Is a top philosopher more intelligent than a top mathematician/physicist? - Page 17

We don't know sweet because of any other flavors. I'm not sure why you think that happiness is any different. We don't know the experience of the smell of a rose as a comparison or contrast either. It simply is an experience. Attempts to describe it using comparisons or contrasts are doomed to failure.

Classification is one thing. Contrast is an entirely different thing.

Language tends to have a lot of classification in it.

Anyway, your over all claim seems to be this empirical hypothesis: Do experiences of intense suffering create more (capability of experiencing and actual experiences of) intense happiness than less intense suffering does.

I've tried as best I can. You're not understanding me at all and you keep insisting on looking for ways in which to pidgeon-hole it into a falsifiable/empirical hypothesis. Unable to see that it is a logical and consistent metaphysical belief. In some ways compatible to what you believe, and in some ways not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Are you sure you're not just describing the conditions for knowing that you are happy, rather than just being happy?

Please explain what you mean by this distinction more clearly. An example or two might help.

Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 03-09-2017 at 04:51 AM.

Quote

03-09-2017 , 12:32 PM

#402

tirtep

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 277

...As for you, Morrel, this is the secret of my conduct toward you. There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what is it to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyment of life. Live, then, and be happy... Edmond Dantes

Quote

03-09-2017 , 02:43 PM

#403

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`

I didn't say it wasn't logical and consistent. It is logical and consistent. It just happens to be contrary to reality.

In such cases, it seems wise to go with reality.

Quote

03-09-2017 , 02:46 PM

#404

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Deciding non-local emotional reality? Best wishes with that level of immateriality.

Quote

03-10-2017 , 01:09 AM

#405

drowkcableps

grinder

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 633

a breath of fresh air lasts for but a breath. I submit my unfalsifiable theory(and perhaps more in keeping with reality) that unhappiness/undesirable input amplifies an otherwise mundane to pleasurable activity - for a limited yet undetermined duration.

For instance in Brians torture situation where the flower will become un smelled, may perhaps be flipped on its head if torture was all that is known, and then that flower was introduced...

Last edited by drowkcableps; 03-10-2017 at 01:17 AM.

Quote

03-10-2017 , 01:23 AM

#406

drowkcableps

grinder

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 633

In the case that happy and sad can be felt at the same time. It is my opinion that this is do to the fact that they are messy words... not correlating well to reality(easy misinterpretation(to be clear))... in other words..

Quote

03-10-2017 , 07:33 AM

#407

carlo

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,014

Quote:

Originally Posted by tirtep

Nice, the protagonist of The Count of Monte Cristo, speaks, and art should have its say. Alexandre Dumas speaks through a man who has suffered but in this thread there is speaking to a scientific look, too bad, but in no way does he mean to present a scientific comprehension of the contraries.

The art is more alive and should have its place but not as a law of our science for then it becomes shackled down.

Quote

03-10-2017 , 05:31 PM

#408

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowkcableps

Feelings are a difficult topic.

Words are messy, but feelings are also messy. E.g there are experiements showing that your interpretation of your feelings are dependent on your circumstances. The feeling of fear for instance can be mistaken for sexual arousal (given the right circumstances).

Its hard to say exactly how feelings work but there are theories that seems to capture whats going on, but its hard to say exactly what is correct or not.

Last edited by aflametotheground; 03-10-2017 at 05:43 PM.

Quote

03-10-2017 , 06:21 PM

#409

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by aflametotheground

The feeling of fear for instance can be mistaken for sexual arousal (given the right circumstances if you're on a first date).

fyp imo qed

Quote

03-10-2017 , 07:17 PM

#410

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

lol

Quote

03-11-2017 , 04:35 PM

#411

tirtep

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 277

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlo

Thanks. But, in my opinion, trying to explain happiness in scientific terms so far has been proven to be a futile exercise.

Anyway, for some reason this thread has taken a total different direction.

Quote

03-12-2017 , 12:25 AM

#412

Wealth$

adept

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 1,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToothSayer

lol? But yes, he was fairly socialist.

Do you think Einstein would be a communist today? We have the benefit of access to vast amount of real-world experimental data on the success of communism. In the 20s-40s it was as yet an untested theory.

I contend that to support communism today, given the data we now have, you have to be a pretty stupid person.

Anyway, delete that line if you like. The point in my anecdote is that philosophers seem to believe stupid or wrong things at a much higher rate than physicists, from my personal experience.

Would be interested to hear your opinion on Marxism...

Quote

03-12-2017 , 12:52 AM

#413

Wealth$

adept

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 1,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToothSayer

Discovering neurotransmitters has really ****ed up the ability of a lot of psychologists to comprehend basic things. Same effect as when Freud discovered anal retention, or other psychologists discovered the frontal lobe as the cause of bad behavior and lobotomized young women by the thousands as the cure. Are psychologists just really poor thinkers? They seem to be horrible thinkers and observers of the world. And how poorly they think seems to be proportional their smugness. Much better if we just completely ignore them.

The intensity of experience after minor deprivation, or self control, shows that VeeDDzz is as least part way right. The happiness of the wealthy compared to the average, is another example. We adjust to our circumstances and it becomes out background.

What's your opinion on Amos Tversky?

Quote

03-14-2017 , 05:41 PM

#414

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

I didn't say it wasn't logical and consistent. It is logical and consistent. It just happens to be contrary to reality.

In such cases, it seems wise to go with reality.

I'm in no need of inference-based evidence to tell me about my own experience of happiness-sadness. I'm not looking to build an automobile or get humans to mars.

Quote

03-14-2017 , 06:02 PM

#415

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowkcableps

By contrast indeed; how we come to know and feel everything.

By extension, seek not to run from unpleasant experiences, for fear of fear is still fear. Chasing security is still insecurity. If the mind is in pain, the mind is in pain. Don't run away into the past. Stay with it.

Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 03-14-2017 at 06:13 PM.

Quote

Page 17 of 17

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 17 of 17

First

7 12 13 14 15 16 17

Last