Now speaking in terms of evolution, our minds are designed to experience emotions from our perceptions (thoughts) for a very important reason. First off, our thoughts are nothing more than what is used for rationalizations and problem-solving while our emotions are what encourage our survival in life. So if you have the perception (thought) that there is a wild animal that is going to attack you, that would then send an emotional signal to the fear center of your brain in order to encourage you to get out of there so that you survive. Same thing with experiencing pleasure. Pleasure is what also encourages us to benefit our survival and the survival of others as well (although pleasure can be misused in not benefiting our survival such as harming ourselves and others). Where I’m getting at with all of this is that our thoughts alone do not encourage our survival. The word “good” means “looking forward to things in life,” “being encouraged in life,” etc. But you cannot be encouraged in life without any emotions since only our emotions (as well as pain) are what is designed to encourage us to survive.
The quoted term “looking forward to things in life” as well as any other terms for the word “good” are all derived from what only pleasure can achieve since “good” means “Our encouraged survival in life to benefit ours and others survival.” Thoughts alone without our emotions may make us do great things in life and make us benefit ours and others survival. But that is not the same thing as being “good” (our “encouraged survival in life”). Same thing applies with having no fear or any other emotions, but choosing to run away from a wild animal that is attacking you anyway. That is not the same thing as our “encouraged survival” either while you are running away from this dangerous animal in order to survive. Also, “good” and “bad” are both our “encouraged survival in life.” The difference is that our encouragement to survive in order to benefit ours and others survival (which would be pleasure) is the “good” version of our “encouraged survival.”
But things such as fear, pain, and despair are evolution’s “warning” version of our “encouraged survival” since they warn us that something is wrong in life. So “warning” in terms of evolution is what is “bad” which makes pain and despair the bad version of “encouraged survival.” Therefore, this is why only pleasure is good while only pain and despair are bad while everything else in life is neutral (neither good or bad). So this is the reason why you cannot be a good or bad person and that your life cannot be good or bad if you did not have feelings of pleasure, pain, or despair.
Now there may be other definitions of the words “good” and “bad” out there that others might have proposed, but they are all still derived from our evolutionary design which would be our “encouraged survival” in life (which would, again, be definitions that are derived from our emotions as well as our pain). If, for example, another definition of the word “good” means objects and people that help us avoid suffering, anything that helps us accept our losses and move on in life, or our actions of helping others, then even that is derived from pleasure and can only be achieved through pleasure because someone might then tell those with anhedonia (absence of pleasure) to be encouraged in life knowing that these things are good and that his/her actions of helping others is good despite his/her loss of pleasure.
But as I just stated before, this person cannot be “encouraged” or “look forward” to those things in life without his/her pleasure since pleasure is the only thing that can achieve those quoted things (pleasure being all good feelings including love and motivation). The term “looking forward to” and any other such terms here are derived from “our encouraged survival” since you cannot look forward to anything in life without being encouraged. Even things such as value, worth, and beauty are also derived from “our encouraged survival” (which would be pleasure). Other things in life aside from one’s own pleasure might be defined as “good,” but without our encouragement (pleasure), then this version of “good” is nothing more than a neutral thought that doesn’t make us or our lives anything “good” in reality without our pleasure.
Same concept applies for “bad.” Even if we were to somehow redefine the word “encouragement” to something else besides our pleasure and then tell someone to be encouraged in life knowing that there are other good and greater things in life aside from his/her pleasure, even this would still be nothing more than a neutral thought. As I said before, our “looking forward in life,” “being encouraged in life,” etc. is all derived from our own pleasure. So this is the reason why people are only fooling themselves into thinking that they are good people and that their lives are somehow good independent of their pleasure or if they had no pleasure in life. These thoughts of “good” and “bad” or any other created meanings for that matter that these people have are all nothing more than neutral thoughts.
As I said before, thoughts are just thoughts no matter what they are and the only difference is that they are different sounds, images, words, etc. and that is all. They might send different signals to different parts of the brain, but even those other parts of our brain besides our pain and emotions are not our “encouraged survival” (meaning, that they are neither good or bad) and nor is anything else in life good or bad either aside from our own pleasure, pain, and despair. You are also not in the minds of others and cannot experience their pleasure, pain, and despair. Therefore, it is only your own pleasure, pain, and despair that are the only good and bad things from your own perspective while the pleasure, pain, and despair of others are the only good and bad things from their own perspectives.
The pleasure, pain, and despair of others from your own perspective is neutral since it is nothing more than a neutral thought. Even if it is a good or bad value you have towards the pleasure, pain, and despair of others, that is still nothing more than a neutral thought. Therefore, how good one is (their level of greatness) and how good one’s life is solely depends on the level of pleasure he/she has in his/her life. Same thing applies for how bad one is and how bad his/her life is.
There might even be definitions of the word “good” that others might claim don’t require pleasure. However, that version of “good” is nothing more than a neutral thought that doesn’t make us or our lives anything good without our pleasure. The real version of “good” would be our pleasure (encouragement) in life. So just thoughts alone do not make us or our lives truly anything good at all without our pleasure. Words such as “good” and other meanings that are good such as beauty and magnificence, they all require us to be encouraged and look forward to things in life in order to validate our lives as being good in the first place from our own perspectives. For example, if a person perceives his/her life being good, then that means he/she would be encouraged and would look forward to things in life. Otherwise, if he/she didn’t feel encouraged at all and didn’t look forward to anything in life, then his/her life wouldn’t be good at all. The lives of others he/she helped despite his/her absence of encouragement and looking forward in life, the lives of those might of been good, but his/her own life would not be good without his/her pleasure. Therefore, since I stated that pleasure is our encouragement (our looking forward in life), then that means that pleasure is the only thing that makes our lives good. Even if someone told him/her something such as that “You might of had no encouragement or looking forward in life, but your life was still good anyway for helping others,” even that quoted message itself warrants him/her to be encouraged and look forward in his/her life in order to validate his/her life as being good from his/her own perspective. Again, only pleasure would achieve that.
First off, the idea (thought) that pleasure-seeking will only bring you and others nothing but pain and despair as well as no pleasure at all in the future, even that thought itself is just a neutral thought while the pleasure still stands by itself as being good. Same thing for bad. The idea (thought) that our pain and despair will bring us and others nothing but pleasure and no pain and despair in the future (or at least, much less pain and despair in the future), even that is just a neutral thought while the pain and despair still stands by itself as being bad.
Second, aren’t words such as “good” as well as “value” and “worth” used to help people feel encouraged and look forward to things in life? For example, if someone is feeling very depressed and angry with his/her life, wouldn’t we then tell this person that his/her life is still good and worth living in order to try and help him/her be encouraged and look forward to things in life? Otherwise, what would be the point of those words if they aren’t used to try and help us feel better? But again, as I said before, it’s not the words themselves that are “good” since they are neutral, it’s just pleasure alone that is good and is the only thing that encourages us in life.
Oh good. Another entire page post. This time I knew better. I didn’t read a single word.
Second, aren't words such as "good" as well as "value" and "worth" used to help people feel encouraged and look forward to things in life? For example, if someone is feeling very depressed and angry with his/her life, wouldn't we then tell this person that his/her life is still good and worth living in order to try and help him/her be encouraged and look forward to things in life? Otherwise, what would be the point of those words if they aren't used to try and help us feel better? But again, as I said before, it's not the words themselves that are "good" since they are neutral, it's just pleasure alone that is good and is the only thing that encourages us in life.Hey again Mozart. As usual, I'm only skimming your posts. This last paragraph shows you are thinking about these things, but with all the question marks it's hard to tell what your concluding. At least you are showing some openness instead of telling us how you will respond when we say what you think we will say. Still, you are just sitting in a room thinking. This video is some of the greatest minds alive today that are discussing your topic.] I offer it as an introduction to them. The answers to your questions will require much more work, and ultimately are unanswerable, at least for now. But as the video points out, we have advanced from the days of Aristotle when philosophers sat in rooms and just thought about stuff. We now do experiments and rely on historical data as well as neurological to determine what is "good". As Harris says here, "we have flown the perch of evolution". Words allow us to evolve societies in ways that animals without sophisticated language can't. We observe what is good and bad, we describe it with words, and thereby made the world better. That is very meaningful. Sure, the object is to lead to more pleasure for more people and that may be the goal, but without the means to get there, we'll never reach the goal. You can define the parts differently (means and ends) but separating them does not one meaningless and the other "the only thing".
You can define the parts differently (means and ends) but separating them does not one meaningless and the other "the only thing".So you are saying here that I cannot define the means of obtaining pleasure (which would just be a thought as well as our actions) as being neutral and to define pleasure as still being the only good? If that is the case, then what about what I'm going to say here below because this is already something scientific at face value?: Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasure, then to say that harming someone in order to give you pleasure makes your pleasure bad, this would be false because the combined atoms and particles of the person suffering and the combined atoms and particles of our thoughts of good and bad as well as other things do not have the same properties of the combined atoms and particles as a whole that make up our pleasure. It would be no different than saying that, since the combined atoms and particles of a piece of metal possess a certain function and properties (which, in this case, we would call "bad"), then that also makes the combined atoms and particles of other materials the same as well (that this also makes them "bad") which is false. Concepts such as good and bad (aside from our experience of pleasure, pain, and despair), these are the subjective thoughts themselves that create these concepts in the brain and are the functioning of the atoms and particles themselves in the brain responsible for the creation of these concepts in the brain that do have scientific properties. And, of course, they are also experiences in of themselves that are objectively good and bad and also have scientific properties (which would be the functioning of the atoms and particles that give us pleasure, pain, and despair). Therefore, our thoughts cannot define our pleasure as being something bad or neutral or our pain and despair as being neutral or good. They also cannot define anything else as being good, bad, or neutral either since they are the separate combined functioning of atoms and particles that have different functions and different properties.
Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
What I mean by separate is that if you have one object in your hand and you then have another object in your other hand, then those two objects are separate from one another. This same concept also applies to other objects and other people being separate from our own brains and are separate from our own thoughts and pleasure centers.Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
What I mean by separate is that if you have one object in your hand and you then have another object in your other hand, then those two objects are separate from one another. This same concept also applies to other objects being separate from our own brains and are separate from our own thoughts and pleasure centers.Again, I appreciate you wanting to think about things. But instead of wasting everyone's time posting these goofy long-winded posts, learn some rudimentary philosophy, see what others have thought throughout history, etc. When you make statements like you did about what it means to be "separated" you show your naiveté to the point where it's worthless to have a discussion with you. If you keep posting these long-winded posts I'm going to assume it's really meant as therapy for yourself, not meant as a discussion topic.Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
What I mean by separate is that if you have one object in your hand and you then have another object in your other hand, then those two objects are separate from one another. This same concept also applies to other objects and other people being separate from our own brains and are separate from our own thoughts and pleasure centers. Well, that's fairly obvious, and it ignores how the world actually works. The analogy doesn't explain much because you don't say what the objects are in your hands. There are many examples of objects that, although separated by 6 feet or so, have an affect on each other. When we are talking about atoms in brains, we know for sure that they do affect each other. So, you've explained nothing. You have not even got out of the gate with your explanation of "good" and "bad".Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
“Good” and “bad” are largely subjective, culture-bound, and half arbitrary anyway. In the end, any attempt to objectively define them is fruitless and, ultimately, meaningless.
What I mean by separate is that if you have one object in your hand and you then have another object in your other hand, then those two objects are separate from one another. This same concept also applies to other objects and other people being separate from our own brains and are separate from our own thoughts and pleasure centers. Well, that's fairly obvious, and it ignores how the world actually works. The analogy doesn't explain much because you don't say what the objects are in your hands. There are many examples of objects that, although separated by 6 feet or so, have an affect on each other. When we are talking about atoms in brains, we know for sure that they do affect each other. So, you've explained nothing. You have not even got out of the gate with your explanation of "good" and "bad". Are you saying that since objects have an effect on each other and that since objects would, therefore, also have an effect on our brains, then that somehow makes those objects and our brains "connected" in that any good or bad thought we come up with would actually define that said object as being good or bad since those objects and other people are somehow "linked" with our thoughts? If this is what you are saying, then this would be false because in order for the objects to actually be good and bad, then they would have to be the thoughts themselves of good and bad. Our thinking is independent of other objects and other people. Whatever effects those objects have on our brains is not the same thing as our thoughts having an effect on those objects in the sense of making them good or bad. Our thoughts might have some effect on other objects. But it wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves of good and bad that are projected onto those objects. Rather, it would be different effects on those objects such as gravity, attraction, etc.Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
No I’m not saying that, because if I was, that would be false. Objects and atoms aren’t “good” or “bad”. If you want to talk about morals, then you are talking about concepts. Did you watch the YouTube I linked?
No I'm not saying that, because if I was, that would be false. Objects and atoms aren't "good" or "bad". If you want to talk about morals, then you are talking about concepts. Did you watch the YouTube I linked?First off, let me ask you this. If you had the choice to either be happy and excited towards something in life as opposed to just having no feelings of pleasure or excitement whatsoever with nothing more than just a good thought towards these things in life, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to feel happy and excited which proves right here that pleasure is far better and superior to mere thoughts alone. Or, at least, the combination of having both good thoughts and pleasure in your life is far better and superior to just having these thoughts alone with no pleasure at all. But you then might counter my argument by asking me something such as that if you had the choice as to feel happy and excited towards harming others or to have no feelings of pleasure whatsoever and instead help others through just mere thoughts alone, which would you choose? You then might say that having no pleasure and instead helping others through moral thoughts would be what is far better and superior. But here again, I will counter this as well by asking you that if you had the choice as to whether to feel happy and excited towards helping others and help these people out through your pleasure and excitement or to instead have no pleasure or excitement whatsoever and instead help these people out through just thoughts alone, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to help others through your pleasure. So it appears as though having both morality and pleasure in your life is the ultimate combination. But when the choice comes as to whether you would choose to have pleasure or instead morality, that this is something subjective and that there would be many people who would instead choose to be a moral person with no pleasure who helps others instead of being someone who obtains pleasure from harming others. However, when the choice comes to you already being the best moral person you could ever be and that if you had the choice as to whether to just be this moral person with no pleasure in your life or to be both this best moral person you could ever be while having pleasure in your life, that people would instead choose the combination of both being this moral person with pleasure. Sure, there could be more levels of moral greatness and other forms of greatness that this person could achieve with no pleasure. But if I had to ask him/her as to whether he/she would want to have much pleasure in his/her life in addition and that this wouldn't take away from his/her greatness and won't take away from him/her achieving more greatness, then that is when this person would choose to have pleasure in his/her life in addition. I know that if I had my full pleasure back in life, that this would not make me or my life less great. It would make me even greater. As a matter of fact, having suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure in your life only serves to bring you down and hold you back from you and your lives being that much greater regardless of how great you become and regardless of how much great things you do in your life through your suffering, depression, and lack of pleasure. Suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure can even make you a worse person who is less compassionate and less understanding towards other people who finds bad meaning in his/her life. So you can achieve a higher level of greatness, be a more compassionate and understanding person, and do more great things in your life under the right circumstances if you instead had much pleasure in your life and little suffering and depression in your life. Many people might claim that the only true way to be a more compassionate and understanding person and do more great things in life as well as help more people would be through your suffering, depression, and lack of pleasure. But this is false because you can change your attitude in order to become a better compassionate and understanding person at any given personal level since your attitude and actions are things you can change by will. You also don't need depression, suffering, and a lack of pleasure in order to do more great things in life and help even more people out. There are people who go through a great amount of suffering and despair and yet, they do not become more compassionate or become a better person in any other sense. As a matter of fact, they can become less compassionate even towards others who suffer the same things and they instead take out their suffering on other people. This would be because they have refused to change their attitude in becoming a better person and have refused to become better in any other sense through other means in life besides suffering, despair, and a lack of pleasure. Therefore, since this holds true, the opposite would hold true as well in that people who have very little suffering and despair in their lives can change their attitude in becoming a better person and better in other ways through other means in life than what suffering, despair, and a lack of pleasure can achieve. Things such as going through physical torture through physical training in the military, this would have the greater physical benefit. But as for greater mental benefits, you can achieve these through other means in life besides depression and anhedonia (lack of pleasure). As a matter of fact, depression and anhedonia have no greater benefit than living a life of much pleasure and are nothing but pointless misery. So if you had no pleasure in your life and had much suffering and despair in your life, you could tell yourself things such as that you would be the much better and greater person than if you were someone who had pleasure in life since you would be helping others, doing great things in your life, and being more compassionate and understanding the suffering and lack of pleasure of others through your suffering and lack of pleasure. But here I will ask you, now that you've achieved this level of greatness in your life through your suffering and lack of pleasure, would you prefer now to remain this way or to instead remain just as great, but also have full pleasure and no more suffering in your life in addition? That having this full pleasure in your life with no suffering will not take away from your greatness, will not make you help/understand less people than you ever would through having suffering and no pleasure in life, and won't make you do less great things in life. Therefore, which would you choose? Again, I'm quite sure you would choose to have full pleasure in life with no suffering in addition to your greatness. Although there might be some people who would get very bored or go insane from living a life of pure bliss, this would not happen to me at all since I find that the only greatest life there is would be living a life of much pleasure and as little suffering as possible while still being a full moral and understanding/compassionate person. So the fact that people would prefer to have much pleasure and as little suffering as possible in addition to their greatness, this means that having much pleasure and little suffering in addition to their greatness is something even greater and would make these people even greater than if they still had a lack of pleasure and still had suffering and depression in their lives. This would make them greater people and would make their lives greater. So as you can see here, you can be great all you want, achieve all the benefits you want, and help others and do great things in your life as much as you can through your suffering and lack of pleasure (anhedonia) in your life as well as your depression. But you and your life will never be as great as it would be if you had much pleasure and very little suffering/depression in your life in addition to your achieved greatness and in addition to your achieved benefits. Therefore, all the greatest people in history who struggled with depression, suffering, and anhedonia were never as great as they would be if they didn't have any of those struggles in their lives. They might have become great and achieved benefits through their struggles. But they and their lives would never be as great if they instead had much pleasure in their lives with as little suffering as possible in addition to their achieved greatness and in addition to their achieved benefits. As a matter of fact, if having much pleasure and little suffering/depression in their lives wouldn't take away from their greatness at all, then this would mean that their depression, suffering, and lack of pleasure didn't make them any greater at all either. It means that they could of been just as great (and perhaps greater) under the right circumstances through having much pleasure and very little suffering and depression in their lives since the combination of their already-established greatness in addition to having much pleasure and little suffering and depression is the ultimate combination that would make them even greater. Therefore, I and many other people who suffer from depression and anhedonia (lack of pleasure) are inferior with inferior lives compared to our much greater counterparts (the people we would of been if we instead had our full pleasure in life with little suffering in addition to our achieved greatness and in addition to our achieved benefits). We are also inferior with inferior lives compared to those who do have their full pleasure in life with little suffering and little to no depression in addition to their achieved greatness and benefits such as compassion and many other such positive forms of greatness and benefits. In conclusion, some people might tell me that compassionate and understanding people who live their lives with much pleasure and very little suffering and depression, that these people do not exist since you can only be a better compassionate and understanding person through having gone through suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure. But you would be false here in saying this. I am one of those happy compassionate and understanding people who once existed. I had my full pleasure in life in the past who was still a fully compassionate and understanding person. As a matter of fact, the depression and anhedonia I am having now only makes me feel less compassionate and less understanding ("indifferent" and "hopeless") and me and my life are now wasted away and down the drain here. Therefore, as you can clearly see, life, is in fact, all about perfection and living a perfectly happy life of no suffering and no depression regardless of the fact that this is not how this life works. Some people might tell me that living a life of pure bliss with no suffering and no depression is nothing more than a fantasy and they would be right. However, life is still all about living a perfectly happy life with no suffering and no depression anyway. Life is about being perfectly happy despite the fact that this is impossible and that there is no way to achieve that. Based on everything I've said here, a life of pure bliss with no suffering and no depression is the only greatest life there is and is the only thing that would make you the greatest person. No one should want any depression or anhedonia (lack of pleasure) in his/her life whatsoever since it is all pointless and has no greater benefit than living a life of pure bliss.
No I'm not saying that, because if I was, that would be false. Objects and atoms aren't "good" or "bad". If you want to talk about morals, then you are talking about concepts. Did you watch the YouTube I linked?First off, let me ask you this. If you had the choice to either be happy and excited towards something in life as opposed to just having no feelings of pleasure or excitement whatsoever with nothing more than just a good thought towards these things in life, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to feel happy and excited which proves right here that pleasure is far better and superior to mere thoughts alone. Or, at least, the combination of having both good thoughts and pleasure in your life is far better and superior to just having these thoughts alone with no pleasure at all. You just changed the subject instead of pursuing your original line of logic. You skipped past everything else you said and went to "because I think so, it is therefore true." I'm not saying wrong. In fact I never argued the point you made into this last post.
No I'm not saying that, because if I was, that would be false. Objects and atoms aren't "good" or "bad". If you want to talk about morals, then you are talking about concepts. Did you watch the YouTube I linked?First off, let me ask you this. If you had the choice to either be happy and excited towards something in life as opposed to just having no feelings of pleasure or excitement whatsoever with nothing more than just a good thought towards these things in life, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to feel happy and excited which proves right here that pleasure is far better and superior to mere thoughts alone. Or, at least, the combination of having both good thoughts and pleasure in your life is far better and superior to just having these thoughts alone with no pleasure at all. You just changed the subject instead of pursuing your original line of logic. You skipped past everything else you said and went to "because I think so, it is therefore true." I'm not saying wrong. In fact I never argued the point you made into this last post. That was just something of a different topic on its own that I wanted to get out of the way first. But other than that, I do not see the problem with how other things in life are meaningless atoms and particles and that it's only our thoughts that are our created meanings. And that our thoughts cannot define these things as good or bad. I might see the problem with how "good" is a scientific property (which I said was pleasure). But that's it.
I do not see the problem with how other things in life are meaningless atoms and particles and that it's only our thoughts that are our created meanings. And that our thoughts cannot define these things as good or bad. I might see the problem with how "good" is a scientific property (which I said was pleasure). But that's it.Obviously you don't see the problem. That's why you type up things and ask for feedback, right? Otherwise you're just shouting out to everyone and expecting them to accept what you say with no argument. You wouldn't do that would you? So, I asked, "how do you know what you know? How did you arrive at this conclusion about separateness that is part of your theory about evolution?"
I do not see the problem with how other things in life are meaningless atoms and particles and that it's only our thoughts that are our created meanings. And that our thoughts cannot define these things as good or bad. I might see the problem with how "good" is a scientific property (which I said was pleasure). But that's it.Obviously you don't see the problem. That's why you type up things and ask for feedback, right? Otherwise you're just shouting out to everyone and expecting them to accept what you say with no argument. You wouldn't do that would you? So, I asked, "how do you know what you know? How did you arrive at this conclusion about separateness that is part of your theory about evolution?" These are just assertions I made that I hoped other people would be able to refute. There is no scientific tests or experiments that lead me to these conclusions. Not yet anyway. But someday I wish for it to be tested and determined as true or false.
I do not see the problem with how other things in life are meaningless atoms and particles and that it's only our thoughts that are our created meanings. And that our thoughts cannot define these things as good or bad. I might see the problem with how "good" is a scientific property (which I said was pleasure). But that's it.Obviously you don't see the problem. That's why you type up things and ask for feedback, right? Otherwise you're just shouting out to everyone and expecting them to accept what you say with no argument. You wouldn't do that would you? So, I asked, "how do you know what you know? How did you arrive at this conclusion about separateness that is part of your theory about evolution?" These are just assertions I made that I hoped other people would be able to refute. There is no scientific tests or experiments that lead me to these conclusions. Not yet anyway. But someday I wish for it to be tested and determined as true or false. I appreciate that conciliatory statement Mozart.
What I mean by separate is that if you have one object in your hand and you then have another object in your other hand, then those two objects are separate from one another. This same concept also applies to other objects being separate from our own brains and are separate from our own thoughts and pleasure centers.Again, I appreciate you wanting to think about things. But instead of wasting everyone's time posting these goofy long-winded posts, learn some rudimentary philosophy, see what others have thought throughout history, etc. When you make statements like you did about what it means to be "separated" you show your naiveté to the point where it's worthless to have a discussion with you. If you keep posting these long-winded posts I'm going to assume it's really meant as therapy for yourself, not meant as a discussion topic.Guys, he ignored my post. I'm guessing his posts really are just therapy of sorts. I wouldn't waste any more time. Words games are easy and he seems to like playing them.Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasureIt's hard to follow most of what you say because you make so many assumptions about what is true. If you ever sat down with someone familiar with these concepts, they would stop you at your first sentence, like this one. We live in an active universe where things interact. What do you mean by "separate"? And after that, I'll have questions about your next half-sentence and so-on. But that would have not value if you weren't listening to what others already have to say about these things. It seems you want to understand what is going on with you. Why not listen to the doctors and people you are already working with to help understand that instead of coming up with complicated theories of your own?
Guys, he ignored my post. I'm guessing his posts really are just therapy of sorts. I wouldn't waste any more time. Words games are easy and he seems to like playing them.He does ignore most everything said, and your "therapy" comment is probably accurate. I pointed out how it is hard to tell if he is real a few weeks ago and he responded in a "real" way to that, but then went back to his long screeds. I'm guessing he's at that age where you think you know everything and don't trust authority and everything appears to be an authority.