TD might have been born a half century to late.

(October 3, 2017 at 5:04 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 3:15 pm)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: We, or at least, I, do not think that I am special.  I think it is the power of the light which is something truly powerful, beautiful, and special that many people are blind to and have not yet been awakened to.

Funny thing about this light of yours. It's blinding you to the fact that everyone else can see perfectly fine without it; and that just because you think shining it in our eyes may be beneficial to our health, it doesn't give you the right to keep doing it or judge us as ignorant when we ask you to stop.

You're just another religious nut with a self-aggrandising agenda.

Remember, when I say the light, I am not referring to god here.  I know I've talked about god, but that was only because I am undecided upon his existence.  Since people are atheists here, then the version of my worldview I would be talking about would be the secular version.  This light would simply be our positive emotions in a secular world and they would be the light of god in a spiritual universe.  I think we as human beings all live our lives in a dark cave, so to speak, and we all require a flashlight in order to see the good value and beauty of things in our lives.  That flashlight would be our euphoric states.  I am not here for some self-aggrandizing agenda.  I just simply think that there is much more to life than being miserable or unhappy folk just dragging our lives on, making the best of things, going to jobs, catering to our families, and still believing this to be the good, beautiful, and worthwhile life.

(October 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 11:12 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: In addition, our positive and negative emotions are objectively positive and negative experiences

It's like you don't have access to a dictionary.

No he's right there. Experientiality=ontologically subjective but it's not necessarily epistemically subjective so there's no contradiction.

My quibble with TD is the fact that emotions are extremely over-specific and they're mere concepts and labels for very specific experiences that we deem worthy of naming "emotions".

Good feelings that we don't have a label for, that we haven't found a name for, that aren't an "emotion"... are still good. The same with bad feelings. They're still bad even when we are unable to categorize them into specific negative emotions.

The whole emotions=intrisically good and bad thing should be scrapped in favor of "subjective experience is intrinsically good and bad."

Everyone's subjective experience (their ontological subjectivity) is episemically objectively good or bad relative to them. What feels good for one person is good for them, but not necessarily good for someone else.

Emotions aren't broad enough in scope to cover the totality of all all meaningful experientiality.

Furthermore TD makes a huge error when he pretends like he believes emotions themselves are enough to get you to objective value but then he makes a total non-sequitur by assuming that a variety of moderately "positive emotions" for longer periods of time is objectively better than one positive emotion experienced for less time but experienced much more intensely. He repeatedly fails to acknowledge that "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "duration and variety matters more than intensity". He has absolutely no way to judge that a few hours of ecstasy isn't better than years of feeling sort of a bit relaxed sometimes and sort of a bit joyous other times. But he pretends that he does.

Also, if he only counts emotions as being objectively good and bad... then does this mean that if someone has a positive or negative experience that doesn't fit outright into a specific emotion and it's more a sort of vague mood that is yet to have a label.... does this mean that somehow 'doesn't count'?

He's on the right track but he makes huge flaws. Flaws that I've made in the past so it's easy to spot.

Meanwhile people who think that subjective experience can't be objectively good or bad because it's "subjective" are failing to spot their own equivocations.

You're here trying to sell an imaginary product, then deriding us for not wanting to part with our cash. You don't need a god for that. At least the traditional religious nuts are honest about it, even if it's just with themselves.

The thing is TD this isn't any secular equivalent of "The Good News" to tell us... and your God analogies are failures because you use them to dismiss actual arguments that I've made when they don't even touch my arguments. Furthermore when a metaphor is based on something obnoxious, like the God shit, it becomes equally obnoxious.

And this "Good News" of the intrinsic goodness and badness of subjective experience for each and everyone.... isn't something I'm going to respond to with like "Wow." It's something I'm going to respond to with "Duh. Yawn. I've thought about this for years and you haven't even corrected all the errors I used to make yet." You're like Diet Coke to me.

In a word... it's "subpar".

(October 3, 2017 at 5:32 pm)Hammy Wrote: Furthermore TD makes a huge error when he pretends like he believes emotions themselves are enough to get you to objective value but then he makes a total non-sequitur by assuming that a variety of moderately "positive emotions" for longer periods of time is objectively better than one positive emotion experienced for less time but experienced much more intensely. He repeatedly fails to acknowledge that "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "duration and variety matters more than intensity". He has absolutely no way to judge that a few hours of ecstasy isn't better than years of feeling sort of a bit relaxed sometimes and sort of a bit joyous other times. But he pretends that he does.

A blind person could have the idea of colors in his mind even if he has never visualized them.  That is the analogy I give to answer your statement above.

And what does it have to do with anything? I don't disagree and how is it even relevant?

(October 3, 2017 at 5:36 pm)Transcended Dimensions Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 5:32 pm)Hammy Wrote: Furthermore TD makes a huge error when he pretends like he believes emotions themselves are enough to get you to objective value but then he makes a total non-sequitur by assuming that a variety of moderately "positive emotions" for longer periods of time is objectively better than one positive emotion experienced for less time but experienced much more intensely. He repeatedly fails to acknowledge that "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "duration and variety matters more than intensity". He has absolutely no way to judge that a few hours of ecstasy isn't better than years of feeling sort of a bit relaxed sometimes and sort of a bit joyous other times. But he pretends that he does.

A blind person could have the idea of colors in his mind even if he has never visualized them.  That is the analogy I give to answer your statement above.

That sounds like a bald claim.  How would you know what idea of colors a person could have who has never seen them?

(October 3, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Hammy Wrote: And what does it have to do with anything? I don't disagree and how is it even relevant?

You said that I had no way to judge in a scenario where positive emotions were truly intrinsically good.  But I would have a way to think of a longer duration of positive emotions being better just as how a blind person could still think of colors in his mind.  I also think it doesn't matter what preferences people have; it can still only be their euphoric and dysphoric states that can be the positive and negative feelings, experiences, and emotions in thier lives and they are still the only things that can allow them to truly see the good and bad values in their lives.

(October 3, 2017 at 5:46 pm)Transcended Dimensions Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Hammy Wrote: And what does it have to do with anything? I don't disagree and how is it even relevant?

You said that I had no way to judge in a scenario where positive emotions were truly intrinsically good.  But I would have a way to think of a longer duration of positive emotions being better just as how a blind person could still think of colors in his mind.  I also think it doesn't matter what preferences people have; it can still only be their euphoric and dysphoric states that can be the positive and negative feelings, experiences, and emotions in thier lives and they are still the only things that can allow them to truly see the good and bad values in their lives.

So if it differs for every person or can change at any time, then in what the fuck way is it objective?