Your data is philosophical. Not scientific. A philosophical version of sight and hearing would not give us sight or hearing. Only the scientific version of sight and hearing gives us sight and hearing. Therefore, a philosophical version of love, joy, enjoyment, happiness, suffering, pain, fear, misery, etc. will not give us those things. Only the scientific version is true which can only come from our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.
Need I quote Magnus…
What you are doing, is autistic left brain babble…
Our ethereal consciousness is not reduced to simple mechanical states. Even if there is no mechanical soul, and it is all in the brain, these mechanical states are more complex that simple on/off signals, pain/pleasure centers, blindness/seeing you reduce them to…
Our brains are purely mechanical and, thus, our mental experiences. The functioning of our brains is what defines our mental experiences. We do not define our mental experiences through our thoughts alone. We do not define our own mental experiences through personal created philosophical meanings and whatnot in our lives. If a person were blind and deaf, would he/she be able to give his/herself sight and hearing just by thinking he/she has sight and hearing? No! Since it is as simple as that when it comes to our mental experience of sight and hearing, it is also as simple as that when it comes to our mental experience of enjoyment, suffering, despair, etc. (our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions).
Our brains are purely mechanical and, thus, our mental experiences. The functioning of our brains is what defines our mental experiences. We do not define our mental experiences through our thoughts alone. We do not define our own mental experiences through personal created philosophical meanings and whatnot in our lives. If a person were blind and deaf, would he/she be able to give his/herself sight and hearing just by thinking he/she has sight and hearing? No! Since it is as simple as that when it comes to our mental experience of sight and hearing, it is also as simple as that when it comes to our mental experience of enjoyment, suffering, despair, etc. (our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions).
Furthermore, non-scientific factors do not yield scientific results. In other words, if a person personally defined a certain object as keeping him/her alive, then if he/she were to lose that said object, then that would not kill him/her. If it somehow did, then it would not be because he/she personally defined that object as something that keeps him/her alive. But it would instead be because a different scientific process has occurred that killed him/her.
So in that same sense, the scientific results that we see as expressions of enjoyment in people who appear to enjoy their pain and misery, those scientific results did not occur because this person personally defined a version of enjoyment in his/her life without his/her pleasant feelings/emotions. In other words, he/she would actually not be having enjoyment at all just as how that object did not keep that person alive at all.
There is instead a different scientific process that is yielding these expressions of enjoyment. This scientific process would be the brain fooling itself into thinking it is having enjoyment without its pleasant feelings/emotions when it never did.
Rubbish and nonsense.
If a brain “fooled itself” into thinking it is happy, then it really is happy.
Don’t liken pleasure and pain into the same setting as blindness/sight. Pleasure and pain are not the same category of function as blindness/sight, pleasure and pain are an overlapping continent, sight can cause pleasure or pain, because pain and pleasure is a different function of thing.
I don’t see the logic in that at all. Just because a person is fooling his/herself into thinking he/she is having a certain mental experience does not mean that he/she is having that mental experience. Really, it would be no different than saying the false statement:
“I am fooling myself into thinking the Earth is flat. Therefore, the Earth is flat.”
Now you are going to have to present me with the science that says how our thoughts alone can be the mental experience of enjoyment without our pleasant feelings/emotions. I honestly think it is rubbish and nonsense to say that a severely crippled depressed person is enjoying his/her life while having nothing but that severe crippling depression.
You are what you see. The earth might not be flat, but to your consciousness, it looks flat, and it feels flat. Pain and pleasure is just what you feel.
The feminine is darkness, loneliness, despair, depression, anger, bitterness. Some gods like this feeling, some gods worship the Moon.
And that’s not the same thing as reality. There is the difference between our conscious reality (the reality of our mental experiences defined through science) vs the imagined conscious reality (the imagined reality of our mental experiences defined through our personal created philosophical meanings). In order to transform the thinking experience of our thoughts alone into the experience of enjoyment for us without our pleasant feelings/emotions, then we would have to obey reality. Us just simply personally creating a version of enjoyment through our thoughts alone without our pleasant feelings/emotions will not make it happen. It will not give us enjoyment.
So in order for the thinking area of our brains to give us the experience of enjoyment, we would somehow have to use highly advanced neurological technology to alter the functioning of the atoms and particles of the thinking area of our brains in such a way that it transforms it into the function of our brains that gives us the experience of reward (our pleasant feelings/emotions).
No, the earth is flat, IS reality. The earth being round, that is an assumption we make based on extrapolations, seeing pictures in the sky. We assume it is true based on probabilities, it is not part of our conscious reality, not the real, but assimilated pieces of data, assumptions.
Our conscious experience is comprised of data, bits. Emotions are a bit function, a data shape. Emotions act as vessels, fillin ins, to complete memories, compress them, add quality to them…Emotions can supplement memory, because they are data. Memories, can supplement emotions, emulate emotions, because they are comprised of the same essence, they are all just bits of data, arranged in shapes and patterns that are feelings.
Then read up on the Flat Earth Society and I can guarantee you how nonsensical that is. All scientists agree today that the Earth is not flat.
No shit sherlock, the Earth is round, but is not part of active reality, you believe it because it is an abstraction, your rational mind extrapolates informations and comes to the conclusions, conclusions which it cannot discern, such as that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, even though such behavoir is not part of your reality, it is an abstraction you learned and come to believe.
If you are saying that our thoughts alone can emulate the experience of enjoyment (reward), then that is still not the same thing as having the actual experience of reward. The actual experience of reward is our pleasant feelings/emotions. Therefore, the actual experience of enjoyment can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions.
Thoughts n emotions are interchangable, they are just bits of data. As for you, you can experience love and anger so you are not devoid of feelings. i believe a robot would come to learn feelings in the same way, data would form a phenomenon of feelings to him…sos as long it was compatible with the motions of the soul.
Even though you say that the thoughts and emotions themselves are interchangeable, you are saying that based upon a physical aspect. Based upon looking at them as bits of data. But in terms of our actual mental experience of thoughts and emotions, those experiences are not interchangeable. They are clearly and distinctly different just as how the experience of touch is different than the experience of smell or taste. Since they are all different mental experiences, then that means they are also all different in terms of looking at them from a physical aspect. So no, they are not interchangeable. You cannot say that you are feeling sadness, grief, joy, love, rage, fear, etc. through your thoughts alone without your pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.
No they aren’t. I already explained to you emotions are a compressive component of physical memory, that is they can substitute for substance visual data that is missing from memory.
If there are shared characteristics that thoughts and emotions have, then there are also characteristics that obviously make them different. Even if you struggled with anhedonia and/or depression in which you could not experience your pleasant feelings/emotions, then even though your thoughts alone might very well share some similar characteristics of your pleasant feelings/emotions, that does not make our thoughts interchangeable with our pleasant feelings/emotions. They are still not the same thing. They are still not the same mental experience. Even though our brains consist of many different functions that give us many different experiences and even though these different functions might share some similar characteristics, they are all still different. They are all still different experiences and cannot be labeled interchangeably with one another. The functioning of atoms and particles might yield hard plastic while the functioning of atoms and particles might yield hard metal. But even though they are similar since they are both hard material, does that mean I can use metal interchangeably with plastic? No!
Rubbish. People do use both metal and plastic dildos, for pleasure. Pleasure is flexible.
So are you saying that we would refer to metal and plastic as being pleasure? It would be no different than if I labeled metal or plastic as being one of my mental functions (experiences). So that would obviously be nonsense. Even if we could define other things in this life as being pleasure to us and even if we could define other brain functions (experiences) as being pleasure to us, then it would not be pleasure to us. We need the actual mental experience (the actual rewarding experience) from our reward system to give us the actual mental experience of pleasure since pleasure is always a rewarding mental experience for us as human beings and can only be a rewarding mental experience for us as human beings. As long as our reward system is turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia, then we cannot have any pleasure or any enjoyment in our lives at all. Period.
I think the issue we are having here with this debate is that there is a difference between labels (words) and our mental experiences. If I had no ability to experience touch or smell, then if I were to label my thoughts as touch and smell and I were to say that they give me the experience of touch and smell, then that would be false. I would just be applying a label (word) upon my thoughts. But that would not give me the actual experience of touch and smell. Same thing applies for pleasure and enjoyment. You can label your thoughts alone as giving you the experience of pleasure and enjoyment while you are depressed and/or anhedonic, but that would not give you the actual experience of pleasure and enjoyment as long as you are not experiencing your pleasant feelings/emotions from your reward system.
If I could put a label on anything and it could make it happen, then I could put the label “elephant” on my computer and poof, it would become an elephant. If I am depressed and/or anhedonic and I wanted to have enjoyment and pleasure in my life through my thoughts alone, then I could put a label on my thoughts and say they give me enjoyment and pleasure and poof, I would be able to experience pleasure and enjoyment even with my reward system turned off. So as you can see here, this just does not happen. It is not reality. It neither happens in this reality nor in our mental reality. Science can easily demonstrate this very fact to you.
So our personally created meanings in our life are all nothing more than just putting labels on things. Giving metaphorical meaning to us and our lives is doing nothing more than putting labels on things. It might make us do more things, help more people, and pursue our goals and dreams more. But this is all a scientific process that resulted in this. If I personally defined myself as an elephant and I somehow managed to make an elephant-like noise, then it would not be because I personally defined myself as an elephant. In other words, it wouldn’t be because I was an actual version of an elephant. It would be because some scientific process has happened that caused this.
Therefore, the moral version of good and bad is fake and does nothing more than put labels of good and bad meaning upon us and our lives. There is a scientific version of good and bad and this is what actually gives good and bad meaning to us and our lives. It is the feeling/emotional version of good and bad as I’ve stated before. It would be our pleasant feelings/emotions (good) and our unpleasant feelings/emotions (bad). There is a scientific version of everything. There is no such thing as a personally defined thing.
In other words, there is a scientific version of an elephant and there is no personally defined version of an elephant. If you personally define yourself as an elephant, that will obviously not make you an elephant. There is a scientific version of the sun and if we personally define ourselves as being the sun, that will not make us the sun. Science defines all of the natural universe and everything in it. Our personal created meanings don’t define anything since it is doing nothing more than putting labels on things. Therefore, science defines all terms. Even good and bad.
Never said such nonsense. That was your analogy, not mine. Keep babbling on like the autistic kid you are.