I wish to not only try and convince people that I am right here, but am also asking for a challenge for someone to debate this with me.
This idea I have come up with about pleasure being the only good thing in life might be nonsense and might be false in terms of science, I don’t know. But I want it to perhaps someday be tested through science and determined whether it is true or false. People tell me that life is not all about pleasure and that there are greater things in life such as my contributions in life and who I am as a person. But I feel that this is false. Some intelligent people and scientists say that everything is just chemical processes and atoms, molecules, etc. that has no meaning and that things such as “good” and “bad” are just personal meanings we attribute to things (such as to feelings of pleasure and depression that actually have no meaning in reality). But personal meanings are not just subjective values we attribute to things that are meaningless in reality. They are, in fact, experiences in of themselves. Pleasure is the experience of good while pain and/or depression are the experience of bad. So they are objectively good or bad. All other things in life such as our thoughts, actions, etc. are all neutral (neither good or bad). Our thoughts and pleasure stand alone by themselves which means that it doesn’t matter whether you regard your pleasure as being bad or that you regard your thoughts as something good, your pleasure will always still be good and your thoughts will always still be neutral. I don’t even care if you were to say that your thoughts and other things are regarded by you as true “happiness” even without your ability to experience pleasure. Based on what I’m about to say below, pleasure is still the only good and greatest thing in life and all other aspects besides suffering and pleasure are all neutral. Some might say that we cannot separate our thoughts, knowledge, etc. from our pleasure because all functioning of our brains is all one thing as a whole. So if that’s the case, then what I should be saying here is that the state of mind we would be in without our ability to experience pleasure would be a neutral state of mind as opposed to being in a state of mind in which we have pleasure regardless of how much we use that neutral state of mind in helping others and doing great things in our lives and it would make everything neutral from our perspectives no matter what and no matter how much we viewed things in life as being good anyway.
Any personal meanings we create in life are all neutral as they all come from the exact same functions of our brains that create nothing but neutral words, sounds, images, etc. in the first place. For example, create any sound, letter, image, etc. in your mind that provokes no emotional response and is bland to you. Therefore, all other meanings we create in life are the same in that sense because, again, they are all the same functioning in our brains. So that makes our own created meanings all neutral as well. These created meanings are no different than the creation of neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because there is no difference between any personal meanings we create in life as opposed to neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because they are the exact same things since they are all the exact same functioning of our brains (just simply with different words, images, sounds, etc.). Our personal meanings we create in life may make us do good things in life, but they are all still neutral anyway. Only our pleasure itself that arises from any personal meanings we create in life is good (positive) and is the only thing that makes our lives good and worth living and you would be delusional to somehow think that, without your ability to experience pleasure, that your life is still somehow good and worth living. If things such as value, worth, and beauty are only good things and cannot be neutral or negative things, then this would mean that only pleasure in of itself is value, worth, and beauty and that, without it, then your life has none of those things and neither do you as a person. You might from the perspective of other people, but you are only in your own brain and it is only your own pleasure that gives you and your life these things regardless of how much others love, value, and care for you. Also, pleasure, in of itself, is a good experience and we do not need any created meanings in life (which would be knowledge, thoughts, etc.) to tell us that it is good. So if you were happy, but had no knowledge or thoughts whatsoever, your happiness would still feel good to you despite the fact that you are completely unaware of what happiness is and the fact that you are unaware of the word “good” and what it even means (I think this might hold as an example for cats and dogs). Therefore, any created meanings in life by themselves do not tell us that anything is good (they are not the activating of the pleasure centers of our brains which is the only thing that gives us the “good” signal). The same thing goes for depression and pain. Depression and pain in of itself is a bad experience and we do not need any knowledge or thoughts to tell us that it is bad. Thoughts and such may tell us that things are good or bad in life. But only in the sense that they are still nothing more than neutral words, images, sounds, etc.
Also, this goes for feelings that are bad in of themselves such as rage and sadness. They are just like the opposite of pleasure in that they are bad no matter what and no personal meanings or any good deed or action you do in life will ever make them anything good. It doesn’t matter whether you perceive, for example, your depression as being a good thing due to you helping others who also have depression and other problems because the depression in of itself is a bad thing. In other words, any positive meanings you have attributed to your depression are meanings that stand by themselves. They do not become infused with your depression and make your depression something good. Why? Because depression itself is not any thought or meaning whatsoever. It is where the pleasure activity of your brain is shut down. Thoughts and meanings are activity of our brain. So it would make no sense for you to say that your depression in of itself contains positive meaning since, again, depression is the “shutting down” of the pleasure activity of our brains while thoughts and meanings are the activity of completely separate parts of the brain. So it doesn’t matter whether your depression made you more empathetic towards others, more intelligent/creative, or anything else because only the benefits themselves from your depression are good and this still does not make your depression itself anything good. The fact is, depression is a bad experience no matter what and nothing can make it anything good. The same thing applies to feelings such as rage and sadness in that the only meanings that are perceived as being good send pleasure signals to the brain while meanings that are perceived as bad send emotional signals that make us feel sad or angry and also depressed. So it would make no sense to say that your sadness, rage, or depression has good meaning or that feelings of pleasure have bad meaning. Meanings, though they do cause us to feel emotions, meanings and our emotions are not one thing and are completely separate functions of our brain.
Now even if you are going to say something such as that, if it weren’t for anything else in life to begin with (even pain and despair), that we wouldn’t be able to experience pleasure, then what I would have to say about that would be that all those things are still neutral and that suffering is still negative anyway and pleasure itself is still the only good and greatest thing there is in life. You can still experience pleasure even after having gone through no suffering and/or despair in the first place. Even if it was somehow necessary to have suffering and/or despair to begin with in order to have the experience of pleasure (which I doubt), then you would no longer need any suffering and despair in your life anymore.
Therefore, even everything else in life and even your own attitude is neutral and you are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it gives you the most pleasure in life. However, I would never harm others despite my own personal beliefs because this is not who I am at all. Also, you are not in the minds of other people anyway and cannot feel their pleasure, pain, and/or despair. So it’s only your own pleasure in life that makes your life good and worth living. Not you helping others and giving them pleasure despite your own absence of pleasure. Even meanings that you create regarding others without your ability to experience pleasure such as that “I may have lost my ability to experience pleasure, but at least I have brought others pleasure and helped them out,” even that would be a neutral meaning and it is still only your own brain and perspective in life which means that it is only your own pleasure that makes your life good and worth living. Only the pleasure itself from helping others is good as well as the pleasure obtained from other things and nothing else in life is anything good at all. Finally, the only difference between a thought and such that has meaning to us as opposed to one that doesn’t (one that is neutral) would just be the fact that with one meaning, you are experiencing emotion while with another you are not. Also, I do not even care if your pleasure is detrimental to you and only brings you and/or others harm or even hinders you and/or anyone else from obtaining more pleasure down the road. Your pleasure is still good in of itself no matter what and everything else in life is nothing in comparison to it. So it’s only our emotions and pain/despair themselves that have the meaning of “good” or “bad.” As in terms of one thought that has meaning to us as opposed to another that doesn’t, the only difference between these two thoughts is that one sends an emotional signal to the brain while the other doesn’t–that is all. Different meanings might make you do good or bad deeds, but they are all still the same anyway in that they are all neutral. Even if this knowledge is used to help and benefit our lives and society and/or to even obtain more pleasure, that still does not change the fact that our thoughts, meanings, and knowledge, etc. are all neutral since I have just already explained why that is in terms of science (that they are all the same functioning of the brain that comes up with neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in the first place).
So how much something matters to you and how much value, worth, and beauty it has to you (how good it is to you) all solely depends on your own level of pleasure in life. If you have no pleasure, then life itself as well as everything and everyone will have no value, worth, and beauty whatsoever to you and will not matter to you at all no matter what you think otherwise. If you have little pleasure, then things will only matter little to you. But if you have a lot of pleasure, then things will matter greatly to you and the things and actions that give you the most pleasure would matter the most to you (again, even if it is harming or taking advantage of others). Again, you mattering to others and them having value and worth towards you and viewing you as a beautiful person does NOT give you or your life value, worth, and beauty because, once again, you will be and forever will be in your own mind and it will only be your own pleasure that gives you these things. Other people cannot some
You lost me on this one. Just your usual x = x because x is x logic. How would someone setup this test?
I wish to not only try and convince people that I am right here, but am also asking for a challenge for someone to debate this with me.
I have provided a brief summary here. If you are asking why can’t I just summarize what I’ve written above, then if I were to just say a brief statement such as that “Life is all about pleasure and that pleasure is the only greatest thing in life,” then there would be plenty of people who would be able to argue against that. Therefore, I must argue my points to where it is very convincing which would make my hypothesis that more important to test later on through science. And that would mean going into great detail with convincing arguments and such. For that very reason, I suggest that you read all of it anyway besides just the summary here. But if you absolutely can’t read all of it, then I will provide the summary right here:
1.) You can create neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in your mind that are bland to you and provoke no good or bad emotional response.
2.) Therefore, all meanings we create in life are neutral (neither good or bad) since they are the exact same functioning of our brains that come up with these neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in the first place and are nothing but these neutral things just stated. There is nothing different (just the fact that they are different words, images, sounds, etc. and nothing more). Whereas, emotions such as pleasure is the only good thing in life while pain and depression as well as anger or sadness are the bad things in of themselves and all emotions are separate functioning of our brains separate from the functioning of our brains that come up with thoughts, knowledge, meaning, etc. So it would make no sense for you to say that bad emotions in of themselves have good meaning while pleasure in of itself can have bad meaning. It’s only these emotions in of themselves that arise from our created meanings that are good and bad. The meanings themselves are, again, neither good or bad (they are all neutral) and do not somehow make our emotions good or bad.
Yes, all meanings are different in that they are different words and such. But they are all the same in the sense that they are all neutral (neither good or bad). Any perceived logical fallacies in my argument here might hold true for other things in life, but not for what I’m saying here. You might say something such as that “Your logic is false and that what you are saying here is that you can create an ‘ooooh’ vowel sound when you sing. Therefore all words you sing have ‘oooooh’ vowel sounds” in order to try and disprove my argument here. But the fact is that all things in life besides pleasure, pain, and despair are nothing but chemical processes, atoms, molecules, etc. that are neutral (neither good or bad). But it is only pleasure, pain, and despair in of themselves that are the only good and bad things despite the fact that these things are the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. in our brains. If you read my entire post, I say that only the emotions themselves that arise out of our created meanings in life are good and bad in of themselves and that everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral.
3.) Pleasure is a good experience in of itself and we don’t need any thoughts or knowledge to tell us that it is good (this might hold as an example for cats and dogs). The version of “good” that we create in terms of our knowledge and thoughts is neutral. But the version of “good” that comes from our experience of pleasure alone in of itself is not neutral and can never be neutral or bad and is always good no matter what. Also, what I mean by pleasure is all good feelings including love. I do not mean only a limited spectrum of good feelings when referring to pleasure.
4.) So all thoughts and knowledge do not tell us that pleasure is good or that anything else is good which means that pleasure is the only good thing in life and that everything else besides pleasure and pain and despair are all neutral. Thoughts may tell us that things are good or bad in life, but only in the sense that they are nothing more than neutral words, images, sounds, etc.
5.) So if you had emotional numbness and/or depression which is a loss of pleasure, then it doesn’t matter how much great things you do in life and help others because it is only your own brain in life and it is only your own pleasure that makes your life good and worth living. You are not in the minds of other people which means that it doesn’t matter how much value and worth they have towards you despite your loss of pleasure or for anything else for that matter. It’s only your own pleasure that gives your life value and worth.
6.) Pleasure is never subjected to being a bad or a neutral emotion and this also holds true for other emotions such as rage, sadness, and depression. Your created meanings do not somehow infuse themselves with your pleasure or other emotions and make them good or bad in of themselves. These emotions stand alone by themselves as good or bad. We can all obviously agree here that pleasure always feels good and is always a great experience. So why wouldn’t that make it objectively good in of itself (disregarding all other things in life because these other things are either neutral or bad)?
7.) If you are going to say something such as that, although pleasure feels good, but can be bad if it is used in harming others and other bad deeds, then what you are doing here is combining other things in life (such as the harming of others) and placing that upon your pleasure and saying that the experience of pleasure in of itself is something bad in this situation. The fact is, pleasure and other things in life stand alone by themselves as separate things since they are completely different things. They do not somehow combine with your pleasure and make your pleasure good or bad when pleasure is always just simply good in of itself no matter what. The neurons that become active in our brains and elicit a state of pleasure are different and separate from the neurons that are responsible for other things in our brains such as thoughts, knowledge, movement, breathing, etc. This also goes for other things in life. All other things in life consist of chemicals, atoms, etc. that are separate from our neurons that give us pleasure. So these things cannot somehow infuse themselves with your pleasure and make your pleasure something bad or neutral.
8.) If you are going to say that everything in life is just a bunch of chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. with no good or bad meaning whatsoever, then that would only be true in terms of things besides pleasure, pain, and despair. If you are going to ask how can pleasure, pain, and despair be objectively good or bad when they are nothing but a bunch of atoms, molecules, etc.? The answer to that would be that they just are. It is a scientific fact that the different functioning of atoms and such yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and such in our brains has yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things be objectively good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking “How can this piece of metal even objectively be metal in the first place since it is nothing but the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.?” The answer to that would, again, be that it just is.
9.) As for what I said about the neurons, there might also be more complicated processes in the brain than simply just neurons. Therefore, it would be all the atoms and subatomic particles in the brain rather than just simply neurons. As for me trying to scientifically test as to whether pleasure, despair, and pain are the only good and bad things in of themselves, how would one go about doing that? Why would it be any different than scientifically showing that a certain material is the way it is due to the functioning of its atoms and such? Also, in terms of evolution, pleasure is what encourages our survival in life. Encouraged survival is what is “good” in terms of evolution. So pleasure is good in of itself even despite the fact if we had no thoughts, knowledge, or sense of meaning in life. Feelings of fear might encourage our survival in life and are bad because it is a warning sign of danger. But pleasure encourages our survival in a good sense which is what makes it a good feeling in of itself no matter what.
10.) I have a unique world-changing viewpoint about pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life no matter what and I wish to change the way the world thinks. Although my belief backs up hedonism to a certain degree, I think it might actually be a bit different from hedonism, I am not sure. But I am frustrated and tired of people who go about their lives telling me that there are greater things in my life than my pleasure while I sit there in the midst of my own lack of pleasure longing to have it back, but with no way to convincingly explain to other people how pleasure really is the only greatest thing in life. Although I have come up with an explanation that is, from my point of view, very convincing despite the fact that it has not yet been tested through science, I wish to someday have it tested through science and hopefully demonstrated as true in order to prove to everyone that I was right all along. But if it turns out that I am wrong, then I would have learned that there really are greater things in life than pleasure and knowing that might make me feel less angry and such with myself and my life knowing that I have not lost something in my life that was supposedly the only good and greatest thing. Now even if pleasure really is the only good thing in life, science does not tell us that me must live worthwhile (good) lives and that all that is needed to live is to breath, eat, etc. and just live for the sake of living and nothing more even without your ability to experience pleasure. However, for people like me who seek good worthwhile lives no matter what, our lives must be pleasurable and this is something that can’t change for people like me. Also, evolution has designed us to find good meaning in our lives and to avoid pain and suffering and/or a lack of anything good in our lives in which our lives would be neutral (neither good or bad). Even our lives being neutral is something the mind’s of many people such as myself will interpret as bad no matter what. So it is imperative that people such as me live lives of pleasure. I can give an example of how evolution has designed us to not live neutral lives and/or lives of suffering and despair. For example, if you had to live your entire life in empty space with nothing to do and no one to talk to as well as no ability to experience pleasure, I think very very few (if any) could be content living such a life.
If you want your ideas tested you will have to arrange the testing yourself. Nobody’s going to do it for you and nobody is going to pay for it. It’s up to you.
Lois
Why was this stuff posted under the Science heading??
I wish to not only try and convince people that I am right here, but am also asking for a challenge for someone to debate this with me. I have provided a brief summary here. If you are asking why can't I just summarize what I've written above, then if I were to just say a brief statement such as that "Life is all about pleasure and that pleasure is the only greatest thing in life," then there would be plenty of people who would be able to argue against that. Therefore, I must argue my points to where it is very convincing which would make my hypothesis that more important to test later on through science. And that would mean going into great detail with convincing arguments and such. For that very reason, I suggest that you read all of it anyway besides just the summary here. But if you absolutely can't read all of it, then I will provide the summary right here:Several people have attempted to discuss your ideas and you don't debate, you just repeat. So, adding what you call "detail" really doesn't accomplish anything. You are discussing philosophical issues that are debated at the highest levels by people who have studied philosophy all their lives. If you want to do that, you need to get up to speed with them. People here have offered to help you with that and you've refused. If you want to test something like this, somewhere at the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience, you're going to have to show that you understand one or the other of those two disciplines. Most people do that by getting a degree. Even if you study on your own, you're going to have to prove yourself to the current authorities. That's just how it works these days. A forum is not a debate. You can debate if you want, but it's pretty rare that anything is ever solved, and there is no evaluation system, so no one knows who "wins" the debate. A forum is better used to hash out ideas, find out what others are thinking, test your ideas against others. That means more interaction, as in, "I see your point about X, but what about evidence Y?" I don't think you'll get too far making demands, not here or anywhere.
I wish to not only try and convince people that I am right here, but am also asking for a challenge for someone to debate this with me. I have provided a brief summary here. If you are asking why can't I just summarize what I've written above, then if I were to just say a brief statement such as that "Life is all about pleasure and that pleasure is the only greatest thing in life," then there would be plenty of people who would be able to argue against that. Therefore, I must argue my points to where it is very convincing which would make my hypothesis that more important to test later on through science. And that would mean going into great detail with convincing arguments and such. For that very reason, I suggest that you read all of it anyway besides just the summary here. But if you absolutely can't read all of it, then I will provide the summary right here:Several people have attempted to discuss your ideas and you don't debate, you just repeat. So, adding what you call "detail" really doesn't accomplish anything. You are discussing philosophical issues that are debated at the highest levels by people who have studied philosophy all their lives. If you want to do that, you need to get up to speed with them. People here have offered to help you with that and you've refused. If you want to test something like this, somewhere at the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience, you're going to have to show that you understand one or the other of those two disciplines. Most people do that by getting a degree. Even if you study on your own, you're going to have to prove yourself to the current authorities. That's just how it works these days. A forum is not a debate. You can debate if you want, but it's pretty rare that anything is ever solved, and there is no evaluation system, so no one knows who "wins" the debate. A forum is better used to hash out ideas, find out what others are thinking, test your ideas against others. That means more interaction, as in, "I see your point about X, but what about evidence Y?" I don't think you'll get too far making demands, not here or anywhere. In addition, no one here is going to read long screeds. If ideas can't be summarized in one or two short paragraphs they should not be posted. If a poster has something longer written he should provide a link and not waste band-width posting them here. Lois
So maybe we can just debate something that is much more brief right here:
As I said before, it doesn’t matter whether your pleasure causes you harm or not, the pleasure in of itself is still good no matter what because it stands alone by itself and everything else in life is separate and different and cannot infuse themselves with your pleasure and make it bad or neutral. If you are thinking that you can counter my argument with somethings such as that if you can’t infuse bad and neutral things with your pleasure and make it bad or neutral, that this would somehow mean that pleasure also cannot be good because deeming it something good would mean that you have infused “good” with your pleasure, this would be false. I have, in fact, explained why pleasure is the only good thing in life in terms of science for two main reasons. One being that pleasure in of itself always feels good (so it is already good right here). Second being that all other things in life are different and separate atoms, molecules, etc. and it is not scientifically possible to infuse these bad or neutral things into your pleasure and make your pleasure bad or neutral. Therefore, these two scientific facts add up to that pleasure is a good feeling in of itself and that all other things in life are different and separate and cannot make your pleasure bad or neutral. You can do anything you want (even harm others) and it would still make your pleasure good. For you to say that pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that pleasure can feel bad or can feel neutral which would make no sense because pleasure is just a good feeling in of itself and that’s it. Also, what I mean by pleasure is all good feelings including love. I am not just referring to only a limited spectrum of good feelings when referring to pleasure.
I can’t even tell if you are a real person anymore Mozart. I can’t really interact with someone who says, “if you say X, you would be wrong”. And I don’t think you really believe what you said about pleasure being “separate molecules”. That’s just silly.
I can't even tell if you are a real person anymore Mozart. I can't really interact with someone who says, "if you say X, you would be wrong". And I don't think you really believe what you said about pleasure being "separate molecules". That's just silly.The atoms, neurons, etc. that become active in our brains to elicit a state of pleasure are different and separate from the functioning of other atoms and such in our brains responsible for other mental functions and are separate from the atoms and such that make up other things in life.
So maybe we can just debate something that is much more brief right here: ... You can do anything you want (even harm others) and it would still make your pleasure good. For you to say that pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that pleasure can feel bad or can feel neutral which would make no sense because pleasure is just a good feeling in of itself and that's it. Also, what I mean by pleasure is all good feelings including love. I am not just referring to only a limited spectrum of good feelings when referring to pleasure.Fundamentally, we experience positive sensations, aversive sensations, and neutral sensations. All are critical in learning to negotiate our environment. If you could, somehow, only experience pleasure and not sense and discriminate, and respond accordingly, among all of these sensations, you would very likely die unless someone else took on protecting you and keeping your body functioning. And if you died, your prospects for experiencing pleasure would then be zero. If someone murders someone in order to experience pleasure, that psychopath, increases the likelihood of being locked away permanently (thus drastically decreasing his prospects for experiencing subsequent pleasure) and increases the likelihood that he will be executed or killed in retaliation (thus reducing his prospects, for experiencing pleasure, to zero). Pleasure is great. But life requires experiencing more than pleasure. And without life there is absolutely no pleasure.
@ML,
While you correctly identify the fundamental function of a brain, you skip over the organization of the brain’s neural networks, systems which create “emotional experiences”.
One such system you may want to look at is the “mirror neural network” of the brain, which is responsible for emotions of “empathy” (among others). It may shed light on some of the claims you have made regarding brain neural functions which produce the experiences of pain and pleasure.
Examples may well be the popularity of XXX rated movies and erotic novels, which stimulate an erotic mirror response in the observer. One can imagine that deviant sexual addictions may lead to extremes in order to “experience” ever greater highs (production of endorphines) by inflicting pain on the victim.
@ML, While you correctly identify the fundamental function of a brain, you skip over the organization of the brain's neural networks, systems which create "emotional experiences". One such system you may want to look at is the "mirror neural network" of the brain, which is responsible for emotions of "empathy" (among others). It may shed light on some of the claims you have made regarding brain neural functions which produce the experiences of pain and pleasure. Examples may well be the popularity of XXX rated movies and erotic novels, which stimulate an erotic mirror response in the observer. One can imagine that deviant sexual addictions may lead to extremes in order to "experience" ever greater highs (production of endorphines) by inflicting pain on the victim.As for people who like to feel pain or despair or who don't like to feel pleasure, that still doesn't change the fact that pain and despair are always bad while pleasure is always good. With liking pain or despair, you have two experiences going on at the same time here which would be the good sensation of pleasure and the bad sensation of pain or despair. Although I think it is possible to experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time, I don't think it is possible to feel despair and pleasure at the same time. As for disliking the experience of pleasure, this same concept applies here as well (just with the experiences flipped around this time). As of now, there might be no way to measure it since we do not have the advanced neurological technology to measure the pleasure activity (which is the amount of "good") in people's brains. But in the future we might. But first, I will say what I said before which is that pleasure does always feel good in of itself no matter what and this is a scientific fact. Second, it is also a scientific fact that the functioning of the atoms and other particles of all other neutral and bad things in life cannot somehow be infused with our pleasure and make our pleasure bad or neutral or make our pleasure a bad or neutral experience. Therefore, these two scientific facts add up to the scientific fact that pleasure is always good in of itself no matter what and nothing can make it bad or neutral. Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life. Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such.
There is something that can turn pleasure into neutral experiences...its called clinical depression including anhedonia (emotional numbness).Then it's no longer pleasure anymore. It is now a lack of pleasure.
I don’t disagree with that, but it is curious to see someone experience pleasure from inflicting pain, which seems counter to the mirror neural function and which would probably indicate a faulty mirror neural system in the brain.
btw. it is believed that autism is also a malfunction of the mirror neural system as it is causal to problems with normal social skills. Autism itself is not indicative of faulty intelligence, but in muscle response, which is also associated with the mirror neural muscle response system.
ML - The fact that you would post this sentence, especially that latter half of it: “Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life.” tells me it’s not worth reading your posts. That is such an unscientific statement, not even capable of being translated somehow INTO one, that you’ve lost all credibility in things scientific. Bye bye.
ML - The fact that you would post this sentence, especially that latter half of it: "Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life." tells me it's not worth reading your posts. That is such an unscientific statement, not even capable of being translated somehow INTO one, that you've lost all credibility in things scientific. Bye bye.Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such.
ML - The fact that you would post this sentence, especially that latter half of it: "Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life." tells me it's not worth reading your posts. That is such an unscientific statement, not even capable of being translated somehow INTO one, that you've lost all credibility in things scientific. Bye bye.Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such. You are simply talking about Hedonism, an old concept.
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the primary or most important intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
ML - The fact that you would post this sentence, especially that latter half of it: "Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life." tells me it's not worth reading your posts. That is such an unscientific statement, not even capable of being translated somehow INTO one, that you've lost all credibility in things scientific. Bye bye.Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such. Exactly the point. Believing you have proof is pretty much the opposite of what scientific proof means. It's kind of a hard thing to research on the internet because it doesn't have an exact definition but the Wikipedia page on the history of the scientific method is a good place to start.
You are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it brings you the most pleasure in life because you are only in your own brain and you are not in the minds of others and you cannot feel their pleasure, pain, or despair. Therefore, it is only your own pleasure in life that makes you a good person and makes your life good and worth living. So this is why you can harm others and you would still be a good person (since pleasure is the only thing that defines “good”). The pain, despair, and pleasure of others is neither good nor bad from your perspective since you are only in your own mind and it is only your own pain and despair that is bad and it is only your own pleasure that is good. Now I need to say something very important here which is that I am a compassionate and caring person and would never harm or take advantage of others despite my personal beliefs here. There is a difference between a person’s belief as opposed to who they are as a person. Just because a person has a belief that is perceived as bad from other people does not also make this person a bad person as well. From the perspective of who I am as a person, the suffering of others would certainly matter to me and I would feel bad in causing others harm. But from the perspective of my “scientific” beliefs (which are perspectives separate from who I am as a person), the suffering of others would actually not matter from this perspective and that since I feel that it would matter from my own perspective, then I would be delusional. I have scientific reasons to back up what I’m saying here. If, let’s pretend, that you were an empathetic person, but had a belief similar to mine that you believed has science to back it up, would you then not talk about it with others here just like how I am doing here? And would that make you less of a compassionate and empathetic person for having talked about it and for also having this belief as well? No, it wouldn’t!
If you are going to say something such as that we can feel the pleasure and suffering of others with a statement such as that “Yes, we can. They are called mirror neurons. Your brain makes you feel the feelings of others to some degree,” this would be false because it would only still be your own mirror neurons and your own reaction and experience. The only way for your experience to be of someone else’s is if you were to somehow switch minds in which you would now be in this person’s mind and that they would be in yours. Also, there are many many different types of feelings of pleasure in addition to the main ones such as motivation, love, etc. because there are even many different types of feelings of motivation, love, etc. So even if you were to feel motivated from knowing that someone else is experiencing motivation, it would still only be your own feeling of motivation that you would be experiencing while the person would be experiencing his/her own feeling of motivation.
As for the pain, pleasure, and despair of others either being good or bad from your perspective, that would just be nothing more than a thought (your own created meaning). Thoughts can tell us that things are good and bad. But only in the sense that they are still nothing more than neutral words, sounds, images, etc. Also, it doesn’t matter whether your pleasure causes you harm or others harm, it still stands alone by itself separate from everything else in life as objectively good in of itself.
Also, 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 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 neurons and other things themselves 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 neurons and other things that give us pleasure, pain, and despair).
If you are asking how concepts such as value, worth, and beauty can be the functioning of the neurons and other particles that come up with these concepts that can be measured in the future, what I would have to say to that would be that God, in terms of actually being someone or something existing in reality, does not exist at all. But God, in terms of a concept (a thought) does exist as the functioning of our neurons and other particles that have created this concept. But as of now, there might be no way to measure the activity and such of those particles and neurons (which would be measuring the amount of this concept that this person has). But in the future we might which would mean that we would be able to measure the amount of concepts such how much value, worth, and beauty someone has.
Now if we were to have no knowledge or thoughts and we were to experience pleasure, our pleasure would still feel good to us despite us not attributing any value to it which means that pleasure in of itself is always objectively good. Same thing for pain and despair being objectively bad. So our thoughts, values, and everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral since they do not tell us that anything is “good” or “bad” (they are not the “good” and “bad” messages in the brain). Thoughts can tell us that things are good or bad. But only in the sense that these thoughts are all nothing but neutral.
Things such as materialism and naturalism state that everything in life is just a bunch of atoms and particles that are meaningless (neither good or bad). This would only hold true for things besides pain, pleasure, and despair. Pain, pleasure, and despair are objectively good and bad in of themselves despite the fact that they are also the functioning of atoms and particles. If you are going to ask how can pleasure, pain, and despair be objectively good or bad when they are nothing but a bunch of atoms, molecules, etc.? The answer to that would be that they just are. It is a scientific fact that the different functioning of atoms and such yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and such in our brains has yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things be objectively good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking “How can this piece of metal even objectively be metal in the first place since it is nothing but the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.?” The answer to that would, again, be that it just is. Although you can have two experiences going on at the same time such as the bad experience of physical pain and the good experience of pleasure, even these two experiences are independent of each other which still makes pleasure good in of itself and pain being bad in of itself.
Some might say that we cannot separate our thoughts, knowledge, etc. from our pleasure because all functioning of our brains is all one thing as a whole. So if that’s the case, then what I should be saying here is that the state of mind we would be in without our ability to experience pleasure would be a neutral state of mind as opposed to being in a state of mind in which we have pleasure regardless of how much we use that neutral state of mind in helping others and doing great things in our lives and it would make everything neutral from our perspectives no matter what and no matter how much we viewed things in life as being good anyway. Why? Because, as I’ve stated before, I believe in things like materialism and naturalism which state that everything is meaningless function of atoms, molecules, etc. that is neither good or bad. However, the experience of pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things as I’ve been explaining despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.
Finally, there is a difference between being a lesser person and being a person who is less good. Your conscious is what makes you “you,” so to lose a part of your conscious would make you a lesser person than who you were before with more conscious brain functioning and in comparison to those who do have more conscious brain functioning. So since pleasure is a part of your conscious experience, losing that would make you a lesser person. As for measuring how good of a person you are, we would measure that by measuring the amount of pleasure you are experiencing at the moment. Moments where you have little pleasure are where you are not a very good person in comparison to who you were with more pleasure and in comparison to others who do have more pleasure while moments of greater pleasure would make you a greater person. As for the difference between being a lesser person and being a less good person, being a lesser person comes from also losing other conscious functioning in addition to your pleasure while being less of a good person can only come from losing your pleasure (since pleasure is the only thing that defines “good”). Also, consciousness does not just simply refer to knowledge, thoughts, memory, etc. It is all functioning in our brains that are experienced. Therefore, this would include pleasure since pleasure is also an experience.