It’s a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is “better” when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others’ computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.
Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.
It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure. Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.A purely subjective analysis. No scientist would touch it.
Yes, so “obvious”. I don’t know why anyone would bother discussing it all.
As for the question that anyone here might ask such as that losing all pleasure in life would be horrific. Losing all intelligence would be horrific. So what is my point? My point is that losing all pleasure in life would be MUCH more horrific than losing all parts of your brain combined. Since losing pleasure is the worst thing, then that obviously means this is the best part of the brain and for you to lose that would indeed make you an “inferior” person.
Also, losing all your pleasure would be worse than death. For example, people with severe depression would decide that to have their lives ended would be much better even if they were to have the greatest intelligence in the world combined with the greatest function of all other areas of their brain and being able to do great things in their lives.
It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure. Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.Wow! A combination of unsupported assertions that includes no science, no clear logic, no evidence, and yet "is" dogmatic but, "is not" derived of religious thought. Or is it actually unsupported philosophy that "believes" it is scientific? Mozart, you are orriginal, I'll give you that.
It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure. Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.Bwahahahahahaha.... no.
First, comparing yourself in any way with Mozart, demonstrates both an extreme ego and a severely diminushed IQ.
Second, assuming a versus between science and morals is about as stupid as trying to examine an astronomic galaxy within the scope of the flavor of garlic.
Your post would make about the same level of sense if you had closed your eyes and hit keys randomly.
Occam
If, let’s pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It’s something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don’t need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.
If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It's something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don't need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.You seem to have been through some major depression. But, you haven't really found the way out. Is that what your trying theorize your way out of?
If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure, if you were to lose all your pleasure and become severely depressed (obviously the worst depression you can possibly have), this would be worse than death and worse than losing all your intelligence and other brain functions. You do not need a sense of personal opinion and such to come to the conclusion that losing all your pleasure would be worse (it would be something catastrophically worse). It's something self-explanatory (common sense) and you don't need any knowledge of science or anything. Therefore, this proves my argument of pleasure obviously being the greatest function of the brain which means pleasure is the greatest part of who you are and if you lose that, then you are reduced to a mere emotionless robot. And that would, in fact, make you less of a person because you have lost the one and only greatest thing that defines you.You seem to have been through some major depression. But, you haven't really found the way out. Is that what your trying theorize your way out of? He did say he suffers from depression in an earlier thread. He also pretty much does not respond to what others say. In the earlier thread there was some indication he was reading posts and making an effort, but this time, it could be automated posting. The "I said that would be worse than death, therefore this proves my argument" form of logic is too off the charts to respond to. I think "you don't need any knowledge of science or anything" belongs in the Museum of Trolls.
MozartLink:
“But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.”
How do you know this? There is not one scientific fact or natural conclusion anywhere in your post. I suggest you take a course in the scientific method before you propose to analyze and draw conclusions from your own experience–a sample of one.
I am now going to admit something here which is that I despise my belief in pleasure being the greatest thing that defines a human being (as it makes other people who have less pleasure look inferior including me). I came to this forum because I wish others to hate on my belief as well and to try to convince me otherwise. Therefore, go ahead and address the argument I made regarding pleasure in my opening post and in my recent posts and try to convince me.
I would argue that the greatest thing that defines human beings is that we are able to pass our accumulated knowledge to our progeny. We not only have managed survival of our species in an ecosystem that we have been very reckless with so far, we can also retain the accumulated knowledge of our ancestors and add to it. This knowledge may be our saving grace when we reach the evolutionary dead end that all species eventually encounter. We will probably also be the author of our own evolutionary dead end when the time comes. Our knowledge is far more valuable than mere pleasure. There is no pleasure without the survival of our species.
I would argue that the greatest thing that defines human beings is that we are able to pass our accumulated knowledge to our progeny. We not only have managed survival of our species in an ecosystem that we have been very reckless with so far, we can also retain the accumulated knowledge of our ancestors and add to it. This knowledge may be our saving grace when we reach the evolutionary dead end that all species eventually encounter. We will probably also be the author of our own evolutionary dead end when the time comes. Our knowledge is far more valuable than mere pleasure. There is no pleasure without the survival of our species.It is, again, your pleasure that is giving emotional value towards knowledge and survival. Without pleasure, then it would just simply be nothing more than knowledge and survival by itself with no emotional value whatsoever and nothing more.
I would argue that the greatest thing that defines human beings is that we are able to pass our accumulated knowledge to our progeny. We not only have managed survival of our species in an ecosystem that we have been very reckless with so far, we can also retain the accumulated knowledge of our ancestors and add to it. This knowledge may be our saving grace when we reach the evolutionary dead end that all species eventually encounter. We will probably also be the author of our own evolutionary dead end when the time comes. Our knowledge is far more valuable than mere pleasure. There is no pleasure without the survival of our species.It is, again, your pleasure that is giving emotional value towards knowledge and survival. Without pleasure, then it would just simply be nothing more than knowledge and survival by itself with no emotional value whatsoever and nothing more. I repeat: no survival and pleasure is irrelevant. How are you defining pleasure?
I am now going to admit something here which is that I despise my belief in pleasure being the greatest thing that defines a human being (as it makes other people who have less pleasure look inferior including me). I came to this forum because I wish others to hate on my belief as well and to try to convince me otherwise. Therefore, go ahead and address the argument I made regarding pleasure in my opening post and in my recent posts and try to convince me.The argument has been addressed several times in a variety of ways. You seem to take pleasure in arguing without the use of logic. Worst troll ever. (and I don't mean you are trolling and successfully aggravating people, I mean you are bad at being a troll).
I would argue that the greatest thing that defines human beings is that we are able to pass our accumulated knowledge to our progeny. We not only have managed survival of our species in an ecosystem that we have been very reckless with so far, we can also retain the accumulated knowledge of our ancestors and add to it. This knowledge may be our saving grace when we reach the evolutionary dead end that all species eventually encounter. We will probably also be the author of our own evolutionary dead end when the time comes. Our knowledge is far more valuable than mere pleasure. There is no pleasure without the survival of our species.It is, again, your pleasure that is giving emotional value towards knowledge and survival. Without pleasure, then it would just simply be nothing more than knowledge and survival by itself with no emotional value whatsoever and nothing more. I repeat: no survival and pleasure is irrelevant. How are you defining pleasure? Right, but having any sense of emotional value towards survival would be irrelevant if you didn't have pleasure. So if you didn't have pleasure, then what you just stated would just simply be a scientific fact with no emotional value.
You didn’t answer the question Mozart, define pleasure. Otherwise your argument is circular. You just equate pleasure and emotion, saying one is the other. You’re stuck in an infinite loop.
I agree, Lausten, but rather than an infinite loop, it may be a black hole. :lol:
Occam
Yep, sucking all the light and energy around it, destroying it and not letting anything back out.