The science of joy and happiness

[MattMVS7]

 

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.

 

So what would your acts of inspiration be like then? Would they be vigorous, vibrant, "alive" (aka, optimistic)? If so, then you would also be in a vigorous, vibrant, and "alive" (optimistic) mindstate. It would be the mindstate of having an urge since to be in this vibrant and vigorous optimistic mindstate is the urge to live, do something with your life, etc. But our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions can be our only urges in our lives. So to have inspiration would mean to experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

 

Our thoughts alone cannot experience any urges. They can only make decisions, choices, and make us move. If a person had the urge (feeling) to have a bowel movement, then he/she would be urged to have his/her bowel movement. But if he/she could not experience his/her pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions at all and he/she just thought to his/herself:

 

"Welp. My intestines seem pretty full now. So I am just going to go ahead and use the bathroom."

 

Then he/she would not be urged to have his/her bowel movement. He/she would not have the incentive/motive to have the bowel movement. So he/she would of done nothing more than just chosen to use the bathroom. Therefore, we cannot have any love, inspiration, joy, happiness, incentive, or motivation in our lives without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions since those terms I just mentioned are all urges and can only be urges.

 

For example, love is the urge to bond with someone. It is an incentive to live for and be with someone. Therefore, love can only come from our reward system. It can only be a pleasant feeling/emotion from our reward system since our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system are the only urges (incentives) we can have in our lives.

 

Our sense of reward (our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system) is what drives us to live. We see this in many animals in the laboratory. To have good meaning in one's life results in us living for others, living for our goals/dreams, and still continuing to live our lives. Therefore, that says that our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system is what gives the non-moral feeling/emotional version of good meaning to our lives. The opposite (our unpleasant feelings/emotions such as depression) end up resulting in suicide. So that says right here that our unpleasant feelings/emotions give the non-moral feeling/emotional version of bad meaning to our lives.

 

Sure, there are many depressed/anhedonic people who still continue to live and pursue their goals and dreams anyway without being suicidal and sure there are people who live their lives in a good mood who become suicidal, but we have to look at humanity overall. Overall, what we see here is that far more people who have unpleasant feelings/emotions and no pleasant feelings/emotion in their lives commit suicide than those with pleasant feelings/emotions.

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

 

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.

 

You say this as if you think there is some sort of contradiction or conflict there. Of course, our emotions (pleasant and unpleasant) are a result of biochemical processes (what you call a "reward system"). But it is also possible to exert some control over how you react to and feel about things. You can choose not to find something or to dislike a particular type of music or get over a phobia.

 

But, obviously, something like OCD, schizophrenia or depression limits how much control you have. But techniques like cognitive-behavioural therapy can still be useful.

 

So there is no contradiction in these two views.

[MattMVS7]

 

You say this as if you think there is some sort of contradiction or conflict there. Of course, our emotions (pleasant and unpleasant) are a result of biochemical processes (what you call a "reward system"). But it is also possible to exert some control over how you react to and feel about things. You can choose not to find something or to dislike a particular type of music or get over a phobia.

 

But, obviously, something like OCD, schizophrenia or depression limits how much control you have. But techniques like cognitive-behavioural therapy can still be useful.

 

So there is no contradiction in these two views.

 

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

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[dimreepr]

Just take your protein pills and put your helmet on.

[Strange]

But all you did was point out to me that we can make choices and have some control in our lives.

 

That is not what I said.

 

 

But here you are saying that you are in the vibrant, vigorous, and "alive" mental state of experiencing your good moods (happiness, love, joy, etc.).

 

I didn't say that either.

 

As you are too arrogant and self-obsessed to take any notice of what anyone else says, this is pointless. You can go back on ignore.

[MattMVS7]

 

That is not what I said.

 

 

I didn't say that either.

 

As you are too arrogant and self-obsessed to take any notice of what anyone else says, this is pointless. You can go back on ignore.

 

It is not a matter of me being some selfish childish individual. As a matter of fact, I am a kind and respectful person. If you were to meet my mother right now, she will describe me to you. I don't steal, don't make fun of people, don't harm/criticize others, etc. So don't be doing the same here to me either. Don't be calling me names either. Also, it is just hard for me sometimes to understand what others are saying. That's all. I have mental disorders that make it hard for me to process and understand. This is not my fault. Sometimes, people have to explain more what they mean and clarify more.

 

I wanted to have a full debate with others here. That is clearly a mature intention. But it was then immature of you to quit this debate and leave me in the dust once again just because I have a mental disorder that makes it hard for me to process and understand what others are saying to me. Your name calling such as that I am selfish and arrogant is all your own personal opinion. That does not apply to me since I am no such person. I am kind and respectful as I pointed out earlier.

 

@Phi for All: I know you are the moderator of this forum. So maybe you can go back and talk to him. This debate took an unfair turn. So maybe you can explain to him that I am not the type of person he makes me out to be.

 

But anyway, I take it then that you are still insisting on the idea that one can still have happiness, joy, love, etc. through their way of thinking alone even while they are not experiencing their pleasant feelings/emotions from their reward system due to depression and/or anhedonia? That they can still define a personal version of joy, happiness, love, etc. in their lives and that because they have personally defined a version of it, they can really have an actual version of it? Well, I already said something about this. I will point it out to you here again in case you have not read it. I will put it here in quotes:

 

 

 

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.

Edited September 8, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Phi for All]

Matt, you say you want to "fully debate" this issue and come to a conclusion about your idea, but you seem to want to come to a specific conclusion, and it can only be one that you agree with, and that's causing some problems. You want people to agree with you. People so far don't see this the way you do.

 

You've been told you aren't looking at this objectively, they've told you why, and the only response they get is a repetition of your idea (which you keep insisting is a scientific theory, no matter how many times people correct you). You insist that we "debate" this idea with you in a way that you can accept, because you have trouble making yourself understood due to mental disorders that make it difficult for you yourself to understand things.

 

You're going to have to accept that you aren't explaining any of this in a way that makes sense scientifically. When someone tries to explain why it's wrong, you simply redefine your terms so you become right. But this "being right" is just in your mind, because the rest of us are sticking to accepted definitions. You did this with me earlier, even though I asked you not to. I told you about a specific instance of inspiration that didn't fit your patterns, so you redefined "inspiration" so it couldn't happen to me without it being part of your "reward system".

 

It's like you're claiming nobody can kick the football through the uprights, and when they try to show you it's possible, you keep moving the goalposts so they can't.

[MattMVS7]

Matt, you say you want to "fully debate" this issue and come to a conclusion about your idea, but you seem to want to come to a specific conclusion, and it can only be one that you agree with, and that's causing some problems. You want people to agree with you. People so far don't see this the way you do.

 

You've been told you aren't looking at this objectively, they've told you why, and the only response they get is a repetition of your idea (which you keep insisting is a scientific theory, no matter how many times people correct you). You insist that we "debate" this idea with you in a way that you can accept, because you have trouble making yourself understood due to mental disorders that make it difficult for you yourself to understand things.

 

You're going to have to accept that you aren't explaining any of this in a way that makes sense scientifically. When someone tries to explain why it's wrong, you simply redefine your terms so you become right. But this "being right" is just in your mind, because the rest of us are sticking to accepted definitions. You did this with me earlier, even though I asked you not to. I told you about a specific instance of inspiration that didn't fit your patterns, so you redefined "inspiration" so it couldn't happen to me without it being part of your "reward system".

 

It's like you're claiming nobody can kick the football through the uprights, and when they try to show you it's possible, you keep moving the goalposts so they can't.

 

But how can I debate any other way if all other ways make no sense to me? See, it makes no sense to me whatsoever that a depressed and/or anhedonic person can still have good value, worth, inspiration, joy, etc. while being in a down and depressed/anhedonic mental state while not being able to experience his/her pleasant feelings/emotions from his/her reward system. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how it is even possible to debate from a point of view that is so nonsensical. So the only conclusion to be reached in my mind is the conclusion that there just might really be this mood (feeling/emotional) non-moral version of good and bad. I just don't see it any other way. It has nothing to do with me being arrogant, selfish, etc. I just truly and honestly don't see it any other way.

 

But just so you know here, I had this whole theory in my mind to begin with. I had all these terms defined my own way to begin with. So no, I wasn't trying to make it impossible for others. But for what it's worth now, just consider my theory as being nothing more than me redefining terms. But who knows, if I can somehow manage to get my theory tested and it turns out that there is now much more new evidence supporting it, then we are all going to have to take a 2nd take at this topic because now, my theory would actually be valid.

 

But for now, I honestly and truly don't see how one can have good meaning in his/her life while depressed and/or anhedonic. It is utter nonsense to me. So I will just leave it at that. But I will also just leave you with this to just simply think about and consider. Thoughts and our moods are so very closely related in the world of neuroscience and psychology. The moral version of good and bad is a thought version of good and bad. If we think that our lives have good or bad meaning, then that is supposed to make it so. That is somehow supposed to give good or bad meaning to our lives.

 

But if there is a thought version of good and bad, then surely there must be a non-moral mood (feeling/emotional) version of good and bad. That is a very brief summary of my theory. So that is what I will leave you with for now. Who knows, we could be misapplying the terms good, bad, happiness, joy, love, suffering, despair, sadness, grief, pain, misery, etc. They could really only belong to our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. As for now though, it might seem as though I am just doing nothing more than redefining my own version of those terms. But if my theory turns out to have much empirical evidence supporting it, then it would no longer be a matter of me just simply redefining terms. My theory would now be very likely to be true.

 

Now I will just add one last thing here. It is something I forgot to add onto my supporting valid argument #3 in one of my previous posts. If someone or something had good value and worth to you and you lost that said person or thing and you did not lament or become enraged/frustrated over that loss one bit, then there is just no possible way that this said person or thing had any good value and worth to you to begin with.

 

Imagine if it did not bother us if all people and things in our lives that we deemed to be of good value did not cause any lamentation or frustration/rage within us one bit if they were to be taken away from us. Imagine if it did not bother us at all if some criminal decided to make this world an awful place to live in. So I just don't possibly see how someone or something can be of good value and worth to you if it did not bother you at all if that said person or thing were to be taken away from you. Unless you have found someone or something else to replace that loss, then I just don't see it.

 

Therefore, I just don't see how someone or something can have good meaning to you without you fooling your brain into thinking that said thing or person is rewarding to you while you are depressed and/or anhedonic in which you cannot experience your pleasant feelings/emotions from your reward system. In other words, fooling your brain into thinking that you have good meaning in your life while depressed and/or anhedonic when you never did. After all, that is what allows us to lament/become enraged over the loss of things we judge to be good in our lives without our pleasant feelings/emotions is through fooling our brains into thinking we are having a rewarding experience from them as I explained earlier.

 

But anyway, I don't think you need to hear that anymore at this point. I have clearly stated my position time and time again. So it is clear to me that my theory is utter nonsense and will always be utter nonsense to you and others without any scientific evidence for it. In that same sense, your idea that one can have good meaning in his/her life while depressed and/or anhedonic will be and will always forever remain nonsense to me. I will never understand that just as how you and others will never understand my position either.

 

I just wish there were some sort of way for us to engage in such a way that we make sense to one another so that both of our positions become clear and make sense to one another. But I guess this is just never going to happen.

Edited September 9, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

But how can I debate any other way if all other ways make no sense to me?

 

You need to be more open minded and willing to learn.

 

You need to stop being so self-centred and arrogant as to think that only you are correct.

 

You need to start actually reading what other people say - not thinking they have said something that you wish they had said.

 

You need to think about what other people say - not just ignore it or twist it to fit your own ideas.

 

If you want to take a scientific approach, the first step could be: how would I prove this idea wrong. (NOT how can I convince everyone that I am right.)

 

As it is you just come across as a self-obsessed idiot.

[DrP]

Just to add, I have read before that "The secret of a happy life is contentment" i.e. if you can be content with your lot you will be happy... Aim very high and accept whatever you get even if you don't achieve your dream, some dreams are just that, dreams. Accept it and be happy.

[Prometheus]

 

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.

 

Once we have defined a word we stick to it. So to does not equal computer. I agree it is silly to try to redefine a word once we have established a meaning for it.

 

But this is exactly what you are doing. We are all using a meaning of happiness, then you come along and say no, let's stop using this definition of happiness and use mine instead. It is better and I can scientifically prove my definition.

 

You cannot scientifically prove a definition.

 

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.

 

OK, you admit there are different kinds of happiness. Good.

Things are far more subtle than you make out. Have you really never felt two apparently conflicting emotions at the same time? I had a recent bereavement but i was at once happy and sad: happy because she wanted to die having suffered for a long while but sad becuase my little part of the universe became a little more drab with her cessation. I do not doubt that this emotion was the result of some neuro-chemical cocktail. But what caused the release of this particular cocktail? Well, it was the meaning i associated with the event, which is tempered by my life experiences and the meaning i chose to attach to the event. My brother was there and felt a different cocktail because his life experiences are different to mine and he chooses different meanings to events.

Does any of that make sense to you?

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).

 

Great. No one is disagreeing with you, so what are you arguing about?

[swansont]

 

It is not a matter of me being some selfish childish individual. As a matter of fact, I am a kind and respectful person. If you were to meet my mother right now, she will describe me to you. I don't steal, don't make fun of people, don't harm/criticize others, etc. So don't be doing the same here to me either. Don't be calling me names either. Also, it is just hard for me sometimes to understand what others are saying. That's all. I have mental disorders that make it hard for me to process and understand. This is not my fault. Sometimes, people have to explain more what they mean and clarify more.

 

I wanted to have a full debate with others here. That is clearly a mature intention. But it was then immature of you to quit this debate and leave me in the dust once again just because I have a mental disorder that makes it hard for me to process and understand what others are saying to me. Your name calling such as that I am selfish and arrogant is all your own personal opinion. That does not apply to me since I am no such person. I am kind and respectful as I pointed out earlier.

 

@Phi for All: I know you are the moderator of this forum. So maybe you can go back and talk to him. This debate took an unfair turn. So maybe you can explain to him that I am not the type of person he makes me out to be.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Phi is participating in the thread and cannot act as a moderator.

 

In scanning through this thread, it seems that you have a narrative and are trying to force the facts to fit it, rather than letting facts dictate the model. The former is not science. It's presenting an opinion as if it were factual. Ignoring critiques is contrary to how science works, as well as being against the rules here.

 

As for the so-called name-calling, it seems to me that assessment of your perspective is on-topic and relevant to the discussion that you have chosen to have.

 

[MattMVS7]

You need to be more open minded and willing to learn.You need to stop being so self-centred and arrogant as to think that only you are correct.You need to start actually reading what other people say - not thinking they have said something that you wish they had said.

You need to think about what other people say - not just ignore it or twist it to fit your own ideas.If you want to take a scientific approach, the first step could be: how would I prove this idea wrong. (NOT how can I convince everyone that I am right.) As it is you just come across as a self-obsessed idiot.

 

Although I agree with you that one should not just jump to conclusions and should have an open mind and although I agree with everything else you said, I honestly tried looking at that one post you've written from a different perspective. I tried many times. But I could only see it one way. You have written the following:

"But it is also possible to exert some control over how you react to and feel about things. You can choose not to find something or to dislike a particular type of music or get over a phobia."

You spoke of exerting control over how one would react and feel about things and how we can choose to find something or to dislike something. That was in response to how I defined joy and happiness through my theory. Therefore, I took it that you were speaking of a different form of joy and happiness. One that comes through having control and choice in our lives that has nothing to do with our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. So that is the reason why I pointed out why I thought that was false (contradictory).

But anyway, as for me being selfish and arrogant, I will just dismiss this as being nothing more than name-calling that does not apply to me. So we can just forget about this whole idea. The fact is, we can never truly know who another person is on the inside. So we are only left to create images of the other person in our minds. These images are nowhere near accurate. So we are left to just simply judge people. The only way you can know me is if you were an exact clone of me. So really, we as human beings don't interact at all. We are only interacting with imaginary images of the other person in our minds. So no one's personal moral opinions apply to anyone in that case. Therefore, since you are not me, don't be so quick to judge me.

 

Once we have defined a word we stick to it. So to does not equal computer. I agree it is silly to try to redefine a word once we have established a meaning for it. But this is exactly what you are doing. We are all using a meaning of happiness, then you come along and say no, let's stop using this definition of happiness and use mine instead. It is better and I can scientifically prove my definition.You cannot scientifically prove a definition.

Well, all I am saying here is that maybe happiness and joy are already words like "to" and "from" which are words that, when redefined, becomes a nonsensical situation. It's just that we are currently unaware of the fact that maybe joy and happiness are already our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system according to my theory. But like I said, I could be wrong. I will listen to the point of view of others. However, I need a definition of happiness and joy that cannot be converted over to the reward system.

I have been converting all versions of good value, joy, love, happiness, inspiration, etc. to being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Therefore, I have yet to see a definition of those terms that cannot be converted over. Only then would I think I might be convinced that there can really be a version of good value, worth, joy, love, happiness, etc. that we can have in our lives even while struggling with depression and/or anhedonia in which we are unable to experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. But so far, all versions of those terms have been successfully converted over. So that is the reason why I don't see it any other way. Not because I am selfish or arrogant.

 

OK, you admit there are different kinds of happiness. Good.Things are far more subtle than you make out. Have you really never felt two apparently conflicting emotions at the same time? I had a recent bereavement but i was at once happy and sad: happy because she wanted to die having suffered for a long while but sad becuase my little part of the universe became a little more drab with her cessation. I do not doubt that this emotion was the result of some neuro-chemical cocktail. But what caused the release of this particular cocktail? Well, it was the meaning i associated with the event, which is tempered by my life experiences and the meaning i chose to attach to the event. My brother was there and felt a different cocktail because his life experiences are different to mine and he chooses different meanings to events.Does any of that make sense to you?

Yes it does. But to me, it is not having meaning in our lives that causes us to feel pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. Rather, it is the other way around. Perception of stimuli cause us to feel pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions and these feelings are what give good or bad meaning to us and our lives. And, yes, I definitely agree that you can have two different emotional experiences at the same time. So you would be having both good and bad meaning going on in your life in that given moment.

 

Great. No one is disagreeing with you, so what are you arguing about?

It's the idea that we can personally have a version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system that I disagree with as I've stated before.

Edited September 9, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

Therefore, I took it that you were speaking of a different form of joy and happiness.

 

Therefore you took it wrong. We all agree that these emotions (and the bad ones - your argument must apply equally to them) are purely biochemical in nature. There is not other system in place.

 

One that comes through having control and choice in our lives that has nothing to do with our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. So that is the reason why I pointed out why I thought that was false (contradictory).

 

We can control (to some extent) the pleasant (or unpleasant) feelings. As these feelings only come from the biochemical effects in our brain (which we therefore have some control over) there cannot be a contradiction.

 

You are inventing some sort of "magic" set of emotions that do not involve brain chemicals and then saying real emotions are different from these. Well of course they are, the magic ones don't exist. You are making a straw man argument.

 

 

The only way you can know me is if you were an exact clone of me.

 

The only way I can know you is based on what you write here. You repeat the same thing, despite having the errors pointed out. You are only interested in stating your personal opinion as if it were some great insight (it isn't). You ignore or twist what other people say to make it fit with your personal agenda.

 

What would you call someone who behaves like that?

 

 

However, I need a definition of happiness and joy that cannot be converted over to the reward system.

 

Why? That is a nonsensical request. Joy, fear, disgust, etc are purely products of our "reward system" (a stupid term, but if you insist on using it ...) Where else do you expect them to come from?

 

 

It's the idea that we can personally have a version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system that I disagree with as I've stated before.

 

So you think it is possible to be happy without being happy? And to feel sad without feeling sad?

[MattMVS7]

We can control (to some extent) the pleasant (or unpleasant) feelings. As these feelings only come from the biochemical effects in our brain (which we therefore have some control over) there cannot be a contradiction.You are inventing some sort of "magic" set of emotions that do not involve brain chemicals and then saying real emotions are different from these. Well of course they are, the magic ones don't exist. You are making a straw man argument.

 

I see. So you actually agreed with my definition of joy and happiness only being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Yes, chemicals do cause joy and happiness. But it is only those chemicals that send the signal to the reward system that give us joy and happiness. The chemicals that send signals to our thoughts and other brain functions alone don't give us joy and happiness through our thoughts and other brain functions alone. So the version of joy and happiness from our thoughts and other brain functions alone really is that magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness.

So that being the case, this magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness that the world of morality and philosophy says we can have in our lives, that version is fake. The world of morality and philosophy says that if we define a personal version of joy and happiness in our lives as being our thoughts or other brain functions alone, then that will actually give us joy and happiness while struggling with depression and anhedonia in which we cannot experience our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. That it is somehow supposed to be a version of joy and happiness we really can have in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system due to depression and/or anhedonia.

Therefore, you can see how this whole world of personally defining our own meanings in life is "magical." It's not real. Therefore, how can it be then that the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is real? Wouldn't it also be the "magical nonexisting" version of good and bad?

The only way I can know you is based on what you write here. You repeat the same thing, despite having the errors pointed out. You are only interested in stating your personal opinion as if it were some great insight (it isn't). You ignore or twist what other people say to make it fit with your personal agenda. What would you call someone who behaves like that?

 

I would just call that merely acts and attitudes. But you cannot come to the conclusion that they are loathsome, detestable, selfish, arrogant, acts and attitudes. You have to actually know the person. You have to actually completely analyze the person's brain. Since it is the person's brain that is responsible for his/her complete personality and all of his/her other mental functions, then the only way to truly accurately judge someone is to first know everything there is to know about his/her brain chemistry and neurology. Only then would you have the right to make judgments based on that scientific knowledge.

So can you see here how morally judging someone does not work out? Can you see how our moral judgments are nowhere near accurate? The only true way to judge someone would be through a scientific way as I pointed out earlier in analyzing a person's brain. Therefore, there must also be a scientific way to determine good and bad as well and that the moral version of good and bad is nowhere near accurate either.

So you think it is possible to be happy without being happy? And to feel sad without feeling sad?

Like I said before. The world of our own personal created meanings (morality and philosophy) says we can have a personally defined version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. You hear this being said everywhere with philosophers and moral people. In particular, Buddhists. Go look at the Buddhist definition of pleasure, joy, and happiness and you will see what I mean here. Other such definitions of pleasure, joy, and happiness also exist in the world of morality and philosophy. They all aren't real.

Here, I will give you an example. If someone struggles with chronic depression and/or anhedonia, then he/she might say something such as:

"I can't experience any pleasant feelings/emotions from my reward system whatsoever. But I am still happy anyway. I am still happy and joyful that I have a family to live for and my goals and dreams to live for."

This is that magical nonexisting version of joy and happiness here being presented in this quote.

Edited September 9, 2015 by MattMVS7

[DrP]

I'll repeat what I'd read and posted back in post 60 as it was lost on the last page but seems relevant to the thread..

 

 

"The secret of a happy life is contentment"

 

 

Aim high, expect or be prepared to take the low.... accept whatever comes inbetween. Be content with that.

[dimreepr]

It doubt it was lost, DrP, it was most likely ignored I posted similar (post #31) in the other thread (on the same topic).

Edited September 9, 2015 by dimreepr

[MattMVS7]

I'll repeat what I'd read and posted back in post 60 as it was lost on the last page but seems relevant to the thread..

 

 

"The secret of a happy life is contentment"

 

 

Aim high, expect or be prepared to take the low.... accept whatever comes inbetween. Be content with that.

 

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

Edited September 9, 2015 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

I see. So you actually agreed with my definition of joy and happiness only being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Yes, chemicals do cause joy and happiness. But it is only those chemicals that send the signal to the reward system that give us joy and happiness.

 

True. But you still have some control over it. I don't know why you keep denying this. Oh yes I do, you are arrogant, self-centred and closed-minded. You think everyone else is wrong and only you know The Truth.

 

<skipped several paragraphs of incoherent drivel>

 

 

The world of our own personal created meanings (morality and philosophy) says we can have a personally defined version of joy and happiness in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. You hear this being said everywhere with philosophers and moral people. In particular, Buddhists. Go look at the Buddhist definition of pleasure, joy, and happiness and you will see what I mean here. Other such definitions of pleasure, joy, and happiness also exist in the world of morality and philosophy. They all aren't real.

 

They are just as real - they work through exactly the same chemical processes as any other source of joy, disgust, misery, hunger, etc.

 

Your continual repetition of your ignorant opinions is very tedious.

[MattMVS7]

True. But you still have some control over it. I don't know why you keep denying this. Oh yes I do, you are arrogant, self-centred and closed-minded. You think everyone else is wrong and only you know The Truth.

<skipped several paragraphs of incoherent drivel>

 

There might very well be ways to help control this chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant emotions (anhedonia). I am currently trying to find a way such as medications, exercise, supplements, etc. to address this anhedonia. But I see the name calling still persists. At this point, I am just going to dismiss and ignore it since it does not apply to me. You are free to call me such names anyway. But this is a moral issue and is all just your own personal opinion that does not apply to me since I have my own morals. It would be no different than if one person has the preference for the color red while the other person has a preference for the color blue.

The one person's preference of red does not apply to the other person's preference of blue. In other words, the moral values and preferences of others do not apply to me either. You prefer someone who isn't commited to their own viewpoint in a debate. So you call me selfish and arrogant since I have a determined viewpoint. But from my point of view, I am just someone who is determined with a certain viewpoint. Some people would actually admire this personality trait while others like you would call it selfish and arrogant. So this is all just a matter of personal opinion here. Your opinions don't apply to me. I see you have also skipped that one explanation I made about how the only true way to judge someone is through scientifically analyzing their brains. So I guess we won't talk about that point I made.

They are just as real - they work through exactly the same chemical processes as any other source of joy, disgust, misery, hunger, etc.Your continual repetition of your ignorant opinions is very tedious.

 

Alright. So you are saying here then that there are forms of joy and happiness that aren't rewarding experiences for us (not our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system). You say they work by the same chemical processes. But that there are, in fact, forms of joy and happiness we can have in our lives without our experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.

So go ahead and present to me these forms of joy and happiness and I will see if I can or cannot convert it over to our "rewarding experiences" (pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system). Like I said before, I have been converting the terms joy, happiness, love, good, etc. to being our "rewarding experiences." So if you manage to somehow come up with a version of those terms that I am unable to convert over, then this just might convince me here that there really is a form of joy, happiness, love, and good value/worth we can have in our lives that has nothing to do with our rewarding experiences.

[dimreepr]

 

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

 

 

 

I very much doubt “Strange” would agree with you, since you’re conflating happiness and contentment.

 

Edit/ Not to mention a deliberate misrepresentation, but even if he did it would still be an ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.

 

Being happy is an emotional state and so is fleeting; being content is a base state (much like a dog is happy when you shout walkies but will be content to lie down and wait for the shout).

Edited September 9, 2015 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

So go ahead and present to me these forms of joy and happiness and I will see if I can or cannot convert it over to our "rewarding experiences" (pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system).

 

This is what knocks the whole idea out of science's hands and turns it into your opinion, Matt. Do you think this is a hard thing to do? Anyone can change definitions to exclude just about any objection. It's what I mentioned about moving the goalposts, something else you ignored.

 

This is what religion can do, make up answers that fit the questions based on circular reasoning and guesses about things you can't possibly know. This kind of thinking requires faith, not scientific objectivity and trust.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I think we're done here. Matt, you've said your piece (repeatedly), and not really dealt with criticism, so anything more will just be a re-hash of the same old thing. Don't bring this topic up again.