MattMVS7

If the person derived unpleasant feelings/emotions from that idea, then it would be of bad value and bad worth to him/her. But not in the moral sense. In a feeling/emotional sense. All things, people, situations, etc. in life without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions would not be referred to as being anything good or bad. They would instead be referred to as things, people, situations and nothing more. The thinking area of our brains alone does not give good or bad meaning to us and our lives without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. It is just a matter of making choices, decisions, avoiding situations that would pose harm to us and/or others, and pursuing situations that would help us and/or others. But that is nothing good or bad without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. So even if you saved someone's life and changed the entire world, none of that can have any good meaning to you if you were not in a good mood while doing so. I have a highly gifted composing talent due to my autism. But my gifted talents can be nothing good to me even if I use them to help/inspire others all around the world since I do not have my good moods (pleasant feelings/emotions from my reward system) to give my life any good meaning from that. My good moods and this life/my composing dream are integral. They are one and are two sides of the same coin. Without my good moods, then I cannot have any good meaning from this life and my composing dream. Now even if you were a sociopath who derived heightened good moods from harming innocent people and living things, as much as I hate to admit it, this sociopath would be a good person. I personally would think of this sociopath as cruel and I would go and save those innocent people/living things. But it does not matter what I think about this sociopath. That would not change the fact that he/she is still a good person since he/she is in a good mood. The moral version of good says we would compliment and admire a person who is morally good. The moral version of bad says we would have scorn and detest towards a morally bad person. But the feeling/emotional version of good and bad is different. It just simply says that if you are a good person, then you are good in the sense that you feel good. That your life has much good meaning and much worth to you. Same concept applies to bad. Therefore, just because a depressed person who helps others all around the world is a bad person and just because a sociopath who is in a good mood from harming others all around the world is a good person, this does not mean that we should compliment/admire the sociopath and have scorn/detest towards the depressed person. I see. It all comes down to having my theory tested and having scientific evidence for it in order to make it valid. So that being the case, then why is it that I even bothered coming here in the first place and bothered trying to make my theory valid through explanation alone? It would be because there are, in fact, people who do manage to put up convincing arguments to make their ideas convincing despite having little knowledge of science and despite never having tested their ideas in a lab. I watch youtube videos where there is a Christian believer named William Lane Craig who debates against famous atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Despite the fact that Craig has little knowledge of science and has not tested his ideas in any lab, his arguments for the existence of God are still valid. He explains how they are valid. Not that I myself believe in the existence of God which is quite unfortunate because I am missing out on both this life of good meaning and an eternal blissful afterlife of eternal good meaning since I cannot have my good moods here in the life and neither in the afterlife. But anyway, Craig has still managed to come up with valid arguments despite his lack of scientific knowledge and despite the fact that he has not tested his ideas. Therefore, this is what I thought I could accomplish here as well. I thought I was making convincing arguments despite my lack of knowledge of science and despite the fact that I have not tested my idea yet. Some people say that my whole idea on good and bad makes no sense to some people. Would it be because I need to further explain some more things? If so, then please point out to me the things that I have said that make no sense to you and I will attempt to clarify for you. So with that being said, I will make one last attempt here. I have 3 final arguments here to present to you here. Since it will be quite a troublesome and costly task for me to have my idea tested and I'm not even sure if I can manage to get it tested, then this is the reason why I am trying all I can here to make my idea valid through these arguments instead. But if it really must all come down to scientific experiments and if this is the one and only way to make my idea convincing/valid is through having scientific evidence for my theory, then that is just the way it is then. But here are my last 3 arguments: Supporting Valid Argument #1 Non-scientific factors do not yield scientific results. In other words, if a person personally defined a certain object as keeping him/her alive, then if he/she were to lose that said object, then that would not kill him/her. If it somehow did, then it would not be because he/she personally defined that object as something that keeps him/her alive. But it would instead be because a different scientific process has occurred that killed him/her. So in that same sense, the scientific results that we see as expressions of enjoyment in people who appear to enjoy their pain and misery, those scientific results did not occur because this person personally defined a version of enjoyment in his/her life without his/her pleasant feelings/emotions. In other words, he/she would actually not be having enjoyment at all just as how that object did not keep that person alive at all. There is instead a different scientific process that is yielding these expressions of enjoyment. This scientific process would be the brain fooling itself into thinking it is having enjoyment without its pleasant feelings/emotions when it never did. So just as how the moral/philosophical (personally defined) version of pleasure, joy, enjoyment, and love is fake, so too is the moral version of good and bad. Supporting Valid Argument #2 Metaphorical meanings are delusional meanings. If I said the Earth was actually flat, then that would be just as delusional if I said the Earth is metaphorically flat. This is because when we as human beings create the metaphorical version of "rewarding experience" in our lives with our reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia, we are saying that we are actually having a rewarding experience when we are not. If I said the Earth is flat, then that would be a false and delusional statement. If I said the Earth is metaphorically flat, then that would be a delusional statement, but in a different way. It would instead be delusional in the sense of giving a comparison to something else. For example, if I said I was made of metal, then that would be a false delusional statement. But if I then said I am a tough man--I am made of metal, then that would be a delusional statement giving a comparison to a tough man. I will point out something else here. If you said the Earth is flat, then that would be you thinking (believing) the Earth is flat. So that would be false and delusional. But if you said that the Earth is metaphorically flat and that this meaning holds true for you, then this version says: "The Earth is flat because I say it is. I have created my own personal meaning for the Earth and since I said it's flat, then that makes it so." So that would be false. If I were to go up to people and ask them if I can have an actual scientific form of sight in my life if I was blind, then these people would say "no." But if I then ask them if I can have an actual metaphorical version of sight in my life, then they would say "yes." So they would then say from there that I really can have an actual version of sight in my life. But all that can exist in reality is what has been proven as scientific fact. In other words, the Earth cannot be a sphere and flat at the same time. In that same sense, my thoughts cannot be thoughts and also a form of sight at the same time. The actual scientific version of sight and the actual metaphorical version of sight share something in common here. That is, they are both "actual forms of sight." But what is actual can only be what is reality. In other words, what is actual can only be what has been proven through science. Another example is that it is a proven scientific fact that I am an actual human being (a homo sapiens). But I also cannot be an actual unicorn or dolphin just because I think so. Therefore, you can see how metaphorical meanings are not realistic. They have no bearing in reality. So for you to say that you are having an actual metaphorical (personally created) rewarding experience in your life with your reward system turned off, then that would be no different than saying that you are having an actual delusional version of a rewarding experience in your life. So the metaphorical (moral) version of good and bad is a deluded lie and so is the metaphorical version of reward and disreward. Supporting Valid Argument #3 If someone or something is rewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would lament/become enraged over that loss for the time being until you find someone or something to replace that loss. If someone or something is disrewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would become joyful. But if someone or something is neither rewarding nor disrewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would not care either way. It would not make you joyful and neither would it make you upset. This exact same concept also applies to good, bad, and neutral (neither good or bad). If you lose someone or something that has good value and worth to you, then you would lament/become enraged over that loss. If you lose someone or something that has bad value to you, then you would become joyful. If you lose someone or something that is neither good or bad (neutral) to you, then you would neither become joyful nor upset. Therefore, it goes without saying that something can only have good value and worth to us if it is rewarding to us. That is, if it is a rewarding experience to us. The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience as I explained earlier. Just as how we only have one function that gives us sight, one function that gives us hearing, one function that gives us the experience of touch, etc. Since our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system are the only rewarding experiences for us, then the opposite would have to hold true as well. That being, our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system are the only disrewarding experiences we can have in our lives. So they are the only things that can make things, people, situations, our lives, etc. of bad value to us. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would neither be a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for you. So having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth. Now there are, in fact, many people without their experience of pleasant feelings/emotions from their reward system who do lament/become enraged over losses. But as I pointed out in Supporting Valid Argument #1, these people would only be fooling themselves into thinking that those said things and people are rewarding to them. By them thinking that things and people are still of good value and worth to them without their pleasant feelings/emotions, they are fooling their brains into thinking they are rewarding experiences for them when they aren't. So by fooling their brains, they are able to lament/become enraged over the loss of those said people and things. It's not supposed to "work." It is just my view of the truth. Nothing in this life was ever meant to work out for us. Does the fact that cancer and depression destroys the lives of others make the idea of depression and cancer nonsensical? No! Despite the fact that depression and cancer clearly don't work out for us as human beings, this doesn't mean that they are nonsensical and don't exist. You are right. Redefining happiness in a different way for ourselves is not science just as how redefining ourselves as felines isn't scientific either. It is just nonsense. You cannot say that you are happy just because you said you are in the same sense that you cannot say that you are a feline just because you say you are. Words are solely tied to their scientific properties. You cannot say that you are a feline. You cannot personally define yourself as a feline because you do not have the scientific properties of a feline and nor will you ever. Happiness is our experience of pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system according to my "theory." So you are right here. Personally defining a version of happiness in our lives does not change our experience of happiness. It does not change the fact that happiness can only be our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Because I have every reason to be convinced that all other versions are fake. Only the scientific version is real. Like I said before, all other versions of happiness are fake according to my theory. So this argument of yours here is irrelevant. Also, when I say "theory," I do not mean a scientific theory since scientific theories have empirical evidence for them and are the most widely agreed theories. I instead mean the average everyday version of "theory" you hear people talk about. But I am wanting to take it to the realm of science and really find out if my theory can have empirical supporting evidence for it or not.

Actually, I myself struggle with depression and a complete chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant feelings/emotions (anhedonia). So this really does not work out for me at all. I am truly and utterly convinced that a depressed and anhedonic person's life cannot have any good meaning whatsoever. You are saying that my theory has no logic or validity to it. And yet, it is somehow supposed to be valid and logical to say to a severely crippled suicidal depressed person that he/she is being selifish, childish, and foolish for being suicidal and for thinking that his/her life has no good meaning and is nothing but a bad life? I really beg to differ on this one. Now you say that my theory makes no sense to anybody. Actually, it makes absolutely no sense to me how a person who is in a severely crippled depressed and/or anhedonic mindstate can still live a good life of good meaning. It's no different than saying to a severely crippled depressed person on the brink of suicide who can hardly function: "Yipee! Your life is so wonderful and great since you plowed on through in life anyway despite hardly being able to function and being suicidal!"

Please, all I am asking is that you fully read that post and continue this discussion/debate with me. Did you even bother fully reading that post? If not, then please fully read it if you haven't already. It explains the lives of depressed/anhedonic people and how this is valid supporting evidence of my theory. If that somehow does not classify as scientific evidence of my theory, then at least I have a valid basis for my theory. At least I have a valid starting point for my theory. So even though my theory might not have empirical evidence supporting it, at least it is a seemingly valid theory. It definitely seems true through intuition (common sense) alone if you read everything I explain in that post of mine.

Don't look from the eyes of a mathematical robot. Take a look again. This time from the eyes of an empathetic human being who truly sees and understands the suffering of depressed/anhedonic people.

Well, you may think that I have nothing more than just some stupid childish personal opinion here. But take a look at the new previous post I have just now written and I think you will be inclined to think otherwise.

No. That is not the same situation. If a deluded schizophrenic came up with an idea and said that there could be a giant spider that could fall from the sky and swoop us all up, then that theory would have no rational basis in reality whatsoever. We would have every reason and every right to think that this "theory" of his/hers is nonsense. However, my theory is different. My theory has a rational valid basis. There are plenty of depressed/anhedonic people who ask the question of: "What good is life if one can't feel good? I am suicidial and can't take this anhedonia/depression any longer. I need my good moods back into my life to give my life, goals/dreams, and my family good meaning to me." This quoted message is the rational valid basis for my theory. I think it is quite valid to ask such a question. The idea that one's life can't have good meaning if they are not in a good mood is nothing like an idea a deluded schizophrenic would come up with (such as with that idea of a giant spider I presented to you earlier). Think about it. Even Robin Williams who was a strong-willed and determined person, he ended up committing suicide due to his depression. He was a highly moral individual who lived to help others. So why in the world would someone like Robin Williams end up committing suicide over what is apparently nothing more than a dumb, stupid, and childish definition of good? Robin Williams did not have that definition of good in his life that you are saying is childish and dumb. You are calling my definition of good childish and dumb. But if that really were the case, then Robin Williams would have no need for this "feel-good" defintion of good in his life. He should be just fine living with his crippling depression. He should be just fine and find full good meaning in his life despite his depression. And yet...he did not. He ended up committing suicide due to his depression. The idea that one's life is bad and not good and worth living due to depression would also be the stupid, dumb, and childish definition of bad according to you and others here. So that would be saying that depressed people such as Robin Williams are stupid, dumb, and childish for being suicidal and ending their lives. This just couldn't be any further from the truth. This is the mental health stigma we all see today towards depressed/anhedonic people. So this all says to me right here that our good moods (pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system) really do give good meaning in our lives in of themselves regardless of our way of thinking. So this is why I really think and am truly convinced that this scientific version of good and bad really does exist.

Understood. But if my theory has already been tested out and there is no evidence supporting it, then that would basically say right here and now that my theory is false. But since it has never been tested, then who knows, there could be whole new empirical evidence to support it.

Actually, maybe they did give the proper summary. It is just this part that didn't add up quite right: Even though there are blind people, that does not make sight unscientific just as how you cannot make the scientific term "feline" unscientific. If, for example, Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, but did not explain it in a scientific way, then others would just deem it as nonsense and would say that it is just his own personal opinion. So maybe the same concept also applies here. Maybe I am just not intelligent enough to explain my theory in a convincing way like Einstein. So maybe my theory really is not just my personal opinion. Perhaps it really is true. So no, I am not just redefining terms. The scientific version of good and bad could really be real. Or maybe I am just doing nothing more than just redefining good and bad and that my theory is false. Who knows.

But all you are doing here is redefining terms (words). That does nothing. It does not change the actual scientific properties of things. If, for example, you personally defined yourself as being a cat, then that is doing nothing more than just putting the label "cat" on you. It does not change your scientific properties and transform you into a cat. So in that same sense, personally defining a version of joy and happiness in our lives while we are down and depressed will not change anything here either. It will not change the scientific properties of our brains and transform our other brain functions besides our reward system into an experience of joy and happiness for us. When we as human beings first invented the terms joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, it meant a vibrant, vigorous, "alive," and transcending mind state. If we were to experience joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, then this would mean that we would be in a vibrant, vigorous, and "alive" mental state since that is what the mental state of joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment is. But as it turns out, our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us this mind state. Our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system is the only thing that can allow us to have joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment. It would be no different than how there is only one function of our brains that allows us to visualize objects and perceive sound which would be the functions of our brains that give us the mental experience of sight and hearing.

Alright. But can you at least see where I am going with this? I am saying science explains everything. I have given you not only an explanation as to how science would explain how happiness, sadness, and anger would feel, but I have also given an explanation (my theory) here as to how science can also explain good and bad.

A person who has never felt happy, angry, or sad would never know how that feels. So how we would find out how that feels would be through scientifically analyzing the brain. By scientifically analyzing the brain, we can also give a scientific idea of what mental experiences arise and what they would feel like. So that is how we would find out. We can't make this person know in terms of mental experience how happiness, sadness, or anger feels. But we can give him/her scientific information that he/she can read and get an idea of how it must feel.

Actually, I think everything all comes down to science. Even moral and philosophical questions. For example, we once asked questions such as why is the sun so bright and we answered that through science. So go ahead and give me a question and I will try to bring it all down to science right here and now to demonstrate how there is a scientific version of everything and how science explains everything.

This is not what I mean. Read my previous post.

There is a scientific definition of a feline. Even though there are many different types of felines such as lions and tigers, feline is still a scientific term. So in that same sense, even though people see differently because some are colorblind, sight is still a scientific term. Feline is a scientific term since there are specific traits that apply all the time. Since these same traits apply to lions and tigers, then they are felines. The term "feline" is a scientific term that applies to them all and holds true for them all. Therefore, sight also has similar characteristics despite it being different for everyone. Therefore, sight is a scientific term that applies and holds true for everyone. Here is where he said this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html I don't think you should call the all-brilliant Stephen Hawking "wrong." You are nowhere near his level of intelligence to say such a thing. If you personally define yourself as a lion because you are a powerful and strong-willed courageous individual, then that is quite different from the scientific definition of a lion, obviously. The scientific version of a lion is that animal that roars and is ferocious. But that other version of a lion (the version you personally created) has no bearing whatsoever in reality. It does nothing more than puts a label of a lion upon you. But it does not change the actual scientific properties and change you into a lion. So in that same sense, our personal created version of joy, happiness, and rewarding experience does not change the scientific properties of our brains that yields our experience of thought over to an experience of joy, happiness, and rewarding experience. We don't know if there is a scientific version of good and bad yet. So you cannot say whether my definition is personal or is actually real yet.

Stephen Hawking has said that philosophy is dead (fake). Science is what defines this entire universe and everything in it including our own mental experiences and our brains. My theory also states that philosophy is dead as well. I explained before how there is a scientific version of everything. There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. All personal created meanings in our lives including good and bad are all metaphorical meanings. They are not realistic.

I respect your opinion. As a matter of fact, the reason why I kept discussing this theory of mine over and over again was because people really did not come right out and really explain to me how my theory is nonsense. All they said was that it was nonsense because it is my own personal opinion. I thought they were just brushing off and dismissing my theory based upon nothing more than their own personal opinion. So I take it that they do have an actual valid reason to think that my theory is wrong. You are saying that all definitions of good meaning in our lives are not rewarding experiences for us. That there are forms of good meaning that are not rewarding to us at all in which we do not perceive anything rewarding towards anything or anyone else. I am curious, please explain to me how this is possible. If you can explain this to me, I think this whole discussion will finally get somewhere and will come to a conclusion right here and now in the end. The everyday use of the term "sight" is the scientific version of sight. It is scientific in the sense that it applies to all human beings. Sight is always our mental experience of visualizing objects and this applies to all human beings. Since it applies to all human beings, then this is what makes it scientific. There are new things for me to discuss as well (new arguments). This is not what we should call self-centered. This is a discussion like any other. It is a discussion in which someone comes onto this forum, has a theory/question, and wishes to learn. I wish to learn how my theory is false and I am having questions regarding the feedback of others here.

It is a scientific term in the sense that it is a mental experience like touch, smell, pain, sight, hearing, etc. Those other terms just mentioned are also scientific terms as well. But metaphorical meanings are delusional meanings that have no bearing whatsoever in reality. Therefore, the metaphorical version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. is the fake version of good, bad, joy, love, happiness, etc. I will explain more on this later on. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think my definition of good is quite valid. Think about it. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them. I have restated this because it was not included in my opening post. I later on edited it in into my opening post. But you might of missed it already which is the reason why I also included it here as well.

Note To Reader: I am just like any other normal person wanting to discover the truth. I am not being selfish and am not trying to bother you or be nonsensical. I just really wish to discuss and find the answer to my theory here. So far, I haven't. People have just been dismissing my theory based upon their own personal opinions. But I need to discuss an actual valid reason as to why they reject my theory besides just from their own personal opinions. There are many philosophies out there on how to live a happy/joyful life. But these are nothing scientific. They know nothing about science and how the brain really works (what our mental experiences really are). As a matter of fact, these philosophies say that you can live a joyful, happy life and enjoy your life while in a depressed and/or anhedonic state. But that is just nonsense and I will tell you why. The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term. It is defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. If there is a scientific version of something, then a different version of it would have to be fake. For example, since we have the scientific terms sight, hearing, smell, and taste, then a philosophical/moral version of sight, hearing, smell, and taste would be fake and would not give us sight, hearing, smell, or taste. What we have "over here" is the term "rewarding experience" which is a scientific term in the world of science. But what we have "over there" are the terms happiness, joy, pleasure, and enjoyment which are outside the realm of science and in the realm of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings in life). So what I am going to do now here is bring what is "over there" to "over here." We all know that joy, pleasure, and happiness are always rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are always rewarding to us. If you had disrewarding pain and misery such as depression and you said that your family and goals/dreams still brought you joy and happiness, then you would be having a rewarding mental experience in despite of your disrewarding pain and misery. But if you did not experience any pleasant feelings/emotions in despite of your depression, then it would be false of you to say that you are having joy and happiness despite your depression. So since joy and happiness are synonymous with the scientific term "rewarding experience," then joy and happiness are also scientific terms as well. They belong "over here" in the realm of science. Also, as a side note, my descriptions of "over here" and "over there" are merely descriptions to make my explanation more effective and convenient. This also applies to love, inspiration, etc. which are also always and can only be rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are also scientific terms which means the philosophical/moral version of those things are false. As a matter of fact, I think there is a scientific version of everything and that the world of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings) is false. There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. That would not make you a lion. There is a scientific version of the sun, there is a scientific version of helium, etc. If you personally define anything else in life as being the sun or helium, then that would be false as well. It would not make those things actual helium or the sun. So with all of this being said, I think there is even a scientific version of good and bad. Since having good meaning in one's life is always a rewarding mental experience for us and can only be a rewarding mental experience to us, then good is also a scientific term as well. It would be a synonym for our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them. If you had disrewarding pain and misery to win a game and earn a trophy, then the idea of the team, trophy, and the game would be rewarding to you despite your pain and misery. They would be a rewarding mental experience for you in despite of your pain and misery since they have good value and worth to you. Therefore, good also belongs in the realm of science as well. Bad also belongs in the realm of science. Bad would be a synonym for our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system. The term "incentive" is also always and can only be a rewarding or a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. It can be disrewarding because you can have the incentive to run away from danger. It would be disrewarding since you would be experiencing an unpleasant feeling/emotion known as fear. Therefore, incentive is also a scientific term as well and our only incentive in life is either our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system or our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

Yes. I did have an actual question that has something to do with science. That is, has it ever been tested whether there is this scientific version of good and bad I am referring to here in my posts? Read my last few remaining recent posts here so that you know what this scientific version of good and bad is that I am referring to. If it has never been tested, then it is no wonder there is no supporting evidence for my theory. If that is the case, then people should not just simply dismiss my theory since there might be new evidence in support of it if my theory were to have new tests for it.

From my perspective, my counterarguments refute your counterarguments. But from your perspective, your counterarguments refute my counterarguments. So I don't see how your counterarguments are supposed to refute my counterarguments and neither can you see how my counterarguments are supposed to refute your counterarguments.

How is it wrong? I need more debate on this one. That is, if you wish to continue. If you really wish to give up right here and now, that is fine.

Yes, you are free to lecture me and lecture me to be content with my life, but like I said, I don't care about that. That is not what I am here to talk about. I am here solely to talk and debate about the validity of my theory.

Well, at least we are now getting somewhere because you are now giving a debating point (refutation) to my theory we can talk about here. That was all I was trying to do here. This is all I was ever wanting to achieve here. As for optimism always being a rewarding experience, we know what characteristics optimism has. For example, if we express optimistic tones and expressions, then they are vigorous, vibrant, and "alive" tones, acts, and expressions. So to have the mental experience of optimism would also mean that you would have to be in a vibrant and vigorous "alive" mental state. That mental state can only be achieved through your pleasant emotions (good moods) as I've said before. As for pessimism, that would be achieved through the mindstate of you experiencing your unpleasant feelings/emotions. It would be you being in a hopeless and depressive mindstate, an enraged mindstate, a sad mindstate, etc. But if you have chosen to express vibrant and vigorous acts, tones, and expressions that were forced and not optimistic at all, then that is not the same thing as optimism. That is not the same thing as them being optimistic acts, tones, and expressions. Therefore, an anhedonic and/or depressed person who claims to live an optimistic lifestyle would be lying. He/she would be living a forced lifestyle. His/her mental experiences of choosing to help others and performing actions would be forced mental states and not optimistic mental states at all.

I have now come up with an absolute and final brief summary of my theory that gets my full theory across: Since our reward system (pleasant emotions) are the only rewarding experiences we can have and since optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings, then optimism can only be our pleasant emotions themselves and not our attitudes alone or anything else. The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts or anything else alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. Therefore, optimism can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions while pessimism can only be our unpleasant feelings/emotions. Optimism is love, joy, happiness, etc. while pessimism is depression, rage, hate, despair, etc. Therefore, love, joy, and happiness can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions while depression, rage, hate, despair, etc. can only be our unpleasant feelings/emotions. To have good meaning in one's life is always an optimistic statement which would mean that would have to be a rewarding experience as well. Therefore, our pleasant feelings/emotions are the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can be of good value and worth to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you would be no different than saying that something can be a rewarding experience to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement. Since the moral version of good and bad is defined as being something subjective, then this moral version of good and bad no longer exists anymore. It is fake. Good and bad are now objective (scientific). They are now scientific terms. Our pleasant emotions would have to be the experience of the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions would have to be the experience of the scientific version of bad. The fact is, there is a psychological basis that determines if one has good or bad meaning in his/her life that people are ignorantly leaving out and saying that a severely crippled depressed person who can hardly function is still living the good life since he/she has told his/herself he/she was still living the good life. It would be no different than telling a blind and deaf person that he/she can still see and hear since he/she has told his/herself he/she can still see and hear. When you are in a hopeless, bland, and “dead” mindstate due to your depression and/or anhedonia, then that is the mindstate of perceiving neutral (neither good or bad) and the scientific version of bad meaning in your life. But when you are in the vibrant, “alive,” transcending, and vigorous mindstate of experiencing your pleasant emotions (good moods), then that is the mindstate of perceiving the scientific version of good meaning in your life. The moral version of having good and bad meaning in one’s life would say that it doesn’t matter what mental state you are in. That if you tell yourself you are living a good or bad life, then that makes it so. But having good or bad meaning in one’s life solely depends on what mental state you are in. There is always a scientific (psychological) basis that determines whether we have good or bad meaning in our lives. I already explained it in my previous paragraph above here. That psychological basis is not our thinking. It is our moods.

Well, it doesn't matter to me. I came here to talk about my theory anyway. You are free to discuss it with me. Or you can no longer discuss it with me.