0
   

All My Philosophy Packets (Files)

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 05:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
PS - I suggest you take a look at mirror neurons and what species do have them. It is important for empathy and also learning.

Hell, I got nothing better to do this morning, let’s take you seriously on that and see how I did.

Mirror neurons are found in some song birds, Macaque monkeys and humans. They account for the ability to perceive and imitate the behavior of others.
They are important for empathy and learning.

Now for the obvious implications.
Since I don’t imitate or go along with social norms or sing the same songs as you others, I must lack mirror neurons. Since I lack mirror neurons, I am incapable of empathy, just like all assholes. And since those neurons are important for learning, I’m an ignorant idiot even though it isn’t my fault, since I’m obviously missing more than a few neurons.

Or were you trying to compliment me for not imitating all the monkeys out there? Mirror neurons might be important to the perception of subtlety. I suck at that.
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:06 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Mirror neurons might be important to the perception of subtlety. I suck at that.


Oh Contraire. You're right deft at it when you want to be Smile
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:49 am
@Leadfoot,
Oh yeah, you bet you are being an asshole on making a strawman on my quick, en passant remark about mirror neurons so what is your point eh?
Mirror neurons alone don't explain empathy but they are a NECESSARY condition for it. What part of this sentence did you not understand???
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:55 am
@Leadfoot,
Now let me ask you something else, do you want to debate God and Metaphysics with me? Because I gladly take you on that with a level of subtlety that will trump you out of a mountain...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 07:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Mirror neurons alone don't explain empathy but they are a NECESSARY condition for it. What part of this sentence did you not understand???

I got that fine, I just found it non-metaphysical.

And as far as debating metaphysics with you, I’m not adverse to it, and virtually all my posts are a reflection of my metaphysics. But debating them requires at least a rudimentary understanding of each other’s world view. We lack that as far as I can tell. I’ll take the fall for that if it helps. I just don’t know where your metaphysics are coming from. Even some of your terminology is foreign to me.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 07:04 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: Hume says that reason alone is devoid and impotent without emotions. In other words, reason alone can't make things matter to us, and it can't make us see anything as good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I heard that this recent worry you're having is in regards to those trips to the afterlife people have during a near death experience. People have very powerful, profound experiences during these trips, and you're worried about the possibility of having negative experiences during a trip that are far more horrible and disturbing than the ones you've had in your nightmares. Anything that people tell you, and anything you tell yourself, doesn't ease this worry at all.

My Reply: Correct. During hellish trips, people have very horrible experiences. But, during heavenly trips where people meet god in the afterlife, they experience not only the positive, but also the negative they've had throughout their Earthly lives. They experience all of this during a life review, which is where a person looks back at his life and makes judgments. Such experiences are greatly intensified, and I worry about having the negative experiences from my nightmares during a life review, greatly intensified. That would give me a much worse experience than what I've experienced in my nightmares.

By the way, the negative experiences (negative emotions) in my nightmares were far more horrible and disturbing than the ones in my waking life. But, if I were to have a hellish trip or life review, where those negative emotions from my nightmares are felt again, and greatly intensified, then that would be a waking experience worse than my nightmares. It's also possible I could feel negative emotions during a life review or hellish trip that are completely different than the ones I've had during my nightmares, and said negative emotions being far worse than the ones I've had in my nightmares.

Other Person's Response: People not only have these trips when they're near death, but when they die. That's because our souls leave our bodies when our bodies die.

My Reply: If I ever go on one of these trips, then I can only hope it's a beautiful experience for me, and not a horrible one.

Other Person's Response: I don't think what you're having is an emotional trauma.

My Reply: When a person is devastated by a thought or worry, that's an emotional trauma. Since I was devastated by this recent worry, then I had an emotional trauma.

Other Person's Response: Since it's taking a very long time for you to recover, then here's a link to a device that I think could immensely speed up your recovery. It's called the "Fisher Wallace Stimulator," and it stimulates the brain to rapidly ease chronic, severe depression, insomnia, and stress. It does cost a lot of money though ($800). When purchasing it, your purchase needs to be authorized by a licensed health care provider:

Fisher Wallace

My Reply: Well, I do think I'm very close to a full recovery, where I'll be happy and able to enjoy my hobbies again. So, I'm not sure if I need this device. I don't know how much longer it's going to take for me to reach a full recovery, though.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend you purchased this device the moment you had this recent, emotional crisis, and you used it everyday like the instructions said. You could've been fully recovered in a few months or even a few weeks, rather than having to wait 4 years or more for your psyche to fully recover on its own. That would've ended your suffering in a few months or weeks, and it wouldn't have to linger on like this. So, you could've saved yourself a few years of suffering, and in those few years, you could've pursued your composing dream, since you'd be able to enjoy it. But, since those years have instead been wasted, then that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

My Reply: I'm not sure how much this device would've sped up my recovery, though. The device is very effective for many people, and many people do see rapid results. But, there's no way to tell how effective the device would've been for me. Also, I was unaware of this device at the time I had this emotional crisis. But, thank you for informing me about this device now. In case I ever develop a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that takes away my ability to feel positive emotions, then that's when I'll consider purchasing this device. I don't think I'm going to have another emotional trauma ever again. So, the only thing that can take away my positive emotions now is a mental illness, which can be alleviated by this device.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, which is why you're considering getting that device to speed up your recovery in order to restore your positive emotions. But, if you had a better philosophy, then you'd have no need for that device because you wouldn't need your positive emotions. So, instead of wasting all that money to buy this device, I recommend trying to upgrade your philosophy to a better one.

My Reply: Like I said, I don't think my philosophy can ever change, no matter how hard I try to change it.

Other Person's Response: You can't afford this device yet, anyway.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to methods of recovery from an emotional trauma, there are 2 types. The 1st type would be methods, such as exercise, eating foods and drinking fluids that help speed up recovery, using that brain stimulation device, etc. These methods work by biological means, since they speed up recovery by promoting neurogenesis, improving brain function, etc. The 2nd type would be methods, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), talk therapy, mindfulness to keep one's mind in the present moment in order to reduce troubling worries, etc. These methods work by means of changing our thinking to help us feel better. So, if you're going to use some of the type 1 methods, then also use some type 2 methods.

My Reply: I agree. I'll keep searching to see if there's a method that will immensely speed up my recovery. So far, exercise has been the best method for me, although I'm still undergoing a very slow recovery process. So, yes, exercise does speed up my recovery, since I notice results. But, it doesn't speed it up much.

Other Person's Response: When you expose yourself to that worry, does a feeling of worry pop up, or any other negative emotions? The reason I ask is because recovery from an emotional trauma involves a process known as "desensitization." It's a process where a person becomes exposed to his traumatic feelings, and exposure to these feelings rids of his emotional trauma. It's like how a person's phobia disappears when he exposes himself to his feeling of fear. So, if a feeling of worry, or any other negative emotions, continue to pop up when you continue to think of that worry, your emotional crisis will be gone. Thus, you'll be fully recovered, and you should be able to enjoy your life and hobbies again.

My Reply: I've continued to think of that worry many times, and it doesn't cause negative emotions to pop up. By the way, my subconscious mind is already worried 24/7. So, even while I'm not consciously thinking about this worry, it's always there subconsciously. When negative emotions do pop up due to this worry being there, they pop up on their own, and I can't make them pop up through conscious effort. So, I can't make myself feel worried by consciously thinking of that worry. A feeling of worry in regards to those trips will pop up whenever it pops up. That means I can't speed up my recovery through conscious effort. Actually, I noticed there are few moments where a feeling of worry will pop up when consciously thinking of the worry. But, those are very few moments.

Other Person's Response: When you watch anime or video games, that continually triggers a feeling of misery, right?

My Reply: Right, and I've desensitized that feeling. But, there could still be other anime and video games out there that would trigger misery, and I'd just have to desensitize myself to that misery as well.

Other Person's Response: The moment you had this emotional crisis is the moment you were chronically stuck in a very miserable state, and you were in much emotional turmoil. But, since you're close to a full recovery, you're now mostly in a state of mental well-being, which means you're no longer in that chronic, miserable state, and you're no longer in emotional turmoil.

My Reply: That's right. I think it's because I've been exposed for so long to that emotional trauma. But, like I said, this was a long term recovery process, which means I didn't reach a state of mental well-being in a matter of days or weeks. I had to be exposed to powerful, profound negative emotions all throughout the day each day for a few years. As of now, there are few moments where negative emotions pop up, and I think I'll be fully recovered soon.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you only drink when you're thirsty, and when you do get thirsty, you chug a liter of water, since that's the amount you need to drink in order for your thirst to be quenched. Some people say it's harmful to drink all that water at once, while others say it's not harmful. So, that means this is yet another controversial topic you're undecided on, right?

My Reply: Right. Even though I can't decide if it's harmful or not, or if it's even likely that it's harmful or not, I can decide whether I'm going to chug all that water at once or not when I'm thirsty. I've decided to do it because it seems natural, and not harmful, to drink whatever amount of fluids you need to drink in order for your thirst to be quenched, even if it's a liter in 1 minute. Also, I haven't experienced any symptoms of water intoxication. So, perhaps it's not harmful.

Other Person's Response: There are people with drinking disorders, just as how there are people with eating disorders. So, there are people who are constantly thirsty, and get more than enough fluids. I'd imagine that to be harmful.

My Reply: It is a fact that if you drink too much fluids, then that will be harmful to your body, and there are people who drink too much fluids, such as those with drinking disorders.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2020 03:41 am
@MozartLink,
The question is, do you think and then you feel, or do you feel to go on thinking? Personally, my thinking brings me emotions, but I avoid that unscrutinized emotions dictate what I am to think.
I am not saying that what I do is better or worse then what others do, nor I am saying that I always succeed in my discipline, nonetheless, it is what I try to do as much as I can.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2020 03:47 am
@Leadfoot,
I have a question for you, granting a God for free for the sake of the argument and throwing you the bone of creation for the sake of making you happy what do you have to say about the Set of Reality throughout all the time? Is it bigger than God? Mind you that God is real and the Universe and its history are real as premises here.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2020 08:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
It is hard for me to use that as a starting point. It is merely the inverse of the atheist position. Neither approach worked for me without having a starting data point.

My starting point was the question - Could this existence (everything known) have made itself. The question first entered my mind around age seven and has been re-evaluated at every fork in the road and every new thing learned. It has been an ever present question for me. The answer has always been - no. Others of course disagree.

From that data point I can safely assume that there must be a plane of existence (or sufficiently superior technology as to look that way) that is 'more' than what we know as the universe at this time.

That conclusion does not tell me whether that 'more' is just the creator or if he/she/it exists on another plane entirely. However, Neither alternative negates the answer to the first question.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2020 09:14 pm
@Leadfoot,
By definition everything does not make itself. It is!
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2020 08:34 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Reductionism at its finest: I is, therefore I am.

And so circular!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2020 01:45 pm
@Leadfoot,
No no. Quite the opposite it is Wholism. Reductionism requires time and an arrow of time.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2020 08:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Give me a clue as to where you are going. Are you talking about the 'Quantum Gravity /Cosmic Consciousness/emergence' POV?

The 8D picture of the quantum particles and forces being projected onto 'our' 4D world is a fascinating theory, but it still requires an observer to make any sense of it. There are too many 'non-crystalline' but functional structures built out of those crystalline -8D structures that are not explained by emergence based on the repetitive pattern of the 'crystals'.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 04:47 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: In regards to happiness, that's defined by the individual. So, if someone had no ability to feel emotions, then he could define his emotionless, apathetic state as happiness. For him, that would be happiness.

My Reply: That would be like if someone was apathetic, wasn't perceiving beauty, and he defined that as beauty. But, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive, then his definition can yield no beauty for him, since he's not perceiving beauty. If he wants beauty, then he needs to perceive beauty. That means he needs to feel beauty (which is a positive emotion). Likewise, if someone wants happiness, then he needs to feel happy (which is also a positive emotion). Reason alone can't give him happiness, sadness, anger, love, beauty, horror, goodness, badness, etc., which means definitions alone can't give him any of those things. Definitions are just thoughts we have, and, like I said, our thoughts alone can't give us any happiness, beauty, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, definitions alone can yield no happiness, sadness, value, worth, etc. for us?

My Reply: Correct. Happiness, sadness, love, beauty, etc. are states of mind (perceptions), and they can only be emotional states.

Other Person's Response: If someone couldn't perceive beauty, he defined something as beautiful, and said this thing is still beautiful for him, then he'd just be having the idea in his mind that this thing is beautiful for him. But, in order for that thing to actually be beautiful for him, he needs to perceive it as beautiful.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You're right when you say that beauty, happiness, goodness, and love are states of mind (perceptions). But, they're neither emotional nor based on reason. So, neither reason nor emotion can give them to us. They're divine, everlasting, unconditional, and something we obtain through meditation. When Buddhists talk about achieving a state of happiness through their meditation, they're talking about a divine state, and not an intellectual or emotional state. There's also unconditional love, which is divine love, and that's obtained through meditation as well.

My Reply: I don't know if that's true or not. Also, what about negativity, such as hate, horror, misery, disgust, etc.? Are they neither based on reason nor emotion? During my miserable struggles, I've felt many unpleasant emotions, and it definitely seems these emotions were perceptions of horror, disgust, tragedy, etc. So, it seems to me that negativity is emotional. The same idea applies to positivity being emotional because I've felt pleasant emotions that definitely seemed like perceptions of beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, goodness, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, if positivity and negativity is neither emotional nor intellectual, then that means all those people who haven't meditated never had any happiness, love, beauty, sadness, good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct. They never loved, hated, or perceived beauty, goodness, badness, etc.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says there’s nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there’s nothing better in life than perceiving our goals, dreams, hobbies, etc. as good, beautiful, awesome, valuable, etc.

My Reply: Correct. There’s no more goodness and beauty to life than positive emotions. Life’s all about wallowing away in our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that you really are a weak person who lives by a weak, shallow philosophy, then I don't think it's right if others treated you as a pathetic human being of little to no significance. The fact is, weak people can still be beautiful human beings. For example, a mother can still be an amazing, beautiful, kind person, even though she's weak as an individual. So, I think you're still a wonderful, precious human being, despite your weaknesses.

My Reply: Thank you.

Other Person’s Response: Different brains are wired differently. So, it could be the case that some brains are wired to perceive good, bad, etc. through reason alone, while other brains are wired to have such a perception only through emotions. So, the very fact your emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. for you must mean your brain is wired this way.

My Reply: I don’t know if that’s true or not. If that’s true, then it could also be the case that some brains are wired to experience love, pride, happiness, misery, etc. through reason alone. That would mean some people can be happy, miserable, proud, etc. through reason alone, while others only can through their emotions.

Other Person's Response: It could also be the case that reason alone can make things matter to some people, since their brains are wired that way, while reason alone can't make things matter to other people.

My Reply: Right. I know that nothing can matter to me through reason alone, and perhaps it's because of the way my brain is wired. My brain might be wired to perceive things as mattering only through my emotions.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, the worst possible suffering would have to be the most horrible feeling, since "the worst" means "the most horrible," and the only horrible thing in life is feeling horrible.

My Reply: Yes. It would be the most profound, intense, horrible feeling.

Other Person's Response: Are you sure negative emotions are perceptions of worth?

My Reply: Actually, I'm not sure. So, I don't know if negative emotions make things worthwhile for us. Positive emotions are the only things that can make things valuable for us, which means positive emotions are the only perceptions of value. But, I don't know if positive emotions are the only perceptions of worth.

Other Person's Response: If I felt bad about others suffering, and that feeling motivated me to help those suffering people, then wouldn't that be a good thing?

My Reply: No, because feeling bad can only be bad. Also, during my miserable struggles, I've had horrible, agonizing, miserable feelings that motivated me to get psychological help. But, suffering like that was no way to live, which means there was nothing good or beautiful about my suffering, even though it motivated me to get help. The fact is, I was having a horrible experience, which means my suffering could only be horrible, regardless of how it motivated me. Even if it motivated me to change the world by discovering cures and inventing new technology, there'd still be nothing positive about my suffering. But, for those people who've been given cures and new technology, that would be a positive experience for them, since they're able to feel positive emotions. As for me, it couldn't be a positive thing, since I'd be miserable, and unable to feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: When you say it couldn't be a positive thing for you, you mean it couldn't be a good, beautiful, amazing, precious, or valuable thing for you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone was suffering, another person could see her suffering as good because he could feel good about her suffering. But, as for the suffering individual, she wouldn't be able to see her suffering as good if she was unable to feel good.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Those miserable struggles you've had were immense forms of suffering for you. Especially the profoundly horrible experiences you've had in your nightmares from these struggles, which were far worse. An all-loving god would only allow such suffering if it was absolutely necessary. But, if you were to re-experience all that suffering during a life review, just so you can look back at your life and make some sort of judgment, then that would be unnecessary. You don't need to go through all that suffering again, just for this purpose.

You could instead have a life review where you don't re-experience all that suffering. For example, when all the images of events from your Earthly life pop up during your life review, you could just witness images of your suffering without experiencing any of that suffering again. But, if god and these heavenly beings are going to have you re-experience your suffering during a life review, then they must not be all-loving beings, since they'd be putting you through unnecessary suffering. Thus, they might be Archons (imposter beings of light with sinister intentions).

My Reply: Right. It would be better if I just witnessed images of me feeling all those negative emotions, and not having to feel them again. It would actually be best if I felt blissful during the life review, even while witnessing those images.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences and report that there were beings of light who've bestowed knowledge upon them. But, such knowledge shouldn't be trusted, since it could be deceptive knowledge (lies).

My Reply: Right. So, if there's a being of light who bestows the knowledge that he's an all-loving being, then that could be a lie. He could be a hateful, sinister being who's trying to trick people into believing he's an all-loving being.

Other Person's Response: It would be better to be apathetic than to feel horrible, since feeling horrible is worse than being apathetic. There's horrible (negative), there's amazing (positive), and then there's neither horrible nor amazing (neutral). Neutrality is better than negativity, and positivity is better than neutrality and negativity.

My Reply: But, being apathetic still can't be good, amazing, or beautiful because only positivity is good, amazing, and beautiful. Also, there are negative numbers, the number zero, and positive numbers. The number zero can't be a positive number. But, being at 0 is closer to the positive numbers than being at a negative number. My point is, apathy can't be positive (it can't be good, beautiful, or amazing). But, it's closer to positivity than being in a state of negativity.

Other Person's Response: When you say that a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, you're saying there's nothing good, beautiful, valuable, or amazing without positive emotions?

My Reply: Yes. There's no positivity without positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Pleasant and unpleasant experiences are a form of motivation, and reason alone can't give us these experiences.

My Reply: Correct. Reason alone can't give us pain or pleasure.

Other Person's Response: If I felt a positive emotion from something (such as a feeling of beauty in regards to nature), then I'd be perceiving nature as pleasantly beautiful? If I felt disgust in regards to something, then I'd be perceiving that thing as unpleasantly disgusting?

My Reply: Yes.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 09:50 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, perceiving someone or something as bad is the only bad thing in life, and perceiving someone or something as pathetic is the only pathetic thing in life. So, that means it would be a bad thing to perceive the acts of criminals as bad.

Also, if there was a weak individual who couldn't stand up for himself in order to save the lives of his family, and a big, tough guy perceived him as pathetic, then not only does that weak individual become pathetic in the eyes of that tough guy, but the tough guy's perception is pathetic.

So, that means we shouldn't go up to that tough guy and say to him: "I admire your awesome perception because that weak individual really is pathetic." Instead, we should say to him: "Your perception of that weak individual is pathetic! You need to transcend your mind to positive perceptions!"

My Reply: Actually, people are free to feel (perceive) how they want. So, one person could perceive that tough guy's perception as awesome and admirable, while another person could perceive his perception as pathetic. But, yes, that tough guy's perception would be pathetic, since pathetic is simply a perception/feeling/value judgment. So, if someone perceives someone or something as pathetic, then that's a pathetic perception. If someone perceives someone or something as beautiful or horrific, then that's a beautiful or horrific perception, etc.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2020 08:32 pm
@MozartLink,
Quote:
Other Person's Response: In regards to happiness, that's defined by the individual. So, if someone had no ability to feel emotions, then he could define his emotionless, apathetic state as happiness. For him, that would be happiness.

My Reply: That would be like if someone was apathetic, wasn't perceiving beauty, and he defined that as beauty. But, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive, then his definition can yield no beauty for him, since he's not perceiving beauty. If he wants beauty, then he needs to perceive beauty. That means he needs to feel beauty (which is a positive emotion). Likewise, if someone wants happiness, then he needs to feel happy (which is also a positive emotion). Reason alone can't give him happiness, sadness, anger, love, beauty, horror, goodness, badness, etc., which means definitions alone can't give him any of those things. Definitions are just thoughts we have, and, like I said, our thoughts alone can't give us any happiness, beauty, etc.

I know a guy that will sell you beauty, happiness, etc. He'll even throw in a clean syringe for free.
What ya got against 'thoughts'? They can take you to some amazing places, inside and out, of self.
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2020 09:32 am
@Leadfoot,
In regards to good and bad, they're actual things. Good and bad are nothing more than value judgments, and value judgments are actual things. They're emotions. Emotion theorists claim that emotions are value judgments, since emotions tell us that certain people, moments, situations, and works of art are good, bad, beautiful, horrific, tragic, disgusting, etc. So, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. are emotions. Happiness, sadness, love, fear, and anger are also emotions. So, feeling good is good, feeling bad is bad, a feeling of horror is horror, a feeling of sadness or happiness is sadness or happiness, etc.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2020 10:30 am
@MozartLink,
OK, good as far as it goes.
What do you do when your thoughts don’t match up with your emotions? Or vice versa?

Which do you suppress in order to 'feel' right about? I should probably be able to answer that one based on that post alone but don’t want to put words in your mouth.

TL:DR version:
Is harmony between your thoughts and emotions important to you?
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2020 05:12 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: The term "happiness" implies a state of mind that's not apathetic. How can a person be happy if he's apathetic? The same thing applies to the term "grief." If someone was apathetic, the loss of his mother didn't matter to him, and he defined his apathy as grief, then how could he be in a state of grief? So, I don't think a person can be happy or grieve through definitions alone.

My Reply: Right. So, happiness and grief are emotional states.

Other Person's Response: Happiness implies a pleasant state of mind, and grief implies an unpleasant state of mind.

My Reply: Yes, and they're pleasant and unpleasant emotions.

Other Person's Response: The only pleasantness and unpleasantness that exists is the pleasantness and unpleasantness we perceive. Since emotions are perceptions of things and situations being pleasant and unpleasant, then that means emotions are perceptions of pleasantness and unpleasantness. So, that means emotions are pleasant and unpleasant, just as how emotions are beautiful and horrific, since they're perceptions of beauty and horror.

My Reply: Yes. Emotions are pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, horrific, etc. experiences.

Other Person's Response: Reason alone can't make us feel horror, fear, etc.?

My Reply: Correct. There's a difference between thinking and feeling.

Other Person's Response: If someone was a bum who smoked and drank beer for a living, but he felt very good, then we shouldn't say: "Some life that is!" We should instead say: "He lived a very good life!"

My Reply: Yes.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 May, 2020 11:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
Well, my PoV ahh...how shall I put it in an informal bite as I usually prefer, "Observers" are phenomena and phenomena are themselves qualitative objects of reality. No free will, no chance of inventing anything outside of the possible configurations of the Rubik's cube. And, above all a very firm intuition that maximum complexity projects simplicity in the past directly opposed to the naive view that things "emerge". I rather believe time itself is a phenomenon and in that sense an "illusion" than take the fairy tale view that miraculously things emerge out of cosmic magic.
On the "God" touchy subject I can put up with the statistical possibility of "Demi-Gods" out of the variation of the spectrum of intelligence in billions of Galaxies than take the classical whole mighty which by definition should have no needs will or wants of any sort as that which is complete is by definition dead as a rock.
I won't lie, I watch the best of best, Nobels alike, and I am astonished by the level of confusion marching on even at the highest ranks. I don't dare to speak a tenth of what I think these days...I've been getting myself into a private Universe and I am starting to like to keep there out of the pseudo-intellectual monkey fight for fame and glory (of all futile things go figure) on a clearly doomed species.
Anyway, whatever is your view you have my respect and my ears, I have no crusade against religious people in spite of my agnosticism and I always liked to talk with older people since my childhood.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 10:11:52