The science of joy and happiness

[MattMVS7]

Then you need to clarify what you mean. You said the word "sight" is scientific because everyone can see.

But not everyone can see, therefore by your own argument, the word "sight" is not scientific.

If this doesn't make sense, it is because you are posting nonsense (as usual).

Feline is a scientific term since there are traits that are the same that hold true all the time. Lions and tigers, even though they have different characteristics, are felines. This is because there are certain traits that make them felines. So in that same sense, sight, even though it is a different experience for different people because some people are colorblind, it is also a scientific term since it has characteristics that hold true all the time.

Those characteristics would be the fact that sight is always our mental experience of visualizing objects. You can see in different ways. You can see in infrared, in a shade of purple, black and white, etc., but it is still scientific since it is still the mental experience of visualizing objects. Having a blind person would not make sight a non-scientific term. It would just simply mean that this person does not have sight. If I took away the characteristics that made a lion a feline, then that would not make the term "feline" a non-scientific term. It would just mean that this lion has lost its characteristics.

 

 

 

Firstly, he did explain it in a scientific way, so the argument is irrelevant. Secondly, no one accepts the theory of relativity just because Einstein said it. They accept it because (a) all the evidence confirms it and (b) no evidence contradicts it.To have your definition of "good" accepted as something other than your personal opinion, you need to do what Einstein did: create a mathematical model, produce testable predictions and then test them.As you are not able to do any of those, your definition is not science.

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

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

 

But since it has never been tested, then who knows

 

 

Or cares.

 

 

there could be whole new empirical evidence to support it.

 

 

 

Much like there could be a fleet of hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional squirrels ready to show how right you are... or destroy us.

[MattMVS7]

Much like there could be a fleet of hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional squirrels ready to show how right you are... or destroy us.

 

No. That is not the same situation. If a deluded schizophrenic came up with an idea and said that there could be a giant spider that could fall from the sky and swoop us all up, then that theory would have no rational basis in reality whatsoever. We would have every reason and every right to think that this "theory" of his/hers is nonsense.

 

However, my theory is different. My theory has a rational valid basis. There are plenty of depressed/anhedonic people who ask the question of:

"What good is life if one can't feel good? I am suicidial and can't take this anhedonia/depression any longer. I need my good moods back into my life to give my life, goals/dreams, and my family good meaning to me."

This quoted message is the rational valid basis for my theory. I think it is quite valid to ask such a question. The idea that one's life can't have good meaning if they are not in a good mood is nothing like an idea a deluded schizophrenic would come up with (such as with that idea of a giant spider I presented to you earlier).

Think about it. Even Robin Williams who was a strong-willed and determined person, he ended up committing suicide due to his depression. He was a highly moral individual who lived to help others. So why in the world would someone like Robin Williams end up committing suicide over what is apparently nothing more than a dumb, stupid, and childish definition of good?

Robin Williams did not have that definition of good in his life that you are saying is childish and dumb. You are calling my definition of good childish and dumb. But if that really were the case, then Robin Williams would have no need for this "feel-good" defintion of good in his life. He should be just fine living with his crippling depression. He should be just fine and find full good meaning in his life despite his depression. And yet...he did not. He ended up committing suicide due to his depression.

The idea that one's life is bad and not good and worth living due to depression would also be the stupid, dumb, and childish definition of bad according to you and others here. So that would be saying that depressed people such as Robin Williams are stupid, dumb, and childish for being suicidal and ending their lives. This just couldn't be any further from the truth. This is the mental health stigma we all see today towards depressed/anhedonic people.

So this all says to me right here that our good moods (pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system) really do give good meaning in our lives in of themselves regardless of our way of thinking. So this is why I really think and am truly convinced that this scientific version of good and bad really does exist.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

Feline is a scientific term since there are traits that are the same that hold true all the time. Lions and tigers, even though they have different characteristics, are felines. This is because there are certain traits that make them felines. So in that same sense, sight, even though it is a different experience for different people because some people are colorblind, it is also a scientific term since it has characteristics that hold true all the time.

 

Those characteristics would be the fact that sight is always our mental experience of visualizing objects. You can see in different ways. You can see in infrared, in a shade of purple, black and white, etc., but it is still scientific since it is still the mental experience of visualizing objects. Having a blind person would not make sight a non-scientific term. It would just simply mean that this person does not have sight. If I took away the characteristics that made a lion a feline, then that would not make the term "feline" a non-scientific term. It would just mean that this lion has lost its characteristics.

 

That is pretty much incomprehensible. You have come up with an arbitrary new definition of the word "scientific" and then you are making ad hoc changes when you are told it is nonsense.

 

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

 

You don't have a theory. A theory requires a mathematical model that can be used to make testable predictions.

What you have are stupid redefinitions of the words "good" and "scientific".

[MattMVS7]

 

That is pretty much incomprehensible. You have come up with an arbitrary new definition of the word "scientific" and then you are making ad hoc changes when you are told it is nonsense.

 

 

You don't have a theory. A theory requires a mathematical model that can be used to make testable predictions.

What you have are stupid redefinitions of the words "good" and "scientific".

 

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

[Strange]

 

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

 

I don't see any mathematics there. I don't see any quantitatively testable predictions. In other words I don't even see a hypothesis, never mind a theory.

[MattMVS7]

 

I don't see any mathematics there. I don't see any quantitatively testable predictions. In other words I don't even see a hypothesis, never mind a theory.

 

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

[Strange]

 

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

 

Why? You said you had a theory. A theory requires mathematics.

[MattMVS7]

 

Why? You said you had a theory. A theory requires mathematics.

 

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

Edited September 7, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Phi for All]

 

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

 

My heart goes out to you, it really does, but you may have to start thinking that this is an excellent personal philosophy that you're trying to force into the mold of science. What you've been saying makes perfect sense to you, and you alone. This causes you to think it's "logical" and "scientific", but it's not, it doesn't fit ANY of the definitions.

 

You can't explain this in a reasoned way that others can understand, so you've developed an emotional attachment to the idea that makes it darn near impossible to get through to you. Again, this makes a great personal credo, a good philosophy for you to live by, but there's nothing universal or scientific about it. It may just be for you alone, and if it works, that's good enough, right?

[Endy0816]

@OP:

 

Theory has a different meaning in Science.

 

What you are proposing is a Hypothesis.

[MattMVS7]

 

My heart goes out to you, it really does, but you may have to start thinking that this is an excellent personal philosophy that you're trying to force into the mold of science. What you've been saying makes perfect sense to you, and you alone. This causes you to think it's "logical" and "scientific", but it's not, it doesn't fit ANY of the definitions.

 

You can't explain this in a reasoned way that others can understand, so you've developed an emotional attachment to the idea that makes it darn near impossible to get through to you. Again, this makes a great personal credo, a good philosophy for you to live by, but there's nothing universal or scientific about it. It may just be for you alone, and if it works, that's good enough, right?

 

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

It's no different than saying to a severely crippled depressed person on the brink of suicide who can hardly function:

"Yipee! Your life is so wonderful and great since you plowed on through in life anyway despite hardly being able to function and being suicidal!"

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

 

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

 

It does not have any supporting evidence (or at least you haven't presented any). It is not a theory. It may be a starting point, but you have a long way to go to turn it into a testable hypothesis. And even further to turn that into a theory.

 

Intuition and common sense are a really, really bad basis for a scientific theory. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and prevent people being deluded by what "seems" to be obviously correct (but often isn't).

Actually, I myself struggle with depression and a complete chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant feelings/emotions (anhedonia).

 

Yes, we know. You have told us often enough. I think it is terrible that you suffer from these conditions. But that does not mean we should accept your "theory" as some sort of sympathy vote. Your theory needs to be a rigorous as any other.

 

You are saying that my theory has no logic or validity to it. And yet, it is somehow supposed to be valid and logical to say to a severely crippled suicidal depressed person that he/she is being selifish, childish, and foolish for being suicidal and for thinking that his/her life has no good meaning and is nothing but a bad life?

 

Firstly, no one here has said that, so I don't know why you bring it up.

 

Secondly, it is irrelevant. If some people say stupid and insensitive things about depression does not mean that we should compensate by accepting any old rubbish as being "science".

I suppose it makes you feel better to keep posting this nonsense. But that doesn't make it scientific, it is just a form of therapy.

[dimreepr]

 

Actually, I myself struggle with depression and a complete chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant feelings/emotions (anhedonia). So this really does not work out for me at all.

 

 

Then your ‘theory’/idea falls at the first hurdle, if it doesn’t work for why would it work for others?

 

 

Actually, it makes absolutely no sense to me how a person who is in a severely crippled depressed and/or anhedonic mindstate can still live a good life of good meaning.

 

 

I’ve been there and found a way out (as posted in your last/same topic); if my method doesn’t work for you, so be it, but as your idea seems to have failed please seek help elsewhere.

 

 

[Prometheus]

 

But all you are doing here is redefining terms (words). That does nothing. It does not change the actual scientific properties of things. If, for example, you personally defined yourself as being a cat, then that is doing nothing more than just putting the label "cat" on you. It does not change your scientific properties and transform you into a cat. So in that same sense, personally defining a version of joy and happiness in our lives while we are down and depressed will not change anything here either. It will not change the scientific properties of our brains and transform our other brain functions besides our reward system into an experience of joy and happiness for us.

 

Exactly. All you are trying to do is redefine the word 'happiness'. This is not science. Yes happiness has some physical basis in our brain. This does not change our experience of happiness, or what happiness is.

 

When we as human beings first invented the terms joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, it meant a vibrant, vigorous, "alive," and transcending mind state. If we were to experience joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment, then this would mean that we would be in a vibrant, vigorous, and "alive" mental state since that is what the mental state of joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment is.

 

This is just one definition of the word happiness: there are many others. Why are you so focused on this type of happiness at the exclusion of all others?

 

But as it turns out, our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us this mind state. Our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system is the only thing that can allow us to have joy, happiness, love, pleasure, and enjoyment. It would be no different than how there is only one function of our brains that allows us to visualize objects and perceive sound which would be the functions of our brains that give us the mental experience of sight and hearing.

 

This doesn't change what happiness is. It just means happiness has some physical basis in our neuro-chemistry. Fear is just a neuro-chemically mediated response. Knowing this does not make that angry bear any less scary.

[MattMVS7]

You say it makes no sense to say that a depressed and/or anhedonic person can still live a good life. And yet...it is somehow supposed to make sense to say that someone who experiences pain and misery from having their wounds attended to at the hospital is a bad idea?

 

If the person derived unpleasant feelings/emotions from that idea, then it would be of bad value and bad worth to him/her. But not in the moral sense. In a feeling/emotional sense. All things, people, situations, etc. in life without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions would not be referred to as being anything good or bad. They would instead be referred to as things, people, situations and nothing more.

The thinking area of our brains alone does not give good or bad meaning to us and our lives without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. It is just a matter of making choices, decisions, avoiding situations that would pose harm to us and/or others, and pursuing situations that would help us and/or others. But that is nothing good or bad without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.

So even if you saved someone's life and changed the entire world, none of that can have any good meaning to you if you were not in a good mood while doing so. I have a highly gifted composing talent due to my autism. But my gifted talents can be nothing good to me even if I use them to help/inspire others all around the world since I do not have my good moods (pleasant feelings/emotions from my reward system) to give my life any good meaning from that. My good moods and this life/my composing dream are integral. They are one and are two sides of the same coin. Without my good moods, then I cannot have any good meaning from this life and my composing dream.

Now even if you were a sociopath who derived heightened good moods from harming innocent people and living things, as much as I hate to admit it, this sociopath would be a good person. I personally would think of this sociopath as cruel and I would go and save those innocent people/living things. But it does not matter what I think about this sociopath. That would not change the fact that he/she is still a good person since he/she is in a good mood.

The moral version of good says we would compliment and admire a person who is morally good. The moral version of bad says we would have scorn and detest towards a morally bad person. But the feeling/emotional version of good and bad is different. It just simply says that if you are a good person, then you are good in the sense that you feel good. That your life has much good meaning and much worth to you.

Same concept applies to bad. Therefore, just because a depressed person who helps others all around the world is a bad person and just because a sociopath who is in a good mood from harming others all around the world is a good person, this does not mean that we should compliment/admire the sociopath and have scorn/detest towards the depressed person.

 

It does not have any supporting evidence (or at least you haven't presented any). It is not a theory. It may be a starting point, but you have a long way to go to turn it into a testable hypothesis. And even further to turn that into a theory. Intuition and common sense are a really, really bad basis for a scientific theory. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and prevent people being deluded by what "seems" to be obviously correct (but often isn't).

I see. It all comes down to having my theory tested and having scientific evidence for it in order to make it valid. So that being the case, then why is it that I even bothered coming here in the first place and bothered trying to make my theory valid through explanation alone? It would be because there are, in fact, people who do manage to put up convincing arguments to make their ideas convincing despite having little knowledge of science and despite never having tested their ideas in a lab. I watch youtube videos where there is a Christian believer named William Lane Craig who debates against famous atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Despite the fact that Craig has little knowledge of science and has not tested his ideas in any lab, his arguments for the existence of God are still valid. He explains how they are valid. Not that I myself believe in the existence of God which is quite unfortunate because I am missing out on both this life of good meaning and an eternal blissful afterlife of eternal good meaning since I cannot have my good moods here in the life and neither in the afterlife.

But anyway, Craig has still managed to come up with valid arguments despite his lack of scientific knowledge and despite the fact that he has not tested his ideas. Therefore, this is what I thought I could accomplish here as well. I thought I was making convincing arguments despite my lack of knowledge of science and despite the fact that I have not tested my idea yet. Some people say that my whole idea on good and bad makes no sense to some people. Would it be because I need to further explain some more things? If so, then please point out to me the things that I have said that make no sense to you and I will attempt to clarify for you.

So with that being said, I will make one last attempt here. I have 3 final arguments here to present to you here. Since it will be quite a troublesome and costly task for me to have my idea tested and I'm not even sure if I can manage to get it tested, then this is the reason why I am trying all I can here to make my idea valid through these arguments instead. But if it really must all come down to scientific experiments and if this is the one and only way to make my idea convincing/valid is through having scientific evidence for my theory, then that is just the way it is then. But here are my last 3 arguments:

Supporting Valid Argument #1

Non-scientific factors do not yield scientific results. In other words, if a person personally defined a certain object as keeping him/her alive, then if he/she were to lose that said object, then that would not kill him/her. If it somehow did, then it would not be because he/she personally defined that object as something that keeps him/her alive. But it would instead be because a different scientific process has occurred that killed him/her.

So in that same sense, the scientific results that we see as expressions of enjoyment in people who appear to enjoy their pain and misery, those scientific results did not occur because this person personally defined a version of enjoyment in his/her life without his/her pleasant feelings/emotions. In other words, he/she would actually not be having enjoyment at all just as how that object did not keep that person alive at all.

There is instead a different scientific process that is yielding these expressions of enjoyment. This scientific process would be the brain fooling itself into thinking it is having enjoyment without its pleasant feelings/emotions when it never did. So just as how the moral/philosophical (personally defined) version of pleasure, joy, enjoyment, and love is fake, so too is the moral version of good and bad.

Supporting Valid Argument #2

Metaphorical meanings are delusional meanings. If I said the Earth was actually flat, then that would be just as delusional if I said the Earth is metaphorically flat. This is because when we as human beings create the metaphorical version of "rewarding experience" in our lives with our reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia, we are saying that we are actually having a rewarding experience when we are not.

If I said the Earth is flat, then that would be a false and delusional statement. If I said the Earth is metaphorically flat, then that would be a delusional statement, but in a different way. It would instead be delusional in the sense of giving a comparison to something else. For example, if I said I was made of metal, then that would be a false delusional statement. But if I then said I am a tough man--I am made of metal, then that would be a delusional statement giving a comparison to a tough man.

I will point out something else here. If you said the Earth is flat, then that would be you thinking (believing) the Earth is flat. So that would be false and delusional. But if you said that the Earth is metaphorically flat and that this meaning holds true for you, then this version says: "The Earth is flat because I say it is. I have created my own personal meaning for the Earth and since I said it's flat, then that makes it so." So that would be false.

If I were to go up to people and ask them if I can have an actual scientific form of sight in my life if I was blind, then these people would say "no." But if I then ask them if I can have an actual metaphorical version of sight in my life, then they would say "yes." So they would then say from there that I really can have an actual version of sight in my life.

But all that can exist in reality is what has been proven as scientific fact. In other words, the Earth cannot be a sphere and flat at the same time. In that same sense, my thoughts cannot be thoughts and also a form of sight at the same time. The actual scientific version of sight and the actual metaphorical version of sight share something in common here.

That is, they are both "actual forms of sight." But what is actual can only be what is reality. In other words, what is actual can only be what has been proven through science. Another example is that it is a proven scientific fact that I am an actual human being (a homo sapiens). But I also cannot be an actual unicorn or dolphin just because I think so. Therefore, you can see how metaphorical meanings are not realistic. They have no bearing in reality.

So for you to say that you are having an actual metaphorical (personally created) rewarding experience in your life with your reward system turned off, then that would be no different than saying that you are having an actual delusional version of a rewarding experience in your life. So the metaphorical (moral) version of good and bad is a deluded lie and so is the metaphorical version of reward and disreward.

Supporting Valid Argument #3

If someone or something is rewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would lament/become enraged over that loss for the time being until you find someone or something to replace that loss. If someone or something is disrewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would become joyful. But if someone or something is neither rewarding nor disrewarding to you, then if you were to have that said person or thing taken away from you, then you would not care either way. It would not make you joyful and neither would it make you upset.

This exact same concept also applies to good, bad, and neutral (neither good or bad). If you lose someone or something that has good value and worth to you, then you would lament/become enraged over that loss. If you lose someone or something that has bad value to you, then you would become joyful. If you lose someone or something that is neither good or bad (neutral) to you, then you would neither become joyful nor upset.

Therefore, it goes without saying that something can only have good value and worth to us if it is rewarding to us. That is, if it is a rewarding experience to us. The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience as I explained earlier. Just as how we only have one function that gives us sight, one function that gives us hearing, one function that gives us the experience of touch, etc.

Since our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system are the only rewarding experiences for us, then the opposite would have to hold true as well. That being, our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system are the only disrewarding experiences we can have in our lives. So they are the only things that can make things, people, situations, our lives, etc. of bad value to us. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would neither be a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for you. So having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

Now there are, in fact, many people without their experience of pleasant feelings/emotions from their reward system who do lament/become enraged over losses. But as I pointed out in Supporting Valid Argument #1, these people would only be fooling themselves into thinking that those said things and people are rewarding to them. By them thinking that things and people are still of good value and worth to them without their pleasant feelings/emotions, they are fooling their brains into thinking they are rewarding experiences for them when they aren't. So by fooling their brains, they are able to lament/become enraged over the loss of those said people and things.

 

Then your ‘theory’/idea falls at the first hurdle, if it doesn’t work for you why would it work for others?

It's not supposed to "work." It is just my view of the truth. Nothing in this life was ever meant to work out for us. Does the fact that cancer and depression destroys the lives of others make the idea of depression and cancer nonsensical? No! Despite the fact that depression and cancer clearly don't work out for us as human beings, this doesn't mean that they are nonsensical and don't exist.

 

Exactly. All you are trying to do is redefine the word 'happiness'. This is not science. Yes happiness has some physical basis in our brain. This does not change our experience of happiness, or what happiness is.

You are right. Redefining happiness in a different way for ourselves is not science just as how redefining ourselves as felines isn't scientific either. It is just nonsense. You cannot say that you are happy just because you said you are in the same sense that you cannot say that you are a feline just because you say you are. Words are solely tied to their scientific properties. You cannot say that you are a feline.

You cannot personally define yourself as a feline because you do not have the scientific properties of a feline and nor will you ever. Happiness is our experience of pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system according to my "theory." So you are right here. Personally defining a version of happiness in our lives does not change our experience of happiness. It does not change the fact that happiness can only be our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

 

This is just one definition of the word happiness: there are many others. Why are you so focused on this type of happiness at the exclusion of all others?

Because I have every reason to be convinced that all other versions are fake. Only the scientific version is real.

 

This doesn't change what happiness is. It just means happiness has some physical basis in our neuro-chemistry. Fear is just a neuro-chemically mediated response. Knowing this does not make that angry bear any less scary.

Like I said before, all other versions of happiness are fake according to my theory. So this argument of yours here is irrelevant. Also, when I say "theory," I do not mean a scientific theory since scientific theories have empirical evidence for them and are the most widely agreed theories. I instead mean the average everyday version of "theory" you hear people talk about. But I am wanting to take it to the realm of science and really find out if my theory can have empirical supporting evidence for it or not.

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

 

It's not supposed to "work." It is just my view of the truth. Nothing in this life was ever meant to work out for us. Does the fact that cancer and depression destroys the lives of others make the idea of depression and cancer nonsensical? No! Despite the fact that depression and cancer clearly don't work out for us as human beings, this doesn't mean that they are nonsensical and don't exist.

 

 

Then why entitle your previous/same thread:

 

“My theory that could find a cure for depression”

 

I have to wonder what you’re trying to accomplish here; are you trying to depress everyone? Bring them down to your level, would that bring you peace?

 

I have anecdotal, first hand evidence that many cancer victims have a deeper understanding of life and crave every last second to simply enjoy it.

 

You seem to relish misery and to be honest you’re welcome to it, you can choose misery or you can choose life, it’s your call.

[Prometheus]

You are right. Redefining happiness in a different way for ourselves is not science just as how redefining ourselves as felines isn't scientific either. It is just nonsense.

 

Then please stop doing it.

 

Words are solely tied to their scientific properties. You cannot say that you are a feline.

Words are not tied solely to their scientific properties. Some words have specific meanings which we say are scientific. All this means is that scientists will use them to mean slightly different things to lay people. That is all. You seem to want to give 'scientific terms' some mystical properties.

 

This thread really belongs in philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

 

Because I have every reason to be convinced that all other versions are fake. Only the scientific version is real.

There aren't other versions and the scientific version: it's just the way you have chosen to view the world. No one is arguing that emotions such as happiness aren't mediated by neuro-chemistry. But you choose to add that it is merely neuro-chemistry.

 

Let's say i win a nobel prize. This will make me very happy (i imagine). I could just say, well it doesn't mean anything, this feeling is merely neuro-chemistry. Or i could say this neuro-chemical arrangement which makes me happy has come about through my hard work and a bit of luck; well done me. Both views are just as valid, and have nothing to do with science.

Like I said before, all other versions of happiness are fake according to my theory. So this argument of yours here is irrelevant. Also, when I say "theory," I do not mean a scientific theory since scientific theories have empirical evidence for them and are the most widely agreed theories. I instead mean the average everyday version of "theory" you hear people talk about. But I am wanting to take it to the realm of science and really find out if my theory can have empirical supporting evidence for it or not.

I am unable to follow your long posts so please indulge my simplicity for a minute.

Can you, in just one short paragraph, say what your idea is.

Something like:

Happiness is caused by certain neuro-chemicals. More neuro-chemicals cause more happiness.

Then, again briefly, state how you might begin to test the idea.

Something like:

Measure levels of various chemicals and levels of peoples happiness. See if there is a correlation.

[Strange]

If the person derived unpleasant feelings/emotions from that idea, then it would be of bad value and bad worth to him/her.

 

You do realise you are responding to yourself here?

 

I see. It all comes down to having my theory tested and having scientific evidence for it in order to make it valid.

 

Not just to make it valid, but to make it "scientific" (something you seem very keen on).

 

So that being the case, then why is it that I even bothered coming here in the first place and bothered trying to make my theory valid through explanation alone?

 

I have no idea. You keep doing it (and getting banned from some forums for it). I assume it makes you feel better, temporarily at least.

 

 

Despite the fact that Craig has little knowledge of science and has not tested his ideas in any lab, his arguments for the existence of God are still valid.

 

They may be valid (for some senses of that word) but they are not scientific (by definition).

 

 

It is just my view of the truth.

 

Again, a totally unscientific attitude.

 

 

But I am wanting to take it to the realm of science and really find out if my theory can have empirical supporting evidence for it or not.

 

Then you need to change your attitude.

 

If you are concerned with "truth" and are convinced that your intuition is right, then you will never make any progress towards a scientific theory.

[MattMVS7]

Then why entitle your previous/same thread:

“My theory that could find a cure for depression." I have to wonder what you’re trying to accomplish here; are you trying to depress everyone? Bring them down to your level, would that bring you peace? I have anecdotal, first hand evidence that many cancer victims have a deeper understanding of life and crave every last second to simply enjoy it. You seem to relish misery and to be honest you’re welcome to it, you can choose misery or you can choose life, it’s your call.

Even though my theory would make people feel that their lives are meaningless since their pleasant feelings/emotions are all they have to live for to make their lives good and worth living in the event that my theory were to somehow have empirical evidence to support it, at the same time, it would encourage scientists to find a cure for depression, suffering, anhedonia, and mortality knowing that an eternal blissful life of pure pleasure and no more suffering is the one and only greatest life there can be.

So that is my true intention with my theory. To encourage scientists to find a cure. Not to make people feel down and depressed and drive depressed people to suicide. My other intention with my theory is to make people truly understand my suffering of depression and anhedonia and for them to realize that I truly cannot have any good meaning in my life without my pleasant feelings/emotions. If my theory were to somehow have empirical evidence to support it, then people would now truly understand the depths of my loss. They would no longer say things to me such as:

"Stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop whining and complaining. Your life can still have good meaning despite your depression and anhedonia. Just stop being a fool and change your thinking!"

They would now instead say something such as:

"I see now. I was wrong all along. I now truly see that your life can have no good meaning without your pleasant feelings/emotions. We need to find a cure. An eternal blissful life created by science in the future is all we have now. This is it. The good value and worth of our lives solely relies on an eternal blissful life created by science now in which we can all be resurrected to live this life. I sure hope you can be resurrected to live this eternal blissful life since you have missed out on all good meaning in this life."

One last thing here. I do not enjoy or find any good meaning in my misery. I do not enjoy or find any good meaning in my depression and anhedonia. I can't anyway according to my theory. I am just having a debate/discussion about this theory because of my intentions I mentioned earlier. I intend to encourage scientists to find a cure and I intend for others to truly understand that I as well as other depressed/anhedonic people cannot have any good meaning in our lives. I intend to rid of this mental health stigma towards depressed and anhedonic people which says:

"Stop whining, complaining, and feeling sorry for yourself. The fact that you are suicidal due to your depression and anhedonia means you are being selfish, childish, and foolish. Your life is nothing bad. Your moods don't make your life good or bad. It is all about your way of thinking that makes our lives good or bad. And honestly, you have the mindset of an immature selfish toddler."

 

Words are not tied solely to their scientific properties. Some words have specific meanings which we say are scientific. All this means is that scientists will use them to mean slightly different things to lay people. That is all. You seem to want to give 'scientific terms' some mystical properties.

This thread really belongs in philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

When we have discovered certain characteristics of lions and tigers, we called that a feline. So what you are saying here is that this is nothing more than just a word? That you can just take out that word and apply it elsewhere? I don't see how this makes any sense. If that were the case, then we could reapply words however we want. I could have the following setup:

I=blue

went=desk

to=computer

the=sky

store=street

today=house

This would turn into a nonsensical statement. It would become:

"Blue desk computer sky street house."

Since that applies here, then this also applies on a smaller scale as well. In other words, redefining individual words is nonsensical as well.

 

There aren't other versions and the scientific version: it's just the way you have chosen to view the world. No one is arguing that emotions such as happiness aren't mediated by neuro-chemistry. But you choose to add that it is merely neuro-chemistry.

Let's say I win a nobel prize. This will make me very happy (i imagine). I could just say, well it doesn't mean anything, this feeling is merely neuro-chemistry. Or i could say this neuro-chemical arrangement which makes me happy has come about through my hard work and a bit of luck; well done me. Both views are just as valid, and have nothing to do with science.

Both views of happiness are different. But happiness can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Happiness is a mental experience like sight, hearing, touch, smell, etc. It is not a philosophy or a personal created meaning in our lives. I am also really thinking here that something can only be of good value and worth to us if it is rewarding to us. Since happiness is always a rewarding mental experience for us, then having good meaning in one's life can only be if you are experiencing your pleasant feelings/emotions from your reward system as I said before.

 

I am unable to follow your long posts so please indulge my simplicity for a minute.

Can you, in just one short paragraph, say what your idea is.

Something like:

Happiness is caused by certain neuro-chemicals. More neuro-chemicals cause more happiness.

Then, again briefly, state how you might begin to test the idea.

Something like:

Measure levels of various chemicals and levels of peoples happiness. See if there is a correlation.

Yes. I think that is the proper description here. When a pleasure signal gets sent to our reward system which gives us the experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions, then neurotransmitters are definitely involved here. I think they would be dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (the "feel-good" chemicals).

 

I have no idea. You keep doing it (and getting banned from some forums for it). I assume it makes you feel better, temporarily at least.

This is because I wish to fully debate my theory and come to a final conclusion. I never got that chance since people would just simply give a few responses here and there and just leave. But here it seems we are fully debating and will arrive at a conclusion soon enough.

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

Can you, in just one short paragraph, say what your idea is.

Something like:

Happiness is caused by certain neuro-chemicals. More neuro-chemicals cause more happiness.

Then, again briefly, state how you might begin to test the idea.

Something like:

Measure levels of various chemicals and levels of peoples happiness. See if there is a correlation.

 

Yes. I think that is the proper description here. When a pleasure signal gets sent to our reward system which gives us the experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions, then neurotransmitters are definitely involved here. I think they would be dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (the "feel-good" chemicals).

 

Then what do you have new to contribute? This is already well understood.

[MattMVS7]

 

Then what do you have new to contribute? This is already well understood.

 

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

[Phi for All]

What's new here is that my idea states that joy, love, happiness, inspiration, etc. can only come from our reward system. They can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

 

Inspiration sometimes comes upon me unawares, like seeing something that sparks an idea about something else. It's not a do-this-get-that type of moment. If I'm inspired looking at something to figure out a problem, how is that part of any type of reward system? And please don't redefine "reward system" just to exclude my example.

[dimreepr]

 

Inspiration sometimes comes upon me unawares, like seeing something that sparks an idea about something else. It's not a do-this-get-that type of moment. If I'm inspired looking at something to figure out a problem, how is that part of any type of reward system? And please don't redefine "reward system" just to exclude my example.

 

 

Please don’t be too despondent when this approach also fails.

[Phi for All]

Please don’t be too despondent when this approach also fails.

 

"I understand too little too late. I realize there are things you say and do you can never take back. But what would you be if you didn't even try? You have to try.

 

So after a lot of thought, I'd like to reconsider.

 

Please...

 

If it's not too late...

 

Make it a cheese-burger." --Lyle Lovett, Here I Am