MattMVS7

I have interacted with people on forums who claimed that our basic emotions are just simply how we feel about things and nothing more. I revealed to them how they are the perception of value. But they denied this. If you want, I could give you the link to this discussion I had. Would that count as evidence? As a matter of fact, people claim that emotions in general do not allow us to perceive value and that they are nothing more than just how we feel about things. I can link you to the discussion which shows you this. Given this, I can't trust humanity when they make the claim that their morality, character, and intellect alone are higher emotions and a real source of value in their lives.

But people are in denial of their basic emotions though. They claim they don't allow us to perceive value when they really do. So, how do you expect me to trust humanity? Perhaps humanity is also in denial when it comes to their morality, intellect, and character being higher emotions and it being a real source of value in their lives.

I don't actually believe my idea. I am just sharing this idea based upon my own personal experience. Consider it a hypothesis. Also, there is the difference between what gives a person's life value and what this person is convinced of. So, just because I say that my positive, basic emotions are the only things that can give a person's life good value does not mean that I am convinced of this idea. This is just what gives my life value for now. I am open minded to the idea that I can somehow have an intellectual form of value in my life. But I am not sure if this is true or not.

Alright then. This would just be my own philosophy. Given this, I think it should have belonged in the philosophy section.

What makes you think it's false? Also, if you really thought it was false in the first place, then you wouldn't even be asking for evidence for my idea. I think you were open minded about it, but are now just ignoring my idea by dismissing it as false. When you feel a basic, positive emotion, this can be described as a sensation of pure joy and beauty since our positive, basic emotions give our lives beauty and joy. They give our lives good value. In order for our intellectual brain to give our lives good value, then it would have to experience a sensation of pure joy and beauty just like our positive, basic emotions. This would be no different than saying that, in order for our intellectual brain to experience real hunger and thirst, then it would have to experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst.

I was just wanting others to keep an open mind to my idea and not be convinced of anything just yet.

This has been my own personal experience and all I am doing here is wondering if I am telling the truth or not. I really don't know if I am lying or not.

Yes. But as long as they could feel the basic, hedonistic pleasures, then I consider that to be real pleasure. Hunger and thirst are basic impulses. But there is no intellectual form of hunger and thirst. Likewise, there are the basic emotions and I don't think there can be any intellectual form of emotions either. The intellectual brain alone just gives us ideas of things. It gives us the idea of colors, sounds, smells, heat, cold, hunger, thirst, and emotions. Sure, it can send the signals to different areas of the brain to allow us to see colors, hear sounds, smell certain scents, to make us feel basic emotions, and to make us feel hungry and thirsty if we thought of our favorite food or beverage. But the intellectual brain itself cannot experience any of those things. This would have to mean that our intellect, character, and morality alone cannot allow us to perceive any real value. It can only be our basic emotions that allow us to perceive value. Therefore, it can only be our basic emotions that give our lives value.

But there could really be no higher emotions and people are just living their lives by false beliefs. Just because people act certain ways and make certain claims does not make them true. For example, people in the past acted as though Thor was real and claimed that he existed. So, just because people act as though these higher emotions exist and claim they exist does not mean they actually exist. These people could be in denial of their personal experience regardless of what they say and how they behave. For example, hunger and thirst cannot be experienced through our intellectual brain alone since the intellectual brain does not experience hunger and thirst. But if someone has believed in a false definition of hunger and thirst, then it is quite possible that this person can believe that he is having an intellectual form of hunger and thirst just through thinking that he is hungry and thirsty. We as human beings are metaphorical creatures and I think we tend to sometimes believe metaphors are the real things themselves. A metaphorical version of hunger and thirst is not real hunger and thirst and neither is a metaphorical version of emotions any real emotions either.

Now, just to be clear on something. People put emotions into two categories. The 1st category would be the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation. Many people deem these as the shallow emotions. But then there are the higher emotions founded upon morality, character, and intellect. Even if a person couldn't feel the basic emotions, other people would still claim that this person can have value in his life through his higher emotions. I am not sure if these higher emotions exist. I don't think our morality, character, and intellect alone can be any real emotional state. I think it can only be the basic emotions that are the real emotions. I could be wrong though.

If positive emotions were the only good things in life, then it would have to be a good thing for every single human being to harm an innocent person if every person felt a positive emotion from that idea. Therefore, there would be no moral definition of good and bad and there would instead be an emotional definition of good and bad.

But if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing. This is the basis by which people reject my idea and that is why people conclude that, even if you were a depressed person, that making moral and intellectual choices would have to be a source of good value in your life even if that choice couldn't send the signal to those areas of the brain to make you feel good. The area of the brain I pointed out that makes us feel positive emotions would be the Nucleus Accumbens.

It's strange. But many people I have interacted with understood my posts and found them skillfully written and coherent. I think it all depends on who you are, your life experience, and your standards that determines whether you find my writing coherent, skilled, or not. Also, if you are agreeing with my idea that our positive, instinctive emotions are the only things that give good and beautiful value to our lives, then many people have rejected this idea because they would say things to me such as that, if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing. Thus, these people think there has to be something more to life than our positive emotions to give good value to our lives.

I don't think there are positive emotions founded upon morality and intellect though. I think it can only be the lower, basic positive emotions which are the real positive emotions. So, when he made the intellectual and moral choice to help his family, I am saying that this was just an intellectual and moral choice. I did not say he felt excited from that. If he did feel a positive emotion from that, then he would be having two positive emotions going on at once. He would be feeling a positive emotion about seeing the film and from the idea of helping his family. If the things I have written were poorly written and incoherent, then it makes no sense to say that my posts were obvious. If everything I have written was obvious to you, then it would have to follow that my writing was coherent and well-explained. I, personally, have never heard of this idea that values founded upon morality, character, and intellect are not real values. Many people have rejected this idea since people would say things to me such as that, if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing.

I will point out where you said that: "Or, back in the real world, he would say that he was looking forward to seeing the film but helping his family was more important to him. In other words, the film had value but his family had more value. You seem to be making up bizarrely unrealistic claims about human nature to make it look like you have thought of something clever." I said that he made the intellectual and moral choice of helping his family. Therefore, by you saying that helping his family had more value to him, then you are admitting that intellectual and moral based values are real values.