@HeroinChurch Just for my own clarification, when you say that we perceive pleasure as being better because we had a hunger for it in the first place, by "we had a hunger for it" do you mean our DNA, or our learned addictions?
What trips me up is how the philosophy you espouse deals with questions of identity? That is a human phenomena made possible by language and not reducable to the intellect/reason or biological function and it is basically the medium of life (i.e. interactions and not the four cornerstones of consumption/reproduction/cannibalism/addiction). An existential suffering made possible by language isn't the same thing as a material one. How is it that you can interchange an apple with an orange?
@HeroinChurch Moreover, reward centers in the brain have been linked to pleasure and not pain. For example, a starving rat will cross an electrified floor to push a lever to stimulate the reward center of its brain, but will not cross the floor to get food. So can you please state your argument in a proper way and link me the peer reviewed studies that state that “pleasure is only an illusion stemming from the absence of pain?”
@HeroinChurch Your argument that in your opinion pleasure seems contrived does not make it more of an illusion than any other illusion, obviously. The reduction of pain is the result of less impulses originating from nociceptors, the increase of resistance in a neurological gate, the release of endorphins, and not pleasure.
@HeroinChurch It doesn't have to be valued by an objective being. The truth only has to be independent of an individual or social decision. So saying that "it cannot be valued by an objective being" is totally irrelevant. The claim that pleasure is shorter in duration does not entail that it is 'more of an illusion than pain.' For your argument to even get close to making any sense whatsoever the illusion with a longer duration would have to be labeled 'more of an illusion,' since it last more.
In Motivational psychology (which takes into account both physical and mental behavioral drives), the opposite of, say, pleasure is not pain. The opposite of pleasure (positive) is no pleasure. Same with pain. The opposite of pain is not pleasure, rather it is no pain. Pleasure and pain are orthogonal. While they may interact at certain levels, they are two independent states.
Part II: In other words, the absence of an ice cream cone does not cause suffering. The absence of a broken leg does not cause pleasure.
Hmmm, this would probably make a good video. I don't know if I could effectively communicate this concept though. I mean, I have a post-graduate degree in psychology, but I'm not articulate in speech. Only in text.
Great video, and give it a day or 2, and there will be about 10 people who will straw man the hell out of your 4 ideas. I agree with everyone except hunger, i know it is a sensation, but if you do not eat, you die. Unlike reproducing, which we do not have to do, we need to eat. I hope that was no straw man. And the star trek movie you are talking bout is called Star Trek: Generations.
3. My understanding gets a bit rusty with the statement "pleasure being the absence of misery." Take, for example, a sentient being in a rather neutral state, no pain, no pleasure, zero on the scale if you will. Well, from this point, you can inflict pain and bring him down to a -5, or you can inject pleasure and take him up to a +5. So from a neutral state where no pain is perceived, how can injecting pleasure be the absence of pain? Sounds more like an addition.
I think we all agree with everything exept the part where you state that pleasure is only the absense of pain. Why would pleasure be any more or less of an illusion than pain and suffering are?
Agreed. Well said and thought out. Maybe you should try to edit this into a short non swearing video and post on the efilist channel. This was good stuff.
Agree, but scale is important here. Sentience is just a component in the scale of Sentience. Also I think positive experience may be more complex than you make it out to be. Pleasure cannot simply be the absence of misery. Certainly not neurologically anyway.
@Bulunderuuun Well, we have corroborating evidence that pain is not simply the absence of pleasure. The evidence is that, given a choice, some will people will voluntarily choose to discard pain without any hope of experiencing pleasure. I'm not too sure that any examples can be provided that show that pleasure isn't simply the absence of pain, simply because the human being always experiences some sort of pain.
@Bulunderuuun In fact (according to schlockofgod at least), when people are unable to feel neurological pain, they report more pleasure from life's activities. It's certainly not a definitive proof, but it at least provides some evidence of there being a negative correlation between pain and pleasure. So we have evidence that pain is not simply the absence of pleasure and that less pain leads to more pleasure, but no evidence that pleasure is not simply the absence of pain.
@Bulunderuuun We can also use our insight to see that dissatisfaction is one type of pain. Without dissatisfaction, it becomes awfully hard to see why pleasure or anything else has any value whatsoever. The argument that deprivation can ever be better than no deprivation is one that is terribly difficult to defend.
@HeroinChurch Just for my own clarification, when you say that we perceive pleasure as being better because we had a hunger for it in the first place, by "we had a hunger for it" do you mean our DNA, or our learned addictions?
HigherPlanes 5 months ago
What trips me up is how the philosophy you espouse deals with questions of identity? That is a human phenomena made possible by language and not reducable to the intellect/reason or biological function and it is basically the medium of life (i.e. interactions and not the four cornerstones of consumption/reproduction/cannibalism/addiction). An existential suffering made possible by language isn't the same thing as a material one. How is it that you can interchange an apple with an orange?
brokennarcissist 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch The argument isn't bad. It is a synthetic argument that just happens to be false. Pleasure is not the exact same as reduction of pain.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch So you admit pleasure exists and is not the same thing as less suffering. Great to have you aboard.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch Moreover, reward centers in the brain have been linked to pleasure and not pain. For example, a starving rat will cross an electrified floor to push a lever to stimulate the reward center of its brain, but will not cross the floor to get food. So can you please state your argument in a proper way and link me the peer reviewed studies that state that “pleasure is only an illusion stemming from the absence of pain?”
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch Your argument that in your opinion pleasure seems contrived does not make it more of an illusion than any other illusion, obviously. The reduction of pain is the result of less impulses originating from nociceptors, the increase of resistance in a neurological gate, the release of endorphins, and not pleasure.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@HeroinChurch It doesn't have to be valued by an objective being. The truth only has to be independent of an individual or social decision. So saying that "it cannot be valued by an objective being" is totally irrelevant. The claim that pleasure is shorter in duration does not entail that it is 'more of an illusion than pain.' For your argument to even get close to making any sense whatsoever the illusion with a longer duration would have to be labeled 'more of an illusion,' since it last more.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
TehMorbidAtheist 5 months ago
In Motivational psychology (which takes into account both physical and mental behavioral drives), the opposite of, say, pleasure is not pain. The opposite of pleasure (positive) is no pleasure. Same with pain. The opposite of pain is not pleasure, rather it is no pain. Pleasure and pain are orthogonal. While they may interact at certain levels, they are two independent states.
TBC...
TheRecoveringZombie 5 months ago
Part II: In other words, the absence of an ice cream cone does not cause suffering. The absence of a broken leg does not cause pleasure.
Hmmm, this would probably make a good video. I don't know if I could effectively communicate this concept though. I mean, I have a post-graduate degree in psychology, but I'm not articulate in speech. Only in text.
I b shmart wid words.
TheRecoveringZombie 5 months ago
I dont think living things will ever stop reproducing.
I do think people should think real hard if they are capable, before having kids.
humans are smart enough to see through bullshit though i guess all there is really to even see IS bullshit.
People wont exterminate bullshit they will manage and police it and create "new and improved" bullshit., and make it your favorite flavor
FreelyEdited 5 months ago
Great video, and give it a day or 2, and there will be about 10 people who will straw man the hell out of your 4 ideas. I agree with everyone except hunger, i know it is a sensation, but if you do not eat, you die. Unlike reproducing, which we do not have to do, we need to eat. I hope that was no straw man. And the star trek movie you are talking bout is called Star Trek: Generations.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
¶lan It, Can inn ßall:
•/\Gr∂∂d {einz, vie, try}
f417h2GRACE 5 months ago
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. My understanding gets a bit rusty with the statement "pleasure being the absence of misery." Take, for example, a sentient being in a rather neutral state, no pain, no pleasure, zero on the scale if you will. Well, from this point, you can inflict pain and bring him down to a -5, or you can inject pleasure and take him up to a +5. So from a neutral state where no pain is perceived, how can injecting pleasure be the absence of pain? Sounds more like an addition.
4. Agree.
HigherPlanes 5 months ago 8
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
DoNotPray 5 months ago
I think we all agree with everything exept the part where you state that pleasure is only the absense of pain. Why would pleasure be any more or less of an illusion than pain and suffering are?
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
oh, fuck you gary you draconian snake
RomulanMastermind 5 months ago
agree agree agree and....
agree
1satyagraha1 5 months ago
If that annoys you do yourself favor and don't watch the deepak chopra videos.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
Yep.
panthera50 5 months ago
Agreed. Well said and thought out. Maybe you should try to edit this into a short non swearing video and post on the efilist channel. This was good stuff.
Night0fTheLivingAN 5 months ago
@nolovelost92 LOL!
kileer7 5 months ago
@mindprism You've misunderstood the value component here.
Bulunderuuun 5 months ago
@numbersixteddy
No it doesn't.
Bulunderuuun 5 months ago
Agree, but scale is important here. Sentience is just a component in the scale of Sentience. Also I think positive experience may be more complex than you make it out to be. Pleasure cannot simply be the absence of misery. Certainly not neurologically anyway.
Bulunderuuun 5 months ago
@Bulunderuuun Well, we have corroborating evidence that pain is not simply the absence of pleasure. The evidence is that, given a choice, some will people will voluntarily choose to discard pain without any hope of experiencing pleasure. I'm not too sure that any examples can be provided that show that pleasure isn't simply the absence of pain, simply because the human being always experiences some sort of pain.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@Bulunderuuun In fact (according to schlockofgod at least), when people are unable to feel neurological pain, they report more pleasure from life's activities. It's certainly not a definitive proof, but it at least provides some evidence of there being a negative correlation between pain and pleasure. So we have evidence that pain is not simply the absence of pleasure and that less pain leads to more pleasure, but no evidence that pleasure is not simply the absence of pain.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@Bulunderuuun We can also use our insight to see that dissatisfaction is one type of pain. Without dissatisfaction, it becomes awfully hard to see why pleasure or anything else has any value whatsoever. The argument that deprivation can ever be better than no deprivation is one that is terribly difficult to defend.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
9:05
blackcrow6667 5 months ago