My theory that could find a cure for depression

[Phi for All]

Let's drop the word theory. That always bugs scientists, since a theory is the best you can get, and represents our current best explanation of a specific phenomenon. Theories don't have just one person writing about them, they have tons of experiments, observational data, peer review, all the evidence that makes an idea trustworthy.

 

I think you should also stop talking about truth. I know you're looking for a universal good and bad, but science just doesn't use subjective words like truth. Ten people will tell you ten truths, and they'll all be true (for them).

 

This excerpt is peppered with subjective terms, like "value" and "worth", "rewarding" and "beautiful". It's hard to look for objective good and bad when there's so much subjectivity around.

 

I also disagree with the candy-would-taste-bland-without-our-reward-system assertion. I've heard stories of natives who'd never been exposed to modern foreigners, or our reward systems, who were given candy for the first time. They didn't think it was bland. They thought it was great!

 

Also, you talk about eternal bliss being a constant condition. Who are these people that get to be happy all the time? Can that even work? I know it's pretty cliche to point out that experiencing all emotions helps you appreciate the "good" ones, but isn't it true? I can appreciate wealth more if I've been poor, and happiness is all the sweeter because I've been absolutely miserable, and I know the difference now. I've learned something good, and I know that's better than the bad ignorance I used to have.

 

Perhaps that's the only universal good/bad in science. Knowledge is good, ignorance is bad. Even knowledge that can be used for bad is good. And ignorance, even though it may allow bliss to flourish, is always bad.

 

Please understand that I'm not shooting the whole idea down. I'm pointing out some parts that don't seem right to me, and I'm asking you to think about it and either explain it more clearly, or acknowledge that it's a problem in your hypothesis.

[MattMVS7]

Let's drop the word theory. That always bugs scientists, since a theory is the best you can get, and represents our current best explanation of a specific phenomenon. Theories don't have just one person writing about them, they have tons of experiments, observational data, peer review, all the evidence that makes an idea trustworthy.

 

I think you should also stop talking about truth. I know you're looking for a universal good and bad, but science just doesn't use subjective words like truth. Ten people will tell you ten truths, and they'll all be true (for them).

 

This excerpt is peppered with subjective terms, like "value" and "worth", "rewarding" and "beautiful". It's hard to look for objective good and bad when there's so much subjectivity around.

 

I also disagree with the candy-would-taste-bland-without-our-reward-system assertion. I've heard stories of natives who'd never been exposed to modern foreigners, or our reward systems, who were given candy for the first time. They didn't think it was bland. They thought it was great!

 

Also, you talk about eternal bliss being a constant condition. Who are these people that get to be happy all the time? Can that even work? I know it's pretty cliche to point out that experiencing all emotions helps you appreciate the "good" ones, but isn't it true? I can appreciate wealth more if I've been poor, and happiness is all the sweeter because I've been absolutely miserable, and I know the difference now. I've learned something good, and I know that's better than the bad ignorance I used to have.

 

Perhaps that's the only universal good/bad in science. Knowledge is good, ignorance is bad. Even knowledge that can be used for bad is good. And ignorance, even though it may allow bliss to flourish, is always bad.

 

Please understand that I'm not shooting the whole idea down. I'm pointing out some parts that don't seem right to me, and I'm asking you to think about it and either explain it more clearly, or acknowledge that it's a problem in your hypothesis.

 

Thanks for your response. Yes, go ahead and dismiss my title with it being a scientific theory. You would be right. It is just a hypothesis at this point. I don't know if my hypothesis does have blatant flaws to it or not. So that is the reason why I am going to present to you my last section of my book for you to respond to here as well. So here it is:

 

Final Conclusive Debate (Imagined Conversation) On My Theory On Good And Bad

Now that I have presented to you the story of the customer and the salesman, I am now going to present one last imagined conversation between me and someone else in order to get my final and most absolute convincing point across. Again, I do this so not only do I get my point across clearly, but also since it is vital for me to do it this way:

Response: I do not need any wanting, liking, rewarding experience, care, love, compassion, etc. whatsoever in my life in order to live a good life worth living and for other people and things in this life to be of good value and worth to me.

If I am just simply focused on living for something and am focused on doing something, then that is all that is needed in order for those things and people to be good (important) to me. That is all that is needed to live a good life.

My Reply: But if I took those things away from you and you became frustrated and lamented over that loss, then that would be saying that you do want and like those things and people as I explained earlier. So would you lament and become frustrated if your family and other things in this life that make your life good and worth living were to be taken away from you?

Response: No. But they are all still of good value and worth to me anyway just from the simple fact that I know they are innocent and special things/people in my life.

My Reply: This just doesn't make any sense to me. So if I took away your family who are of good value and worth to you who make your life good and worth living, but then I brought them back to you and slowly pulled them away from you again, would you then beg for them back?

If you do beg for them back, then that says you do want them and that the reason why your life is good and the reason why your family is of good value and worth to you would be because you want them, like them, and you want to and like to live your life.

Response: I would not beg for them. I would just simply do all I can to get them back just from the simple fact that they are innocent people and that it is the right thing to do.

My Reply: This still isn't making any sense to me. Let me ask you this. Do you not want and do you not like to see the world become a better place and a good place to live in?

Response: No. But that is still of good value and worth to me anyway and that still makes my life good and worth living anyway.

My Reply: Then there is no possible way your life can be anything good and worth living and there is no possible way that any of this can have any good value and worth to you.

We have invented the moral version of good and bad based on our wanting and liking. If a person is a morally bad person, then we would not just sit there and stand for that. We would want and we would like to see this person become a morally good person.

When saw something, wanted it, and liked it, then that is how we as human beings invented the moral version of good. For example, we as human beings wanted and liked the innocent and helpful personality traits displayed by other human beings. Therefore, based upon that, we have invented the moral version of good and have said that this is what we would define as a morally good person.

Now we would want and we would like to see the world become a better and good place for us. But if a sociopath wanted that person to remain a morally bad person, then this would be something of good value and worth to that sociopath. This sociopath would of judged that to be morally good (which would be his/her personal value judgment).

But for us as innocent human beings, it would not make any sense for us to not want and not like a morally bad person to become a morally good person and for us to say that it is of good value and worth to us when we don't want that and don't like that.

Response: It's not a matter of wanting and liking. It is just doing it because it is the right thing to do.

My Reply: This doesn't make any sense either. If it is the right thing to do, then that means we want to do it and like to do it. We would want to see this deed done and we would like to see the righteous result this deed has done for innocent people and the world.

If it is the right thing to do for us, then it is the important (good) thing to do for us. But if we don't want to do it and don't like to do it, then it is nothing important (good) to us. It would, therefore, not be the right thing to do for us.

It would be the right thing for other people since they want and like it. But as long as you don't want and like it, then it is of no importance to you. It is of no good value and worth to you. It would not matter to you that it was the right thing to do for the other people.

Response: I see now. I am starting to get what you are saying now.

My Reply: Since our wanting and liking can only be our pleasant emotions based upon what Robert Sapolsky has said who is a famous expert evolutionary biologist at Standford University and since our thoughts alone without our pleasant emotions are all nothing more than just the "thinking" experience that cannot give us any urges (wanting and liking), then good and bad are not moral value judgments.

We have been thinking that if we judge something to be important (good) to us through our thoughts alone, then that can make them good to us. That if a person who struggles with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasant emotions) were to make the best of his/her life anyway and think that things are still of good value and worth to him/her in life and that he/she is still living the good life of worth, then that is somehow supposed to make those things of good value and worth to him/her and is still somehow supposed to make his/her life good and worth living.

But that is false. He/she cannot want and like since he/she cannot experience his/her pleasant emotions. Therefore, his/her life cannot be of any good value and worth and nor can anyone or anything else in this life be of any good value and worth to him/her either.

He/she would only be fooling (deluding) his/herself into thinking that he/she is still living a good worthwhile life and that other people and things in his/her life are still of good value and worth to him/her.

So since our pleasant emotions are the only things that can make our lives good and worth living and are the only things that can make things and other people of good value and worth (importance) to us, then good and bad would instead have to be scientific terms.

Since our pleasant emotions are the only things that can make our lives and things/people in our lives of good value and worth to us, then it is only our pleasant emotions that can allow us to perceive a scientific non-moral good value and worth in our lives.

So our pleasant feelings/emotions are the experience of good. They are what perceive good. So they are the scientific version of good. We experience sight and we experience hearing. So that is obviously sight and hearing just as how our pleasant emotions are good. Our unpleasant feelings/emotions would then be the experience of bad. They are what perceive bad. So they are the scientific version of bad.

The only way for something to be important (good) to us is if we have the incentive to live for it. That is, if we want it and like it. But that incentive can only come through our pleasant emotions since the only incentive an animal (in this case, a human being) has would be its pleasant emotions since this is what has been proven through science.

Our thoughts alone cannot give us this incentive without our pleasant emotions since they can only think of the words and phrases "want," "like," "joy," "happiness," "love," "care," "compassion," and "incentive." But they cannot actually experience those things.

Therefore, the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is fake since it does not make us or our lives good or bad. If a person struggles with depression and/or anhedonia, then he/she cannot live a good life of worth just by thinking so. It is instead our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions that make us and our lives good or bad.

Response: There is just no way what you are saying can possibly be true. We as human beings certainly can experience wanting, liking, love, joy, happiness, suffering, despair, incentive, etc. through our thoughts alone to give good and bad value/worth to our lives.

My Reply: We cannot. It doesn't matter how your brain is wired. Without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions, then just words and phrases (thoughts alone) of love, joy, compassion, care, happiness, suffering, despair, sadness, grief, etc. will not give us those things mentioned. It would be no different than if I had no ability to think whatsoever and had no ability to feel any pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions whatsoever.

If someone then presented to me a joyful photo or a tragic photo, then there is no way I could experience joy or suffering/despair from those photos. Same thing if someone presented to me joyful sounds and horrific/tragic sounds. I would still not be able to experience joy or any horror, despair, fear, etc.

Therefore, we as human beings cannot experience love, joy, happiness, suffering, despair, incentive, etc. through just words and phrases alone (our thoughts alone) just as how we also cannot experience those things through just different sights and different sounds alone without our thoughts.

Those things just mentioned are all urges. Our thoughts and all our other brain functions alone without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions cannot be urges. For example, love is a pleasant emotion. It is the urge (want and like) to bond with someone. Suffering/despair is the urge to solve a problem that hinders or threatens our survival. If you feel physical pain (burn) from putting your hand on a hot stove, then that is the urge to prevent further damage to your hand.

I will bring up my example that I stated earlier with a person having the feeling (urge) to have a bowel movement:

If a person had the urge (feeling) to have a bowel movement and he/she were to then use the bathroom, then he/she would of been motivated to use the bathroom and his/her actions to have a bowel movement would of been motivated (urged). He/she would have the incentive to use the bathroom.

But if this person had no feelings whatsoever to have a bowel movement and he/she simply thought to his/herself: "Welp, my intestines seem pretty full. So I am just going to get up and use the bathroom now," then he/she would not of been motivated (urged) at all to get up and use the bathroom. He/she would of done nothing more than chosen his/her actions. So he/she would not of had the incentive to have a bowel movement.

Our pleasant feelings/emotions are our only incentives that make our lives good and worth living and make things of this life of good value and worth to us while our unpleasant feelings/emotions are the only incentives that make our lives bad and make things of this life to be of bad value and bad worth to us.

Our pleasant feelings/emotions are in the realm of the survival aspect which is where we live on, pursue our goals/dreams, and help others. This is what makes our lives good and worth living to us. But our unpleasant feelings/emotions are in the realm of the problem solving aspect.

That being, where we solve problems that hinder/threaten our survival and where we have life crisises. This is what makes our lives bad and of bad worth to us. And, of course, having neither pleasant feelings/emotions nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

Response: How can this be? I mean, there are plenty of people who have experienced and have found love, joy, happiness, fear, suffering, despair, etc. and all others in their lives even without experiencing any pleasant or unpleasant feelings/emotions.

My Reply: They have never had any of those things in their lives during those moments. It was only the thinking area of their brains fooling them into thinking they have them. The thinking area of our brains always tends to fool us as human beings and it is only completely natural for it do so so. You have people who once thought there was Thor the God of Thunder and the list goes on from there.

I will bring up my example that I stated before as to how our brains really are fooling us. If someone had no ability to experience any fearful feelings/emotions whatsoever and he/she encountered a perceived frightening situation, then he/she might very well report back to you and say that this was a frightening experience for him/her.

But here's the thing. Our thoughts alone do not experience fear. They are all the "thinking" experience as I've stated earlier. Therefore, this person was only fooling his/herself into thinking he/she was having a frightening experience when he/she really wasn't.

So in that same sense, people who are depressed and/or anhedonic in which they do not have their pleasant emotions are only fooling themselves if they think they are inspired and motivated in life anyway during their depression and/or anhedonia. They are only fooling themselves into thinking their lives are still good and worth living when they were nothing good and worth living to begin with.

Response: But we make choices to live on, pursue our goals/dreams, and help others even if we had no pleasant emotions. Doesn't this say we do have the incentive to live our lives without our pleasant emotions and doesn't this say that our lives can still be good and worth living even without our pleasant emotions?

My Reply: No. Our thoughts alone only make decisions, make choices, send pleasure/displeasure signals, and send signals to make us move and perform acts, tones, and expressions. But that is it. They cannot experience any incentives (urges) whatsoever.

It doesn't matter how much your brain accepts and adapts to your depression and/or anhedonia which prevents the experience of pleasant emotions. You still cannot have any incentive whatsoever in your life without your pleasant emotions just as how if a person became blind in which the function of his/her brain responsible for his/her sight turned off, he/she cannot have sight whatsoever in his/her life no matter how much his/her brain adapts to his/her blindness.

It is only the other functions of his/her brain that become enhanced such as his/her hearing and his/her ability to navigate. But he/she still cannot see. So in that same sense, we still cannot have any incentive in our lives without our pleasant emotions and it is only other brain functions that become enhanced such as our intelligence, creativity, etc.

But none of this enhanced intelligence and creativity can make our lives anything good and worth living without our pleasant emotions to make our lives good and worth living. As long as all pleasure (reward system) function is all or virtually all turned off throughout our whole brains due to depression and/or anhedonia, then we cannot live lives of any good value and worth at all until our reward system turns back on when our depression and/or anhedonia passes.

Therefore, our lives cannot be good and worth living without our pleasant emotions since we still would have no incentive to live, pursue our goals/dreams, and help others. By people thinking their lives are good and worth living without their pleasant emotions and by them still choosing to pursue their goals/dreams and such in life anyway without their pleasant emotions, then they are only fooling their brains into thinking they have the incentive to live and that their lives are still good and worth living anyway without their pleasant emotions when none of that was ever true.

Response: If what you are saying is really true, then how are people with depression and/or anhedonia supposed to find good value and worth in their lives? How are they supposed to have the incentive to live? Furthermore, what advice can a supporting person give to this person struggling with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasure)?

My Reply: None. Since our pleasant emotions are our only incentive for living and since they are the only things that can make our lives good and worth living, then a person struggling with depression and/or anhedonia is a hopeless case. They can never have any good value and worth in their lives whatsoever as long as they struggle with these illnesses.

Their goals and dreams, friends, and even their own family cannot give any good value and worth to their lives whatsoever as long as they struggle with these illnesses. Depression (hopelessness) is the worst of them all. It lowers you down even further than simply having anhedonia (absence of pleasure). So if you struggle with depression, then you are a truly hopeless cause.

But I would just wait until a future recovery of my pleasant emotions. I would not just choose to end my life just yet. I would do all I can to find therapies, medication, supplements, etc. that might help. But if you are someone who can't sufficiently or fully recover your pleasant emotions and you are someone who struggles with these illnesses most or your entire life, then you never had a reason to live to begin with and you never had a reason for living on the face of this Earth.

Response: How can you be so cruel?

My Reply: My intention is not to be cruel. I am just stating the harsh truth like it is. Humanity places upon us delusions to get us by in life. Humanity has first invented religion to give people the very likely false hope in God and the afterlife when science has clearly supported the nonexistance of a God and afterlife.

From there, humanity has invented the moral version of good and bad to get people who struggle by in life. If a person struggles with depression and/or anhedonia, then we would say something to him/her such as that he/she is still a good person and that he/she can still live a good life of worth even while struggling with those illnesses.

But that is all a deluded lie. The only thing that can make us good and the only thing that can make our lives good would be living an eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, problems, and anhedonia. Our only reason for living is to live this eternal blissful life.

So if you were someone unfortunate who was born with much suffering and misery in your life, then it doesn't matter how much you have chosen to make the best of your life and how much you have chosen to live/help others. It doesn't matter how morally great of a person you have become. The only thing that can make you and your life something great is the scientific version of great. Not the moral version which is fake.

The scientific version of good (great) obviously being our pleasant emotions. So how much pleasant emotions you have determines how great you and your life are. Nothing else determines the good value and worth of you and your life.

Response: It would truly break my heart and it would upset me to tears if what you are saying is true. I could not stand to see someone not live a good life. Especially for someone who struggles with a mental illness such as depression and anhedonia.

My Reply: The fact that you are upset and the fact that it bothers you obviously says here that it is of good value and worth to you to see someone live a good life of worth. Especially for someone who struggles with depression and anhedonia. It means you want and like to see such a person live a good life. Otherwise, if you did not want and did not like that, then it would not bother you and it would be of no good value and worth to you.

Response: You're right!

My Reply: But if you yourself struggled with depression and anhedonia in which you could not experience any wanting and liking which would be your pleasant emotions, then what you would be doing here is fooling your brain into thinking that is something of good value and worth to you. You would be fooling yourself into thinking you want and like that which is the reason why you would be bothered and upset.

It would be a delusional form of wanting and liking and it would be a delusional form of good value and worth in your life. So none of it would exist. Even the fact that I am choosing to write this whole theory is my brain being fooled into thinking I want and like to do that (that it has good value and worth to me). But none of that is true since I have 24/7 chronic anhedonia in which I am unable to experience any pleasant emotions at all.

Response: Come to think of it, I would be upset if there is nothing good in my life and if my family were to be taken away from me who I deemed to be of good value and worth to me. So according to your theory, I would be fooling myself if I struggled with depression and/or anhedonia. Which I do. I myself struggle with these things.

So what if your whole theory really is true? What are we supposed to do then? How are depressed and/or anhedonic people supposed to live their lives?

My Reply: We just wait until a possible recovery of our pleasant emotions in the future. That would be a depressed and/or anhedonic person's only reason for living even though that very idea cannot have any good value and worth to him/her during his/her depression and/or anhedonia.

Even if we all had a cure in our hands right now for our depression and/or anhedonia, that cure would be of no good value and worth to us since we would not want it and would not like it. Only after we take the cure would our lives and things/people in this life be of good value and worth to us once again since we would be able to experience our pleasant emotions again.

Response: You said that we invented the moral version of good based upon our wanting and liking. But what if we could redefine good and say that things in this life can be of good value and worth to us just simply because we are focused on them and that it has nothing to do with any wanting or liking?

My Reply: There would have to be a reason why you are focused on living for something in the first place. That reason obviously being because you want to and like to live for that.

Response: I don't think that is true. We can still live life and still do things in life just simply to live and do things and nothing more. I think that can still be defined as having good value and worth to us.

My Reply: Then it would be no different than if a pastry seller was selling two doughnuts and the customer just said:

"I don't want and I don't like any of them. So whatever, I will just choose this one simply because it has a red frosting on it even though that red frosting is nothing I want or like either."

Was the doughnut with the red frosting of good value and worth to this customer just simply because he/she has chosen it and nothing more? I don't think so!

Furthermore, if this customer did not want and did not like anything whatsoever in his/her life, then he/she would of purchased that doughnut for no reason at all other than to "just do it." If he/she had no family that he/she wanted to feed, did not want or like this doughnut his/herself, then there would just be no reason for him/her to go into that store and purchase that doughnut.

So people who do not want and do not like anything in their lives and just live their lives simply because they know it is the right (good) thing to do, then that would be no different than that customer who has just chosen the doughnut with red frosting for no reason.

Those people would have just chosen to live and pursue their goals/dreams anyway for no reason. So I don't think that we could define that as having any good value and worth to us at all. There is just simply no way.

It would have to mean that it would not bother us if things of good value and worth in our lives were to be taken away from us and it would have to mean that we would not be bothered if some criminal decided to make this world an awful place to live in.

So for that customer to have just chosen that red doughnut for no reason other than to just do it would be no different than if a person has chosen to do something knowing that it was the right (good) thing to do who could not experience any wanting or liking towards that whatsoever.

But if you think there is a reason for you to choose to do something that you thought was the right (good) thing to do even though you did not want that and did not like that and that this is supposed to somehow be different than the situation of the customer just choosing the red doughnut for no reason other than to "just do it," then you would be fooling yourself into wanting and liking to do that said deed that you judged to be good (right).

The fact is, both the situation of that customer and the situation of a person choosing to do the right (good) thing even though he/she did not want and did not like that, these two situations are the same. They are both doing it nothing more than to just "do it." Both situations are nothing more than just preferences.

The customer did nothing more than preferred the red doughnut and a person who did not want and did not like to do the right (good) thing did nothing more than preferred to do that said deed that he/she judged to be good. They are nothing more than the choosing of different stimuli. The customer has chosen the stimulus of the red doughnut while the other person has chosen the stimulus of doing a deed for the world.

So with that being said, I don't think there is any way something can be of good value and worth to you and there is no way you can live a good life of worth without your wanting and liking (your pleasant emotions).

Response: Your theory is all making sense to me now. Could it really be? Could there really be a scientific version of good and bad?

My Reply: I am really thinking so! Imagine if you were locked in a room your whole entire life in which you could do absolutely nothing. I just don't think it would be possible for any normal human being to not lament, despair, and become frustrated over that. Not now and not ever.

Unless somehow the person then later on wanted and liked to just sit there and do nothing with his/her life. So if he/she wanted and liked that, then that would now be of good value and worth to him/her. But as long as he/she does not want and does not like to just sit there and do nothing, then he/she would always lament and become frustrated since there would be something else that he/she wants and likes to do in life that he/she cannot do.

The fact is, we want and we like to live our lives, pursue our goals and dreams, etc. That is what makes them of good value and worth to us. Our wanting and liking is hardwired into us. I don't think there is any normal human being out there who is fine just living life not wanting and not liking things in their lives and being fine with not deluding themselves into thinking they want and like things in their lives.

The fact is, we always want and we always like and our brains always fool (delude) us into thinking we want and like things in our lives even while struggling with depression and/or anhedonia which prevents us from experiencing actual wanting and liking which would be our pleasant emotions.

Response: So what would we say to a person who, for example, finds good value and worth in the pain and struggle of earning a trophy in which he/she experienced no pleasant feelings/emotions and took nothing but pain and misery for the team?

My Reply: What we would say here is that once he/she earns the trophy and derives pleasant emotions from that, then this would be the moment of good value and worth to him/her. His/her life would be of good value and worth in that given moment.

But during his/her moment of pain and misery, it would not matter what he/she told his/herself such as that he/she is doing it for the team and doing it for a trophy, that moment would be of no good value and worth to him/her and he/she would only be fooling (deluding) his/herself into thinking that this is a good moment of worth to him/her.

Therefore, his/her pain and misery was all for nothing. It did nothing more than took away some of the good value and worth of his/her life. It did not make the trophy nor the team of any good value and worth to him/her during that moment of pain and misery.

The fact is, if he/she had a pleasurable challenge instead of a painful/miserable challenge such as him/her being all joyful and happy while running through obstacles and gaining points for the team, then that is the only thing that would make the trophy and the team something of good value and worth to him/her.

So it is only our pleasant emotions that make things of this life to be of good value and worth to us. Not our pain, misery, and struggles. So a famous and genius artist who has gone through much suffering and despair in which he/she has anhedonia and/or depression in order to create his/her works of art and share them to inspire the world, then that was nothing of any good value and worth either.

It would only be of good value and worth to those other people since they could experience pleasant emotions from those works of art. But it can be of no good value and worth to this artist. His/her own genius works of art can be of no good value and worth to him/her and neither can him/her inspiring others around the world be of any good value and worth to him/her either.

Therefore, I find it to be quite a mockery and an insult for other people to look at a suffering genius artist and for them to say that they lived a good life. It is deluded ignorant nonsense. Not only is that the mockery and insult, but the very fact that this artist has genius talents and that none of it can be of any good value and worth to this artist since he/she has no pleasant emotions, then this very way of life is a mockery and insult to this genius artist as well.

I have highly gifted composing talents due to my autism in which I can create epic songs in my mind that I have yet to learn to actually produce. So this anhedonia and depression is also a mockery and insult to me as well since I am also denied the good value and worth from this life, my talents, and my composing dream.

Response: So what does this mean then? Should the person who went through all that pain and misery to earn the trophy just give up?

My Reply: Yes.

Response: So a person in the military who puts his/herself through painful and miserable training to save our country should just give up and allow us all to be tortured and enslaved?

My Reply: Yes. For the sake of his/her own life of good value and worth, he/she should just give up. He/she should of never enrolled in the military in the first place. It doesn't matter how much he/she chooses to focus on the good value and worth of the lives of others instead of his/herself, the fact remains that him/her saving his/her country and making the lives of others good and worth living has to be of good value and worth to him/her.

In other words, he/she has to want to do that and like to do that. So he/she has to experience his/her pleasant emotions in doing so. Otherwise, it will be of no good value and worth to him/her and he/she would be doing nothing more than like that customer who has simply chosen the stimulus of the red doughnut.

So instead of this life being a deluded cycle of moving forward in life despite our pain, struggles, misery, depression, and anhedonia, this life should instead be a cycle of giving up. A person should give up on training in the military to save us if it is only going to consist of pain and misery in any given moment. Once this person gives up and leaves us all with a life of torture and enslavement, then we should give up on our lives as well since our lives would then consist of much pain, misery, depression, and absence of pleasant emotions as well.

If our lives and goals/dreams consist of much pain, struggles, depression, and anhedonia, then we should all just give up. Since the only thing that matters is our pleasant emotions and since they are the only things that can make things in this life of good value and worth to us, then our lives and goals/dreams are of no good value/worth to us and we should all just give up on them only until we can experience our pleasant emotions again.

If we have depression and/or anhedonia that we have to live with most or our entire lives, then we should give up on life itself and end our lives. I have a great composing talent and I compose for the world of anime/videogames.

The fact that I have this awesome talent and that none of it can be of any good value and worth to me even if I do those said things to make the lives of others good and worth living, then there is no point in doing it. Therefore, I should just end my life as well if I had to live most or my entire life with this depression and anhedonia.

The only thing that can make this life and my composing talents good is if I am in a good mood (experiencing my pleasant emotions) while doing so and listening to my compositions. Otherwise, I am doing it all for no reason.

Not only is this life for me filled with anhedonia and depression, but it is also filled with rage as well knowing that none of it can be of any good value and worth to me. So why live such a life and why pursue a goal or dream in such a way that it can have no good value and worth to you and only brings you rage and frustration?

Response: So if a person had the choice to put his/herself through much pain and misery in order to save his/herself from a life of misery and possibly death, then which should he/she choose? Should he/she put his/herself through pain and misery or should he/she choose to live that life of pain and misery?

My Reply: He/she should just give up either way. Both situations are hopeless scenarios. So he/she should just end his/her life.

Response: But if you had the choice to put yourself through a moment of pain and misery right now in order to bring back all your pleasant emotions, would you do so? Furthermore, if your mother's life was in danger, would you not put yourself through a moment of pain and misery in order to save her life?

My Reply: I would. But what I am doing here is just simply pointing out to you that it would be the thinking area of my brain fooling me into thinking that it is something of good value and worth to me. That I am wanting and liking to do that. But it was never true. No matter how much thoughts of empathy I have towards my mother and no matter how much I have the thought of wanting my pleasant emotions back, it would all still be a matter of the thinking area of my brain fooling me.

Now as I said before, I would put myself through pain, misery, depression, and anhedonia if it meant saving my mother's life. But only if I could have my pleasant emotions back to me within a reasonable time frame. If I had to live most or my entire life with depression and/or anhedonia in order to save my mother's life, then I would not choose to save her life. Only if I get my pleasant emotions back to me within a reasonable time frame such as a few months or a year would I choose to save her life.

Response: I see now. But don't you think that us fooling our brains into thinking we want and like things in our lives without our pleasant emotions actually makes our lives and things/people of this life of good and worth to us? Isn't the very act of fooling our brains in of itself is what makes our lives good and worth living?

My Reply: No. If you said the statement without your pleasant emotions: "I want and like these things," then that would be a false statement. If you then said: "My life is good and worth living," then that is also a false statement.

So the statement: "I want and like these things. Therefore, my life is good and worth living," then that whole statement would obviously be false. But if you were to add in: "I am fooling myself into thinking I want and like these things. Therefore, my life is good and worth living," then that would be false as well.

Also, the phrase "I am fooling myself" just simply shows nothing more than the awareness of the false statement I presented earlier. It shows nothing more than the awareness that he/she is just tricking his/her brain and that his/her life is still nothing good. Therefore, this would not add any good value and worth to his/her life.

It would be no different than if I first said the statement: "The Earth is flat." This is a false statement. If I then said from there: "I am going to fall off the Earth," then this would also be a false statement.

So the statement: "The Earth is flat. Therefore, I am going to fall off the Earth," then this whole statement would be false. But if I were to then add in: "I am fooling myself into thinking the Earth is flat. Therefore, I am going to fall off the Earth," then this would obviously be a false statement as well.

So no, there is nothing that can make your life good and worth living at all as long as you struggle with depression and/or anhedonia which turns off your reward system.

Response: So what would you say in regards to all the famous and inspirational figures of history who have pushed on in life and have done great things in their lives despite all their pain, misery, depression, and anhedonia?

My Reply: I would say that they and their lives were nothing great at all. The only thing that would make them great and the only thing that would make their talents of good value and worth to them would be if they experienced pleasant emotions from them.

Response: I'm not sure, but I think you are just looking at things way too bleak. It is often intelligent people who deceive themselves. Even though everything you said to me seems almost absolutely convincing, I am just not so sure. I mean, surely there is more to life and being human than our pleasant emotions. Surely there is more to living a good life than our pleasant emotions.

My Reply: No, I do not think so at all. Our pleasant emotions are all that we got to make us and our lives good and worth living. They are our only incentive for living as I pointed out earlier.

There is something known as the pain/pleasure principle. We as human beings always want to experience pleasant emotions and to avoid pain, misery, and an absence of pleasant emotions. So the fact that we want and like pleasant emotions says that it is our pleasant emotions that are of good value and worth to us and make us and our lives good and worth living.

It would then be our unpleasant feelings/emotions that are bad and make us and our lives bad. And, of course, having neither pleasant feelings/emotions nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth as I pointed out earlier.

If our thoughts alone were enough to give good value and worth to us and our lives and were all that is needed to live a good life, then there would be no need for people to be trying to find a cure and better treatments for anhedonia, depression, suffering, mortality, and other mental disorders. They would instead say something such as:

"All the suffering, depression, anhedonia, and mortality of this life does not matter. It does not take away the good value and worth of our lives whatsoever. Our thoughts are all that is needed to live a good life! The moral version of good is all that is needed to make our lives good and worth living! Therefore, there is just simply no need to try and find any cure or better treatments for those things."

If all our thoughts alone were enough to make our lives good and worth living, then why is it that so many people who suffer and struggle with depression feel suicidal and wish to end their lives? Why is it that these types of people always tend to think that their lives are worthless and nothing good? I mean, there might be people out there who experience mostly pleasant emotions in their lives who feel suicidal and that their lives have no good value and worth since they have no struggles and depression to give their lives meaning.

But these are the very very few people. Besides, they would only be deluding themselves here into thinking that their lives have less good meaning when, in fact, their pleasant emotions gave them all the good meaning in the world. If they felt unpleasant emotions from living this life of pleasure, then it would only be their unpleasant feelings/emotions that would be taking away the good value and worth of their lives. Their life of pleasure has never taken away any good value and worth from their lives whatsoever to begin with.

But going back to my question as to why is it that so many people who struggle with suffering and depression feel suicical, the answer here would obviously be that those things take away the good value and worth of our lives. Depression as well as anhedonia turn off the perception of good meaning in our lives since that is what depression/anhedonia does--it turns off the survival aspect characteristics. Those survival aspect characteristics being us finding good meaning in our lives in pursuing our goals/dreams and in living to help others.

Most people who struggle with severe depression can hardly function. Even if they were to choose to pursue their goals/dreams and help others in life anyway, they are all down and depressed and severely crippled while doing so and they are not perceiving any good meaning in their lives in doing so. So how is that any sort of good life?

Depression instead turns on the problem solving aspect characteristics since depression is the result of something wrong in our lives whether it be a life issue or a problem with the brain such as a chemical imbalance or mental defect. It turns on the perception of bad value and bad worth in our lives and turns off the perception of good meaning and good worth in our lives.

Therefore, it would not make any sense whatsoever for you to say that your depression and/or anhedonia has brought good meaning to your life. Even if they made you grow as a person and more empathetic towards others suffering, it would not make any sense to say that those things have brought you good value and worth in your life. It is only during moments where you experience pleasant emotions that you would be perceiving good meaning in your life.

Our perception of good value and worth obviously being our pleasant emotions and our perception of bad value and bad worth obviously being our unpleasant feelings/emotions.

Now going back to the pain/pleasure principle, not only do we want and like to have pleasant emotions in our lives and wish to avoid suffering and an absence of pleasant emotions, but we would also want and like others to experience their pleasant emotions and wish for them to not have suffering or an absence of pleasant emotions in their lives as well.

If our pleasant emotions did not give good value and worth to our lives and it is only the moral version of good that gives good value and worth to our lives, then people would not care if a person struggled with depression. Even if this person struggled with the most severe and crippling depression, then we would all just simply say to this person:

"Nothing to worry about here. No need to help you. The moral version of good is all that is needed to make your life something good and worth living. If you think that your life is something good and worth living, then it will make it so. Just simply stop using your moral value judgments in judging your life as having bad value and bad worth since you struggle with this severe depression.

All you need to do is just switch your thinking over to judging your life as being something good and it will make it so. There is nothing bad and it does not make your life bad at all if you were to be severely crippled by your depression to the point where you can hardly function at all in pursuing your goals/dreams and living for others.

No scientific version of bad here! No scientific version of good here either! The moral version of good is all that is needed to live a good life!"

So you can see why I think it is nonsense for the moral version of good to somehow make our lives good. I am thinking that it is only the scientific version of good that makes our lives good. After all, it is our sense of reward that drives and motivates us in life. Our pleasant emotions are the only incentive an animal (in this case, a human being) has.

Response: Quick question. You are depressed about your loss of pleasant emotions, aren't you? You are already wanting your pleasant emotions back. So your depression would be a form of wanting. Albeit, a form of wanting that makes your life bad.

But doesn't this also say that the idea of having your pleasant emotions is of good value and worth to you as well? Doesn't this also say that we can have good value and worth in our lives without our pleasant emotions?

My Reply: First off, yes, I am depressed about my loss of pleasant emotions. But the idea of me having my pleasant emotions back still cannot be of any good value and worth to me. It is only the situation of me having lost my pleasant emotions that is causing me the depression.

So that is the situation that is having bad value and bad worth to me. That is the situation that my depression is urging me to solve. The situation of me having my pleasant emotions back can only be of neutral value and worth to me since I am not experiencing any pleasant emotions from that idea.

But by me being depressed about this loss, that would be my brain fooling me into thinking I want and like to have my pleasant emotions when I am not since I cannot experience any wanting and liking. Even the idea that I wanted and liked to have my pleasant emotions in the past is my brain's way of fooling me right now into thinking I want and like them right now when that was never true.

Therefore, it was of good value and worth to me back then. But it cannot be of any good value and worth to me now. I also said that it would be a mental disorder to be fine living your life having nothing good in your life without deluding yourself into thinking your life is still good and worth living.

So wouldn't it be a mental disorder for someone to not be enraged or depressed when they lose something good in their lives? I'm not sure on this one. I'm not even sure if it would be a mental disorder for someone to be fine living a life of no good value without deluding themselves into thinking they have good things in their lives. To me, that would really sound like a mental disorder since that is just not how we normally function as human beings. But then again, I could be wrong. I'm not sure.

Response: Let's assume that your whole theory really is true. If you were to share your theory to the whole entire world, what would be your final and absolute message to the world?

My Reply: My message to the world would be that it is time for a new age. A new age of good and bad. It is all time we stop living this deluded nonsensical moral lie. The moral version of good and bad is obselete and needs to be thrown away.

It is now time to move onto a better world. An eternal blissful life of no more suffering is the only life we as human beings have to look forward to since it is our only incentive for living. So we must find a way through science to create that better world in the future.

But as of now though, we as human beings think that it is us helping others and such in despite of the most painful and crippling struggles that makes our lives good and worth living and that if we think that our lives are good and worth living even despite the most crippling of struggles, then that makes it so. That is nonsense.

There is a sacred heavenly transcended power that these people are unaware of. It is the only thing that makes us and our lives good and worth living. It would be our reward system (our pleasant emotions). It is the scientific version of good.

This is the good of the future. Therefore, instead of us as human beings living our lives and helping others without our pleasant emotions due to depression and/or anhedonia as though that is the thing that makes us and our lives good and worth living which is primitive and outdated, it is time for science to create highly advanced functional reward systems for us as human beings and implant them in our brains.

It is instead time for us as human beings to live to help others and pursue our goals and dreams relying on our new highly advanced reward systems. It would be a highly new advanced futuristic and scientific version of good we would be living by in the future.

But the reward system we all have now is so fragile and so prone to malfunction due to mental illness. For example, people with schizophrenia have anhedonia as the result of the malfunctioning of their reward system. People have anhedonia as the result of the malfunctioning of other brain regions as well.

Therefore, we need highly advanced and functional brains that are no longer prone to malfunction. Since our reward system is the only important (good) function of our brains while all other functions are just simply neccessary to sustain life, then it is our reward system that should be the one and only main focus while all other brain regions are secondary. But still should be the regions of focus, obviously. Because without those other functions, then it just wouldn't work out.

Perhaps one day science will come up with a project named "Project Eternal Bliss" where we create an eternal blissful life of no more suffering through science in the future and resurrect people such as me who have missed out on the only greatest life and have me and others live this new eternal blissful life.

Even though I know virtually nothing about science, I am just going to throw an idea out here as to how we can live an eternal blissful life in the future and how we can be resurrected. You are free to tell me if what I am saying is flawed and false.

We would first find a way for us to regenerate so that if we get injured or somehow torn to bits, then we would be able to fully regenerate again. Second, we would have to find a cure for old age so that we can live forever. Third, the functions of our brains that give us unpleasant feelings/emotions would have to be disabled so that we can no longer experience anymore depression or panic disorder. So that would cure all suffering right there since suffering can only be our unpleasant feelings/emotions.

As for resurrection, we would have to build some sort of giant computer (a super computer). All atoms and particles that exist here on Earth would all have to have some sort of connection to this supercomputer in which they can give feedback to this supercomputer and the supercomputer can control them as well.

A template of a human life form would have to be created on this super computer. This template can achieve all possible different combinations of living people. This template can combine all atoms and particles in all possible different ways to create all different possible types of people.

There would then have to be a program that initiates this process. Once the enter key is pressed, that would then be able to combine all the different atoms and particles here on Earth to create all different possible types of people.

One of these people might turn out to be me. All the atoms and particles that made me alive in the first place (which have all been scattered across the Earth after my death) would all be put back together to make me alive again.

But since there is no way all possible human beings can fit on this Earth, then we would have to put what has been created by the supercomputer so far in another universe. But I will stop here. This is because it will get too complicated from here.

[dimreepr]

I'm sure he can explain it then.

 

In any regard, Matt is clearly suffering from mental distress and open forums are no place to hash out these issues. We are none of us clinicians and even were we it would be improper for us to engage in offering advice here.

 

Matt, if you are seeing a professional then share your concerns you have expressed here with them. If you are not seeing a professional then consider doing so.

 

 

Why, since strange has essentially answered your question?

 

But to add, our choices not only include what we do about depression but also who we choose to blame for it; if we blame others then the expectation is, the cure lays outside of us and with others.

 

In my experience and that of my friends (who say I’ve helped), acknowledging the ‘blame’ is within is a step on the path to recovery.

[Prometheus]

I have come across the idea that locus of control is at least correlated with depressive symptoms, so i quickly googled it to get a general idea of the evidence behind the claim. I found abstracts of 2 meta-analyses, but couldn't find the full texts so can't be sure of their quality. Maybe others will have better luck and could comment.

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1988-35828-001

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-03051-015

 

These suggest that more depressed people have less sense of control.

 

I find it hard to pretend to have any control over things when i consider how insignificant all humans are in the grand scale of the universe, but i take solace in the idea that within my small patch of existence there are at least some things which i can influence, if only myself and those immediately around me. Like the saying goes

 

...grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

 

 

Or more colourfully

 

Control the things you can control, maggot. Let everything else take a flying fuck at you...

 

 

[MattMVS7]

Note to Reader: The previous theory I have written was way too long and incoherent. Therefore, this is the final version of my theory that is as brief as possible and gets my point across clearly.

The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. It is always a rewarding experience for us to have good meaning in our lives. For example, if you perceive good meaning towards your family and living for them to help them out, then that is always a rewarding experience for you. You are perceiving a rewarding experience towards the helping of your family and towards living for them.

Therefore, it would have to be our pleasant emotions that can be the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can have 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 for you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement.

I am now going to present to you that contradictory statement here again. So here it is:

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

The bolded statement there is either a pessimistic statement or neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic statement. Pessimism is always a disrewarding experience for us as human beings and having neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic experience is always neither a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. But...

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

Now to have good meaning in our lives is always an optimistic statement. Optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings. Therefore, this is the reason why it can only be our rewarding experiences (pleasant emotions) that can make things, people, our family, this life/universe, and our goals/dreams of good value and worth to us.

So our pleasant emotions which are the result of the functioning of our reward system would have to be the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions (the opposite) would have to be the scientific version of bad. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

So good and bad are scientific terms like sight, hearing, and smell. Our pleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of good meaning in our lives and our unpleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of bad meaning in our lives. Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight or hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.

So if you struggle with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasant emotions) which turns off your reward system, you cannot have any good meaning in your life from your friends, family, or your goals and dreams.

In conclusion, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what allow us to perceive a scientific version of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is not a moral version or any other version of good or bad meaning. It is instead a feeling/emotional version of good and bad and not any moral or any other version of good and bad.

Therefore, with all of this being said, the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is fake and does not make us or our lives good or bad. There is instead a scientific version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of and I think I might have discovered it.

I myself struggle with depression and anhedonia (absence of all my pleasant emotions). This personal experience has led me to this theory. My intuition has led me to this theory. It could encourage scientists like never before to find cures knowing that our pleasant feelings/emotions are all that we have in our lives to make us good people and our lives good. Science could create an eternal blissful life in the future and resurrect people such as me who have missed out on life so we can live this eternal blissful life.

[dimreepr]

 

Note to Reader: The previous theory I have written was way too long and incoherent. Therefore, this is the final version of my theory that is as brief as possible and gets my point across clearly.

The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. It is always a rewarding experience for us to have good meaning in our lives. For example, if you perceive good meaning towards your family and living for them to help them out, then that is always a rewarding experience for you. You are perceiving a rewarding experience towards the helping of your family and towards living for them.

Therefore, it would have to be our pleasant emotions that can be the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can have 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 for you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement.

I am now going to present to you that contradictory statement here again. So here it is:

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

The bolded statement there is either a pessimistic statement or neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic statement. Pessimism is always a disrewarding experience for us as human beings and having neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic experience is always neither a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. But...

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

Now to have good meaning in our lives is always an optimistic statement. Optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings. Therefore, this is the reason why it can only be our rewarding experiences (pleasant emotions) that can make things, people, our family, this life/universe, and our goals/dreams of good value and worth to us.

So our pleasant emotions which are the result of the functioning of our reward system would have to be the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions (the opposite) would have to be the scientific version of bad. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

So good and bad are scientific terms like sight, hearing, and smell. Our pleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of good meaning in our lives and our unpleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of bad meaning in our lives. Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight or hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.

So if you struggle with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasant emotions) which turns off your reward system, you cannot have any good meaning in your life from your friends, family, or your goals and dreams.

In conclusion, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what allow us to perceive a scientific version of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is not a moral version or any other version of good or bad meaning. It is instead a feeling/emotional version of good and bad and not any moral or any other version of good and bad.

Therefore, with all of this being said, the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is fake and does not make us or our lives good or bad. There is instead a scientific version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of and I think I might have discovered it.

I myself struggle with depression and anhedonia (absence of all my pleasant emotions). This personal experience has led me to this theory. My intuition has led me to this theory. It could encourage scientists like never before to find cures knowing that our pleasant feelings/emotions are all that we have in our lives to make us good people and our lives good. Science could create an eternal blissful life in the future and resurrect people such as me who have missed out on life so we can live this eternal blissful life.

 

 

 

A blissful life depends on many things, Matt, such as:

 

Not fearing/worrying about a future we can’t possibly know.

 

Not dwelling on a past we can’t possibly change.

 

Not jealously striving for that which we don’t need.

 

Not trying to control others, when we can only request their cooperation.

 

Not expecting but accepting.

 

Not demanding our knowledge is paramount.

 

And knowing the difference between contentment and happiness.

[MattMVS7]

 

 

A blissful life depends on many things, Matt, such as:

 

Not fearing/worrying about a future we can’t possibly know.

 

Not dwelling on a past we can’t possibly change.

 

Not jealously striving for that which we don’t need.

 

Not trying to control others, when we can only request their cooperation.

 

Not expecting but accepting.

 

Not demanding our knowledge is paramount.

 

And knowing the difference between contentment and happiness.

 

I understand that. But this is about my theory at hand we are talking about. I need to know the answer to my theory if it is true or false and I need someone to explain to me how it is false if it really is false. I am on the quest for truth here and wish to know the answer to my theory.

Edited August 21, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

 

I understand that. But this is about my theory at hand we are talking about. I need to know the answer to my theory if it is true or false and I need someone to explain to me how it is false if it really is false. I am on the quest for truth here and wish to know the answer to my theory.

 

 

If you really understood then the underscored is answered.

[Phi for All]

 

I understand that. But this is about my theory at hand we are talking about. I need to know the answer to my theory if it is true or false and I need someone to explain to me how it is false if it really is false. I am on the quest for truth there and wish to know the answer to my theory.

 

This is what I was trying to tell you earlier, theories aren't true or false. They represent our best explanations for various phenomena, backed up by the most supportive evidence.

 

Science isn't the right tool to use for morality, or questions about good and bad that have no quantitative measure. You don't use a story to measure the width of your driveway. It's not the right tool.

 

If you really want to use science for this idea, you need to figure out an experiment you can perform that will test the idea. This story format isn't really adaptable to the kind of testing that might lead you to predict how your idea might work.

[MattMVS7]

 

 

If you really understood then the underscored is answered.

 

So by me wanting to know the answer, you are saying that I am not content with my life and that I need to be accepting and content. But this is a science forum. This is not a therapy forum where we try and calm people down or anything like that. Science is something important here and is what we obviously talk about here.

[dimreepr]

 

So by me wanting to know the answer, you are saying that I am not content with my life and that I need to be accepting and content. But this is a science forum. This is not a therapy forum where we try and calm people down or anything like that. Science is something important here and is what we obviously talk about here.

 

 

Not at all, what I’m saying is, it’s your choice; sometimes science can’t provide the answer, but so what.

[MattMVS7]

 

This is what I was trying to tell you earlier, theories aren't true or false. They represent our best explanations for various phenomena, backed up by the most supportive evidence.

 

Science isn't the right tool to use for morality, or questions about good and bad that have no quantitative measure. You don't use a story to measure the width of your driveway. It's not the right tool.

 

If you really want to use science for this idea, you need to figure out an experiment you can perform that will test the idea. This story format isn't really adaptable to the kind of testing that might lead you to predict how your idea might work.

 

Alright, I see. It all comes down to experiments. So perhaps this is the type of experiment we should do. You could tell me if this experiment of mine 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. 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.

[Phi for All]

What about more nuanced scenarios? Research has shown that we often prefer a broader range of choices (which makes us feel good/optimistic when we decide to go to the ice cream shop with 31 flavors instead of the place that only has vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry), but are actually demotivated by having to choose from a broader array (we would have been happier making an easier decision). So more choices can be bad.

 

When choices are clearer, simpler, we can be more confident that we chose well. If I finally choose from a broad array, there's a good chance I'm going to regret not choosing one of the many others. I know I'm not missing out on anything when I choose vanilla over chocolate and strawberry, but out of 31 flavors I'm probably going to be curious about at least ten of them. I choose one and wonder if one of the other nine wouldn't have been tastier.

 

So is choice good or bad? When does too much of a good thing turn it into a bad thing? Doesn't that differ with each person?

[MattMVS7]

Now is it alright if I ask a quick question first? Has it ever been tested whether there is a scientific version of good and bad? If not, then it's no wonder that there is no evidence supporting my theory and it is no wonder why the moral version of good and bad instead has all the evidence supporting it.

 

Actually, I think there is a form of significant evidence supporting my theory. I will explain it after this post and you can then give your response to it.

Edited August 22, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Phi for All]

Now is it alright if I ask a quick question first? Has it ever been tested whether there is a scientific version of good and bad?

 

If I can get these questions in before your question:

 

What do you mean by scientific? How are you using it in this context? Are you asking for a precise definition of good and bad, or are you asking for a version of good and bad that can be applied to all humans, or are you asking if good and bad are universally definable in all situations?

 

How does your idea deal with the fact that lying can be both bad AND good? What about situations where my culture says it's bad to allow people to marry when they're fourteen years old, but another culture encourages it, and considers it a good thing?

 

Do you consider individuals to be good or bad overall, or is this scientific version applicable only to situations (as in, you aren't a bad person, but you can do bad things)?

 

I'm having a hard time imagining any definition of good and bad that can be applied to everyone in a given situation. But I may not understand what you're really asking for, so help me with exactly what you mean by "scientific version of good and bad".

[MattMVS7]

 

If I can get these questions in before your question:

 

What do you mean by scientific? How are you using it in this context? Are you asking for a precise definition of good and bad, or are you asking for a version of good and bad that can be applied to all humans, or are you asking if good and bad are universally definable in all situations?

 

How does your idea deal with the fact that lying can be both bad AND good? What about situations where my culture says it's bad to allow people to marry when they're fourteen years old, but another culture encourages it, and considers it a good thing?

 

Do you consider individuals to be good or bad overall, or is this scientific version applicable only to situations (as in, you aren't a bad person, but you can do bad things)?

 

I'm having a hard time imagining any definition of good and bad that can be applied to everyone in a given situation. But I may not understand what you're really asking for, so help me with exactly what you mean by "scientific version of good and bad".

 

What I mean by the scientific version of good and bad would be no different than the scientific terms "sight" and "hearing." Just as how sight and hearing are our mental experiences of visualizing objects and perceiving sound, good and bad would be our mental experiences of our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions.

[Phi for All]

 

What I mean by the scientific version of good and bad would be no different than the scientific terms "sight" and "hearing." Just as how sight and hearing are our mental experiences of visualizing objects and perceiving sound, good and bad would be our mental experiences of our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions.

 

But sight and hearing are senses, perceptual indicators that track visual and aural cues that our brains then interpret for us. We have no sensory mechanisms for detecting good and bad. That type of judgement is nuanced by tons of factors, different for everybody, and includes input from most of the senses.

 

Again, you're trying to ask science to make qualitative judgments it's not qualified to make. Science can't tell you that something smells bad. Bad is subjective, and smells one person may hate are loved by other people. Science can't even tell you that silk feels good against your skin. It could tell you that 88% of humans think so, and that the other 12% are either neutral or think it's a bad feeling.

 

How can I give a scientific definition of good when my good is different from your good, in many ways? I might say it's good to lie to a woman who wants to know if her child died in pain. I might say it's bad to lie under oath in court. But what about when a child lies about stealing a cookie? Lying is a cognitive marker in youth, it shows that a child is learning to predict the future and plan for ways to improve that future. So how can you think there's some kind of sense you could develop that would act like sight and sound when you wanted to judge between good and bad?

 

Our sense aren't our experiences. The pictures your brain receives from your eyes are 2-dimensional, and your brain uses other cues (shadows, lines, perspectives) to add the third dimension. The brain is constantly interpreting what our senses tell us, and the brain is also making value judgments and decisions based on what we experience.

[MattMVS7]

 

But sight and hearing are senses, perceptual indicators that track visual and aural cues that our brains then interpret for us. We have no sensory mechanisms for detecting good and bad. That type of judgement is nuanced by tons of factors, different for everybody, and includes input from most of the senses.

 

Again, you're trying to ask science to make qualitative judgments it's not qualified to make. Science can't tell you that something smells bad. Bad is subjective, and smells one person may hate are loved by other people. Science can't even tell you that silk feels good against your skin. It could tell you that 88% of humans think so, and that the other 12% are either neutral or think it's a bad feeling.

 

How can I give a scientific definition of good when my good is different from your good, in many ways? I might say it's good to lie to a woman who wants to know if her child died in pain. I might say it's bad to lie under oath in court. But what about when a child lies about stealing a cookie? Lying is a cognitive marker in youth, it shows that a child is learning to predict the future and plan for ways to improve that future. So how can you think there's some kind of sense you could develop that would act like sight and sound when you wanted to judge between good and bad?

 

Our sense aren't our experiences. The pictures your brain receives from your eyes are 2-dimensional, and your brain uses other cues (shadows, lines, perspectives) to add the third dimension. The brain is constantly interpreting what our senses tell us, and the brain is also making value judgments and decisions based on what we experience.

 

Well, let me explain more things on my theory here. There are more things to talk about it here:

 

if a sociopath felt nothing but hate and detest towards his/her family and he/she told his/herself that his/her family still has good value and worth to him/her anyway and that they bring him/her good meaning in his/her life anyway, then they would not bring this sociopath any good meaning. They would be of no good value and worth to this sociopath.

We have thoughts. But then we have counterthoughts. This sociopath would be having a bad thought which would act as a counterthought to his/her good one and would make that good thought nothing good at all. So he/she would instead be having nothing but that bad thought since his/her brain is getting the displeasure signal and not the pleasure signal.

There is the difference between having a thought and having a perception. If we have a good thought and that sends the pleasure signal to our brains, then this would mean that we are actually perceiving that said thing or person to be of good value and worth to us. But if that thought did not send the pleasure signal, then we would not be perceiving any good value and worth towards that said thing or person at all. We would instead be having a neutral or bad counterthought to that good one.

Just thoughts alone do not bring our lives any good or bad meaning. Only when we perceive something to be of good value and worth to us or of bad value and bad worth to us would that said thing or person be of good or bad value/worth to us. So with that example with the sociopath, he/she would be perceiving no good meaning whatsoever towards his/her family. He/she would instead be perceiving nothing but bad meaning towards his/her family.

Just knowing and thinking things does not give our lives any good or bad meaning. We have to actually perceive it as good or bad to give our lives good or bad meaning. But like I said before, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what give us the actual perception of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is a scientific (feeling/emotional) perception of good and bad meaning in our lives and is not any moral or any other version of good and bad meaning.

Therefore, our thoughts alone do not perceive good or bad meaning at all. They instead only perceive different stimuli. They perceive stimuli as either promoting survival, hindering/threatening survival, or neither promoting nor hindering/threatening survival. All stimuli that are perceived as promoting survival always send the pleasure signal, stimuli that are perceived as hindering/threatening survival always send the displeasure signal, and all stimuli that are perceived as neither hindering nor threatening survival always send neither a pleasure nor a displeasure signal.

But it is only when we get the pleasure signal that we then experience the pleasant emotion known as "wanting." Wanting is the actual scientific perception of good meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as survival promoting. The animal (in this case, a human being) needs this experience of wanting in order to give him/her the incentive to pursue that said object of goal. It is the only incentive he/she has to give his/her life good meaning. Once he/she obtains that object of goal, then another pleasure signal would be sent to give him/her the pleasant emotion known as "liking." Liking is also the only thing that gives him/her the incentive (perception of good meaning).

If a displeausre signal gets sent to his/her brain, then that is the only thing that gives him/her the scientific perception of bad meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as hindering or threatening his/her survival. If we had no pleasant or unpleasant feelings/emotions, then we cannot perceive any good or bad meaning whatsoever in our lives. We would only be fooling our brains into thinking we can still live good lives that have good meaning if we were to struggle with depression and/or anhedonia which turns off the experience of our pleasant emotions (our reward system).

Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight and hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either through our thoughts alone without our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions.

Edited August 22, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

 

 

Well, let me explain more things on my theory here. There are more things to talk about it here:

 

if a sociopath felt nothing but hate and detest towards his/her family and he/she told his/herself that his/her family still has good value and worth to him/her anyway and that they bring him/her good meaning in his/her life anyway, then they would not bring this sociopath any good meaning. They would be of no good value and worth to this sociopath.

We have thoughts. But then we have counterthoughts. This sociopath would be having a bad thought which would act as a counterthought to his/her good one and would make that good thought nothing good at all. So he/she would instead be having nothing but that bad thought since his/her brain is getting the displeasure signal and not the pleasure signal.

There is the difference between having a thought and having a perception. If we have a good thought and that sends the pleasure signal to our brains, then this would mean that we are actually perceiving that said thing or person to be of good value and worth to us. But if that thought did not send the pleasure signal, then we would not be perceiving any good value and worth towards that said thing or person at all. We would instead be having a neutral or bad counterthought to that good one.

Just thoughts alone do not bring our lives any good or bad meaning. Only when we perceive something to be of good value and worth to us or of bad value and bad worth to us would that said thing or person be of good or bad value/worth to us. So with that example with the sociopath, he/she would be perceiving no good meaning whatsoever towards his/her family. He/she would instead be perceiving nothing but bad meaning towards his/her family.

Just knowing and thinking things does not give our lives any good or bad meaning. We have to actually perceive it as good or bad to give our lives good or bad meaning. But like I said before, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what give us the actual perception of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is a scientific (feeling/emotional) perception of good and bad meaning in our lives and is not any moral or any other version of good and bad meaning.

Therefore, our thoughts alone do not perceive good or bad meaning at all. They instead only perceive different stimuli. They perceive stimuli as either promoting survival, hindering/threatening survival, or neither promoting nor hindering/threatening survival. All stimuli that are perceived as promoting survival always send the pleasure signal, stimuli that are perceived as hindering/threatening survival always send the displeasure signal, and all stimuli that are perceived as neither hindering nor threatening survival always send neither a pleasure nor a displeasure signal.

But it is only when we get the pleasure signal that we then experience the pleasant emotion known as "wanting." Wanting is the actual scientific perception of good meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as survival promoting. The animal (in this case, a human being) needs this experience of wanting in order to give him/her the incentive to pursue that said object of goal. It is the only incentive he/she has to give his/her life good meaning. Once he/she obtains that object of goal, then another pleasure signal would be sent to give him/her the pleasant emotion known as "liking." Liking is also the only thing that gives him/her the incentive (perception of good meaning).

If a displeausre signal gets sent to his/her brain, then that is the only thing that gives him/her the scientific perception of bad meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as hindering or threatening his/her survival. If we had no pleasant or unpleasant feelings/emotions, then we cannot perceive any good or bad meaning whatsoever in our lives. We would only be fooling our brains into thinking we can still live good lives that have good meaning if we were to struggle with depression and/or anhedonia which turns off the experience of our pleasant emotions (our reward system).

Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight and hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either through our thoughts alone without our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions.

 

 

 

This is just nonsense.

[MattMVS7]

 

 

This is just nonsense.

 

My one and only reason for living and pursuing my highly gifted composing talents would be my good moods (pleasant emotions). To live an eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, mortality, and anhedonia. Me being in a good mood is the one and only thing that gives my life good meaning, gives my family good meaning to me, and gives my composing dream good meaning to me.

 

My thoughts alone are nothing more than just the "thinking" experience of my brain. They cannot experience any incentives, inspiration, motivation, love, joy, happiness, etc. They cannot perceive any good meaning in my life. They can only experience the words and phrases (thoughts) of inspiration, incentives, motivation, love, joy, happiness, and good meaning/worth. But my thoughts alone cannot actually allow me to have those said things in my life.

 

If I wish to have good meaning in my life and have an incentive in my life to pursue my goals and dreams and such, then that always calls for my experience of my good moods (pleasant emotions) in order to make that happen. I wish to have a "high" of inspiration and good meaning in my life. But that can only come through my good moods. You cannot achieve this "high" through your thoughts alone.

 

Therefore, you being in a good mood is the one and only thing that makes you a good person and makes a good life. It doesn't matter who you are as a person. The only thing that makes you and your life good and great would be your pleasant emotions (good moods) and nothing else.

 

I must always be up and running in a high, epic, and transcended mood when composing and living my life. Otherwise, if I am depressed and/or anhedonic, then it is an utterly meaningless and inferior way to live and compose.

Edited August 23, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

To live an eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, mortality, and anhedonia.

 

 

 

Did you really mean to include mortality?

 

Never the less you’ve set yourself an impossible target.

 

Sad things happen (like the death of a loved one) and you will suffer the loss even if you recover quickly; not to mention the suffering from accidents or illness.

 

You should read the link I gave on anhedonia, which is defined as “the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found to be enjoyable” and is often the result of a mental disorder so your theory would need to treat such disorders as schizophrenia without antipsychotic medication.

[MattMVS7]

 

 

 

Did you really mean to include mortality?

 

Never the less you’ve set yourself an impossible target.

 

Sad things happen (like the death of a loved one) and you will suffer the loss even if you recover quickly; not to mention the suffering from accidents or illness.

 

You should read the link I gave on anhedonia, which is defined as “the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found to be enjoyable” and is often the result of a mental disorder so your theory would need to treat such disorders as schizophrenia without antipsychotic medication.

 

Understood. But let me continue on here with explaining my theory because I am still trying to figure this whole theory of mine out. 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.

[dimreepr]

 

Understood. But let me continue on here with explaining my theory because I am still trying to figure this whole theory of mine out.

 

 

That’s twice now, you say you understand and then immediately demonstrate you don’t.

 

You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of a discussion or the meaning of a theory, please read my signature.

[MattMVS7]

 

 

That’s twice now, you say you understand and then immediately demonstrate you don’t.

 

You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of a discussion or the meaning of a theory, please read my signature.

 

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.

[MattMVS7]

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.

Edited August 28, 2015 by MattMVS7