My theory that could find a cure for depression

[dimreepr]

I’ve tried several times to discuss why you’re barking up the wrong tree and every time you refuse and simply restate this nonsense, how for instance is optimism a rewarding experience?

 

I can be optimistic that you will finally understand my posts whilst at the same time be pessimistic that you ever will but it gives me no pleasure or pain.

 

All I can say with any degree of confidence is you’re wrong.

Edited August 28, 2015 by dimreepr

[MattMVS7]

I’ve tried several times to discuss why you’re barking up the wrong tree and every time you refuse and simply restate this nonsense, how for instance is optimism a rewarding experience?

 

I can be optimistic that you will finally understand my posts whilst at the same time be pessimistic that you ever will but it gives me no pleasure or pain.

 

All I can say with any degree of confidence is you’re wrong.

 

Well, at least we are now getting somewhere because you are now giving a debating point (refutation) to my theory we can talk about here. That was all I was trying to do here. This is all I was ever wanting to achieve here. As for optimism always being a rewarding experience, we know what characteristics optimism has. For example, if we express optimistic tones and expressions, then they are vigorous, vibrant, and "alive" tones, acts, and expressions. So to have the mental experience of optimism would also mean that you would have to be in a vibrant and vigorous "alive" mental state. That mental state can only be achieved through your pleasant emotions (good moods) as I've said before. As for pessimism, that would be achieved through the mindstate of you experiencing your unpleasant feelings/emotions. It would be you being in a hopeless and depressive mindstate, an enraged mindstate, a sad mindstate, etc.

 

But if you have chosen to express vibrant and vigorous acts, tones, and expressions that were forced and not optimistic at all, then that is not the same thing as optimism. That is not the same thing as them being optimistic acts, tones, and expressions. Therefore, an anhedonic and/or depressed person who claims to live an optimistic lifestyle would be lying. He/she would be living a forced lifestyle. His/her mental experiences of choosing to help others and performing actions would be forced mental states and not optimistic mental states at all.

Edited August 28, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

45 Year depression

Solved with the flick of a switch

I now have inner peace. “Bullshit” I hear you cry that’s just mystical mumbo jumbo. So you’re a Buddhist now? Nope. Buddhism is only relevant if you’re from the culture it was intended to teach. No I’m just a bloke who has had his knowledge, of the world and how it relates him, switch flick to understanding. I had five similar switches to flick for this to happen;

 

1. The illusion of control. Ironically Kung fu panda helped me flick this switch cheers Buddha

 

2. The illusion of understanding. This forum’s responsible for me flicking this switch big up thanks guys.

 

3. Living in the moment. Again Kung fu panda, partly, and “inow” in questioning his name thanks mate.

 

4. Expectations. This was the trickiest for me and still is. The flick of this switch needs constant re-flicking. I’ve got my dog tatty and my friend charly. The mantra I use, when someone has annoyed me because of my expectation, to re-flick this one is “that’s just me in a different skin so why not smile at me”.

 

5 What do I actually need? I have Drink and drugs to thank for flipping this switch. Fundamentally what do I actually need to live at any given moment and the answer is almost certainly nothing. Well you say we need food, water and shelter to live. Only if that moment was the threshold of a starving man dying he needs food. Are you starving at this moment? the same for a thirsty man. Are you thirsty? Or if your captain Oates you would be glad of a nice fire, a tent and some food in the cupboard. Most of us can claim none of these. If you’re in a bad moment and can’t change it? Then your actual need is to simply wait for the next moment come alone that will hopefully change your moment to a good one. If you’re in a good moment then why change anything?

 

 

It's been almost 5 years since I posted this but what I finally came to understand was the futility of chasing happiness because all you really need is to be content with who we are and what we have

[MattMVS7]

45 Year depression

Solved with the flick of a switch

I now have inner peace. “Bullshit” I hear you cry that’s just mystical mumbo jumbo. So you’re a Buddhist now? Nope. Buddhism is only relevant if you’re from the culture it was intended to teach. No I’m just a bloke who has had his knowledge, of the world and how it relates him, switch flick to understanding. I had five similar switches to flick for this to happen;

 

1. The illusion of control. Ironically Kung fu panda helped me flick this switch cheers Buddha

 

2. The illusion of understanding. This forum’s responsible for me flicking this switch big up thanks guys.

 

3. Living in the moment. Again Kung fu panda, partly, and “inow” in questioning his name thanks mate.

 

4. Expectations. This was the trickiest for me and still is. The flick of this switch needs constant re-flicking. I’ve got my dog tatty and my friend charly. The mantra I use, when someone has annoyed me because of my expectation, to re-flick this one is “that’s just me in a different skin so why not smile at me”.

 

5 What do I actually need? I have Drink and drugs to thank for flipping this switch. Fundamentally what do I actually need to live at any given moment and the answer is almost certainly nothing. Well you say we need food, water and shelter to live. Only if that moment was the threshold of a starving man dying he needs food. Are you starving at this moment? the same for a thirsty man. Are you thirsty? Or if your captain Oates you would be glad of a nice fire, a tent and some food in the cupboard. Most of us can claim none of these. If you’re in a bad moment and can’t change it? Then your actual need is to simply wait for the next moment come alone that will hopefully change your moment to a good one. If you’re in a good moment then why change anything?

 

 

It's been almost 5 years since I posted this but what I finally came to understand was the futility of chasing happiness because all you really need is to be content with who we are and what we have

 

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

[dimreepr]

If you think that was a lecture then I give up, my pessimism was well founded and your so called theory is, as I've said, wrong.

[MattMVS7]

If you think that was a lecture then I give up, my pessimism was well founded and your so called theory is, as I've said, wrong.

 

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

[dimreepr]

I have explained how it's wrong, you need to explain how it's right and not just a reiteration of your previous post's.

[MattMVS7]

I have explained how it's wrong, you need to explain how it's right and not just a reiteration of your previous post's.

 

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

[Phi for All]

Some science needs to be discussed soon, or someone's going to close this thread.

[MattMVS7]

Some science needs to be discussed soon, or someone's going to close this thread.

 

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

[MattMVS7]

My personal insight as led me to this theory (claim).  I'm not sure if there is any way to test it out, but I wish to talk about it:

I am going to present to you an experiment that can prove that things that are good to us can only be things that we want.  If you were to set up an experiment where you had an item that a person said that he did not want, but had to obtain anyway since obtaining it had much good value to him, then how would this person respond once you take that item away from him?  I am quite sure he would want that item.  Since that item was something very important (good) to him, then he wouldn't just have utter indifference towards the situation of that item being taken away from him.  

Let me actually clarify something here before I move on. There is the difference between conceptual values and our value judgments. For example, if there was a mother who was feeding vegetables to a little child and the mother said that these vegetables were good for him, but the child said he hated them, then these vegetables would be good and would be good for him. However, the child would not be seeing them as anything good since he hated them. This means that the vegetables would be good from a purely conceptual point of view while the child's value judgment would be a bad value judgment since he thought of them as being something bad. In order for this child to see these vegetables as being something good to him, then he would want to eat them or have them. The child cannot simply acknowledge the vegetables as having good value. He needs to actually want these vegetables in order to see them as something good.

You can't have a subjective when there is an objective.  That all goes back to what I said before.  There is an objective form of sight which is the real sight that allows us to see objects.  Therefore, you cannot have a subjective form of sight since this form of sight will not allow you to see objects.  Thinking you can see when you are blind will not allow you to see objects.  In that same sense, you cannot have a subjective form of wanting and liking when there is already an objective form (the positive emotions).  It is only the positive emotions that can allow you to want and like things (see good value in things).   

Here is the objective wanting and liking:

We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

[Area54]

41 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

I am going to present to you an experiment that can prove that things that are good to us can only be things that we want.

Did you mean to say "good for us"? Vegetables cannot be good to us, since they are not conscious entities. Once you clarify this point I can respond appropriately.

[MattMVS7]

Just now, Area54 said:

Did you mean to say "good for us"? Vegetables cannot be good to us, since they are not conscious entities. Once you clarify this point I can respond appropriately.

I've made my point quite clear.  I was talking about value judgments.  When something is good to you, then you are wanting it.  You are thinking something such as:

"Wow, I really want this.  This is something really good to me!"

When that child hated the vegetables even though they were good, then they would be bad to him.

[Area54]

You didn't make your point clear. If you had done so I would not have needed to ask for clarification.

6 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

When something is good to you, then you are wanting it. 

That sentence is not good English and is consequently ambiguous. I think you mean "When something seems good to you, then you want it." Is that correct? If not, will you please rephrase, since - as written - your sentence does not make sense?

Indeed, I'm fairly sure that is what you meant. So your last sentence, corrected, becomes "When that child hated the vegetables even though they were good, then they would seem bad to him."

Edited August 28, 2017 by Area54

[MattMVS7]

11 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You didn't make your point clear. If you had done so I would not have needed to ask for clarification.

That sentence is not good English and is consequently ambiguous. I think you mean "When something seems good to you, then you want it." Is that correct? If not, will you please rephrase, since - as written - your sentence does not make sense?

Well, I am very familiar with this sort of English.  I have used it my entire life and everyone understood what I was saying.  Let me clarify what I mean here.  When two people are having an argument, then one person might say:

"You are a loathsome, spoiled brat!  I am not going to talk to you any longer!"

This would be the person's value judgment.  He/she is seeing this other person as horrible. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by MattMVS7

[Area54]

Well, you haven't bothered to answer my questions that would have clarified things for me. Instead you've attempted to clarify something that you had already made clear.

So, I'm just going to assume my interpretation of what you meant is accurate and respond to that.

58 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

He needs to actually want these vegetables in order to see them as something good.

I have no problem with that. But the fact remains that those vegetables are good for him and yet, earlier you said this.

 

1 hour ago, MattMVS7 said:

If you were to set up an experiment where you had an item that a person said that he did not want, but had to obtain anyway since obtaining it had much good value to him, then how would this person respond once you take that item away from him?  I am quite sure he would want that item.

Yet you just said the child would not want the vegetables even though they would be good for him. You are contradicting yourself.

[MattMVS7]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Well, you haven't bothered to answer my questions that would have clarified things for me. Instead you've attempted to clarify something that you had already made clear.

So, I'm just going to assume my interpretation of what you meant is accurate and respond to that.

I have no problem with that. But the fact remains that those vegetables are good for him and yet, earlier you said this.

 

Yet you just said the child would not want the vegetables even though they would be good for him. You are contradicting yourself.

The vegetables are good for the child, but the child isn't seeing them as anything good.  You could either simply acknowledge something as good or you can actually see it as something good.  For example, if you were to just sit there with a completely apathetic mindset where nothing mattered to you and you just simply thought out of thin air:

"Whatever.  I don't want this.  But this is good."

Then you would not be seeing that said thing as good.  But if you were to have a mindset where things mattered to you and you said:

"Wow, I really want this!   This is something very good!"

Then you would be seeing it as something good.  Therefore, in order for the vegetables to be something good (matter) to the child, then he would have to want them.  Again, even if he hated them and didn't want them, then they would still be good for him.  The vegetables are good for the child since they will make him grow healthy and strong.  But as long as he hated them, then they would not be good to him.  They wouldn't be good to him since they wouldn't matter to him.  Well, actually, things can either matter to you in a positive (good) way or a negative (bad) way.  If you had a completely apathetic mindset, then nothing would be good or bad to you since nothing matters to you.  But if you really hated something, then it would matter to you, but would be something bad to you.  So, that is how I define something either being good to you or bad to you is when it matters to you in a positive way or negative way. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by MattMVS7

[Area54]

Well it is closer to dawn than midnight for me, so whatever your thought is is not coming across unambiguously. I'll revisit it after sleep.

[MattMVS7]

Just now, Area54 said:

Well it is closer to dawn than midnight for me, so whatever your thought is is not coming across unambiguously. I'll revisit it after sleep.

Understood.  Please do.  I have recently modified my previous post for you to read.  It clears some things up for you.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

You were told to not bring this subject up agin. Resurrecting an old thread is not a loophole