While it’s true that many moderns trick themselves into going against nature, for instance heterosexuals sucking dick to get in the NBA, they still do derive pleasure from going down on the D. For example, when moderns form words around words, disconnecting reality, saying things like their elephant doesn’t exist because it’s politically incorrect, they still get tangible pleasure from this. Furthermore, I would say pleasure is not so simple as being reduced to an on/off switch in your pleasure centers.
This was just simply one of the many possible interpretations one could make out from that post of yours. You cannot possibly expect me to get the one message that you had in mind out of many possible interpretated messages one could make. You hear many people describe things in this life as being their pleasure. Their pain being their pleasure, their family being their pleasure, etc. even with their reward system turned off while they are struggling with depression and/or anhedonia. So this is what I thought you were talking about here.
At this point, I don’t think this debate is going to go anywhere. It is just going to go around in circles without any science being presented here. You are going to have to present me with the science that says how pleasure and enjoyment can be experienced in our lives even while we are struggling with depression and/or anhedonia which turns off our reward system and prevents us from experiencing our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. Without any scientific evidence for this, then what you have here is nothing more than a hypothesis at this point that needs to be tested in a lab and determined as to whether one can really have those things in their lives while they struggle with depression/anhedonia or not.
But I’m not entirely sure if there is any scientific evidence that supports my hypothesis either. My hypothesis (and I will state it again) is that pleasure and enjoyment are always rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings and can only be rewarding experiences for us. Since our rewarding experiences can only come from our reward system (pleasant feelings/emotions), then it immediately logically follows that pleasure and enjoyment can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system.
So if this hypothesis of mine can be tested out in a lab and can have much more new evidence supporting it, then my whole idea might turn out to be correct. It might get to the point where more and more new evidence will support my theory through more and more tests. So my whole theory on good and bad as well as enjoyment/pleasure only being our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system, this theory might actually be true.
Buddhists say pleasure is from ego-loss, not activating pleasure centers. They avoid hedonism, starve themselves, become celibate, etc because the greatest pleasure for them is simply the stream of the infinite, without an ego narrative.
We’re not talking Buddhism here. We are talking science here (how the brain actually works and what our mental experiences actually are). Unless you have actual scientific evidence for us being able to experience enjoyment and pleasure through our thoughts alone while depressed and/or anhedonic with our reward system turned off, this whole discussion is going to get nowhere.
Talk to a buddhist. I don’t derive pleasure from ego-loss and asceticism but apparently they do, so their facts have to be valid in the equation.
But according to science, these Buddhists would not be deriving any pleasure with their reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia. So they are only fooling their brains into thinking they are experiencing pleasure when they are not. I already explained earlier how us fooling our brains into thinking we are happy, having pleasure, enjoying things, etc. is not the same thing as happiness, pleasure, and enjoyment. It does not give us happiness, pleasure, or enjoyment.
Science cannot explain consciousness and i doubt they have any groundbreaking insight on these matters, other than vaguities about pleasure being located in the limbic system and vague references to dopamine and serotonin.
You are right. But if they managed to do so in the distant future, then I am quite sure my whole theory would be true.
A more sensible way to define pleasure, or at least lack of pain, is a satisfaction, a lack of need. So its not so much about chemicals but not having a need for chemicals one way or the other, which is why buddhists may be able to get away with avoiding hedonistic, animal needs. if you have no need for the limbic system to be turned on then you are in pleasure, because your hungry is at a state of filled.
And also, pleasure can be described as the hunger itself, merely thinking about what one doesnt have, fantasy. Even negative feelings, sadness and longing, despair and anger, can be pleasurable for some.
Its not as simple as a robot saying limbic system oN= pleasure= Science.
So are you saying that the workings of our brains as well as our mental experiences are all not just a simple matter of science? That it is a matter of somehow magically transforming our mental experiences by giving new meaning to our lives and choosing different lifestyles to live? I beg to differ on this. I am a naturalist/materialistic atheist. So to me and many others, our brains and our mental experiences are all a matter of science.
My scientific definition of pleasure/enjoyment would be that it is always a rewarding mental experience for us as human beings. Therefore, our pleasure and enjoyment can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. But you are giving a definition of pleasure/enjoyment that is not scientific. Rather, philosophical and such. Therefore, that is the reason why I disagree with that definition.
Doesnt matter either way, because science is nowhere at a point to map out our understand the brain. Most certainly your understanding of consciousness is not a simply matter of science, because science hasnt even come that far yet. Science doesnt even know how the brain really works, and yet you tell me that pleasure is as simple as an on off switch in the limbic system, and if I say pleasure is more complex, I am anti-science? Science barely even understands the limbic system. Futhermore, if souls were real, then researching them would be part of science.
All I am saying here is that, who knows, you could be right. But then again, I might be right. We don’t know yet. We all have to wait until the day science fully understands the brain and consciousness. Does the brain have some sort of amazing feature in which if we define our thoughts alone as being pleasure/enjoyment to us with our reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia, that it somehow transforms the thinking experience of our brains into an experience of joy, love, happiness, pleasure, enjoyment, etc. for us? Who knows!
But in order for that to happen, our thoughts alone would have to become a new rewarding experience for us as human beings besides our reward system. So that is the reason why I just don’t think something like that can happen. Based upon my personal experience of depression and anhedonia, I can honestly tell you right here and now that there is no rewarding mental experience whatsoever through our thoughts and such alone. There are many upon many other depressed and anhedonic people who feel the exact same way.
Furthermore, are good and bad really scientific terms based upon my whole theory? Or are they really moral terms and that there really is no scientific version of good and bad? We don’t know this yet either because we don’t know if my theory is true or false since we don’t fully understand the brain and consciousness. Once we fully understand it, we would then be able to find out right here and now whether this scientific (feeling/emotional) version of good and bad really does exist or not.
But I will leave you with this question to think about for now. Many depressed and anhedonic people perceive their family, their works of art, goals/dreams, etc. as being nothing more than empty and meaningless shapes, sounds, images, gestures, etc. But when these people get out of their depression and/or anhedonia, then all of a sudden everything has meaning, life, vigor, vibrancy, etc.
So I think it clearly goes to show you here that our reward system is what allows us to perceive good meaning in our lives. It is a scientific version of good meaning in our lives and not a moral or any other version of good meaning. I do not think whatsoever that it had anything to do with the way those depressed and anhedonic people were thinking. I honestly think here that it has every bit to do with our moods alone that allow us to perceive good or bad meaning in our lives.
No, we don’t have to wait for science, because we can experience consciousness ourselves, and can rely on other’s testimony, for example Buddhists.
This is false. We need science. Our personal opinions and ways of life have never been any form of evidence. Does the personal opinions and religious lifestyle of a religious person offer any evidence that God exists? No! The only valid evidence here would be what comes from the lab. But I don’t think you heard what I said before about the testimony of the Buddhists. They could be fooling (deluding) themselves into thinking they are having pleasure and enjoyment while depressed and/or anhedonic when they never had it. So no, what you just said here does not offer any evidence. Our own personal conscious experiences don’t negate my theory nor your theory. It all comes down to science to prove or disprove my theory.
…
pleasure is internal qualia…yet you try to define it with the external…
You are right. Pleasure is something internal. Which is the reason why it resides only in our brains (mental experiences). Hence the reason why I am saying here that pleasure can only come from our reward system. I never said anything about pleasure being external.
One source for pleasure would be your reward system. A reward system implies a mental system that is superimposed onto a physical system (the software within the wetware). Pleasure, being mentally sensed, stems from the physical brain as it is triggered by either mental or physical influences.
you require pleasure be defined by science, the external. You said you cannot discern pleasure without science’s help.
You are thinking pleasure and enjoyment are something personally defined by us as human beings. But do you honestly think that the brain has some amazing function in which when we think that we are having a rewarding mental experience through our thoughts alone even with our reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia, that will somehow transform the functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains that create our experience of thought over to a whole new version of a rewarding experience for us as human beings? I don’t think this is how the brain works at all. We cannot just magically transform the functions of our brain into new functions. For example, we cannot transform our thinking into sight, hearing, touch, or smell if we were blind, deaf, could not experience touch, or smell.
So this is why it would really all come down to science to see if our thoughts alone can give us pleasure and enjoyment (a rewarding experience) with our reward system turned off due to depression and/or anhedonia. We do not define our own mental functions (experiences). Science is what does this. If it weren’t for science, then human beings would be thinking today that our thoughts alone are sight and hearing or are touch and smell. It would have to then be science to point out to these people how they are wrong. Science would then correctly point out the specific functions of our brains that give us sight, hearing, touch, and smell. Besides, it is empirically supported by science that our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding mental experience. Therefore, this basically proves my theory right here that pleasure and enjoyment can only come from our reward system since we all know that pleasure and enjoyment are always and can only be rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings.
Someone has to define things such as pleasure for science before science can measure them.