"Good" and "bad" defined in terms of evolution

[MattMVS7]

Now speaking in terms of evolution, our minds are designed to experience emotions from our perceptions (thoughts) for a very important reason. First off, our thoughts are nothing more than what is used for rationalizations and problem-solving while our emotions are what encourage our survival in life. So if you have the perception (thought) that there is a wild animal that is going to attack you, that would then send an emotional signal to the fear center of your brain in order to encourage you to get out of there so that you survive. Same thing with experiencing pleasure. Pleasure is what also encourages us to benefit our survival and the survival of others as well (although pleasure can be misused in not benefiting our survival such as harming ourselves and others). Where I’m getting at with all of this is that our thoughts alone do not encourage our survival. The word “good” means “looking forward to things in life,” “being encouraged in life,” etc. But you cannot be encouraged in life without any emotions since only our emotions (as well as pain) are what is designed to encourage us to survive.

The quoted term “looking forward to things in life” as well as any other terms for the word “good” are all derived from what only pleasure can achieve since “good” means “Our encouraged survival in life to benefit ours and others survival.” Thoughts alone without our emotions may make us do great things in life and make us benefit ours and others survival. But that is not the same thing as being “good” (our “encouraged survival in life”). Same thing applies with having no fear or any other emotions, but choosing to run away from a wild animal that is attacking you anyway. That is not the same thing as our “encouraged survival” either while you are running away from this dangerous animal in order to survive. Also, “good” and “bad” are both our “encouraged survival in life.” The difference is that our encouragement to survive in order to benefit ours and others survival (which would be pleasure) is the “good” version of our “encouraged survival.”

But things such as fear, pain, and despair are evolution’s “warning” version of our “encouraged survival” since they warn us that something is wrong in life. So “warning” in terms of evolution is what is “bad” which makes pain and despair the bad version of “encouraged survival.” Therefore, this is why only pleasure is good while only pain and despair are bad while everything else in life is neutral (neither good or bad). So this is the reason why you cannot be a good or bad person and that your life cannot be good or bad if you did not have feelings of pleasure, pain, or despair.

Now there may be other definitions of the words “good” and “bad” out there that others might have proposed, but they are all still derived from our evolutionary design which would be our “encouraged survival” in life (which would, again, be definitions that are derived from our emotions as well as our pain). If, for example, another definition of the word “good” means objects and people that help us avoid suffering, anything that helps us accept our losses and move on in life, or our actions of helping others, then even that is derived from pleasure and can only be achieved through pleasure because someone might then tell those with anhedonia (absence of pleasure) to be encouraged in life knowing that these things are good and that his/her actions of helping others is good despite his/her loss of pleasure.

But as I just stated before, this person cannot be “encouraged” or “look forward” to those things in life without his/her pleasure since pleasure is the only thing that can achieve those quoted things (pleasure being all good feelings including love and motivation). The term “looking forward to” and any other such terms here are derived from “our encouraged survival” since you cannot look forward to anything in life without being encouraged. Even things such as value, worth, and beauty are also derived from “our encouraged survival” (which would be pleasure). Other things in life aside from one’s own pleasure might be defined as “good,” but without our encouragement (pleasure), then this version of “good” is nothing more than a neutral thought that doesn’t make us or our lives anything “good” in reality without our pleasure.

Same concept applies for “bad.” Even if we were to somehow redefine the word “encouragement” to something else besides our pleasure and then tell someone to be encouraged in life knowing that there are other good and greater things in life aside from his/her pleasure, even this would still be nothing more than a neutral thought. As I said before, our “looking forward in life,” “being encouraged in life,” etc. is all derived from our own pleasure. So this is the reason why people are only fooling themselves into thinking that they are good people and that their lives are somehow good independent of their pleasure or if they had no pleasure in life. These thoughts of “good” and “bad” or any other created meanings for that matter that these people have are all nothing more than neutral thoughts.

As I said before, thoughts are just thoughts no matter what they are and the only difference is that they are different sounds, images, words, etc. and that is all. They might send different signals to different parts of the brain, but even those other parts of our brain besides our pain and emotions are not our “encouraged survival” (meaning, that they are neither good or bad) and nor is anything else in life good or bad either aside from our own pleasure, pain, and despair. You are also not in the minds of others and cannot experience their pleasure, pain, and despair. Therefore, it is only your own pleasure, pain, and despair that are the only good and bad things from your own perspective while the pleasure, pain, and despair of others are the only good and bad things from their own perspectives.

The pleasure, pain, and despair of others from your own perspective is neutral since it is nothing more than a neutral thought. Even if it is a good or bad value you have towards the pleasure, pain, and despair of others, that is still nothing more than a neutral thought. Therefore, how good one is (their level of greatness) and how good one’s life is solely depends on the level of pleasure he/she has in his/her life. Same thing applies for how bad one is and how bad his/her life is.

There might even be definitions of the word “good” that others might claim don’t require pleasure. However, that version of “good” is nothing more than a neutral thought that doesn’t make us or our lives anything good without our pleasure. The real version of “good” would be our pleasure (encouragement) in life. So just thoughts alone do not make us or our lives truly anything good at all without our pleasure. Words such as “good” and other meanings that are good such as beauty and magnificence, they all require us to be encouraged and look forward to things in life in order to validate our lives as being good in the first place from our own perspectives. For example, if a person perceives his/her life being good, then that means he/she would be encouraged and would look forward to things in life. Otherwise, if he/she didn’t feel encouraged at all and didn’t look forward to anything in life, then his/her life wouldn’t be good at all. The lives of others he/she helped despite his/her absence of encouragement and looking forward in life, the lives of those might of been good, but his/her own life would not be good without his/her pleasure. Therefore, since I stated that pleasure is our encouragement (our looking forward in life), then that means that pleasure is the only thing that makes our lives good. Even if someone told him/her something such as that “You might of had no encouragement or looking forward in life, but your life was still good anyway for helping others,” even that quoted message itself warrants him/her to be encouraged and look forward in his/her life in order to validate his/her life as being good from his/her own perspective. Again, only pleasure would achieve that.

First off, the idea (thought) that pleasure-seeking will only bring you and others nothing but pain and despair as well as no pleasure at all in the future, even that thought itself is just a neutral thought while the pleasure still stands by itself as being good. Same thing for bad. The idea (thought) that our pain and despair will bring us and others nothing but pleasure and no pain and despair in the future (or at least, much less pain and despair in the future), even that is just a neutral thought while the pain and despair still stands by itself as being bad.

Second, aren’t words such as “good” as well as “value” and “worth” used to help people feel encouraged and look forward to things in life? For example, if someone is feeling very depressed and angry with his/her life, wouldn’t we then tell this person that his/her life is still good and worth living in order to try and help him/her be encouraged and look forward to things in life? Otherwise, what would be the point of those words if they aren’t used to try and help us feel better? But again, as I said before, it’s not the words themselves that are “good” since they are neutral, it’s just pleasure alone that is good and is the only thing that encourages us in life.

[MechanicalMonster]

Nice analysis, although I would point out that thinking and feeling are united as the same operation of consciousness, if you look deeply enough into it. A “thought” is what we call a mental image and however that internal image-model interacts causally with other aspects of ourselves, namely other images, our speech and actions, or our emotions/motivations; a “feeling” is what we call a state of bodily response in terms of hormonal stimulation and instinct reaction (generally fixed patterns of chemical chain-causalities and neurotransmitter release or absorption), what we feel is the physiological changes occuring chemically in the body. This feeling is given a whole new scope of meaning and reality by virtue of the fact that it coordinates systematically with other of our feelings and thought, building up associations in memory and thus anticipations too. Feeling (hormonal/physiological changes) and thinking (changes in the internal image-model in out neurology) become immensely complex and responsive and self-responsive, changing in response not just to our environment and each other but also in response to our own evoked memories and future predictions/ancitipated outcomes, rather consciously or unconsciously. An example of conscious future expected outcomes would be selecting an activity based on how we know from past experience that activity will make us feel; an example of unconscious expected future outcomes would be how we automatically regulate and process linguistic cues and body language from others with whom we are conversing.

Emotions are more subtle, derivative and holistic than feelings, because they are not registering changes in hormone-physiology but are actually enduring emergent states involving both feelings and thoughts; what we call emotions are actually taking the pleasure/pain neurophysiological system and evolving it to be more responsive to a wider range of stimuli, a wider scope of existence. Vast fields of highly complex and subtle data are involved when we experience emotions, all those neurotransmitters and hormones are learning how to create states of pleasure or pain based on much more and more complex and comprehensive ranges of our experiences. Data streams into the mind from our senses and from within the mind itself in terms of our memories evoked as images in thought, varying degrees of relations implicit or explicit between these images and each other or between them and our feelings, emotions, anticipations; emotions sum consciousness to itself in ways that can take a lifetime for us to understand, but which can quite naturally and “unconsciously” produce very intense and differentiated combinatory states of feelings in us. Consciousness, life, being, existence, self-valuing, whatever you wish to call it is enhanced and expanded immeasurably as a result of all this highly complex, responsive and self-responsive architecture in our bodies/brains and in our social/experiential/cultural realities.

The center of our consciousness, the experience of identity or being a self, which means being in such a way as seems to us an enduring, unchanging state underneath all changes, also involving essentially what Parodites has called the daemonic proces or what we call self-valuing (a specific kind of ontoepistemic structural organization) naturally tends to gravitate upward toward the most comprehensive, potent and powerful ranges of ourselves, rather in thought or emotion. We naturally grow and incorporate more even if we do not “want” to-- all men are philosophers rather willingly or not. We are like a live classical symphony also playing to a jazz groove, thus this experience of human being can be quite confusing and also capable of producing almost endless permutations of itself.

[phyllo]

MattMVS7 ,

That was interesting but you need to define your terms better and you need to be more constant in their usage. Your definition of ‘pleasure’ is circular at times and unclear at others. The word ‘good’ has many definition and you seem to be mixing them up.

GOOD:
a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency (2) : bountiful, fertile (3) : handsome, attractive
b (1) : suitable, fit (2) : free from injury or disease (3) : not depreciated (4) : commercially sound (5) : that can be relied on (6) : profitable, advantageous
c (1) : agreeable, pleasant (2) : salutary, wholesome (3) : amusing, clever
d (1) : of a noticeably large size or quantity : considerable (2) : full (3) —used as an intensive
e (1) : well-founded, cogent (2) : true (3) : deserving of respect : honorable (4) : legally valid or effectual
f (1) : adequate, satisfactory —often used in faint praise <his serve is only good — Frank Deford> (2) : conforming to a standard (3) : choice, discriminating (4) : containing less fat and being less tender than higher grades —used of meat and especially of beef
2
a (1) : virtuous, right, commendable (2) : kind, benevolent
b : upper-class
c : competent, skillful
d (1) : loyal (2) : close
e : free from infirmity or sorrow
— good·ish adjective
— as good as
: in effect : virtually
— as good as gold
1
: of the highest worth or reliability
2
: well-behaved
— good and
: very, entirely
See good defined for English-language learners »
See good defined for kids »
Usage Discussion of GOOD
An old notion that it is wrong to say “I feel good” in reference to health still occasionally appears in print. The origins of this notion are obscure, but they seem to combine someone’s idea that good should be reserved to describe virtue and uncertainty about whether an adverb or an adjective should follow feel. Today nearly everyone agrees that both good and well can be predicate adjectives after feel. Both are used to express good health, but good may connote good spirits in addition to good health.
Examples of GOOD

You'll need better tools for this job.
The car is in good condition.
There are some good restaurants in this neighborhood.
I'm afraid your work is just not good enough.
Keep up the good work.
“Would you hire her again?” “Yes, I would. She does good work.”
The food was good but not great.
He has done good but not outstanding work.
Did you have a good time at the party?
We're expecting good weather for the weekend.

Origin of GOOD
Middle English, from Old English gōd; akin to Old High German guot good, Middle High German gatern to unite, Sanskrit gadhya what one clings to
First Known Use: before 12th century

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good

[MattMVS7]

@MechanicalMonster

Nice analysis, although I would point out that thinking and feeling are united as the same operation of consciousness, if you look deeply enough into it. A “thought” is what we call a mental image and however that internal image-model interacts causally with other aspects of ourselves, namely other images, our speech and actions, or our emotions/motivations; a “feeling” is what we call a state of bodily response in terms of hormonal stimulation and instinct reaction (generally fixed patterns of chemical chain-causalities and neurotransmitter release or absorption), what we feel is the physiological changes occuring chemically in the body. This feeling is given a whole new scope of meaning and reality by virtue of the fact that it coordinates systematically with other of our feelings and thought, building up associations in memory and thus anticipations too. Feeling (hormonal/physiological changes) and thinking (changes in the internal image-model in out neurology) become immensely complex and responsive and self-responsive, changing in response not just to our environment and each other but also in response to our own evoked memories and future predictions/ancitipated outcomes, rather consciously or unconsciously. An example of conscious future expected outcomes would be selecting an activity based on how we know from past experience that activity will make us feel; an example of unconscious expected future outcomes would be how we automatically regulate and process linguistic cues and body language from others with whom we are conversing.

Emotions are more subtle, derivative and holistic than feelings, because they are not registering changes in hormone-physiology but are actually enduring emergent states involving both feelings and thoughts; what we call emotions are actually taking the pleasure/pain neurophysiological system and evolving it to be more responsive to a wider range of stimuli, a wider scope of existence. Vast fields of highly complex and subtle data are involved when we experience emotions, all those neurotransmitters and hormones are learning how to create states of pleasure or pain based on much more and more complex and comprehensive ranges of our experiences. Data streams into the mind from our senses and from within the mind itself in terms of our memories evoked as images in thought, varying degrees of relations implicit or explicit between these images and each other or between them and our feelings, emotions, anticipations; emotions sum consciousness to itself in ways that can take a lifetime for us to understand, but which can quite naturally and “unconsciously” produce very intense and differentiated combinatory states of feelings in us. Consciousness, life, being, existence, self-valuing, whatever you wish to call it is enhanced and expanded immeasurably as a result of all this highly complex, responsive and self-responsive architecture in our bodies/brains and in our social/experiential/cultural realities.

The center of our consciousness, the experience of identity or being a self, which means being in such a way as seems to us an enduring, unchanging state underneath all changes, also involving essentially what Parodites has called the daemonic proces or what we call self-valuing (a specific kind of ontoepistemic structural organization) naturally tends to gravitate upward toward the most comprehensive, potent and powerful ranges of ourselves, rather in thought or emotion. We naturally grow and incorporate more even if we do not “want” to-- all men are philosophers rather willingly or not. We are like a live classical symphony also playing to a jazz groove, thus this experience of human being can be quite confusing and also capable of producing almost endless permutations of itself.

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. These people might then go on to say that all our functioning of our brains is of the same value and worth since they are a whole and we cannot separate any of these functions and compare them. 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.

Also, 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.

But you might then be asking that if good and bad don’t exist in terms of our thoughts, then how is it that we find meaning in this life and help others out anyway? It would be because we are just designed by evolution to benefit ours and the survival of others. However, none of that I just mentioned is anything good or bad since they are, again, not the scientific properties of good and bad (which would be feelings of pleasure and suffering). If what I’m saying here has the potential to be true, then I wish to someday get this scientifically tested and demonstrated as true or false. I wish to prove to everyone once and for all whether one’s own pleasure is truly the only good thing in life, that one’s own pain and despair are the only bad things in life, and that everything else in life is neutral (neither good or bad).

[MechanicalMonster]

Good and bad don’t mean anything universally speaking. They are perspectives, value judgments produced by beings capable of having perspectives and values. So the only “universal” good would be being a being capable of having perspectives, values that are productive of goods and bads.

[phyllo]

However, none of that I just mentioned is anything good or bad since they are, again, not the scientific properties of good and bad (which would be feelings of pleasure and suffering). If what I’m saying here has the potential to be true, then I wish to someday get this scientifically tested and demonstrated as true or false.

Only matter and energy have scientific properties - good and bad do not.

I wish to prove to everyone once and for all whether one’s own pleasure is truly the only good thing in life, that one’s own pain and despair are the only bad things in life, and that everything else in life is neutral (neither good or bad).

Why does the pleasure or suffering of others concern us? Why do we have empathy or sympathy?

[James_S_Saint]

A scientific property is anything that is well defined and mechanically measurable.