MattMVS7

The mind-body problem has been an ongoing debate for such a long time and I was wanting to see what dualists would come up with to debate against my opening post. I would agree what you said there about the brain processes and the experiencer/experience being the same thing. I have already stated that in my opening post.

Scientific materialists claim that the brain produces our experiences in the first place. They would claim that they have empirical evidence to support this idea. The idea is that since there is an experiencer in the brain, then stimulation of neurons in the brain can be experienced. Since you have information of an experiencer in the brain and since this information is wired to all other neurons in the brain, then that is what allows you to experience stimulation of those neurons. Therefore, since you have an experiencer in the brain, then that is what makes all the neurons in the brain no longer just physical stuff and what actually allows you to have experience. So all the physical stuff (neurons) in the brain and experience are actually the same thing. But an experiencer is what makes experience possible. In order for the brain to have experiences, then you need the capacity to have experience in the first place because without the capability of having experiences in the first place, then you cannot have any experience at all in the brain. So what is it that unlocks this capacity? I am quite sure it is something known as 'awareness.' Only a brain that is aware can have experiences. The experiencer I explained can only be defined as an experiencer if he/she has the capability of having experiences. That is the very definition of an experiencer in the first place. Without the capability of experience, then we cannot call this an experiencer. Therefore, since I explained that it is awareness that is this capacity for experience, then the experiencer would have awareness and this is what makes experience possible in the brain according to modern scientific materialism.

It's in a different universe with different laws.

Where do you find it and how is it produced? It is electricity that is poisonous and extremely cold. It is poisonous electricity that is at a subzero temperature. An absolute zero temperature is something said to not be possible. But energy can go in both directions. It can either go in the "positive" direction such as heat which is temperature above absolute zero. However, energy can also go into the "negative" zone as well which is temperature below absolute zero. Absolute zero is a non-energy state in which everything is completely frozen. However, below absolute zero is an energy state. It is something that has yet to be discovered by science.

I recently got a urinary tract infection which then later on caused me some symptoms that I thought were quite serious. I got chills, felt weak and fatigue, and had a little bit of a hard time breathing. I think my body was lacking some oxygen due to the chronic inflammation that followed after that infection. But now I notice that my body has adapted to that lack of oxygen in which I no longer notice those symptoms anymore. But question is, can my body remain adapted to this? Or will this adaptive mechanism eventually go downhill over time and result in something serious and fatal? I am quite sure I have chronic inflammation which is what is causing this lack of oxygen in my body. So that is why it is vital that not only does this adaptive mechanism stay fully in place and doesn't fail over time, but it is also vital that I ask if I don't have to worry about this adaptive mechanism failing eventually or if I do have to worry since it might actually fail over time and result in something fatal. Now I am thinking that maybe the reason why I have chronic inflammation is because of a neurological issue and not any issue with my body. The reason I think this is because I have anhedonia. During anhedonia, you have a dysregulated HPA axis that causes your pleasure (good moods) to turn off. The HPA axis also happens to be the brain region that is responsible for triggering inflammation. So I figured that since I have a dysregulated stress response due to my anhedonia which is chronic and 24/7, that I also now have a dysregulated chronic inflammatory response as well. I notice that my good moods have turned off even further and that the dysregulated stress response has become even greater after that infection. So that is the reason why I am really thinking here that this additional activity is the result of a chronic inflammatory response in addition to the stress activity. Like I said before, I am really hoping here that this adaptive mechanism can stay fully in place. I need to know right now if this mechanism could very well fail over time and that I might die or if I don't have to worry and that I will live.

When people are claimed to have near death experiences when their brains are said to completely shut down, we have to look at this both ways. First off, these people claim that they are very real and vivid experiences far more real and vivid than their dreams. So it would have to take much more activity of the brain to yield these near death experiences than the activity that is needed to create dreams for these specific individuals. Why is that? It is because to create a mental experience or image that is much more vivid and realistic requires more brain activity to do so. So there could be a surge of brain activity that the scientists just simply have not managed to pick up on for some reason. So the person might of never been truly dead. His/her brain might of not completely shut down. But the question is why is it that there is more brain activity during these near death experiences than the brain activity that yields our dreams? I think that would be an important clue for scientists to try and figure out what is the cause of these near death experiences and why they happen. Now if you were to ask these people what these experiences were like and they told you that it was not like a dream and that it was like living in actual waking reality, then I can't help but find that more than curious. The reason why our waking world seems so real to us would be because our brain activity is fully up and running. We do not have a loss of brain activity to yield an experience that is dream-like such as being asleep and dreaming. So in order to create a near death experience that is completely real, then the brain would have to be fully up and running in activity which would be impossible since those scientists clearly saw the activity of the brain. That being, it was nearly gone. So that might imply the supernatural. Or it might not. I don't know. But you also have to consider that these people might of never had near death experiences to begin with and that when they nearly died and woke back up, that they only thought they had one when they never did. They might of deluded themselves into thinking that they transcended to a spirit and experienced something when they didn't. Also, if these were dream like states for these people and since it takes a brain of little activity to produce a dream like state and a fully up and running brain to produce a full waking reality state, then I think this obviously says here that these near death experiences are nothing supernatural and can only be the result of the little brain activity that occurs when a person is nearly dead with their brain functions mostly all shut down. I will also consider another thing. Maybe the brain just simply has a "jump start" function that brings an almost dead person back to life which creates hallucinations and whatnot. But all in all, I think we need to ask these people who had these near death experiences as to whether their experience was like them being in actual waking reality or if it was instead a dream like experience that was very real. Dream like states that are very real are not as real as full waking reality states. So that would imply less brain activity compared to a full waking reality state. Therefore, I think this would give us a very important clue as to figuring this whole thing out. Furthermore, if these are all subjective various levels of dream like vividness and realism, then this would imply various levels of brain activity and nothing supernatural. If one person has a near death experience that didn't seem all that real or vivid to him/her while another had another one which was quite real, then that would imply brain activity and nothing supernatural. But if it is the same experience for everyone such as it always being a fully waking reality state that is completely real, then that would appear quite curious to me.

Now this post I have made, even though it is quite long, is unlike my others which did not contribute much to discussion and something people would not be interested in. It is educational and I think you would be interested to read it. I'm not sure if educational is the right word here. So correct me if I am wrong. But if you have the time and patience, this post asks some questions that I am seeking the answers to. I am wanting to know, based on everything I said, if my conviction of naturalism is irrational or if it is rational and that I have far more reason to be convinced of it than supernaturalism.

There are reasons why I have become an atheist and I am going to explain them. My personal experience has led me to atheism as well as naturalism which is the idea that there is no supernatural (God, spirits, afterlife, heaven, hell, etc.) and I am very skeptical of the idea that God exists and that the afterlife and supernatural exist. So I am going to explain and question those things. However, I should also leave my atheism/naturalism out to question as well for others. I have struggled with depression and I think it is my depression that has given me a rational view of life which made me an atheist and a naturalist. Now I am also going to question my atheism/naturalism as well since it might be an irrational emotional conviction. Or maybe what I am thinking here is rational. So I am now going to begin: We have Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, and Sean Carrol. These are very famous and highly intelligent scientists. As a matter of fact, I think they are the most well known and famous ones along with Bill Nye and perhaps others as well. They are naturalists and think that the natural is all there is and that there is no supernatural. But we then have other intelligent people as well such as William Lane Craig. He thinks that there is every reason to believe in a God, afterlife, and the supernatural. William Lane Craig along with others debate these intelligent scientists. No definite conclusion has been reached and nor do I think there will ever be a definite conclusion. The debates are just something there for us the learn and whatnot. However, I have every reason to think that it is far more reasonable to be a naturalist than it is to be a supernaturalist or someone who is in between being a naturalist and a supernaturalist. Correct me if I am somehow wrong on this. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure those famous scientists even said the same thing. I am not sure if the scientists have the biased opinion or if the supernaturalists have the biased opinion. From an unbiased observer's perspective, which side is biased and which is not? But aside from that, I am really thinking here that these scientists have the rational mindset while the religious believers such as William Lane Craig have the irrational mindset and make logical fallacies. You have to be a very intelligent person to point out the logical fallacies of Craig since he conceals them very well. We know that the natural world exists, obviously. It is obviously here and there is empirical scientific evidence to support its existence. But there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of the supernatural. When people say that there is scientific evidence such as people having strange experiences or seeing ghosts, then this scientific evidence is being pointed to where it shouldn't be pointed which would be the supernatural. This scientific evidence should only point towards the natural. In other words, these people were only having hallucinations. The scientific method of things gets the job done right. It comes up with the right evidence and applies that evidence correctly. Whereas, supernaturalists are doing it all wrong and are misapplying that evidence. The only thing we can really do here in an attempt to support the existence of the supernatural would be through philosophical arguments since we do not have any scientific evidence to support the supernatural. William Lane Craig makes a whole bunch of such philosophical arguments and he makes the supernatural at least seemingly true through his philosophical arguments. But here's the thing though. I could use the same method of William Lane Craig's to support the existence of any other random idea such as the idea of the toothfairy, flying teapots, etc. I could make these ideas just as or even more seemingly true through philosophical arguments. But just because I make something seemingly true through argumentation does not make those things true at all. I am doing nothing more than just making random ideas appear to be true. But science makes things very likely to be true through empirical scientific evidence. Therefore, to think that you have every reason to believe in the supernatural would be no different than thinking that you have every reason to believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the toothfairy, flying teapots, etc. since you can make these other random ideas just as seemingly true as the existence of the supernatural. So really, you have no reason to think that the supernatural exists just as you would have no reason to think that those other random ideas exist either. Therefore, since I have pinned up the idea of the supernatural against those other random ideas which has cancelled out the idea of the supernatural, then the only thing left here is naturalism. Therefore, naturalism is the only thing here very likely to be true. Any questions you have regarding the natural world that you think points towards the supernatural, then I would kindly inquire of you to study up on science and how we have science that explains basically everything we need to know about the natural world and how things work. We have many textbooks and whatnot that explain basically everything we need to know about the natural world and how it works. Many people have a misconception of science. They think that it is nothing more than some subject learned in school and just nothing more than one of the many carrers people can pursue if they are interested in becoming scientists. These are the types of people who are religious/supernaturalists who live their lives mainly adhering to the belief in God and the supernatural. They think that science is secondary and nothing more than just some learned subject. So they think that supernaturalism is primary while science is secondary when, in reality, it is the other way around. Supernaturalism is secondary and is nothing more than just superstition. As for the bible, this is all make believe. People were never inspired by a God to write it since there was never a God in the first place. It is all deluded people who have written it. I don't deny that there might of been a man named Jesus, an ark, etc., but as for all the mystical aspects being presented in the bible such as a giant flood, talking snakes, miracles, demons, Satan, etc., these are all deluded lies. As for things like psychics and mind reading, there is nothing supernatural about this either. It is all using logic. When you talk with a psychic and they actually "read your mind," then they are just simply using logical and other techniques. They don't actually have supernatural mind reading abilities. Now there are things that cannot be explained by science yet. But to conclude that these unexplained things imply a supernatural would be a "God of the Gaps" argument. Or in this case, a "Supernatural of the Gaps" argument. This is a logical fallacy (a false way of thinking). Science is still in progress and we will eventually, I am quite sure, be able to explain these things as well. We have disproven Thor the God of Thunder and other such mythical superstition through science. So what makes the idea of God or the supernatural so special then? Now many people would also say to me that the supernatural has to exist since they have had so many strange coincidences happen to them. This is not true either. Coincidences are also explained by science as well. I would kindly direct you to a youtube video of Richard Dawkins who explains the idea of coincidences. He performs a coin toss experiment in explaining all of this. We as human beings are hardwired for survival and not rational thought. We think certain things are true when, in reality, they were not true at all. They are just irrational thoughts to aid in our survival. Irrationality is something to aid in our survival because if we had time to think, then we would get killed and eaten alive. But we do have a rational thinking part of our brains that we can tap into in order to think rationally. It is for this very reason why I am an atheist/naturalist while my mother and father believe in God, the supernatural, and the afterlife. I keep telling my mother that these things don't exist and I present to her rationality. I present to her rational reasons. But he/she still insists that they do exist and that spells and such mystical things are real and do work. Now what type of person would it take to reject rationality? The answer here would be someone who thinks irrationally. Her reasons for believing are not rational at all since there can never be a rational reason for believing in such things. Rationality is the very essence of truth while irrationality is the very essence of falsehood. Therefore, this proves right here that I would have to be right and my mother and father would have to be wrong. Even after I present this very packet to my mother and other people, they would still give me the usual response of: "Welp, I still believe in the supernatural anyway. Personally, I think there is more to life than just the natural reality." Why do they still think this way? Again, it would be because their brains are wired irrationally. Their brains keep going back to the irrational mindset of belief while mine keeps on going back to the rational mindset of disbelief. If only they wired their brains rationally and studied up on science to eliminate any ignorance sustaining their beliefs would they be very likely to see the world my way here. Sure, there are even intelligent scientists who believe in the supernatural, God, and an afterlife. But I and many other rational scientists have every reason to think that they are wrong. When we have scientific theories such as evolution which have empirical evidence supporting them, then this means that it is very likely to be true. Theories in the world of science are the absolute best. They have no evidence against them. But theories in our normal average everyday life are just merely speculation. Let me tell you how likely it is that any scientific theory is false. It would be no different than saying that there is a bear outside my home and that I would get mauled by it. There is no bear. We have empirical scientific evidence to support the idea that there is no bear in my backyard. It is extremely unlikely that there is a bear. Maybe that is not an exact analogue. But you can see where I am going with this. Supernaturalists/religious believers, on the hand, are different. It would be like them saying that the bear is there outside in my yard and them giving philosophical arguments to only make it seem true. Now you could say something to me such as: "Life is all about balance and not one thing or the other. If I eat too much junk food, then it will be bad for me. But if I eat too much healthy food, then I am also missing out on something very sweet and delightening. So in that same sense, if there were no natural world/universe and nothing but the supernatural, then that wouldn't be good. But at the same time, if the natural is all that exists, then I am missing out on something special after I die (the afterlife)." Now you have to understand here that things within the universe do not apply to the universe and reality as a whole. So even though that quoted statement regarding the healthy food and junk food applies to our daily lives, it does not apply to the universe/reality as a whole. This is the very statement made by Sean Carrol I am quite sure in the recent debate between him and William Lane Craig. In this debate, it seems as though Craig's arguments were completely refuted. If I were to summarize this debate, it would be that Craig was making all his arguments, but Sean Carrol would then point out in return that this is not how it works and how we now have new scientific insight about the universe. Craig's arguments are ancient arguments made by philosophers in the past. But it is the new that casts out the old. Old technology and ideas are being replaced as science advances. So in that same sense, I think that Craig's philosophical arguments are cast out by the new scientific insight we now have in this day and age. Finally, one last thing I would like to say here is that the idea of the supernatural has been around for so long that we had plenty of time to make it seemingly true through philosophical arguments and whatnot. But I ask of you. Do the same for other random ideas and see if they can turn out to be just as seemingly true or even more. Only then would I think you would see just how random the idea of the supernatural is then. But if those other ideas cannot be made just as or even more seemingly true, then there must be some sort of convenience factor for the idea of the supernatural that allows it to be more seemingly true. However, this convenience factor is nothing supernatural. To say that this convenience factor implies the supernatural would be the "Supernatural of the Gaps" argument and would also just be as random as supporting the existence of any other random idea. On a scale of 0-10, 0 being that I absolutely do not think there is the supernatural, God, afterlife, etc. at all and 10 being that I absolutely think that those things do exist, I would have to be a 1. Even the most intelligent naturalist scientists in the world would have to be at a 1 because to say that you are a 0 would mean that it is absolutely a proven fact that those things don't exist. You cannot say that. So I am a 1 with the toothfairy, a 1 with Santa Claus, a 1 with flying teapots orbiting Jupiter, and a 1 with God, the supernatural, and the afterlife. I am now also going to present to you a few quotes (messages) stated by some naturalists/atheists that supports the idea that naturalism is very likely to be true: Quote #1: "William Lane Craig is a good debater because he sets up his arguments under very confined questions and circumstances which virtually make it impossible to refute him. He employs a lot of false dichotomy's and flawed premises and then won't accept any answer that doesn't follow his originally flawed requirements. He also does a lot of research on his debate counterpart and will use excerpts from their own works in attempts to discredit them when they've backed him into a corner. He also seems to know most of their moves and prepares for them ahead of time, which makes him seem invincible under the right conditions. He's a very good orator and obviously a very intelligent man, which lends even more credence to his bullshit ideas, especially in front of crowds biased in his favor. I've only seen one or two debates of his where I walked away feeling like he was soundly beaten, and that's openly admitting my bias against him, which I think says a lot. He knows how to play the game and is very good at it." Quote #2: "The problem with creationists is that they're committed to a singular conclusion: "Creationism is correct because the Bible tells me so," and any conclusion other than this is, by default, wrong. Where they invariably go wrong is when they try to defend their position by going outside the Bible and attack their arch enemy, evolution, on its own turf: science. One of their biggest mistakes is their methodology which is nicely illustrated by this old cartoon: The Scientific Method: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them? The Creationists' Method: Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it? Add to this, simple ignorance, purposeful deception, deliberate obfuscation, outright lies, and a host of other dishonest tactics and there is simply no way your evidence and reason will ever win them over. Problem is, they have too much at stake in their faith to admit Biblical creationism could be wrong. Moreover, they aren't really looking to convince the evolutionist that they're right as much as continually convincing themselves. This why they care so much about evolution, whereas scientists don't give a fig about creationism---believe whatever you like---EXCEPT when its foisted on public schools. Institutions such as Craig's Discovery Institute would love nothing better than to get creationism taught in public school science classes. So don't look to win anything. Arguing with creationists is not unlike trying to explain something to a four-year-old kid who keeps asking "why?" It's a no-win situation." Quote #3: "It is important to understand that W. L. Craig presents arguments in one way to popular audiences (i.e., inaccurate, overly-simplistic, and/or obviously wrong) and another in his scholarship. He even wrote a technical critique of the physicists he has relied on in popular works to promote the popular version of his kalam argument and others he uses to reach the same conclusion. He's simply dishonest, and I've seen the results of this here when those relying on his popular presentations (spoken or written) find themselves confronting the actual logic and reasoning he uses when addressing any audience whom he knows won't buy such simplistic drivel."

Since the eternal blissful afterlife of no more suffering does not exist, then let us try to create an eternal blissful life through science in the future and resurrect suffering people such as me who have mostly missed out on life. I have every reason to think that this is possible. You are free to object to it. Therefore, post all your objections and we can then begin a discussion/debate on this. It is called: "Project Eternal Bliss" It is where scientists all around the world work on the ultimate science project to create an eternal blissful life and to resurrect people to live it. If I were a scientist, then this would be my life's work. Other people might deem me crazy for working on what seems to be an absolutely absurd project. However, I am not a scientist. I am a composer and composing is the dream that I have chosen to pursue. So this whole thing is just an idea of my own that we can discuss/debate here. One last thing here. If I were to ever become a famous composer someday, then my famous message to the world would be to make me immortal just as my musical talent. To give me and others the one and only life that they find the greatest good meaning in which would be an eternal blissful life. This is something that absolutely has to be done and must not be dismissed. To dismiss it would be utterly insulting and belittling of all the suffering innocent people in this world.

The very things I've stated is the question itself. I need to know the answer here before I become driven to a psychotic homicidal rage thinking that I can have no good meaning in my life struggling with this depression. Read it all again and give me the answer. Edit: I am not and nor would I ever go through with harming anyone. I just feel this way.

I struggle with depression and I have this philosophical question that I need an answer for. Actually, it might even be a scientific question. Now I need to know the answer to this very vital question. I am thinking that there is only one way love, joy, happiness, and inspiration can be experienced. That being, through our reward system (our good moods). The more our reward system is functional and healthy, the more of those things we will have in our lives since our good moods would be greater. But like I said before, there is the difference between words and phrases and our mental states. So by depressed people focusing on words and phrases alone of love, joy, happiness, and inspiration, they are only fooling themselves into thinking they are in love, joyful, happy, and inspired while depressed when they never were since depression as well as anhedonia are what turn off our reward system (our good moods). Even if they focused on the mental state of their thinking while depressed and told themselves that this is a form of love, joy, happiness, and inspiration, then they would be fooling themselves here as well since they are not in the actual mental state of having those things. So they would be fooling themselves through this whole world of personally creating our own meanings in life and personally defining them for ourselves which would have to be false since there is only one way to experience those said things I've mentioned. There is only one way to experience the mental state of visualizing objects (sight) and perceiving sound (hearing). If you were to become blind and deaf, then your thoughts alone cannot give you that mental state. If a blind and deaf person thought to his/herself that he/she still has sight and hearing, then that would not give him/her sight and hearing. That would only give him/her nothing more than the labels (words and phrases) of sight and hearing. So there is only one function that gives us our mental states of visualizing objects and perceiving sound just as how there is also only one way to experience touch, smell, taste, etc. So in that same sense, there is also only one way to have good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration. There is only one function of our brains that can give us that. There is only one mental state that can give us those things. That being, the mental state of our good moods as I've said before. If you are going to say something to me such as that we can have good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration through our way of thinking alone even while depressed and not in a good mood, then you have to prove to me how this is the actual mental state of having those things and not just the words and phrases of those things.

When I say optimistic thoughts and experiences, then what I mean here is that when you see people perform optimistic acts, tones, and expressions, then this means they are cheerful, happy, joyful, and inspired acts, tones, and expressions. So being in an optimistic mental state would mean to be in a cheerful, happy, joyful, and inspired mental state. But if you were to perform acts, tones, and expressions that are just very rapid, then they would just be rapid acts, tones, and expressions. Since they are not cheerful, happy, joyful, and inspired, then they are not optimistic acts, tones, and expressions. So clearly there is the difference between being in an optimistic mental state as opposed to a mental state in which we are just doing things in life like rapid and efficient biological robots. Our thoughts alone cannot give us any optimistic mental experience according to my theory. They can only give us the experience of thoughts. So it is like being in a robotic intellectual state that makes choices and decisions. But our good moods are what give us the mental state of optimism. When we are feeling good, then this means we are optimistic in life. If we feel bad, then this means we are pessimistic in life. If we are neither in a good nor a bad mood, then we are neither optimistic nor pessimistic.

It is our mental states that define the terms good, bad, love, joy, happiness, inspiration, suffering, despair, sadness, anguish, rage, etc. and it is not a matter of how we personally define them. Our mental states are what define those terms and not the other way around. How we personally define them does not define our mental states. For example, if you said that you being dead is a peaceful, joyous, or sad experience for you, then this would be false. The activity of our brains is what defines all our experiences (mental states). It is us being alive and conscious that gives us all our experiences. So if you were dead, then you couldn't experience anything. It would be nonsensical for you to say that you are having a peaceful, joyous, or inspirational experience while you are dead. That is, if you are not a religious believer and don't believe in any supernatural experiences. But either way, it would still be nonsensical to say that. So you can clearly see here how it is science that defines all terms. The world of morality and philosophy which is the world of personally creating our own meanings in life, this whole world is fake. So in order to have (perceive) good meaning, bad meaning, love, joy, happiness, suffering, despair, rage, etc., then we need to be in the actual mental state of perceiving those said things in our lives. It would have to be a matter of science (our mental experiences from our brains) that determines if we have those things in our lives or not. As I said before, our moods are the sole determining factor here. If we are in a good mood, then we have good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration in our lives. If we are in a bad mood, then we have bad meaning, suffering, despair, rage, etc. in our lives. If we are in an apathetic mood, then we have neutral (neither good or bad) meaning in our lives.

So you are saying here that pleasure and pain are all subjective. That it is all based on our outlook and associations in life that have been achieved throughout the course of our lifetime. But my idea is stating here that pleasure and pain are, in fact, always our mental experiences regardless of what we think and associate. That people would only be deluding themselves to think that they are having joy, pleasure, happiness, and inspiration in their lives while being nothing in a depressed mental state. The mental state of our good moods is the one and only thing that can give us pleasure, joy, happiness, love, and inspiration. So that is what my theory is saying. Pleasure cannot be pain and pain cannot be pleasure. Pleasure is always our biological sense of reward (good moods) from our reward system while pain is always our unpleasant feelings/emotions. If you experience pain from pleasure or pleasure from pain, then that would not make the pleasure pain or the pain pleasure. The pain is still pain and the pleasure is still pleasure.

I realize that my previous discussion (debate) here has been closed: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91032-the-science-of-joy-and-happiness/ Therefore, you won't see me debating any longer since debating got us nowhere. I thought I could get somewhere with it. In other words, I thought that I could make my idea logically valid. But as it turns out, that does not seem to be the case. Therefore, this new topic I made gets things done the right way. That is, we are now going to talk about how I can test my idea. We are going to talk about science this time and no more debating. Overview Of My Theory To Be Tested (With New Points/Explanations) First off, I am going to explain my idea that needs to be tested to give an overview. It actually explains some new things I haven't said before. I struggle with a chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant feelings/emotions (anhedonia) as well as depression. Now I have payed very close attention to having this personal experience with it and I realize something strange here. I notice that sometimes there are moments where things have a very subtle amount of meaning in my life. But then there are moments in which things, out of the blue, spontaneously seem like nothing more than empty and meaningless shapes, sounds, and images. During these given moments, I feel an increase in my anhedonia. That is, I feel a further shutdown of my good moods which were, apparently, already so close to nothing that they were hardly detectable. During those given moments where my anhedonia becomes worse, I feel a jamming sensation in my brain as though something is stuck there that is causing everything to turn off. I think it would be a dysregulated fear stress response that is overpowering everything and causing everything to turn off. My brain cannot get that fear stress response back under regulation (control), so everything has to be turned off for now. But anyway, continuing on here. Depression and anhedonia are what turn off the reward system of our brains. So when my reward system turns off even further during those given moments where my anhedonia becomes worse, I perceive less good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration in my life. This has nothing to do with my way of thinking. In other words, my way of thinking is not causing me to perceive less of those things in my life. It is instead the further turning off of my reward system that makes me perceive none of those things in my life. During those give moments, I can still tell myself that I still have good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration in my life. But they all seem like nothing more than labels (words and phrases) I am telling myself. I am not in the mental state of actually perceiving those said things in my life. Therefore, I would have none of those things in my life during my worst moments of anhedonia. That even goes for depression which I think is even worse and turns off the reward system even further. Therefore, my idea here is that the moral (personally created) version of good, bad, love, joy, happiness, pain, sadness, rage, suffering, despair, etc. is nothing more than labels. It does not actually give us those said things. Our reward system is what gives us the former terms and our unpleasant feelings/emotions are what give us the latter terms of pain, sadness, rage, suffering, despair, etc. Therefore, those terms are actual mental states like sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, etc. They are not our thinking alone. They do not come through personally defining those terms through our thoughts alone. So if you were blind and deaf and you still thought to yourself that you have sight and hearing, then that would obviously not give you sight and hearing. They would be nothing more than just the labels sight and hearing. Now if I were to completely and utterly turn off all reward system function in your brain, then I am more than curious as to what you would report back to me. Would you really say to me that something seems very strange to you and that any good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration you think you still have in your life is now nothing more than just labels to you? Or would you actually think you still have those things? If you still think you have those things, then do you really have those things? Or are you just fooling yourself here and that you are just not paying enough attention to your mental experiences here like I have? If you are actually fooling yourself, then my idea would be correct here. So the less and less reward system function we have, the more good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration we lose and the more they seem like nothing more than labels. But on the other side of the spectrum, having full healthy function of our reward system gives us the mental state of heightened good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration. Our biological sense of reward (good moods) are the heightened state of good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration. It is a non-moral feeling/emotional (mood) version of good. This is the only version of good that can give our lives good meaning, love, joy, happiness, and inspiration according to my idea here. But whether that is really true or not relies on scientific experiments to see if there can be any new supporting evidence for my idea. I am now going to explain the experiment below: Experiment I have actually come up with an experiment to be tested. You can tell me if it is flawed or not: We need to find out if all good thoughts (thoughts of having good meaning in our lives) are always optimistic experiences for us. We would also need to find out if all optimistic experiences are rewarding experiences (our pleasant emotions). So we need to find out if all good thoughts send the pleasure signal to our brains to give us the experience of pleasant emotions. If they do, then we would know that these are the types of thoughts that send the pleasure signal. From there, we need to find out if all optimistic thoughts send the pleasure signal as well. If they do, then that would say that all good thoughts are optimistic thoughts. From there, we need to find out if all optimistic experiences for us as human beings are always rewarding experiences (our pleasant emotions). We need to find out what optimism is since us having good meaning in our lives is always something optimistic for us. We need to find out if optimism is joy, happiness, love, inspiration, and motivation. From there, we need to find out if joy, happiness, love, inspiration, and motivation are always rewarding experiences for us. How we would do that would be to see if joy, happiness, love, inspiration, and motivation are the only urges a human being has to live life. So we would have to see if our pleasant feelings/emotions are the only urges we have and if our thoughts alone do not give us urges, but do nothing more than make decisions and choices. From there, we would also find out that our unpleasant feelings/emotions are also urges as well. So we would have to see if joy, happiness, love, inspiration, and motivation are our pleasant feelings/emotions or are our unpleasant feelings/emotions. We know how people act when they are optimistic. They show acts, tones, and expressions that are gleeful and such. We know how people act when they are pessimistic. They show acts, tones, and expressions that are somber and such. So I think it would be quite obvious here that our optimism can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions while it can only be our pessimism that would be our unpleasant feelings/emotions. In conclusion, I want others to share their ideas as well. I want others to tell me what type of experiment I would need to perform to demonstrate/falsify my idea.

There might very well be ways to help control this chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant emotions (anhedonia). I am currently trying to find a way such as medications, exercise, supplements, etc. to address this anhedonia. But I see the name calling still persists. At this point, I am just going to dismiss and ignore it since it does not apply to me. You are free to call me such names anyway. But this is a moral issue and is all just your own personal opinion that does not apply to me since I have my own morals. It would be no different than if one person has the preference for the color red while the other person has a preference for the color blue. The one person's preference of red does not apply to the other person's preference of blue. In other words, the moral values and preferences of others do not apply to me either. You prefer someone who isn't commited to their own viewpoint in a debate. So you call me selfish and arrogant since I have a determined viewpoint. But from my point of view, I am just someone who is determined with a certain viewpoint. Some people would actually admire this personality trait while others like you would call it selfish and arrogant. So this is all just a matter of personal opinion here. Your opinions don't apply to me. I see you have also skipped that one explanation I made about how the only true way to judge someone is through scientifically analyzing their brains. So I guess we won't talk about that point I made. Alright. So you are saying here then that there are forms of joy and happiness that aren't rewarding experiences for us (not our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system). You say they work by the same chemical processes. But that there are, in fact, forms of joy and happiness we can have in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. So go ahead and present to me these forms of joy and happiness and I will see if I can or cannot convert it over to our "rewarding experiences" (pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system). Like I said before, I have been converting the terms joy, happiness, love, good, etc. to being our "rewarding experiences." So if you manage to somehow come up with a version of those terms that I am unable to convert over, then this just might convince me here that there really is a form of joy, happiness, love, and good value/worth we can have in our lives that has nothing to do with our rewarding experiences.

This is that "magical nonexisting" version of happiness I was talking about. Read my previous post for more information. I had a discussion with the user Strange who agrees with my definition of joy and happiness. So according to both him and me, that would be the "magical nonexisting" version of joy and happiness. If this definition of happiness and joy you speak of is the Buddhist definition or any other personally created version in our lives that is not our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system, then this is that "magical nonexisting" version of joy and happiness.

I see. So you actually agreed with my definition of joy and happiness only being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Yes, chemicals do cause joy and happiness. But it is only those chemicals that send the signal to the reward system that give us joy and happiness. The chemicals that send signals to our thoughts and other brain functions alone don't give us joy and happiness through our thoughts and other brain functions alone. So the version of joy and happiness from our thoughts and other brain functions alone really is that magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness. So that being the case, this magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness that the world of morality and philosophy says we can have in our lives, that version is fake. The world of morality and philosophy says that if we define a personal version of joy and happiness in our lives as being our thoughts or other brain functions alone, then that will actually give us joy and happiness while struggling with depression and anhedonia in which we cannot experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. That it is somehow supposed to be a version of joy and happiness we really can have in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system due to depression and/or anhedonia. Therefore, you can see how this whole world of personally defining our own meanings in life is "magical." It's not real. Therefore, how can it be then that the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is real? Wouldn't it also be the "magical nonexisting" version of good and bad? I would just call that merely acts and attitudes. But you cannot come to the conclusion that they are loathsome, detestable, selfish, arrogant, acts and attitudes. You have to actually know the person. You have to actually completely analyze the person's brain. Since it is the person's brain that is responsible for his/her complete personality and all of his/her other mental functions, then the only way to truly accurately judge someone is to first know everything there is to know about his/her brain chemistry and neurology. Only then would you have the right to make judgments based on that scientific knowledge. So can you see here how morally judging someone does not work out? Can you see how our moral judgments are nowhere near accurate? The only true way to judge someone would be through a scientific way as I pointed out earlier in analyzing a person's brain. Therefore, there must also be a scientific way to determine good and bad as well and that the moral version of good and bad is nowhere near accurate either. Like I said before. The world of our own personal created meanings (morality and philosophy) says we can have a personally defined version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. You hear this being said everywhere with philosophers and moral people. In particular, Buddhists. Go look at the Buddhist definition of pleasure, joy, and happiness and you will see what I mean here. Other such definitions of pleasure, joy, and happiness also exist in the world of morality and philosophy. They all aren't real. Here, I will give you an example. If someone struggles with chronic depression and/or anhedonia, then he/she might say something such as: "I can't experience any pleasant feelings/emotions from my reward system whatsoever. But I am still happy anyway. I am still happy and joyful that I have a family to live for and my goals and dreams to live for." This is that magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness here being presented in this quote.

Although I agree with you that one should not just jump to conclusions and should have an open mind and although I agree with everything else you said, I honestly tried looking at that one post you've written from a different perspective. I tried many times. But I could only see it one way. You have written the following: "But it is also possible to exert some control over how you react to and feel about things. You can choose not to find something or to dislike a particular type of music or get over a phobia." You spoke of exerting control over how one would react and feel about things and how we can choose to find something or to dislike something. That was in response to how I defined joy and happiness through my theory. Therefore, I took it that you were speaking of a different form of joy and happiness. One that comes through having control and choice in our lives that has nothing to do with our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. So that is the reason why I pointed out why I thought that was false (contradictory). But anyway, as for me being selfish and arrogant, I will just dismiss this as being nothing more than name-calling that does not apply to me. So we can just forget about this whole idea. The fact is, we can never truly know who another person is on the inside. So we are only left to create images of the other person in our minds. These images are nowhere near accurate. So we are left to just simply judge people. The only way you can know me is if you were an exact clone of me. So really, we as human beings don't interact at all. We are only interacting with imaginary images of the other person in our minds. So no one's personal moral opinions apply to anyone in that case. Therefore, since you are not me, don't be so quick to judge me. Well, all I am saying here is that maybe happiness and joy are already words like "to" and "from" which are words that, when redefined, becomes a nonsensical situation. It's just that we are currently unaware of the fact that maybe joy and happiness are already our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system according to my theory. But like I said, I could be wrong. I will listen to the point of view of others. However, I need a definition of happiness and joy that cannot be converted over to the reward system. I have been converting all versions of good value, joy, love, happiness, inspiration, etc. to being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Therefore, I have yet to see a definition of those terms that cannot be converted over. Only then would I think I might be convinced that there can really be a version of good value, worth, joy, love, happiness, etc. that we can have in our lives even while struggling with depression and/or anhedonia in which we are unable to experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. But so far, all versions of those terms have been successfully converted over. So that is the reason why I don't see it any other way. Not because I am selfish or arrogant. Yes it does. But to me, it is not having meaning in our lives that causes us to feel pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. Rather, it is the other way around. Perception of stimuli cause us to feel pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions and these feelings are what give good or bad meaning to us and our lives. And, yes, I definitely agree that you can have two different emotional experiences at the same time. So you would be having both good and bad meaning going on in your life in that given moment. It's the idea that we can personally have a version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system that I disagree with as I've stated before.

But how can I debate any other way if all other ways make no sense to me? See, it makes no sense to me whatsoever that a depressed and/or anhedonic person can still have good value, worth, inspiration, joy, etc. while being in a down and depressed/anhedonic mental state while not being able to experience his/her pleasant feelings/emotions from his/her reward system. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how it is even possible to debate from a point of view that is so nonsensical. So the only conclusion to be reached in my mind is the conclusion that there just might really be this mood (feeling/emotional) non-moral version of good and bad. I just don't see it any other way. It has nothing to do with me being arrogant, selfish, etc. I just truly and honestly don't see it any other way. But just so you know here, I had this whole theory in my mind to begin with. I had all these terms defined my own way to begin with. So no, I wasn't trying to make it impossible for others. But for what it's worth now, just consider my theory as being nothing more than me redefining terms. But who knows, if I can somehow manage to get my theory tested and it turns out that there is now much more new evidence supporting it, then we are all going to have to take a 2nd take at this topic because now, my theory would actually be valid. But for now, I honestly and truly don't see how one can have good meaning in his/her life while depressed and/or anhedonic. It is utter nonsense to me. So I will just leave it at that. But I will also just leave you with this to just simply think about and consider. Thoughts and our moods are so very closely related in the world of neuroscience and psychology. The moral version of good and bad is a thought version of good and bad. If we think that our lives have good or bad meaning, then that is supposed to make it so. That is somehow supposed to give good or bad meaning to our lives. But if there is a thought version of good and bad, then surely there must be a non-moral mood (feeling/emotional) version of good and bad. That is a very brief summary of my theory. So that is what I will leave you with for now. Who knows, we could be misapplying the terms good, bad, happiness, joy, love, suffering, despair, sadness, grief, pain, misery, etc. They could really only belong to our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. As for now though, it might seem as though I am just doing nothing more than redefining my own version of those terms. But if my theory turns out to have much empirical evidence supporting it, then it would no longer be a matter of me just simply redefining terms. My theory would now be very likely to be true. Now I will just add one last thing here. It is something I forgot to add onto my supporting valid argument #3 in one of my previous posts. If someone or something had good value and worth to you and you lost that said person or thing and you did not lament or become enraged/frustrated over that loss one bit, then there is just no possible way that this said person or thing had any good value and worth to you to begin with. Imagine if it did not bother us if all people and things in our lives that we deemed to be of good value did not cause any lamentation or frustration/rage within us one bit if they were to be taken away from us. Imagine if it did not bother us at all if some criminal decided to make this world an awful place to live in. So I just don't possibly see how someone or something can be of good value and worth to you if it did not bother you at all if that said person or thing were to be taken away from you. Unless you have found someone or something else to replace that loss, then I just don't see it. Therefore, I just don't see how someone or something can have good meaning to you without you fooling your brain into thinking that said thing or person is rewarding to you while you are depressed and/or anhedonic in which you cannot experience your pleasant feelings/emotions from your reward system. In other words, fooling your brain into thinking that you have good meaning in your life while depressed and/or anhedonic when you never did. After all, that is what allows us to lament/become enraged over the loss of things we judge to be good in our lives without our pleasant feelings/emotions is through fooling our brains into thinking we are having a rewarding experience from them as I explained earlier. But anyway, I don't think you need to hear that anymore at this point. I have clearly stated my position time and time again. So it is clear to me that my theory is utter nonsense and will always be utter nonsense to you and others without any scientific evidence for it. In that same sense, your idea that one can have good meaning in his/her life while depressed and/or anhedonic will be and will always forever remain nonsense to me. I will never understand that just as how you and others will never understand my position either. I just wish there were some sort of way for us to engage in such a way that we make sense to one another so that both of our positions become clear and make sense to one another. But I guess this is just never going to happen.

It is not a matter of me being some selfish childish individual. As a matter of fact, I am a kind and respectful person. If you were to meet my mother right now, she will describe me to you. I don't steal, don't make fun of people, don't harm/criticize others, etc. So don't be doing the same here to me either. Don't be calling me names either. Also, it is just hard for me sometimes to understand what others are saying. That's all. I have mental disorders that make it hard for me to process and understand. This is not my fault. Sometimes, people have to explain more what they mean and clarify more. I wanted to have a full debate with others here. That is clearly a mature intention. But it was then immature of you to quit this debate and leave me in the dust once again just because I have a mental disorder that makes it hard for me to process and understand what others are saying to me. Your name calling such as that I am selfish and arrogant is all your own personal opinion. That does not apply to me since I am no such person. I am kind and respectful as I pointed out earlier. @Phi for All: I know you are the moderator of this forum. So maybe you can go back and talk to him. This debate took an unfair turn. So maybe you can explain to him that I am not the type of person he makes me out to be. But anyway, I take it then that you are still insisting on the idea that one can still have happiness, joy, love, etc. through their way of thinking alone even while they are not experiencing their pleasant feelings/emotions from their reward system due to depression and/or anhedonia? That they can still define a personal version of joy, happiness, love, etc. in their lives and that because they have personally defined a version of it, they can really have an actual version of it? Well, I already said something about this. I will point it out to you here again in case you have not read it. I will put it here in quotes:

Yes. I am saying there is a contradiction here. But all you did was point out to me that we can make choices and have some control in our lives. That does not give us happiness as long as our reward system is turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia. Only when that choice results in our reward system being turned on a bit in which we experience a pleasant feeling/emotion would that then be the moment in which you are experiencing happiness, joy, love, etc. But to say that you are happy and joyful while depressed and anhedonic is contradictory. You are in a depressive/anhedonic mindstate. But here you are saying that you are in the vibrant, vigorous, and "alive" mental state of experiencing your good moods (happiness, love, joy, etc.). So this is contradictory (false).

So what would your acts of inspiration be like then? Would they be vigorous, vibrant, "alive" (aka, optimistic)? If so, then you would also be in a vigorous, vibrant, and "alive" (optimistic) mindstate. It would be the mindstate of having an urge since to be in this vibrant and vigorous optimistic mindstate is the urge to live, do something with your life, etc. But our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions can be our only urges in our lives. So to have inspiration would mean to experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Our thoughts alone cannot experience any urges. They can only make decisions, choices, and make us move. If a person had the urge (feeling) to have a bowel movement, then he/she would be urged to have his/her bowel movement. But if he/she could not experience his/her pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions at all and he/she just thought to his/herself: "Welp. My intestines seem pretty full now. So I am just going to go ahead and use the bathroom." Then he/she would not be urged to have his/her bowel movement. He/she would not have the incentive/motive to have the bowel movement. So he/she would of done nothing more than just chosen to use the bathroom. Therefore, we cannot have any love, inspiration, joy, happiness, incentive, or motivation in our lives without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions since those terms I just mentioned are all urges and can only be urges. For example, love is the urge to bond with someone. It is an incentive to live for and be with someone. Therefore, love can only come from our reward system. It can only be a pleasant feeling/emotion from our reward system since our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system are the only urges (incentives) we can have in our lives. Our sense of reward (our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system) is what drives us to live. We see this in many animals in the laboratory. To have good meaning in one's life results in us living for others, living for our goals/dreams, and still continuing to live our lives. Therefore, that says that our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system is what gives the non-moral feeling/emotional version of good meaning to our lives. The opposite (our unpleasant feelings/emotions such as depression) end up resulting in suicide. So that says right here that our unpleasant feelings/emotions give the non-moral feeling/emotional version of bad meaning to our lives. Sure, there are many depressed/anhedonic people who still continue to live and pursue their goals and dreams anyway without being suicidal and sure there are people who live their lives in a good mood who become suicidal, but we have to look at humanity overall. Overall, what we see here is that far more people who have unpleasant feelings/emotions and no pleasant feelings/emotion in their lives commit suicide than those with pleasant feelings/emotions.

Some people say that happiness is not just our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. They say things such as that we can personally define our own version of happiness and joy and that we can experience happiness and joy through our way of thinking alone even while in a depressed and/or anhedonic state in which we cannot experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. What's new here is that my idea states that joy, love, happiness, inspiration, etc. can only come from our reward system. They can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

This thread really belongs in philosophy it has nothing to do with science. When we have discovered certain characteristics of lions and tigers, we called that a feline. So what you are saying here is that this is nothing more than just a word? That you can just take out that word and apply it elsewhere? I don't see how this makes any sense. If that were the case, then we could reapply words however we want. I could have the following setup: I=blue went=desk to=computer the=sky store=street today=house This would turn into a nonsensical statement. It would become: "Blue desk computer sky street house." Since that applies here, then this also applies on a smaller scale as well. In other words, redefining individual words is nonsensical as well. Let's say I win a nobel prize. This will make me very happy (i imagine). I could just say, well it doesn't mean anything, this feeling is merely neuro-chemistry. Or i could say this neuro-chemical arrangement which makes me happy has come about through my hard work and a bit of luck; well done me. Both views are just as valid, and have nothing to do with science. Both views of happiness are different. But happiness can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Happiness is a mental experience like sight, hearing, touch, smell, etc. It is not a philosophy or a personal created meaning in our lives. I am also really thinking here that something can only be of good value and worth to us if it is rewarding to us. Since happiness is always a rewarding mental experience for us, then having good meaning in one's life can only be if you are experiencing your pleasant feelings/emotions from your reward system as I said before. Can you, in just one short paragraph, say what your idea is. Something like: Happiness is caused by certain neuro-chemicals. More neuro-chemicals cause more happiness. Then, again briefly, state how you might begin to test the idea. Something like: Measure levels of various chemicals and levels of peoples happiness. See if there is a correlation. Yes. I think that is the proper description here. When a pleasure signal gets sent to our reward system which gives us the experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions, then neurotransmitters are definitely involved here. I think they would be dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (the "feel-good" chemicals). This is because I wish to fully debate my theory and come to a final conclusion. I never got that chance since people would just simply give a few responses here and there and just leave. But here it seems we are fully debating and will arrive at a conclusion soon enough.