MattMVS7

Finally, if materialism is true, then you would be delusional to find meaning in your life since life has no meaning.

It is because living a neutral life will cause others to feel depressed (such as me) regardless of the fact that it would be irrational for me to feel that way and that I should just instead have no depressing thoughts about this and should instead have neutral thoughts that don't cause me any bad feelings.

Beliefs such as materialism and scientism are well supported views from many scientists and intelligent people. They are not just simply perspectives from people who give up on life or who have a pessimistic attitude.

What I mean by meaningless would be that everything is just a bunch of atoms and particles and that's it. And that our own thoughts and everything else is just the activity of a bunch of atoms and particles and that's it (though our pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things despite the fact that they are also the functioning of atoms and particles).

The perspective I would be talking about would be from the perspective of this meaningless universe (which would be materialism and naturalism).

And even that idea (thought) you just presented to me now would be neutral (neither good or bad).

I never separated pain and despair from "feeling bad." I have, in fact, been saying all along that good is pleasure, bad is suffering, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life. Also, I do value others and their pleasure. But my beliefs state otherwise since you are only in your own mind and cannot feel the pleasure and suffering of others and that, therefore, you can only experience your own pleasure and suffering which means that only your own pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things to you. All thoughts are neutral and the thought (idea) of others suffering is neutral (neither good or bad) which means that others suffering from your perspective is neutral regardless of what you think otherwise.

Because I would be delusional (based on my beliefs) to somehow think and live my life in seeing things greater than my own pleasure. I would also be the lesser person for having abandoned the greatest aspect of me as a human being (which is my pleasure) and instead living my life as an inferior biological robot with no emotions (in this case, pleasure) who instead sees greater things in life than my pleasure which, in reality, are not greater at all and are all neutral (neither good or bad). Accepting all losses and problems in your life besides your loss of pleasure would make you the better person for having found greater pleasure in your life despite these problems and losses. But if your loss is your ability to experience pleasure itself, then you would be the lesser person for having accepted your loss of pleasure and for moving forward in life and finding greater value in other things in life than your pleasure that you once had before.

Unfortunately, in order for me to find some other purpose in life and to view other things in life greater than my own pleasure, you are going to have to disprove my premise right here in this post. This premise is where all my arguments are based off of. If you can scientifically disprove that, then all my arguments will tumble down along with it and I will accept that I am wrong and will be convinced right here and now that there are other things in life greater than my own pleasure. So here is my premise quoted below: If that premise I just stated in my previous paragraph (that all my arguments here are based off of) can be refuted with scientific facts, then that would, in fact, completely convince me that my beliefs are wrong. In other words, present me the scientific facts that state that our own feelings are arbitrary, that there is no way that pleasure always feels good in of itself for everybody (that pleasure can actually feel neutral or bad) and that pain and despair also being the same in this sense as well in that they can actually feel neutral or good for some people and that these things feeling good is somehow actually not the pleasure itself obtained from these things that is the only thing that feels good. And that, even during the worst possible experiences of pain and despair, that it is actually the pain and despair itself that can feel neutral (that it can feel like nothing more than a sensation such as touch and smell) or that it can feel good for some people while the best experience of pleasure a human being can possibly experience can actually feel neutral or bad for some people. If this premise can somehow be defeated with scientific facts, then all of my remaining arguments will tumble down along with it and I will accept as well as be convinced that I am wrong. But if it can't, then all of my arguments will stand as convincing despite the fact that others are somehow not convinced of them.

I have lost my feelings of pleasure through anhedonia (emotional numbness) which is chronic, there all the time 24/7, and there are never any brief moments of pleasure at all. I am a hedonist (which is a belief that says that pleasure is the only good and greatest thing in life) and my feelings of pleasure are what is very great to me and people who tell me that my feelings are not that important and that there are other things in life greater than my feelings such as who I am as a person (perhaps some scientists and/or some intelligent people who tell me that I am living the life of a fool for pleasure-seeking and viewing it as the greater thing in life than intelligence and for not seeking intelligence as well as other things in life), these types of people do not care about my feelings and are insensitive towards my feelings since they only care about neutral (neither good or bad) things in life such as intelligence, who I am as a person, etc. and don't care about my pleasure, my depression, and anhedonia (emotional numbness). These intelligent people and scientists (and perhaps some other people) somehow think that our purpose in life is that there are greater things in life than pleasure and to instead find and value these greater things in life over pleasure. But I wish to prove these people wrong so that they stop being so insensitive towards my feelings. I will, one day, perhaps scientifically prove everything I'm saying about pleasure being the only good and greatest thing in life as a scientific fact. Only then will that change how the world thinks and only then will they know that feelings of pleasure (such as love) are truly the only good and greatest things in life.

Now just because we can create thoughts and meanings that provoke good and bad feelings still does not make those thoughts good or bad. They are still neutral like I said. They are just only being perceived as good or bad which then sends the appropriate message to the brain that allows us to experience good or bad feelings. As for pain itself always feeling bad and that it is only the pleasure obtained from the pain that feels good, I'm quite sure you have at least some scientific knowledge to at least know that this is a fact. But I'm not even sure I can provide the scientific evidence/facts due to it being so blatantly obvious. It would be no different than asking me to provide the scientific facts/evidence that we and this universe exist. Or maybe you could at least explain to me in terms of science how it's even scientifically possible for pain and despair alone in of themselves to feel good and for pleasure alone in of itself to feel bad. Or how they can even feel like neutral (neither good or bad) sensations such as smell, touch, etc.

As for my point about people lying in saying their pain feels good, I'm not sure if you just immediately decided to not read anymore after reading that statement, but I will say it again which is that it is actually the pleasure obtained from the pain that feels good while the pain itself still feels bad. You are going to have to give me the scientific facts/evidence that show how pain/despair just in of itself can actually feel good while pleasure in of itself can actually feel bad and also how pain and despair can actually feel neutral (neither good or bad) and how pleasure can feel neutral as well. As for your point about other things in life being good and bad (the external stimuli), I'm not sure if you already read what I said, but I will also repeat what I said before which is that everything else in life besides our own pleasure and suffering is neutral (neither good or bad) because things like naturalism and materialism say so because they state that everything in life is meaningless (neither good or bad) and is just a bunch of atoms and particles. However, I have stated in my post before (my summary above) why pleasure is the only good thing in life despite it also being atoms and particles and why pain and despair are the only bad things in life.

If you were in both a state of mind in which you had pleasure (a good state of mind) as well as pain (a bad state of mind), you might then be asking would you then be a good or bad person? The answer to that would be that the pleasure and pain would cancel each other out in terms of good and bad. So if you had an equal amount of pleasure and pain going on at the same time, you would actually be in a neutral state of mind. But if you had more pleasure than the amount of pain you are also experiencing at the same time, then you would be in a good state of mind (just not as good as if you didn't have the pain to begin with). Same thing applies if you had more pain than pleasure in which you would be in a bad state of mind. Also, as I said before, everything else in life besides our own pleasure and suffering is neutral (neither good or bad) anyway because things like naturalism and materialism say so because they state that everything in life is meaningless (neither good or bad) and is just a bunch of atoms and particles. However, I have stated in my post there why pleasure is the only good thing in life despite it also being atoms and particles and why pain and despair are the only bad things in life.

I have posted a summary in my previous post here.

This is a detailed explanation that explains some more things that are not included in my other explanations and is something very important for you to read in order to try and convince you. It has some of the same things, but also has different arguments and also corrects some contradictions and/or logical fallacies that might have been presented in my other explanations. One very important point I would like to make is that the reason why everything I'm saying here is so long and that I can't summarize it is because if I just bring up brief simple points, then many people would be able to argue against them. But if I were to instead go into a long and deep explanation that backs up my arguments and convinces others to the point where they can no longer come up with anything else to argue against my points of view, then it is likely that they might be convinced. Also, even Stephen Hawking himself says that philosophy is dead and that science is all there is. My belief is known as "Scientism" (as well as "Materialism" and "Naturalism") which state that life has no meaning and has no good or bad meaning and that everything in life is "neutral" (neither good or bad) and is just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles. However, this only applies to all things in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair as I'm going to explain here (which are the only good and bad things in of themselves independent of all other neutral things in life). They are even independent of neutral ideas (thoughts) such as ideas others might state such as that life is not about pleasure and seeking only it for yourself will bring consequences to you and everyone else and will even bring you and others the opposite of pleasure as well as much more suffering than pleasure for yourself and others. So my version of those beliefs quoted above is that everything in this universe besides pleasure, pain, and despair are meaningless (neither good or bad) while pleasure is the only good thing and that pain and despair are the only bad things despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms and particles. This is because pleasure in of itself always feels good no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pleasure while pain and despair will always feel bad in of themselves no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pain and despair. Some people might claim that pain feels good to them, but they would be lying. It is only the pleasure itself that is obtained from the pain that feels good to him/her while the pain stands alone by itself as feeling bad. Same thing applies if you were to somehow feel that your pleasure feels bad to you in that it would only be the pain and/or possibly despair that you obtained from your pleasure that would feel bad in of itself while the pleasure would still feel good in of itself. Pleasure, pain, and despair can also never feel like neutral (neither good or bad) sensations such as touch, smell, etc. So they stand alone as the only good and bad things themselves in life separate from everything else and separate from the atoms and particles of other things in life that cannot define our pleasure as being neutral or bad or our pain and despair as being neutral or good. Therefore, good is pleasure, bad is pain and despair, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair. But if you are going to say something such as that just because these feelings feel good and bad still means that they are just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles, this would be false because there is no separation between these feelings feeling good and bad and them being a bunch of atoms and particles. Good and bad are the functioning of those atoms and particles that yield pleasure and suffering just like how the atoms and particles yield other materials and chemicals. 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. All feelings of pleasure are equal and none is inferior to the other. They can only be lesser in comparison if they are lesser in terms of the activity of the parts of our brain that elicit these states of pleasure. To conclude this introduction, I would like to say that I am a hedonist. Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the only good thing in life. However, my version of hedonism is a bit different in that only your own pleasure is good from your perspective while the pleasure of others is only good from their own perspectives and that you are free to harm others. Now you can create neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in your mind that are bland to you and provoke no good or bad emotional response. 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 (thoughts) themselves are, again, neither good or bad (they are all neutral) and do not somehow make our emotions good or bad or neutral. 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 had no thoughts or knowledge whatsoever, your pleasure would still feel good to you and your pain and despair would still feel bad to you. Therefore, thoughts and such do not tell us that things are "good" and "bad" (they are not the "good" and "bad" messages in our brains). They 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, I am going state another important thing as to how pleasure in of itself is the only thing that is "good." If you were to eat something that tastes good, it would be your pleasure itself from that which makes it taste good. But if you were to have no pleasure whatsoever and are not allowed to have any pleasure whatsoever (due to severe depression and/or severe anhedonia which is emotional numbness), then even if you were to eat this tasty food with just thoughts alone such as that "This is good food," these thoughts and such alone will not make the food taste good. Just like how our thoughts and such alone cannot make food taste good if we didn't have pleasure, our thoughts and such alone also can't make anything else in life anything good from our own perspectives without our pleasure whether it be helping others, doing great things in your life, etc. Also, there are such people with severe anhedonia (emotional numbness) and/or severe depression in which food does not taste good to them at all. I would like to say that for you to be offended, irritated, or angry about the fact that my personal issue is presented in a long scientific explanatory (or maybe perhaps philosophical) form or that you are angry, irritated, or offended by what I'm saying here for some other reason, then that would mean that you are not a full compassionate person in that you do not have full compassion towards my issues and wish to help me out. Imagine if there was a person who was very depressed and said "I am very depressed because I feel that one is inferior and worthless and that one's life is inferior and worthless without his/her pleasure and I wish to talk about my issues here regardless of how long what is that I have to say," would you then make this person feel even more depressed and rejected by scorning upon him/her and being offended by what he/she has to say? Or would you instead not scorn upon this person and try and help him/her out? Therefore, I will freely speak my mind regardless if it offends you or not. (NOTE: This whole issue with being offended is not directed towards people who are nice and wish to help me out such as my parents and/or mental health professionals or even some other people because I know that they would be kind to me in trying to help me out with this issue and won't be offended at all by what it is I'm saying here). One final very important point I would like to make is that I have depression as well as severe chronic anhedonia (emotional numbness) in which there are never any brief moments of pleasure whatsoever. Therefore, I feel that my life is worthless and that there is nothing good about me or my life without my own pleasure and this is why I wish to discuss this issue and my personal beliefs. 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. So even if you felt bad in harming others and giving them pain and despair, it would still only be your own experienced pain and despair from that situation that would be bad from your perspective. 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! Also, many people obtain pain and despair from witnessing the pain and despair of others and then claim that there is no way for the suffering of those other people to possibly be neutral from their own perspectives since these people obviously find the suffering of those others to be painful and depressing themselves. Therefore, they claim that the suffering of others really is something bad from their own perspectives. First off, as for feeling pain and despair from witnessing the pain and despair of others, it's only your own pain and despair that is bad. What goes on in the brain is that neutral (neither good or bad) stimuli from your perspective (such as you observing the suffering of others) is perceived as something not neutral (something as bad) which then sends a message to the brain that allows you to experience despair and possibly pain. Just because something is perceived as bad does not make it bad from your own perspective or from anyone else's for that matter. Again, only your own pain and despair itself is bad since our thoughts and other things themselves are not our pain and despair itself (they are not bad). And, of course, the pain and despair that those other people are experiencing is only bad from their own perspectives regardless of how you or even them perceive it through thoughts alone. The same concept applies for only your own pleasure being good from your perspective. Now why is it that I say that everything in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair is nothing but neutral (meaningless and neither good or bad) stimuli? It would be because of what I've just already stated in my introduction which would be because of materialism, naturalism, as well as scientism. 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 as 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 particles in our brains have yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). If you are going to ask how can pleasure always be good and pain/despair always be 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 particles yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains have yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things always be good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking "How can this piece of metal always 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. In the exact same sense of how the atoms and particles in our brains yields consciousness, since pleasure is a part of our conscious because our conscious is all areas of our brain that give us experiences, then pleasure being "good" refers to "consciousness" (that "good" and "bad" are our consciousness). So how we would find the amount of "good" in a person's brain would be to measure their amount of conscious activity that allows them to experience pleasure (the conscious activity of the pleasure centers of his/her brain). Same thing with bad. Though with a feeling such as hopelessness, it would be different because what yields the experience of hopelessness would be the shutting down of the activity of the atoms and particles that give us the experience of pleasure. Although pain and pleasure might be one function as a whole because some might say that we cannot separate our pain, 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 (which would be a good state of mind) or in a state of mind in which we have pain and/or despair (which would be a bad state of mind). This neutral state of mind I just stated would still be neutral (neither good or bad) 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. But if you were in both a state of mind in which you had pleasure (a good state of mind) as well as pain (a bad state of mind), you might then be asking would you then be a good or bad person? The answer to that would be that the pleasure and pain would cancel each other out in terms of good and bad. So if you had an equal amount of pleasure and pain going on at the same time, you would actually be in a neutral state of mind. But if you had more pleasure than the amount of pain you are also experiencing at the same time, then you would be in a good state of mind (just not as good as if you didn't have the pain to begin with). Same thing applies if you had more pain than pleasure in which you would be in a bad state of mind. Now 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 more of a good 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. Also, the conscious of many people does make up for other losses in other parts of the conscious. However, there are exceptions in which there are people whose conscious does not make up for these losses. Therefore, these types of people would forever be the lesser and/or less good people. Now if you are going to say something such as that "I'm not sure that's a scientific claim. For a start, an arguably more scientific definition of a person is as homo sapiens. I think either a person is a member of the species or not. I'd also have to say that I think there's a lot of difficulties with the concept of consciousness and even greater difficulties trying to use it as a conceptual tool in thinking about things like human rights," then what I would have to say to that would be that what would define a person as a homo sapiens in the first place would be his/her conscious as well because you cannot take out the mind and just say that the body itself is a complete homo sapiens. And even if this person's conscious didn't define him/her as a homo sapiens, then we can look at a specific grouping of atoms/particles that defines him/her as a homo sapiens and find a similar grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious that are exactly the same and say that this specific grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious defines him/her as a homo sapiens. Now 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). Actually, as I stated before, none of these things matter anyway and all these things besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. That is, providing that thoughts/meanings and pleasure are two separate things. But if they are actually one thing only when it comes to experiencing pleasure (that our thoughts/meanings actually become the pleasure itself only when we experience pleasure), then these thoughts/meanings would be good (would matter) to us. So if you are then going to ask if that's the case, then why can't our pleasure be neutral or bad since neutral and bad thoughts can also become our pleasure? The answer to that would be that, in this case, there is no separation between pleasure and our neutral or "bad" thoughts (bad thoughts also being neutral anyway). I stated before that pleasure feels good which is an objective scientific fact and I stated that the reason for that is because different functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. yields different things and also yields our experience of pleasure which always feels good in of itself. So to say that our pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that a piece of metal (or in this case, pleasure) can be a different type of material entirely (that pleasure can be something different such as something good or bad) just because a majority of atoms/other particles that make up this piece of metal (the atoms/other particles that make up our pleasure in our brains) has some inherit characteristics of other types of material (or in this case, the characteristics of the functioning of atoms/other particles responsible for our "bad" and neutral thoughts). Therefore, pleasure can never be something different and will always be good in of itself no matter what while all thoughts/meanings and everything else in life besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. Now 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 somehow magically "project" their mindset and their value, worth, and beauty towards you onto you. I am now going to post another convincing argument here which is that good and bad can only be defined in terms of evolution. Pleasure is what encourages our survival and this is the only thing that makes pleasure good. Bad feelings such as fear may also encourage our survival in the sense of escaping from danger, but it's still bad because it is evolution's "warning." So "warning" (things such as pain and despair) in terms of evolution is the only thing that is bad while "encouraged survival" in the sense of us being encouraged in benefiting our species is the only thing that is good. Knowledge and thoughts alone may be used to make us do great things in life, help others, and benefit our survival, but these knowledge and thoughts are not the same as our "encouraged survival" (which is our pleasure). Thoughts and knowledge do not "encourage" us. They only merely make us do things in the sense of being neutral and our lives being neutral from our perspectives without our pleasure. Again, all things separate from our pleasure (such as the survival and benefiting of others) does not matter from our perspectives and is not good at all. Only our pleasure is good. As for things such as rats pleasuring themselves to death through electrocutions, it's not the survival and benefiting of us that is good or bad (if they are things aside from our own pleasure and suffering). It's only our encouragement to benefit our survival (pleasure) that is the only thing defined as good in terms of evolution (even if it is used in not benefiting our survival and even harming ourselves and others). Again, knowledge and thoughts alone do not "encourage" us. And the idea of obtaining more pain from experiencing pleasure is just a thought that is neutral. So the idea of the rats not surviving is neither good or bad nor the idea of them experiencing suffering and pleasure is anything good or bad either. Only the suffering itself that the rats were experiencing was bad and it is only the pleasure itself that the rats experienced that was good. As for from whose point of view would it be considered that their pleasure was actually good and that their suffering was bad? It would only be from their own perspectives. You might then be saying that this doesn't make it objective, but this is false. Feelings of pleasure are objectively good in of themselves for everyone while feelings of pain and despair are objectively bad for everyone regardless of our own personal thoughts (our own created meanings) regarding these feelings being good or bad for us because our thoughts are completely independent of them actually feeling objectively good and bad in of themselves. Or you could look at it from the perspective of science itself. For example, the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is not something subjective. We can have different created meanings regarding that such as that this is good or bad, but that still doesn't change the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. So only our thoughts are subjective while the feelings themselves are objective. Now if you think there is a difference between something being objectively good and bad (our pleasure and suffering) in terms of the perspective of science as opposed to them being good and bad from our perspectives, there is not. Both say that the feelings of pleasure and suffering are the objectively good and bad things only from our own perspectives (which would be our own pleasure and suffering) while the pleasure and suffering of others from our own perspectives is still neither good or bad (neutral). If you are going to say something such as that this still makes our own feelings subjectively good or bad, I will then ask you what would be the difference between saying that it's a scientific fact that our minds are what they are and how they work despite the fact that they are subjective organs with different wiring and neuronal activities? Same thing with our feelings of pleasure and suffering since they are what they are (which would be good and bad) despite the fact that our thoughts and the activity in our brains are subjective. So this would be objective in the sense that our brains are what they are and is how they work in terms of science and it would also be subjective in the sense that the activity and wiring of our brains is different for each individual. Same thing applies for pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life. It's subjective only in the sense that the activity of the neurons and other particles that elicit states of pleasure and suffering are different for everyone (yielding different levels and forms of "good" and "bad"). But it is objective in the sense that pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things. So pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life is both objective in one scientific sense and is also subjective in another scientific sense at the same time. Now you may notice that I am using a lot of words such as "if" and "were" which are not scientific nor are they scientific facts. However, we can say the words "if" and "were" and it can still be a scientific fact. For example, the phrase "If someone were to have depression," we can ignore the words "if" and "were" since the depression itself is a scientific fact that happens to people (which would be all the combined scientific phenomenon that occurs during depression such as a loss of pleasure activity and other things and we would then add up all those things and call that 'depression'). The only non-fact that these words refer to in that quoted statement is the imagined situation of actually having the depression. Same thing with my argument. The things I'm saying in that argument are the scientific facts while all the words such as "if" and "were" only refer to the imagined version of that situation. Also, if the definition of the word "good" means "that which is desired," then pleasure is the only thing that can achieve this because our thoughts and such alone are not "desires" (despite the fact that they may be thoughts of desiring something in life). They are just used for problem-solving and benefiting our survival. They are not desires. Pleasure is desire since it urges (encourages) us to benefit our survival in life although it may actually be detrimental at times. But if somehow pain and despair are desires, then they would still be bad because they are the "warning" version of desires. "Warning" being what is bad in terms of evolution while the opposite of "warning" would be what is good in terms of evolution (which would be pleasure). Thoughts would obviously be neither good or bad in terms of evolution since, again, they are not desires since they are not the urges that encourage us to survive either in "warning" version or in the "good" version. Now if you are going to say something such as that "I can think of so many exceptions that it would be difficult to list them all. But the one that comes to mind the most would be giving birth. Very painful I have been told. And according to you then, giving birth is detrimental to the survival of the species," what I would have to say about that would be that the pain in of itself is a warning (something that is "bad"). It only encourages our survival in the sense that something is wrong (bad) in our lives. So the pain of the mother giving birth is a warning that a certain situation is bad (such as the tearing of the muscle tissue as the baby is in the process of being born). Therefore, since the opposite of that which would be having gotten out of that situation and now being in a happy situation in life free of suffering and despair, this would mean that our lives are good. So the baby now being born and the mother being happy with no pain and despair at the moment is the good situation. So even obtaining pleasure from harming others would be objectively good (although this situation would be good even though it is not benefiting his/her and others survival). But as I said before, the actual situations themselves are neutral while it's only your own pleasure and suffering that is objectively good and bad. But if you are going to say something such as that pleasure does not encourage our survival and that it is just simply a by-product of evolution (hence the reason why obtaining pleasure can be detrimental to yourself and others), this would be false. Pleasure is something that encourages our survival, but can be misused in terms of benefiting our survival. Now I know that many people here would say that even our own feelings are arbitrary. But I ask you. If you were to go through the worst experience of pain and/or despair that a human being could ever possibly experience while having no thoughts and knowledge (no attributed values to your experience of pain and/or despair), are you saying that these things would not feel bad at all to you and that they would just feel like nothing more than "sensations" (such as touch, smell, etc.)? Same question applies for having the best experience of pleasure that a human being could ever possibly experience. Now if you are going to say something such as that these feelings feel differently for different people (such as that pain and despair can actually feel good), so what you are saying is that depression (hopelessness) can actually feel good to someone (despite the fact that it is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in the brain)? Isn't it only pleasure that allows us to feel good and, therefore, people who claim that pain feels good to them would actually be lying and that it is only the pleasure itself obtained from the pain that feels good? Also, hopelessness can never feel good and always feels bad. If you claim that it somehow does feel good, then that would mean that you would be having moments of pleasure separate from your experience of hopelessness since you cannot experience both hopelessness and pleasure at the same time. Meaning, that since hopelessness is the shutting down of our pleasure activity and is not a good experience in of itself, that pleasure is the only thing that feels good. But the fact that you can experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time means that the physical pain and the pleasure are two different experiences going on at once and that only the pleasure in of itself is good while only the pain in of itself is bad. If that premise I just stated in my previous paragraph (that all my arguments here are based off of) can be refuted with scientific facts, then that would, in fact, completely convince me that my beliefs are wrong. In other words, present me the scientific facts that state that our own feelings are arbitrary, that there is no way that pleasure always feels good in of itself for everybody (that pleasure can actually feel neutral or bad) and that pain and despair also being the same in this sense as well in that they can actually feel neutral or good for some people and that these things feeling good is somehow actually not the pleasure itself obtained from these things that is the only thing that feels good. And that, even during the worst possible experiences of pain and despair, that it is actually the pain and despair itself that can feel neutral (that it can feel like nothing more than a sensation such as touch and smell) or that it can feel good for some people while the best experience of pleasure a human being can possibly experience can actually feel neutral or bad for some people. If this premise can somehow be defeated with scientific facts, then all of my remaining arguments will tumble down along with it and I will accept as well as be convinced that I am wrong. But if it can't, then all of my arguments will stand as convincing despite the fact that others are somehow not convinced of them. It's easy to think that, without any proof to prove what it is I'm saying as true, that this should immediately deem my arguments as unconvincing (both for myself and others) and that even I should not just blindly believe what I'm saying. However, providing that there is no proof either to refute my premise, we can also agree here that the beliefs that others hold (which are the opposite of my beliefs), that their viewpoints are invalidated as well and that they have no reason to believe their viewpoints either or that their viewpoints should be convincing to anyone else. Now even despite the fact that there is no current science to prove my arguments and that I have not used the scientific method in proving them as either true or false yet, I will ask you to just look at my premise as it is now. Therefore, just from reading it alone (including my other arguments), does it at least have merit to possibly be true and that it is something worth testing (if possible) through science as a result? Now it's in our evolutionary design (at least for many people anyway) to have value towards other things in life and to view them as something greater than our own pleasure which would mean that, the reason why I am unable to convince anybody is that there is no way for me to get through the wiring and design of their minds. I, on the other hand, think for myself and question these flawed value belief systems these other people have and am able to see past theirs and my own evolutionary design and wiring of our brains. Technically, I think it would be the personal lives of others and their personal life experiences that lead them into having these value belief systems. For example, a person might say that a certain someone was very special to him/her from his/her perspective and that this other person's pleasure and suffering does matter from his/her perspective. He/she might even go as far as saying that he/she is actually able to experience the pleasure and suffering of this other person. But this would clearly be false in terms of science and in terms of everything I've been explaining here. And since this person's life experiences is something ingrained in this person's mind which is something that cannot be convinced otherwise, then this is the reason why my arguments are convincing no one (despite the fact that they should be convincing and that they have merit of being true). Now if you are going to say something to go against my beliefs here such as that "Life is more than reapplying dopamine chemicals. Life is about transcending from your emotional experience into a universal experience. As long as we forget the truth that we are simply a bubble within the Universe's universal sea, as long as we get caught up in our bubble's reflection, we will never live truly within this Universal sea because of relativity. The moment you kill off your need to create your own personal relation to this Universe and give yourself to this Universe to become one with it, is when you start "living" it as you should. We are born into this world on "theta waves" - when we grow and expand we reach "gamma waves" - when we hold ourselves back we only experience "theta" and "delta". Therefore, pleasure is a red frequency based on "theta waves" - the human experience was emerged from this Universe before stars were born in the form of photo receptors so we could transcend just like the Universe by reaching "gamma waves" and the violet frequency." What I would have to say to what was said above would be that you can be in this state of transcendence that was described above through pure pleasure alone. Pleasure can certainly make you feel all powerful in the sense of being one with this universe like what was described above and you would really be as such. Some people might say that viewing pleasure and seeking pleasure as the only good and greatest thing in life is inferior, primitive, and animalistic and that evolution has evolved us past such things with things like intelligence. They would, therefore, say that viewing intelligence as the great thing and seeking it instead as well as helping others and doing other great things in life is superior and makes you a "god" in a sense. But this would be false and it is only pleasure that makes you a god. You might claim that pleasure-seeking and viewing it as the only good thing in life is inferior since we have evolved past that. However, the fact that we have evolved does not mean anything (it only means something neutral that is neither good or bad). But if somehow my points of view about pleasure are unproven, then the closest thing science has to say as of now is that all values we create in life are subjective. So, speaking in terms of now where both my arguments and the opposing ones of others are unproven, they are both subjective and hold true only in our own subjective lives and there is nothing objective about them. Now I stated why pleasure can also "transcend" you and make you a "god." Whereas, intelligence alone without pleasure are nothing more than knowledge, thoughts, memory, etc. that define a being that is similar to something like a biological robot and not a human being. Emotions are what separate us as human beings from robots (and separates us from highly intelligent and well-designed robots in the future that possess all functions of a brain aside from pleasure because, if they did have pleasure, then they would no longer be considered robots or biological robots. They would now be actual artificial life forms). Therefore, without our pleasure (which is one of our vital emotions), we would be less human and more towards being something like a biological robot. Also, I think many stereotype the type of person who only sees pleasure as the good and greatest thing in life as someone who does nothing with their life such as sitting on a couch watching television. This stereotype is false because there are people such as me who do great things in their lives and help others through pure pleasure alone such as tapping into and channeling our feelings of pleasure in creating musical compositions that can be just as good (and even better) than if we composed through our suffering/despair and/or intelligence alone. Once again, this can be achieved through the pleasure in dark, gothic, tragic, etc. things and we can come up with great compositions that portray those feelings described despite the fact that we, ourselves, are experiencing a different feeling (which would, again, be pleasure). You can achieve great things in life and help others just as good (and even better) through living a happier life of very little suffering and despair because our mind is something we can change by will. Therefore, we can be even more compassionate and empathetic at any given personal level just from changing our attitude alone even despite the fact of not having gone through suffering and/or despair to know how others feel having it. As for physical benefits such as from physical torture (training) in the military, that is something different and has the greater physical benefit. But mental torture such as depression has no greater benefit than living a nicer and happier life instead and is nothing but pointless misery. Actually, all greater mental benefits can even be achieved without having any suffering or despair in our lives. Meaning, that even the greatest people in history and the greatest composers could of been just as good and even better under the right circumstances through living much happier lives of very little suffering and despair. Depression (hopelessness) is not an emotion at all to embrace and tap into in order to create great emotionally powerful compositions. It is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in our brains as well as other emotions. So this is the reason why depression and/or a lack of pleasure only makes you a lesser composer and also holds you back from achieving greater benefits and helping even more people in life under the right circumstances through living a life of pleasure and very little suffering and despair. But as I said before, all things in life and benefits we achieve in life (aside from our own pleasure and suffering), these things are all neutral anyway and are neither good or bad from both our perspective and everyone else's. Now there are very intelligent people who have created these value belief systems and have passed them on to others (hence the reason why, to this very day, so many people have these beliefs). However, I have reason to believe that these intelligent people are wrong and that it was also their own personal life experiences that came up with these flawed beliefs. But unfortunately, I have no scientific means or anything to demonstrate my premise and arguments as true or false. I am instead the person who comes up with ideas and would (if I could) give them to actual scientists who would be able to use scientific means of demonstrating them as true or false. In conclusion, I am going to present some answered quotes below that are very important and you should read them because they might answer any questions you have: Question: 1. Doing well and doing badly are opposite 2. Opposites can't be compresent in the same thing (e.g. I can't be both healthy and sick at the same time). 3. So doing well and doing badly can't be compresent in the same thing. 4. An appetite (e.g. thirst) is painful. 5. Satisfying an appetite (e.g. drinking when thirsty) is pleasant. 6. When we satisfy an appetite we experience both pleasure and pain at the same time. 7. So pleasure and pain can be compresent in the same thing. 8. So feeling pleasure and feeling pain are not the same as doing well and doing badly. Answer: If you had a cold and were 80% from being over it, then wouldn't that mean that you would be both 80% healthy and 20% sick? Therefore, couldn't you be both healthy and sick at the same time? Also, if you had full pleasure in life, but experienced physical pain at the same time, then wouldn't you be considered to be "emotionally well," but also "not doing well" just in terms of your physical misery? But if you somehow wanted to combine the pleasure and pain by, for example, saying that if you have 100% pleasure and 30% pain, then that would mean that you are doing 70% well overall (since 100% minus 30% equals 70%). Now if being "well" is defined by having no pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure whatsoever and having full pleasure in life (just like completely being over a cold), then as long as you have pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure, then you are not doing well and you would still be defined as being "sick" (or still having a "cold"). But if you have full pleasure in life with no pain and/or despair, then you are doing well. Question: 1. In satisfying an appetite pleasure and pain cease simultaneously. 2. Good and bad things don't cease simultaneously. 3. So pleasure and pain are different from what is good and bad. Answer: How so? If there was a war between good people and bad people and there was a time bomb placed in the battlefield that killed both all the good and bad people, then couldn't we say that both good and bad things cease simultaneously? This argument can also hold for natural disasters since these things kill both good and bad things/people simultaneously all the time. Question: 1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad because of the presence of bad things). 2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as brave people. 3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as intelligent people. 3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid are as good as the intelligent and brave. 4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They are equally good and bad—which is absurd. Answer: Based on everything I've said about pleasure in of itself being the only good thing in life and pain and despair only being the bad things in of themselves and everything else being neutral, then it is not absurd to say that, when a person is feeling depressed, that he/she has negative value and when he/she feels pleasure, that he/she has positive value. Here is a summary: My belief is known as "Scientism" (as well as "Materialism" and "Naturalism") which state that life has no meaning and has no good or bad meaning and that everything in life is "neutral" (neither good or bad) and is just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles. However, this only applies to all things in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair as I'm going to explain here (which are the only good and bad things in of themselves independent of all other neutral things in life). They are even independent of neutral ideas (thoughts) such as ideas others might state such as that life is not about pleasure and seeking only it for yourself will bring consequences to you and everyone else and will even bring you and others the opposite of pleasure as well as much more suffering than pleasure for yourself and others. So my version of those beliefs quoted above is that everything in this universe besides pleasure, pain, and despair are meaningless (neither good or bad) while pleasure is the only good thing and that pain and despair are the only bad things despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms and particles. This is because pleasure in of itself always feels good no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pleasure while pain and despair will always feel bad in of themselves no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pain and despair. Some people might claim that pain feels good to them, but they would be lying. It is only the pleasure itself that is obtained from the pain that feels good to him/her while the pain stands alone by itself as feeling bad. Same thing applies if you were to somehow feel that your pleasure feels bad to you in that it would only be the pain and/or possibly despair that you obtained from your pleasure that would feel bad in of itself while the pleasure would still feel good in of itself. Pleasure, pain, and despair can also never feel like neutral (neither good or bad) sensations such as touch, smell, etc. So they stand alone as the only good and bad things themselves in life separate from everything else and separate from the atoms and particles of other things in life that cannot define our pleasure as being neutral or bad or our pain and despair as being neutral or good. Therefore, good is pleasure, bad is pain and despair, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair. But if you are going to say something such as that just because these feelings feel good and bad still means that they are just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles, this would be false because there is no separation between these feelings feeling good and bad and them being a bunch of atoms and particles. Good and bad are the functioning of those atoms and particles that yield pleasure and suffering just like how the atoms and particles yield other materials and chemicals. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. (Note to Reader: I have provided a brief summary here in bolded words. If you are asking why can't I just summarize this, 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. 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. 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. 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 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. And you can achieve all benefits and achieve great things in life just as good (and even better) under the right circumstances through living a nicer and happier life anyway and you can achieve these things having no suffering and/or despair whatsoever in your life. 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 somehow magically "project" their mindset and their value, worth, and beauty towards you onto you.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Depression in of itself is a bad experience and we do not need any knowledge or thoughts to tell us that it is bad. 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. 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. 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. So it's only our emotions 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.

The bolded words in my opening post was the summary.

I am going to post a summary of what I've written here which is in bolded words (just in case everything I've written here is too long for you to read and that you only have time and patience to read the summary itself). But everything I've written here is very interesting and important. So I would recommend reading all of it. Summary: God only exists in the form of a concept and this concept exists in the form of the functioning of the neurons in people's brains that have created this concept (and possibly in other objects based on their grouped atoms, but I am not too sure on this). But God does not exist at all in any other sense (whether it be supernatural or in any other sense) and to say that the concept itself of God does exist in some other sense besides scientific functioning in this universe would be delusional. Same thing with value, worth, and beauty. These are all concepts that can be measured in people's brains and we can determine the value, worth, and beauty of that person and maybe in other objects. This would obviously apply to any other meanings we create in life. But to say that these concepts/meanings do exist in some other sense besides scientific functioning in this universe would be delusional. Some philosophers/monks/other people might say that value, worth, beauty, or other created meanings are precious things about you and this universe that cannot be reduced and is something that cannot be held in the grasp of science. But based on everything I'm saying here (which is something I came up with purely on my own and is my own perspective in life that actually might be true), these types of people would be delusional. Science is what explains reality while philosophical views such as that concepts such as value, worth, and beauty are things not of science and/or cannot be reduced are delusional views. Even Stephen Hawking himself states that science is all there is and that philosophy is dead. Here is a link that explains this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html Now as for what I'm about to say below, your conscious is what makes you "you." So the amount (strength) of messages of value, worth, and beauty in these people's conscious defines their amount of value, worth, and beauty as people. Also, if you are going to ask something such as "How exactly do you measure these, and post some examples of the process and the verified results. How exactly do you determine, (and on what scales) do you determine what you claim?" My answer to that would be that it would be the exact same process and scale that would be used in measuring the function of neurons/atoms/subatomic particles in the brain since it is the functioning of these things that create messages such as value, worth, and beauty in the first place in this person's brain. Even if these concepts in the brain arose out of a process that is much more complex than simply atoms/subatomic/particles and/or that the brain is constantly changing so fast that it would be impossible to get any measurements at all, we just might be able to get individual measurements through science in the future anyway. The scale and processes might not exist now or even the ability to get individual measurements from something that is constantly changing so fast. But they just might exist in the distant future. From a scientific point of view, losing a part of your conscious would make you the lesser person (since your conscious is what makes you "you"). Now one might say that you would still have full human value even if you were to lose a part of your conscious. But if you were to be completely dead right now (lose all your conscious functions), would you then still be considered a full human being? Or would you then be considered as the lesser person now? I think you would obviously be considered the lesser person. Therefore, to lose a part of your conscious is the very essence of dying without actually being dead. Therefore, you would be a lesser person if you were to lose a part of your conscious (such as if you were to lose your ability to experience pleasure due to depression or emotional numbness). It doesn't matter how much others value you, what great things you do in life, and how much you helped others. The scientific fact is that you are still the lesser person no matter what. Unless, of course, your brain fully makes up for that loss in other conscious brain areas. But it must fully make up for that loss. Otherwise, you would still be considered the lesser person. Also, if you are going to say something such as that we are constantly changing and that, because of this, we can't compare things to other things and such, although you are right that we are all constantly changing and such, we can still compare because time itself can be split up into individual units. The smallest units of time possible are all units in which we can then make the comparisons if we develop the technology in the future that can make comparisons based on each individual unit of time. You would compare yourself to others, your former self, as well as who you would be without that loss based on each individual unit of time. You would compare the amount of brain functioning in one person to the brain functioning of another and say if that person is more or less of a person in comparison. As for things such as value, worth and beauty (which are things I will explain about below), you would also measure this in someone's conscious and compare that to the measurement of value, worth, and beauty in another person's conscious and say which one of these two people has the greater amount of value, worth, and beauty. You would also make this same comparison compared to who you were before in the past. If, for example, you had more value, worth, and beauty in the past and that was something that was scientifically measured in the past, then we could measure the amount of value, worth, and beauty that you have now and we would then compare the measurement that was made now to the measurement that was made in the past. As for comparing yourself to who you would be with the fullest amount of value, worth, and beauty possible (no loss), you would then measure the amount of full value, worth, and beauty that a human brain can possibility achieve and compare your amount of value, worth, and beauty to that. The words "more" and "less" are words that have an objective meaning in science. If something gains function, then it's obvious that thing has more function. If this thing loses some function, then it obviously has less function. Therefore, since who you are as a person is all your conscious brain functions, if you were to lose any one of these functions (such as your ability to experience pleasure due to depression or emotional numbness), then that would make you a lesser person compared to who you were before with at least more conscious brain functioning and in comparison to others who do have more conscious brain functioning. But since who you are as a person is only your conscious brain functioning and not your body, having a physical disability would not make you a lesser person. But as long as your brain is unable to fully make up for that loss of pleasure in other conscious brain functions, then you will remain as the lesser person. There are such people whose brains cannot fully make up for such losses because, as I've explained before, everyone is different and not everyone's brains will be able to fully make up for these losses. So these are the types of people who would remain the lesser people. As for value and worth, it is our brains that give value and worth to things and value and worth is something that is defined by how much conscious brain functioning we have since it's, again, our conscious brain functions that generate value and worth in the first place. So in other words, your conscious brain functioning that came up with value and worth IS value and worth itself. And since our conscious is the function of leptons, quarks, etc., this would also mean that other objects have value and worth as well since they are the functioning of leptons, quarks, etc. as well. So value and worth are things that can be measured in our conscious and in other objects. Now as for something such as perceived beauty towards an object, we would find one atom of that object that has the exact same properties of an atom in this person's brain that has created the message of beauty and we would then keep on doing this for all the atoms in this person's brain that have created this message of beauty. After which, we would then have a specific selected group of atoms in this object that match all the atoms in this person's brain that have created this message of beauty. This specific selected group of atoms in this object would be considered the message of beauty itself. We can actually keep on doing this for even more atoms in the object beyond the amount of atoms in this person's brain that have created this message of beauty in order to find even more beauty in this object until we have the full actual beauty of the object. Also, this grouping method can be used for other parts of this person's brain that have not created this message of beauty. However, if that's not how it would work at all and this grouping method is somehow false, then there would be no beauty in objects/other parts of this person's brain and it would only be something that can be measured in the person's brain functioning that has created this message of beauty. But if you are going to say something such as that beauty is not in the atoms of objects just like how the beauty of a painting is not in its colors, what I would have to say about that would be that the full actual beauty of the object (which has been measured based on its grouped atoms) will still create a different subjective response in different people (just like how I could look at a person's brain and measure the amount of beauty that was created by this person's brain, but experience a different level of beauty in my own brain from witnessing the amount of beauty in this other person's brain through seeing the actual neurons themselves that created this message of beauty in this person's brain). Now if you find great value and worth towards something, that would obviously mean that the functions in your brain responsible for perceiving value and worth towards those things is highly functional. But even so, if you were to lose a part of your conscious and you were to say something to yourself such as that: "I may have lost this part of my conscious, but my life now has much more value and worth than before since I have now decided to do great things in my life and help those who are suffering from this same loss," this all comes down to how much value and worth you have as a person based on the amount of conscious brain functioning you have (which is the functioning of all the subatomic particles/neurons that create messages such as value and worth in your brain as well as the grouped subatomic particles/neurons in other parts of your conscious) and the functioning of objects as well as other things in your life (in terms of all their grouped subatomic particles/atoms). If the functions of your conscious brain (the grouped subatomic particles/neurons) do not make up for what you have lost in the other conscious areas of your brain (the grouped subatomic particles/neurons in these parts of the brain), then you would possess less value and worth in your brain (again, value and worth being the brain functioning that has come up with message such as value and worth as well as the grouped neurons of other parts of the brain) and it would be delusional for you to somehow think that you would be a more valuable and worthwhile person. Now if your brain fully makes up for this loss of value and worth in your brain, then your brain would possess the same amount of value and worth as you were in the past when you did not have such a loss of brain functioning because the amount of brain functioning that defines value and worth that you have now as opposed to before your loss is now the same. And if your brain even goes further beyond making up for that loss in other conscious brain areas, then you would possess more value and worth in your brain than ever before. As for a given example here of two people who have not lost any conscious brain functioning and have both found value and worth in life and which one of these people would be more of a person with greater value and worth in their brains, it still all comes down to which one of these people has the greater amount of conscious brain functioning. But if they were to somehow have the exact same amount of conscious brain functioning overall, then they would both possess the same amount of value and worth in their brains. Now value and worth are nothing more than labels (words) for our conscious that creates messages such as value and worth and are labels for the grouped subatomic particles/atoms of other objects that are similar to the grouping and such of the subatomic particles/atoms that have created the messages of value and worth in our brains. Again, value, worth, and beauty ARE the functioning of our leptons, quarks, etc. in our conscious that have created these messages and are the functioning of the grouped leptons, quarks, etc. of other material/energy. Now here are some questions from some people I have addressed regarding what I have presented here. I wish for you to read them as they are very important and will address any questions you might have: It would in that given moment. But since the brain is, I'm sure, able to fully make up for that loss upon wakening, then when the person is awake, they would be back to being a full person. But, again, if it's a loss that the brain cannot fully make up for in other conscious brain areas for your entire life, then you would be the lesser person for your entire life. It's all just a matter of conscious brain functioning and nothing more. So if what you have lost (in this case, the ability to hear which is a part of the conscious since it's your conscious that has the ability to hear) is not fully made up for by empathy (which is yet another conscious brain function), then you will remain the lesser person. It can because it all just comes down to leptons, quarks, etc. which is something that makes up all matter and energy (something that all matter and energy has in common). As for the net effect, if you had more conscious brain functioning compared to who you are now with a loss of hearing combined with more empathy, you would be the lesser person compared to who you were before your hearing loss. Correct. But what would define a person as a homo sapiens in the first place would be his/her conscious as well because you cannot take out the mind and just say that the body itself is a complete homo sapiens. And even if this person's conscious didn't define him/her as a homo sapiens, then we can look at whatever grouping of leptons, quarks, etc. in this person that defines him/her as a homo sapiens and then find a similar grouping and such of leptons, quarks, etc. in this person's conscious and say that this grouping and such defines him/her as a homo sapiens. Naturalism and materialism state that everything is just scientific functioning with no meaning whatsoever. Therefore, concepts such as beauty are the functioning of the neurons in our brains that created that message because everything in this universe is scientific functioning. There is nothing in this universe that is not scientific functioning that can't be measured by science. Our brains cannot somehow create invisible concepts ("things") that can't be measured by science. In other words, science is all there is and to think something such as that concepts such as value, worth, and beauty are things that aren't scientific and can't be measured by science is delusional (since these concepts obviously ARE the functioning of our neurons that created these concepts). So any personal meaning we create in life is the functioning of our neurons that came up with these meanings and are things that can be measured by science in the future (since, again, the functioning of our neurons is something scientific that can be measured by science in the future). Some people say that concepts such as beauty exist, but are not scientific and can't be measured by science. But, once again, I ask how can something that is not scientific functioning even exist? And if you are going to say something such as that it doesn't exist at all, then how is it that we are even aware of it to begin with? Also, what would be the logic in finding meaning and worth in life through this concept of beauty that doesn't even exist at all? Even these meanings themselves would hold no logic since they apparently don't even exist either. Now as for words such as "more" and "less," although these words are the functioning of our neurons that have created these words, it's not the words themselves that you should look at since words are nothing but the functioning of those neurons that have created them and all meanings that we create in life are just the functioning of the neurons in our brains that have created those meanings. You should just look at the scientific processes themselves that occur in this universe since that's all there is. What we would refer to as being "more" would be when other leptons, quarks, etc. are added to a material or something else while the word "less" would be when those leptons, quarks, etc. are taken out. And, of course, these words would also refer to the functioning of those neurons that have created them since these words are the functioning of those neurons that have created them. As for messages such as value, worth, and beauty, although these messages do not refer to observable scientific phenomenon that occur in this universe (like how the words "more" and "less" do), they ARE the functioning of the neurons themselves that have created these messages. Actually, let me correct myself here and say that the messages such as value, worth and beauty do refer to an observable scientific phenomenon which would be the functioning of our neurons that have created these messages since, once again, they ARE the functioning of those neurons that have created those messages. So you are saying that the message of beauty that was created by the functioning of neurons in this person's brain does not hold an objective scientific meaning (which would be the measured functioning of those neurons by science in the future)? This would be no different than looking at a current of electricity and that, after getting a reading of its voltage and other properties, that the reading itself holds no objective scientific meaning. Same thing with measuring the amount of beauty in a person's brain. To me that may be disgusting and to another person that may be beautiful, but the point I'm trying to make here is that, although there will be different levels of beauty in different people's brains regarding that situation you showed me (some might not have it at all), I am not saying to look at the situation or object itself and determine the absolute value of beauty that this object/situation has based on the subjective levels of beauty in different people's brains. I am just saying here that beauty is the functioning of neurons in people's brains and is something that can be measured. If I were to type the word "beauty" right here on this screen, we can then measure it in terms of the functioning of all the atoms and subatomic particles that make up that word "beauty" here on this screen. On different computer monitors that have various "strengths" of display, on one computer monitor the word "beauty" might have less functioning while on another computer monitor it might have a stronger functioning. In this same sense, a person who whispers the message "beauty" to his/herself would have a weaker message of beauty (a weaker functioning of all the neurons that have created that message) as opposed to someone who yells the message "beauty" to his/herself which would have a stronger functioning of all the neurons that have created that message. As for all other meanings associated with the message beauty (or any other messages/meanings for that matter) in these people's brain, we can then measure those messages/meanings themselves since they are the functioning of all the neurons that have created them. Now actually, I said before in my opening post that we might be able to determine the beauty of an object through the grouping of its atoms and such. So when I said here that: "I am not saying to look at the situation or object itself and determine the absolute value of beauty that this object/situation has based on the subjective levels of beauty in different people's brains," what I actually meant was that I was not saying to determine the absolute beauty of that object/situation without it being measured (just based on the responses of the individuals alone). Let me ask you this. What makes you think that beauty is separate from the functioning of the neurons that have created that message of beauty and that beauty is not the functioning of those neurons? And if you are going to say something such as that this would be because it is a concept and not an actual thing, then I would have to ask what makes you think that this concept is something separate from the functioning of those neurons and is not the functioning of those neurons? Which I think you would reply back to by saying that, once again, it is because it is a concept and not a thing that can be measured in science. At this point, what separates my view from your view would be that everything in this universe has to be scientific functioning and to believe that there are things that exist in this universe that are not scientific and can't be measured by science would be a delusional belief. It would be no different than saying that God exists in this universe, but that God is not something scientific and can't be measured by science. If someone is a very intelligent scientist and has learned that there is something that exists in this universe, then what is he/she going to do? He/she would seek out that thing and measure its scientific properties and such and gain knowledge in how it works. Same thing with these concepts of value, worth, and beauty. Since they are the functioning of the neurons that have created these messages, then we would measure the functioning of those neurons and such. Now a concept is something that describes a series of scientific events that happen in this universe. If, for example, I bring up the concept of evolution, then that describes all the scientific functioning of evolution that occurred in this universe. Therefore, since beauty is a concept, it has to describe some scientific functioning in this universe (which, in this case, would be the functioning of the neurons that created the message of beauty). Otherwise, if there is nothing (no scientific functioning) in this universe that beauty describes, then beauty wouldn't exist. Therefore, since beauty exists, then it has to describe something that exists in this universe in terms of scientific functioning.