I think the question is more: can there be a system complex enough to mirror the physiological effects of an emotion, but without a consciousness also experiencing it? Or does the complexity of that system, by definition, cause consciousness to arise? This is sort of getting into the "Philosophical Zombie" problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Thank you for the link, interesting stuff. I think about this all the time, it is interesting to see other viewpoints. I believe that everything we know, feel and are aware of in the universe requires some consciousness as an entry point. I also believe that there are different levels of consciousness, a computer is consciousness to some level but I think there things (emotions etc) that it can never be conscious of simply because everything in its reality boils down to 0's and 1's which I think can never encode happiness otherwise all of us would be happy simply by encoding that state in our minds.
Can you encode the state for '1 + 1 = 2' directly into your mind? How about the state for knowing the solution to the P=NP problem? It is clear that these states exist, but that doesn't mean we have the physical ability to put our brains in them directly. Why would happiness be any different?
Not to mention, there are people who at least claim they can feel at least certain emotions, such as serenity, regardless of the situation that they are in. It may be that with enough study, we ask could actually learn of a way to feel happiness regardless of external context.
IMO yes. Emotions could be thought as input into decision making process. They seem to be just black-box heuristic calculations that one sometimes needs to run inference with proper logic engine to decode correctly (other part of brain).
