From the standpoint of human cognition, emotions are not a seperate or more primitive level of interpretation or decision making but are an innate part of our sapience which allows us to make value judgments and anticipate consequences in absence of sufficient information to make rational decisions. As Inner Stickler notes, a cognitive inability to intepret or manage emotions renders a person incapable of volition. (People with the Asperger’s Syndrome and on the autistic spectrum appear to lack the normal capability to interpret the behaviors of others in emotional terms and to manage their own emotional responses, requiring special conditioning and training to compensate in order to be functional in society even when they display otherwise normal intelligence as measured by IQ testing.)
As more is being understood about cognition and the activity of the brain by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) it actually appears that many of our daily activites and decisions are driven on an emotional level below conscious awareness (by viewing that all parts of the brain, and not just the forebrain, show incresed activity during processes invovled in higher cognitive work) and that much of what we view as rational behavior is actually post hoc rationalization of decisions or influence judgments that we believe to be entirely conscious in nature. For instance, you may think that you’ve deliberately decided what to have for lunch, but in fact the complex of ten billion odd neurons in your gut is signalling to the hypothalamus what it (thinks it) needs for homeostatic regulation of metabolism, which tells you to get delicious foods with lots of calorie-rich fats and starches instead of that bland dry salad you put in the back of the breakroom fridge. This totally makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint where you should eat all the calories you can get when they’re available, but not from a modern post-scarcity caloric lifestyle. If you haven’t made the habit of ignoring those pangs and eating the salad anyway you’ll make an excuse for getting that burrito (“I have to be social”, “I’m going to the gym later”, “I need the energy for that afternoon meeting”, whatever) that will seem completely rational at the time, and then only feel guilty about it after consuming the meal, and then repeat the whole cycle again tomorrow.
The major reason for emotional responses driving much of cognition is they allow us to anticipate future events based upon prior experience without having to directly recall the experiences or compile lists of pros and cons to consider. This is what lets you operate an automobile on the highway at 80 miles an hour and avoid someone who cuts across lanes without signalling or to intuit that the cute brunette on the seat opposite you on the train is shyly giving you attentive looks. (Whether she wants to have dinner with you or is just enthralled with the giant blackhead on the tip of your nose is a separate issue that you’ll have to figure out for yourself.) The brain does so much anticipating that it fills in the blanks for things you can’t see or hear, allowing you to make out a conversation on a crackling cell connection or move across the court to be in place to return a tennis ball before it even crosses the net. However, that can also be a problem or an opportunity for misdirection, as optical illusions and a magician’s sleight of hand aptly demonstrate, and can also create cognitive problems in the case of emotional trauma such as those which lead to PTSD and some personality disorders where the anticipatory reactions are not tied correctly to causal impulses.
Much of the advanced structure of the brain, and particularly that involved in sentience (self-awareness) and sapience (applying previous experience and a “theory of mind” to behavior of yoruself and others) appears to be build around such anticipatory responses, and I think it would be difficult to construct a path toward the evolution of cognition that doesn’t have some analogue to emotion to provide a basis for anticipation. Of course, that may just be a limitation to how we conceive of cognition, and an intelligent alien species might have some totally different way of ‘thinking’, but then we’d likely have little basis for communication or mutual comprehension of anything more than very fundamental physical principles, and the result certainly wouldn’t look like pointy-eared humanoids with an affectation to shaved eyebrows and bowl cuts.
Someone will no doubt come along and point out that Vulcans aren’t actually lacking in emotions and that they just restrain them by self-control and conditioning, but this still doesn’t really make much sense, nor is it consistant with the character of Mr. Spock, who often makes illogical and emotionally-driven decisions. (And yes, Spock is half-human, et cetera, ad nausum, but the conceit is that he controls his emotions like a Vulcan.) At best, Vulcans are very good at managing their expression of emotion and rationalizing why they do what they do, but fundamentally they’ve simply conditioned themselves from impulsive behavior and expression, and have developed a certain degree of mindfulness that permits deeper reflection and selflessness, or at least being able to consider the viewpoints of others. Which is something anyone can do to a greater or lesser extent with medication and mindfulness training.
The aliens of Star Trek are, of course, pretty much just singular human archetypes repackaged in improbably human-like forms complete with highly restrictgive monocultures and often openly racist physical and behaviorial characteristics. Exchanges with them are not anything like what we would anticipate meeting and trying to communicate with an intelligent extraterrestrial species would be, not withstanding the implausibility of biological and genetic compatibility with any extraterrestrial life.
Stranger
