Happiness Thread 1.0

[ARTgames]

Unfortunately, I find that the most pessimistic view point is often times the most accurate.

I disagree. I think any judgement is skewing the information being pessimistic or optimistic. But when it comes to evaluating information for your needs i think a pessimistic can be helpful. It could help you see things that you may other wise nice like to know but need to know and help you accept things that you may not other wise. But i also think that an optimistic view can also help some times. I personally think you should not do either extreme all of the time and have a mixed view on things.

I do agree with what Meiun is saying, but I don't think Mystery is wrong with any of his statements either. More often than not, optimism clouds logic. Anyway, I brought up the topic of qualia in the religion thread, but it seems no one was too interested in discussing it further. It's basically the study of qualitative experience, and whether or not our experiences can be fully explained through physical matter alone, or if there is a metaphysical aspect to consciousness that we have yet to discover. There is actually a decent amount of evidence supporting claims that consciousness can not be described through physical matter alone. For example, how can the study of the brains perception of color ever fully describe ones perception of the color red? One argument goes as follows.

1. According to physicalism all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical.
2. Thus, if physicalism is true, a logically-possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular conscious experience must exist in such a possible world.
3. In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world) and we can not see why it is not logically possible.
4. Therefore, physicalism is false. (The conclusion follows from 2. and 3. by modus tollens.)

It's an interesting discussion that relates heavily to happiness and whether or not the sum of it's parts have any meaning beyond physicalism.

I think that is something that is great to bring up. I have been thinking of this and i have made up about it. So this really is just me bsing. But I like to think of consciousness as biological matter that processes data best for survival but not limited to that. I can see it in my head that consciousness makes sense even being made up of matter. But I have nothing to back me up.

[Jake]

Not sure if I can speak to the topic of physicalism, but on a more general level I would dispute your claim that optimism clouds logic. Well, not necessarily dispute... but at the same time, pessimism can also cloud logic. On one hand you are expecting the best and therefor might be dismissing any negative results. On the other, you are expecting the worst and will dismiss positive results. Only rational thought can be used to have a clear grasp of the logic of any situation. But, still, there is something to be said about having an optimistic attitude. Yes, it may cloud your logic, but your attitude alone might result in a better outcome. Or by opening yourself to positive opportunities you might actually be able to take advantage of them.  So with that in mind, what is the point of being anything other than optimistic?

I don't deny that pessimism and optimism can both cause us to skew reality, but from what I have seen and studied, the release of endorphins in the brain are the greatest barrier to rational thinking. I think you are, to an extent, confusing pessimism with realism. In society, people often times label realists as pessimists because it seems like a dreary observation of reality. To the realist, they're not trying to be pessimistic, they're trying their best to view reality without letting their mood or emotions get in the way of logical assessment. While Mystery might be somewhat of a pessimist, I think his thought processes are based on logic and logic alone. If you show a realist a valid viewpoint, whether it's optimistic or pessimistic, they will look at the evidence for and against it while attempting to be unbiased in their conclusion. The problem is, being a realist generally leads to being a pessimist, because you realize how shitty life can be. While being too pessimistic or too optimistic can cloud judgment, I think that people who ere on the side of pessimism generally live a life grounded more in reality.

Let me point out though that I don't think being pessimistic is a good way to live, even if it does come with a more rational perception of reality. An optimistic attitude leads to greater success and a happier life, which I would gladly take over being right all the time (not that I am right all the time).

I think that is something that is great to bring up. I have been thinking of this and i have made up about it. So this really is just me bsing. But I like to think of consciousness as biological matter that processes data best for survival but not limited to that. I can see it in my head that consciousness makes sense even being made up of matter. But I have nothing to back me up.

So you are basically a physicalist? Or someone that believes that physical matter can completely explain and define conscious thought. If so, how do you feel about the idea of a philosophical zombie? According to physicalism, physical facts determine all other facts. All facts that apply to us would also apply to a philosophical zombie, which is someone who acts like a human, talks like a human, but has no self-awareness. Since physical facts cannot determine the difference between and p-zombie and a conscious human being, it holds that either there is a meta-physical aspect to consciousness, or that the premise of a p-zombie is fundamentally not possible, or even that everyone but you is a p-zombie and actually has no self-awareness. For example, you know you exist, but how do you know I exist? I could potentially be a complex organism that is so advanced that I appear to be self-aware, but am actually no more than a p-zombie, going through the motions like a computer program.

[ARTgames]

I can not get your link to work at all. I tried copying and editing it and for some reason that's not working for some odd reason. As for the rest of what your saying i'm not too sure. I guess it comes down to what is consciousness. There could be something that can do everything we can but not have the same thing we consider consciousness but i don't know the technical aspects of how that would work. As of now i would say im a physicality. But it could change.

[Lingus]

The thing is Jake, when you get into physics and theory like this, you're basically describing a way to perceive the world. The purpose of these theories though is to allow you to come to other conclusions. So, the question is: how does perceiving the world as being full of zombies allow you to come to other conclusions?

By the way, I think you should be using "skeptical" instead of pessimistic. I was intending to use the word pessimistic because I was getting a very negative vibe from most of the posts. I get the difference between skeptical or realist versus pessimistic. Being skeptical allows you to question things that you see or hear. There's nothing wrong with that if you are using it in a rational way. Being a realist is also fine. Taking the information for what it is. But being pessimistic is looking more at negative aspects of any situation. It would be dismissing information simply because it has a positive outcome or outlook. This hinders a rational thought process as much as an optimistic viewpoint would.

[ARTgames]

What are some things that you (the reader) like that most people don't like?  Kinda off topic from the main dissolution but i'm curious. :D

[DarkTrinity]

I'll just answer the questions stated in the OP first...
Your definition of happiness?
-I don't really have a set definition, and I'm not going to go into the whole "chemicals being released in your brain" thing. I'd say it has multiple definitions... Basically things that make you smile, or fills you with the sense of deep joy and emotion. Or something like that ;P

What makes you truly happy?
-Not sure if this is a general question or directed at each person... but I'm going to answer it as the latter. What makes ME truly happy is seeing those around me happy. To be able to laugh with friends and family with no drama. My dog especially makes me happy with her crazy personality. Seeing artwork that takes my mind off into another world, seeing breathtaking views out in nature, and listening to amazing music. Also the sense of accomplishing things.

What should a person need to be truly satisfied with their life?
-I'd say whatever suits them best. No one is ever alike... Some people could want kids to be satisfied and some people would rather have a husband and 5 dogs.... Some people want to stay single and travel the world. The only thing I can think of that would make a large range of people satisfied is making progress/accomplishing things.

How much does material wealth influence a person's happiness?
-I think it does influence it... If you have little/no money, you're going to be stressed out all the time trying to pay off bills... They say money won't buy you happiness, but I think having enough money to afford the essentials but also being able to afford extra stuff every once and a while would make most people happy.

Love???
-Apparently this is controversial in this topic... lol. I'd say Mystery's views on relationships sound like from a high-schooler's standpoint, in which case I find that laughable and yet can agree with somewhat...  I think people are way too pressured to date a lot in high school and I have had many people tell me they were in love with their significant other after a few weeks. That's the case in which I agree with Mystery, high school kids usually take dating way too seriously and don't know the difference between infatuation and love. That being said, I will point out me and my boyfriend started dating in high school in the beginning of 11th grade. I definitely did not tell him I loved him until like 3 months later, lol. Although I'm sure we were cheesy and agree we had no idea what it meant to be in a relationship... we've so far beaten the statistic that "high school sweet hearts rarely ever stay together", as we've been together for over 5 years now.

Which brings me to why I think Mystery's view is also laughable. My boyfriend and I have grown closer with each other, we tell each other pretty much everything, we're not afraid to be ourselves around each other, I love him and he is also my best friend... that I can make out with ;o We've been through hard times together; him losing his dog, house, grandma, and dad all in the same year, among many other things. And we've still stuck by eachother's side through it and helped each other. Granted 5 years isn't long and we are still quite young, I'd say we're doing very well.

And I suppose I'll try to answer Art's question too:
What are some things that you (the reader) like that most people don't like?
-Probably not the kind of answer you're looking for, but seeing as I have many girly-girl friends, most of them didn't like much of anything that I like... lol. Different tastes in music, different tastes in clothes, different tastes in how we spend our spare time, etc...
I like rock, while most my friends like country/oldies/pop/r&b... I like more edgy clothes, while most my friends shop at American Eagle or Old Navy... I like playing MMORPG's in my spare time, making art, listening to music... most my friends like going to the mall or partying.

I guess that's one thing I like that most people (most people I know anyways) don't like that I like, is having time alone to myself. I like to do solitary things that you don't need other people for. I would rather listen to other people than have to do a lot of talking (unless of course I had something really worth talking about, not just small talk)

[stick d00d]

What are some things that you (the reader) like that most people don't like?  Kinda off topic from the main dissolution but i'm curious. :D

Since I moved away from most of my old high school friends, I've found ways to keep myself happy without being with a crowd of people. Playing games online, posting on these forums (well more reading peoples' posts) talking and laughing more with my family, reading, etc. I found these things in life are more simple and bring a lot more happiness than partying every weekend and getting wasted and not being able to remember it the next day.

People worry too much about what others think of them (including myself) and I find it best to just be around those who enjoy your company and you don't have to force yourself to come up with something to talk about. It will come more naturally and if you can laugh, joke AND be serious with someone, then you know that it is a true friend.

I know I'm getting more into the whole relationship thing over anything else, but we are all people and another person can bring you a lot of happiness..

[T-Rok]

I declare that this is happiness.

http://cheezcomixed.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/koma-comic-strip-an-explosion-of-technology.jpg

I keep throwing money at the screen but nothing is happening.

[Jake]

The thing is Jake, when you get into physics and theory like this, you're basically describing a way to perceive the world. The purpose of these theories though is to allow you to come to other conclusions. So, the question is: how does perceiving the world as being full of zombies allow you to come to other conclusions?

If we can perceive a world that is full of p-zombies but still has the exact same laws as our own world, then one can potentially conclude that there is more to the universe than physicality, thus proving physicalism wrong. For example, we all have qualitative experiences, but if there was a being that did not have these same experiences, aka a philosophical zombie, there would be no scientific way to deduct that they are any different than a normal self-aware being. If we can not distinguish the difference between two beings based on physical science, we must look to meta-physical alternatives.

There are many counter-arguments, and arguments countering the counter-arguments, so it's important that everyone read about philosophical zombies and qualia. Also, I fixed the original link.

By the way, I think you should be using "skeptical" instead of pessimistic. I was intending to use the word pessimistic because I was getting a very negative vibe from most of the posts. I get the difference between skeptical or realist versus pessimistic. Being skeptical allows you to question things that you see or hear. There's nothing wrong with that if you are using it in a rational way. Being a realist is also fine. Taking the information for what it is. But being pessimistic is looking more at negative aspects of any situation. It would be dismissing information simply because it has a positive outcome or outlook. This hinders a rational thought process as much as an optimistic viewpoint would.

Agreed.

[Yankyal]

c)words like happiness weren't meant to be examined this deeply anyways. they're just labels we place on those "chemical reactions" to help us make sense of it all.

I don't think anyone is trying to break down the word "happiness". What people are doing is trying to break down the emotion of happiness into it's basic physical form. The arguement is that it's really more than that.

Physics is looked at as the bases of the sciences. And some may say mathematics is under that or is the language of Physics.

i like to think of philosophy/logic as the basis of math, which is the basis of physics which is the basis of chemistry and so on. although i still think a philosophy major is a waste of money and time :p

I don't think logic is the basis of math. If anything, at it's core, logic can be broken down by mathematical logic notation. In other words, math is the basis of logic. And I believe logic is, in some sense, the basis of philosophy.

1)the only argument that you can make that happiness is more than a label for a chemical reaction is a religious one, and we all know how those fare in logical debates.

2)math is the science of quantity. all mathematical proofs require logic, without logic mathematics crumbles.

1 + 1 = 2 only in a logical situation.

[Lingus]

1)the only argument that you can make that happiness is more than a label for a chemical reaction is a religious one, and we all know how those fare in logical debates.

Philosophical, meta-physical, spiritual... There are plenty of non-religious explanations for emotions. Also, are we having a logical debate right now? I thought we were discussing happiness. Sounds like a philosophical discussion to me.

2)math is the science of quantity. all mathematical proofs require logic, without logic mathematics crumbles.

1 + 1 = 2 only in a logical situation.

I would concede that both math and logic require the use of the other at varying degrees.

[Jake]

1)the only argument that you can make that happiness is more than a label for a chemical reaction is a religious one, and we all know how those fare in logical debates.

Not true. That's why I brought up the topic of qualitative experiences, because there are arguments out there that the subjective experience we call happiness cannot exist in a physical universe alone. If all laws are based on physical science alone, then I cannot prove that anyone on this planet, besides myself, has self-awareness. Physical science can never fully describe a phenomena as simple as hearing a sound, or seeing the color red. At most, we can say "these atoms are interacting in very complex patterns". Any deeper understanding of qualitative experience must come from a meta-physical level.

[Yankyal]

1)the only argument that you can make that happiness is more than a label for a chemical reaction is a religious one, and we all know how those fare in logical debates.

Not true. That's why I brought up the topic of qualitative experiences, because there are arguments out there that the subjective experience we call happiness cannot exist in a physical universe alone. If all laws are based on physical science alone, then I cannot prove that anyone on this planet, besides myself, has self-awareness. Physical science can never fully describe a phenomena as simple as hearing a sound, or seeing the color red. At most, we can say "these atoms are interacting in very complex patterns". Any deeper understanding of qualitative experience must come from a meta-physical level.

you are 100% right that you cannot prove that anyone else on this planet has awareness besides yourself.  ever heard of the quote "i think therefore i am?".

and i agree with you in saying that for practical reasons you have to think of happiness and other emotions as nonphysical things, that's what i meant with my first post. what emotions truly refer to are chemical reactions, like torch said, but it's absolutely pointless to think of them that way.