. I also suggest adding paragraphs.

I'll be posting my thoughts on the subject later.

~Thread cleaned

 

[Nestharus]

Yea, the second post was something of a ramble ;D, lol...

Anyways, I think everything stated concludes that people have emotion, but emotion only occurs if it's stimulated ; P. Without stimulus, people don't feel. This means, that based on a person's views, they may feel or think certain things. Thus, someone who is emotionless is more of someone who lacks desire and is disconnected. By being disconnected, nothing can stimulate their emotion because nothing is close enough to them to do it. Why would someone cry over something they care nothing about?

It is as simple as that.

Another interesting topic could be emotions generated by the amygdala in conjunction with thoughts. One without emotion can't remember anything. The stronger the emotion, the stronger the memory. This further proves that those perceived as emotionless only don't feel things because their emotions aren't stimulated.

And tx Rui. I was just ignoring all of the posts, hahaha.. I didn't think they were ehh enough to merit a report ; P.

The thread looks much better now ^_^.

There are still a few posts from the side fight, like Reborn's: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1752473-post18.html, but rawr : P. There is this one too http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1752549-post20.html.

Off topic posts ftw ;D.

 

[HQCosTheta]

If anyone has ever taken a philosophy class they would know that these are the ideas brought up every day. They are exercises in thought meant to expand the barriers of your mind. It may be an impossible suggestion and it may be an incorrect conclusion but an idea it is. Philosophy is like that. In a moral philosophy class we were asked if it was wrong to kill a man for simple pleasure if you did it on the moon where you were within no national borders and the law did not apply. There is no correct answer, there is no wrong answer. The purpose of the question is to stimulate thought.

Now, to business,

I am starting to think that a bi-product of being virtually emotionless is enlightenment..

I say bi-product though, because it is more in a sense of absolute death that it occurs, rather than living in search of separating desire from will. Absence of desire is true when there is no desire to begin with, or much of a will. In this sense, that type of person can be likened to a rock, unmoving, unchanging, only acted upon but never acting. The rock never responds to any around it, it just sits there and lets the world pass by.

In the case of a human rock, the human might do things simply to pass the time, rather than out of a true desire to do that thing. This type of person would be fine just sitting there for days on end waiting to die. They wouldn't quite care either way. and would, like the rock, be carried about by external factors. For example, an animal wants to play, so the human rock plays with the animal for no better reason than to simply do it, not enjoying it in the slightest, but not aggravated either.

Is it possible for such an entity to exist in the world without relying on anyone for support? I say probably not, if at all, for people work to satisfy their own desires and responsibilities, and a human rock, lacking desire and responsibility, may only work because the work is there to be done, and because work must mostly be chased after, the human rock will never have work in front of it because they will never look for the work. In this way, the person will simply and eventually die, not out of suicide or desire, but simply because they stop eating/drinking since there is no work for sustenance.

If this human rock would do the work laid out in front of it simply because it was there, void of emotion, would it not be at the very least compelled by physical discomfort to seek out sustenance and therefor be capable of survival? What is life if not a chore to be done? In this case lack of emotion is irrelevant. Single celled organisms function, live and feed of their own accord with no emotion.

Additionally, the human brain has many safeguards, and many more that have yet to be discovered, that are not controlled by conscious thought. A person may kill them self if during the process of conscious thought they deem they have sufficient will to do so but a human who is functional yet consciously dead (which is what I believe you are suggesting) simple preprogrammed instincts will override the anti-process you have described.

The only way to stagnate into nothing would seem to be a dominant desire to die.

A person who has no desire is no different from a person who cannot think at all. Even if he has the ability to process thoughts, he hasn't the desire to do so, and so even involuntary actions are merely thinking for the sake of thinking. Such a person would be dead, or at least comatose. My understanding of psychology is shady at best, so I wouldn't know what could actually be going on inside the mind to make this possible, but I doubt such a person can maintain a conscious state of being.

Well stated.

And tx Rui. I was just ignoring all of the posts, hahaha.. I didn't think they were ehh enough to merit a report ; P.

The thread looks much better now ^_^.

Yes, I found the ignore feature day before yesterday. It greatly enhances your Forum experience.

 

[Hugget Sukker]

Imagine you had no emotions and thereby no preferences, and on top of all that, you did not care if something was physically painful. Would you then prefer to stop eating, drinking, and breathing? No, because you do not have preferences without emotions, so how would you be able to prefer that over surviving?
Surviving is not an extra effort if you don't care. It's exactly as hard as the opposite (or easy). I can't imagine a prediction of what you would do if you were litteraly witohut emotions. It is really impossible for me to make a logical conclusion. I find it to be a dilemma.

 

[Nestharus]

Well, a person like this has emotion, but they are so detached that the emotion is never stimulated (conclusion on argument 1). A person without emotion is an impossibility. Without emotion, they would not even be able to remember anything.

->What is life if not a chore to be done?

Let's look at it from another angle (one I recently adopted). This other angle will show the eventual and final outcome for a person in this situation.

Since this person is detached, they don't do things for the sake of others. In fact, interference by others could be regarded as a nuisance. Interference by anything, even the aspect of living, would be an annoyance. In this regard, they may feel emotion, but it'd be an ebbing irritation.

This would be an anti-social person. They wouldn't care if people died around them. They wouldn't care if they died. This person would only do things on a whim, no real motivations of their own. They wouldn't really enjoy anything, and because of this lack of enjoyment, they'd end up having no desire. Give them $1,000,000 and they'd never spend it or care. Tell them you love them and they'd reject you outright. This is the type of person who rejects all life and is annoyed by any prospect of living.

The only thing that could possibly stoke this person is something radically out of the ordinary: an emotional shock. However, these out of the ordinary things would only be momentary, and ofc the person would quickly grow tired of them.

So what is their final and most logical outcome? To commit suicide when life is too much of a bother. Why live when you get nothing out of it and care so little for others that you would never live for the sake of them.

People who know this person would hate them and their attitude. Their own family might tell them to drop dead. Ofc, this wouldn't phase them in the slightest.

Another possible outcome is that they'd pick an age to die (the last out of the ordinary thing). This might excite them. They might think, woo, that'll be the last day I live. They might even start laughing to themselves, happy, marking it on their calendars. Ofc, on that day, they would die, stubborn and rejecting life the entire way, happy in their final moments out of screwing everybody over in their final battle against the aspect of living.

What do you guys think? : P

 

[HQCosTheta]

Well, a person like this has emotion, but they are so detached that the emotion is never stimulated (conclusion on argument 1). A person without emotion is an impossibility. Without emotion, they would not even be able to remember anything.

->What is life if not a chore to be done?

Let's look at it from another angle (one I recently adopted). This other angle will show the eventual and final outcome for a person in this situation.

Since this person is detached, they don't do things for the sake of others. In fact, interference by others could be regarded as a nuisance. Interference by anything, even the aspect of living, would be an annoyance. In this regard, they may feel emotion, but it'd be an ebbing irritation.

This would be an anti-social person. They wouldn't care if people died around them. They wouldn't care if they died. This person would only do things on a whim, no real motivations of their own. They wouldn't really enjoy anything, and because of this lack of enjoyment, they'd end up having no desire. Give them $1,000,000 and they'd never spend it or care. Tell them you love them and they'd reject you outright. This is the type of person who rejects all life and is annoyed by any prospect of living.

The only thing that could possibly stoke this person is something radically out of the ordinary: an emotional shock. However, these out of the ordinary things would only be momentary, and ofc the person would quickly grow tired of them.

So what is their final and most logical outcome? To commit suicide when life is too much of a bother. Why live when you get nothing out of it and care so little for others that you would never live for the sake of them.

People who know this person would hate them and their attitude. Their own family might tell them to drop dead. Ofc, this wouldn't phase them in the slightest.

Another possible outcome is that they'd pick an age to die (the last out of the ordinary thing). This might excite them. They might think, woo, that'll be the last day I live. They might even start laughing to themselves, happy, marking it on their calendars. Ofc, on that day, they would die, stubborn and rejecting life the entire way, happy in their final moments out of screwing everybody over in their final battle against the aspect of living.

What do you guys think? : P

I believe a great deal of those options are contradictory to the human rock's nature. It would not be shocked if it had no emotion, it would not enjoy the thought of death, it would not enjoy sticking it to others nor would it have the drive to do so as it fills no need. Committing suicide is an action requiring of dedication which it lacks due to it's disinterest in any outcome.

Life for the human rock would be short. Inactivity would atrophy it's muscles and heart. The inability and disinterest would prevent any form of self defense from physical attack the human rock has. In the event no danger would come, the human rock would wither and die. It's heart would atrophy, shrink, and therefore be required to beat faster to maintain blood flow and eventually stop entirely, worn out, and tired. it's body emaciated by minimal food intake, it's stomach atrophied and shrunk, unable to properly digest food. Blood pressure would not be a constant. The human rock would suffer extreme migraines, not that it would care.

 

[Nestharus]

Aye, but the human rock is an impossibility. In realistic terms, the person would have emotion (albeit never stimulated). My theory is that this would create a conflict: meaningless acts irritating them.

Sure, if they did not have an emotion, your scenario would be valid, but realistically speaking, I think that they would slowly grow irritated by everything.

This is the problem they are faced with. What they want is nothing, meaning that everything that happens to them is something that they don't want. The human drive is to seek out what we want. Seeking out nothing, they are left confused as to what they want, but keep coming to the realization that they want nothing. This could result in insanity, murdering and destroying everything about out of sheer rage. If they remain calm, they will begin to hate everything around them (although never killing or destroying, perhaps out of a logical reason that there is no point to it, it doesn't solve their own dilemma). In a final act of confrontation against life, they might pick a day to die, and then kill themselves.

 

[HQCosTheta]

If it was capable of emotion but detached...

Hmm.

I think there is a real world parallel here. I met a dude like this in a group therapy session. It's hard to be objective. He basically wanted to be left alone and raged on everybody. He always looked like he was trying to hate you to death. I wasn't in the group long but I know he was on suicide watch because they took his shoelaces away. From what I heard I think he was the lone survivor of a car accident or something...that was the common belief anyway.

After I met that guy I opted for one on one sessions.

There was a girl in the group that looked like a melting candle...she was in a house fire and her body was 75% covered in burns. She was kind of cool.

Wow, that place is coming up a lot in conversation recently.

I digress.

I must mull this over.