MattMVS7

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, I assume you have EVIDENCE for this?

No? What a surprise.

I have interacted with people on forums who claimed that our basic emotions are just simply how we feel about things and nothing more.  I revealed to them how they are the perception of value.  But they denied this.  If you want, I could give you the link to this discussion I had.  Would that count as evidence?  As a matter of fact, people claim that emotions in general do not allow us to perceive value and that they are nothing more than just how we feel about things.  I can link you to the discussion which shows you this.  Given this, I can't trust humanity when they make the claim that their morality, character, and intellect alone are higher emotions and a real source of value in their lives.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. That's it. Reported for lack of science and trolling.

But people are in denial of their basic emotions though.  They claim they don't allow us to perceive value when they really do.  So, how do you expect me to trust humanity?  Perhaps humanity is also in denial when it comes to their morality, intellect, and character being higher emotions and it being a real source of value in their lives.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I don't think you can call a belief in something that is obviously false a "philosophy".

Believing the Earth is flat is not a philosophy, it is a delusion.

Believing that man didn't land in the Moon is not a philosophy, it is a delusion.

Believing that everybody else in the world is lying to you is not a philosophy.

 

I don't actually believe my idea.  I am just sharing this idea based upon my own personal experience.  Consider it a hypothesis.  Also, there is the difference between what gives a person's life value and what this person is convinced of.  So, just because I say that my positive, basic emotions are the only things that can give a person's life good value does not mean that I am convinced of this idea.  This is just what gives my life value for now.  I am open minded to the idea that I can somehow have an intellectual form of value in my life.  But I am not sure if this is true or not.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are claiming that everybody in the world (including me) is lying. And you provide no evidence to support this.

 

Alright then.  This would just be my own philosophy.  Given this, I think it should have belonged in the philosophy section.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

As what you are now claiming is obviously false, there isn't much scope for being open minded about it.

You might as well ask that people be open minded about the Earth being flat.

What makes you think it's false?  Also, if you really thought it was false in the first place, then you wouldn't even be asking for evidence for my idea.  I think you were open minded about it, but are now just ignoring my idea by dismissing it as false.  When you feel a basic, positive emotion, this can be described as a sensation of pure joy and beauty since our positive, basic emotions give our lives beauty and joy.  They give our lives good value.  In order for our intellectual brain to give our lives good value, then it would have to experience a sensation of pure joy and beauty just like our positive, basic emotions.  This would be no different than saying that, in order for our intellectual brain to experience real hunger and thirst, then it would have to experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

But congratulations on finally staggering your way incoherently to a statement that no one is going to agree with. I assume that is what you wanted?

You cannot assume that because you are unable to get pleasure from art or a beautiful sunset or whatever that no one else is.

I think I will suggest the mods close this thread as you have nothing scientific (or even intelligent) to contribute.

I was just wanting others to keep an open mind to my idea and not be convinced of anything just yet.

Just now, Strange said:

Where is the evidence that everybody lies about this?

Or do you want to admit you have just made this up? Are you delusional or trolling?

This has been my own personal experience and all I am doing here is wondering if I am telling the truth or not.  I really don't know if I am lying or not.

Just now, Strange said:

So when people say they get pleasure from doing a crossword or reading (or writing) a poem, or watching a friend win a race or ... you think they are just lying?

You will really need to provide some evidence for this. Otherwise we can only conclude that you are completely delusional (or lying). 

Yes.  But as long as they could feel the basic, hedonistic pleasures, then I consider that to be real pleasure.  Hunger and thirst are basic impulses.  But there is no intellectual form of hunger and thirst.  Likewise, there are the basic emotions and I don't think there can be any intellectual form of emotions either.  The intellectual brain alone just gives us ideas of things.  It gives us the idea of colors, sounds, smells, heat, cold, hunger, thirst, and emotions.  Sure, it can send the signals to different areas of the brain to allow us to see colors, hear sounds, smell certain scents, to make us feel basic emotions, and to make us feel hungry and thirsty if we thought of our favorite food or beverage.  But the intellectual brain itself cannot experience any of those things.  This would have to mean that our intellect, character, and morality alone cannot allow us to perceive any real value.  It can only be our basic emotions that allow us to perceive value.  Therefore, it can only be our basic emotions that give our lives value. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

As people experience pleasure from “higher level” emotions (if such a distinction really exists) from a variety of intellectual activities, it would appear you are wrong. 

But there could really be no higher emotions and people are just living their lives by false beliefs.  Just because people act certain ways and make certain claims does not make them true.  For example, people in the past acted as though Thor was real and claimed that he existed.  So, just because people act as though these higher emotions exist and claim they exist does not mean they actually exist.  These people could be in denial of their personal experience regardless of what they say and how they behave.  For example, hunger and thirst cannot be experienced through our intellectual brain alone since the intellectual brain does not experience hunger and thirst.  But if someone has believed in a false definition of hunger and thirst, then it is quite possible that this person can believe that he is having an intellectual form of hunger and thirst just through thinking that he is hungry and thirsty.  We as human beings are metaphorical creatures and I think we tend to sometimes believe metaphors are the real things themselves.  A metaphorical version of hunger and thirst is not real hunger and thirst and neither is a metaphorical version of emotions any real emotions either.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes, but not every person feels positive emotions from that. You are just making stuff up again. (By the way, when do you intend to provide evidence for all your earlier claims?)

Different people have different values because different things cause more or less positive emotions for them. Some people value football (because it gives them a positive emotion) others prefer golf.

Obviously, anything one person wants to do may come at a cost to others. This is an old problem in philosophy and ethics (something you should study). For example, you could look up utilitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Or, more accurately, you are defining morality in terms of positive and negative emotions. But, as you point out, it is more complicated than that because not everyone shares the same values/emotions.

Now, just to be clear on something.  People put emotions into two categories.  The 1st category would be the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation.  Many people deem these as the shallow emotions.  But then there are the higher emotions founded upon morality, character, and intellect.  Even if a person couldn't feel the basic emotions, other people would still claim that this person can have value in his life through his higher emotions.  I am not sure if these higher emotions exist.  I don't think our morality, character, and intellect alone can be any real emotional state.  I think it can only be the basic emotions that are the real emotions.  I could be wrong though.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Christ. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

He may get a positive emotion and think it is a good (valuable) thing for him.

But that doesn't mean it is a good thing for anyone else for society as a whole. Sheesh.

In which case, they are as incapable of rational thought as you seem to be.

 

If positive emotions were the only good things in life, then it would have to be a good thing for every single human being to harm an innocent person if every person felt a positive emotion from that idea.  Therefore, there would be no moral definition of good and bad and there would instead be an emotional definition of good and bad.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Who said there are?

Although, this is something I would probably disagree with. I get emotional pleasure form intellectual activities: writing computer software, doing mathematics, defining business processes,  etc.

And that is a very silly conclusion. It may be true for a family of robots, but most people get married, have children etc. because they want to; because it fills an emotional need; because it makes them happy; because they are in love; and for other positive emotional reason.

And because of those emotional ties, most people value their family above almost anything else. Remember, it was you who pointed out that value comes from positive emotion.

No shit, Sherlock. Keep those impressive insights coming.

Hey, me too! (Initially, I assumed English was not MattMVS7's first language. But now I think it was just sloppy writing.)

But if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing.  This is the basis by which people reject my idea and that is why people conclude that, even if you were a depressed person, that making moral and intellectual choices would have to be a source of good value in your life even if that choice couldn't send the signal to those areas of the brain to make you feel good.  The area of the brain I pointed out that makes us feel positive emotions would be the Nucleus Accumbens. 

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Part of my job responsibilites involve reading and editing technical reports, often by individuals working in, to them, a foreign language.  I have become adept at extracting meaning from incoherent crap. Trust me - your writing in the OP and some subsequent posts is sub-standard. You are free to ignore this observation and continue to present your readers with unwelcome challenges, or you can try to improve. [I'll be happy to edit any drafts you care to pm me.]

There you go. That is not one of the concepts that came across to me in your earlier posts. (Did anyone else pick that up?) I would disagree with that completely. The moral choice to act on behalf of ones family is motivated by instinctive drives. Consequently it should and does produce positive emotions in people. Arguably intellectual values are rationalisations of what is instinctively valued.

I also have a personal objection, I should have raised earlier, with your qualification of our basic emotions as being "lower". That implies they are somehow inferior. Since our basic emotions arise instinctively and lie at the heart of who we are I find it silly to describe them as lower. But them I am proud to be an ape and a close relative of chimpanzees, so you may think me biased.

It's strange.  But many people I have interacted with understood my posts and found them skillfully written and coherent.  I think it all depends on who you are, your life experience, and your standards that determines whether you find my writing coherent, skilled, or not.  Also, if you are agreeing with my idea that our positive, instinctive emotions are the only things that give good and beautiful value to our lives, then many people have rejected this idea because they would say things to me such as that, if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing.  Thus, these people think there has to be something more to life than our positive emotions to give good value to our lives.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. I said that the film has value (because it will cause positive emotions) but his family has more value (because he has more positive emotions for his family). He will weight up these values (emotions) and go with the more positive.

I was agreeing with your statement that positive emotions correspond to value. And using that to show that your claim about how people would behave is wrong.

You are being completely irrational because on the one hand you say that emotion is what defines value and then on the other hand claiming that people will behave as if that weren't true.

 

Now, where is the evidence for those claims?

If you change the subject again, I will report this thread to the mods as being incoherent, unscientific rambling.

I don't think there are positive emotions founded upon morality and intellect though.  I think it can only be the lower, basic positive emotions which are the real positive emotions.  So, when he made the intellectual and moral choice to help his family, I am saying that this was just an intellectual and moral choice.  I did not say he felt excited from that.  If he did feel a positive emotion from that, then he would be having two positive emotions going on at once.  He would be feeling a positive emotion about seeing the film and from the idea of helping his family.

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Excuse my profanity, but you are stating the fucking obvious. There are two things wrong with your post. Firstly, your statement of the bloody obvious is poorly written, stylistically unattractive and lacking in coherence and clarity. Secondly, you are so out of touch with reality you think you have had an original thought.

 

It is not a new idea.

Few people would object to its broad context and they would be wrong to do so.

The idea has been tested, retested, assessed, validated and accepted in a plethora of books on psychology, human behaviour, business studies, autobiographies, classical literature, etc.

Be pleased and satisfied that you have discovered for yourself what most of the rest of us have known since childhood.

Most of life is rather neutral for most people most of the time. The really good times are comparatively rare. Fortunately this is often true of the really bad times too.

It doesn't matter that your idea is not orginal, or that your attempt to describe it is second rate. You've made the discovery. Now use that to harvest those positive emotions and thereby experience more of the upbeat, good times. To help you on your way I've given you a Upvote for each of your posts.

If the things I have written were poorly written and incoherent, then it makes no sense to say that my posts were obvious.  If everything I have written was obvious to you, then it would have to follow that my writing was coherent and well-explained.  I, personally, have never heard of this idea that values founded upon morality, character, and intellect are not real values.  Many people have rejected this idea since people would say things to me such as that, if positive emotions were the only good things in life, then a psychopath who feels a positive emotion from harming an innocent person would be a good thing.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I never said any such thing. 

If you are just going to make up lies, then it is probably time for this thread to be closed.

I will point out where you said that:

1 hour ago, MattMVS7 said:

If someone was in a situation where he felt excited about getting a new movie, but had to go home and help his family instead, then he might report that getting that new movie was of no value to him and that it was instead his intellectual and moral choice of helping his family which was of real value to him. 

"Or, back in the real world, he would say that he was looking forward to seeing the film but helping his family was more important to him. In other words, the film had value but his family had more value.

You seem to be making up bizarrely unrealistic claims about human nature to make it look like you have thought of something clever."

I said that he made the intellectual and moral choice of helping his family.  Therefore, by you saying that helping his family had more value to him, then you are admitting that intellectual and moral based values are real values.

Just now, Strange said:

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Please provide evidence for this.

Please provide evidence for this.

 

Or you could admit you are just making this stuff up.

Even you are making this claim since you said that values founded upon intellect, morality, and character are real values.  Therefore, you are already admitting that these depressed artists had real value in their lives through their morality, character, and intellect even if they didn't feel any positive emotions and instead channeled their feelings of misery into creating their works of art.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is probably very true, and very sad. (But I'm not sure how it is relevant to the thread.)

Most people would disagree.  For example, there were many miserable and depressed artists out there.  They were very famous artists.  Many people claimed that these artists had good and beautiful value in their lives with no need to feel positive emotions.  Even the artists themselves made this very claim.  But I disagree with this claim.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is obvious. And everyone gets it. Everyone already knew it. You are not saying anything new.

Isn't that true of everybody?

There is nothing new here.

I have to say, it seems as if you are the one who is not reading what other people have written. No one has dismissed your idea, or even objected to it. 

The positive emotions I am talking about that make our lives beautiful and good are the very fleeting ones.  This means that people who struggle with clinical depression due to no fault of their own cannot have any good or beautiful value in their lives as long as they cannot feel positive emotions.  If they have very little positive emotions, then they can only have a small amount of that good and beautiful value in their lives.

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Matt, from where I sit you have taken some simple, self evident facts, then complicated them by using words with somewhat distorted meanings to describe those facts, while simultaneously appearing to claim you have had some startling insight. Marks out of 10 for clarity, 0.5. Marks out of 10 for value -2.  Emotional value to me of having read this thead -20. You owe me for ten minutes of my life that I shall never be able to get back. If I were you I would take up crochet.

I think I have explained my worldview/idea quite well and coherently.  If it's still incoherent to you, then I give up and I just don't understand this.  It's like presenting and explaining something so obvious and people still not getting it.  It is important that others understand why my pleasant/positive emotions are the only things that make my life good, beautiful, and worth living.  That is why I have written all of this.  I present many arguments to support my idea and I explain many things.

I am also trying to prove something to the world.  This is an idea or a thesis I have come up with and I support this idea with all of these arguments in an attempt to prove it or, at least, put others in a position where they really keep an open mind to this idea and wonder if it could be true rather than dismissing and objecting to it.  My own personal experience and struggles has led me to this new idea.  If this idea of mine can be tested, then I do not have the means necessary to do that.  I am just sharing my idea/worldview for what it is now.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Another claim you need to provide evidence for. That is two so far.

Are you going to do that? Or shall I just ask the mods to close this now?

 

Or we could just forget about my claim that humanity has a stigma against emotions since I can't find any evidence for that.  This has just been my own personal experience when interacting with people in my life.  As for my claim that one set of values is real and the other set is fake, I gave a hunger and thirst analogy which should have made that point clear.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Or, back in the real world, he would say that he was looking forward to seeing the film but helping his family was more important to him. In other words, the film had value but his family had more value.

You seem to be making up bizarrely unrealistic claims about human nature to make it look like you have thought of something clever.

Humanity has a stigma against emotions though.  They would claim that emotions being the source of value in our lives is for the weak-minded and that the real value comes about through our intellect, character, and morality.  Thus, they dismiss emotions as being nothing more than how we feel about things.  I see you agree that emotions do give our lives value since they allow us to perceive value.  But you think that it is both our emotions and our intellect, character, and morality that gives our lives value.  As for me, I don't think you can have both sets of values.  One set is fake and the other is real.  I think it can only be the emotional values which are the real values while the intellectual/moral based ones are the fake ones.  It would be like having two boxes of money and figuring out which box consists of real money and which box consists of fake money.  I consider that to be detective work.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would be surprised if people didn't value things that were associated with positive emotions. So assume you can show the evidence for this?

Obviously, that is not the only definition of value but it is clearly one of them. So perhaps the only thing I would disagree with is "the" perception of value (rather than "a" perception of value.)

It is like you have taken one slice from Maslow's Hierarchy and are passing it off as something clever. (The whole Hierarchy is ridiculous. I'm not sure if just using a bit of it is better or worse.) 

Why do so many people assume that?

If someone was in a situation where he felt excited about getting a new movie, but had to go home and help his family instead, then he might report that getting that new movie was of no value to him and that it was instead his intellectual and moral choice of helping his family which was of real value to him.  Since our positive emotions themselves are the perception of value, then he would be in denial to claim that his emotions are not the perception of value and that they are nothing more than just how he feels about certain things.  As a matter of fact, humanity is in denial since they claim that their emotions are just simply how they feel about things and nothing more.  But they are far more than how we feel about things. 

They are the perception of value.  I also think humanity is in denial regarding their moral and intellectual based values since I don't think these are the real values.  Therefore, I think humanity has it all backwards.  Our morality, character, and intellect alone does not allow us to perceive any real value while it can only be our emotions that do.  Believing that you are perceiving value through your intellect is not the same thing as actually perceiving value just as how believing that you are hungry and thirsty through just words alone in your mind of you being hungry and thirsty is not the same thing as actually being hungry and thirsty.  You need to feel hungry and thirsty to have real hunger and thirst just as how you need to feel emotions to have real value in your life.

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How do you determine value?

Xposted

The only way something can be of value is when it matters to you.  How can you say that helping someone or harming someone is something good or bad if it doesn't matter?  From there, the only way something can matter to you is if you want it, like it, not want it, or dislike it.  Since our positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking and since our negative emotions are the disreward not wanting and disliking, then they are what make things of value in our lives since they allow us to perceive value in regards to things and situations.

Just now, Strange said:

I can't see anything of value in this. You seem to be stating the obvious. What is the point? Is there anything new or useful here?

First of all, most people would disagree with the idea that our emotions are the perception of value.  Second, I say that our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot allow us to perceive value.  I already explained why that is in my opening post.  It seems you haven't read my entire opening post.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Is that supposed to be insightful?

"If you get what you want you will experience a positive emotion" Wow. Amazing. You should get a Nobel Prize.

That's not what I said.  I said positive emotions themselves are wanting and liking.  They are the reward wanting and liking in the brain.  From there, I said that if you want and like something, this means it matters to you which, in turn, means it is something that has value from your perspective.  That is why I draw the conclusion that positive emotions allow us to perceive value in regards to things.