Jump to content

A biological deterministic view of good and bad


MattMVS7

Recommended Posts

There are the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of excitement from getting a new movie, feeling sexually aroused, or a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation.  I think we call these emotions the instinctive emotions. 

These emotions are actually the perception of value.   In other words, they are mental states where we perceive things, moments, people, and situations as beautiful, horrible, good, bad, or disgusting depending on which emotion we feel.  I have come up with a formula that attempts to translate emotions into value. 

Our pleasant emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain.  When you want and like something, this means it matters to you.  When something matters to you, this means it is something good or bad from your perspective.
 
Our pleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as good and beautiful while our unpleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as horrible and disgusting.  Therefore, my formula that attempts to translate emotions into value would be "Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective." 

From there, I continue to explain how our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot be any real source of value in our lives by using a hunger and thirst analogy.  There is no intellectual and moral form of hunger and thirst just as how there is no intellectual and moral form of value.  Value is the same thing as our instinctive emotions just as how hunger and thirst is the same thing as the feeling of needing something to eat or drink. 

As you can see here, I have a purely biological perspective on value.  I think value is reduced to our biochemical emotions and I do not agree with the idea that we can have value in our lives through our character, deeds, intellect, morals, and obligations/responsibilities alone.  One last thing.  I will present the study that shows how our positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking:
 

Quote
We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

 Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Fair enough but I'd still like to see it.

I already presented it in my opening post.  Read my entire opening post and you will find it.  You will also gain further insight by reading my whole opening post.  As for my formula, this was it:

"Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective."

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

I already presented it in my opening post.  Read my entire opening post and you will find it.  You will also gain further insight by reading my whole opening post.  As for my formula, this was it:

"Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective."

Is that supposed to be insightful?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Is that supposed to be insightful?

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

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

I was trying to be kind, we all know that positive emotions come with a (chemical) reward, but how does a negative emotion equal a reward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

5 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

First of all, most people would disagree with the idea that our emotions are the perception of value.  Second, I say that our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot allow us to perceive value.

So, no.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How do you determine value?

Xposted

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

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

First of all, most people would disagree with the idea that our emotions are the perception of value. 

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

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

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

12 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

It seems you haven't read my entire opening post.

Why do so many people assume that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

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

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

Why do so many people assume that?

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattMVS7 said:

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattMVS7 said:

Humanity has a stigma against emotions though. 

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

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

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

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

LOL, you've gone from presenting a formula to talking bollox in a single page, kudos (but not in a good way). :rolleyes:

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

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

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

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

 

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

It's like presenting and explaining something so obvious and people still not getting it. 

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

2 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

It is important that others understand why my pleasant/positive emotions are the only things that make my life good, beautiful, and worth living. 

Isn't that true of everybody?

3 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

My own personal experience and struggles has led me to this new idea.

There is nothing new here.

5 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

keep an open mind to this idea and wonder if it could be true rather than dismissing and objecting to it.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

Isn't that true of everybody?

There is nothing new here.

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

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

Edited by MattMVS7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MattMVS7 said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.