The scientific version of good and bad

[Detective L Ryuzaki]

Note to Reader:  My logical argument (conclusion) I make below about how it is only our rewarding experiences (pleasant emotions) that give our lives good meaning, this applies to all human beings.  If it somehow does not, then please give me a counterargument that explains how one's life can still have good meaning even without any rewarding experience in his/her life.  I have every reason to think that there is a universal scientific (psychological) basis that determines how someone or something is of good value and worth to us.  That psychological basis is not our thinking.  It is instead our rewarding experiences which would be our pleasant emotions (good moods).  So if this really is the case then, this would mean that good and bad are no longer subjective terms anymore.  They would now have to be scientific terms as I explain later on below.

The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. It is always a rewarding experience for us to have good meaning in our lives. For example, if you perceive good meaning towards your family and living for them to help them out, then that is always a rewarding experience for you. You are perceiving a rewarding experience towards the helping of your family and towards living for them.

Therefore, it would have to be our pleasant emotions that can be the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can have good value and worth to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you would be no different than saying that something can be a rewarding experience for you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement.

I am now going to present to you that contradictory statement here again. So here it is:

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

The statement "This is not a rewarding experience for me" is either a pessimistic statement or neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic statement. Pessimism is always a disrewarding experience for us as human beings and having neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic experience is always neither a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. But...

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

Now to have good meaning in our lives is always an optimistic statement. Optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings. Therefore, this is the reason why it can only be our rewarding experiences (pleasant emotions) that can make things, people, our family, this life/universe, and our goals/dreams of good value and worth to us.

So our pleasant emotions which are the result of the functioning of our reward system would have to be the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions (the opposite) would have to be the scientific version of bad. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

So good and bad are scientific terms like sight, hearing, and smell. Our pleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of good meaning in our lives and our unpleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of bad meaning in our lives. Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight or hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.

So if you struggle with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasant emotions) which turns off your reward system, you cannot have any good meaning in your life from your friends, family, or your goals and dreams.

In conclusion, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what allow us to perceive a scientific version of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is not a moral version or any other version of good or bad meaning. It is instead a feeling/emotional version of good and bad and not any moral or any other version of good and bad.

Therefore, with all of this being said, the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is fake and does not make us or our lives good or bad. There is instead a scientific version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of and I think I might have discovered it.

I myself struggle with depression and anhedonia (absence of all my pleasant emotions). This personal experience has led me to this theory. My intuition has led me to this theory. It could encourage scientists like never before to find cures knowing that our pleasant feelings/emotions are all that we have in our lives to make us good people and our lives good. Science could create an eternal blissful life in the future and resurrect people such as me who have missed out on life so we can live this eternal blissful life.
So it is vital that scientists take a look at my theory and test it out and validate it through tests and evidence. Therefore, it is vital for you to hand my theory over to intelligent scientists who can test my theory out.

I would like to make a concluding statement of my theory here. I actually find the moral version of good and bad to be quite offensive to me. This is because the moral version of good and bad is all about our thinking. It says that how we feel alone does not give our lives any good or bad meaning and that it is instead all about how we think that gives good or bad meaning to us and our lives.

But this is quite an insult to people such as me who struggle with depression and anhedonia. It is heartless and cruel towards suffering people such as me. It says:

"I don't care about how you feel. How you feel is nothing important. Your moods (feelings/emotions) are nothing good or bad in of themselves. Just change your thinking and you can live a good life."

Really, it would be no different than if I decided to pour gasoline on someone, light a match on them to set them on fire, and then told them from there:

"Just change your thinking and you can live a good life. Your pain and misery is nothing bad in of itself. You are just having a very pessimistic outlook on life here."

Even if I said it in an empathetic manner such as:

"Don't worry. I will help you all I can to find good meaning in this life. You can still live a good life by changing your thinking even while living your whole life being lit on fire and screaming."

Then this would still be a nonsensical statement. A person going through such misery would easily end his/her life. It is us having bad meaning in our lives that results in suicide. So it clearly goes to show you here that pain and misery in of itself really does give bad meaning to our lives and that it has nothing to do with our way of thinking. Sure, you can fight against that bad meaning in your life anyway. But really, it is futile. Furthermore, if your life can have no good meaning, then there is just no sense in fighting against it just to live a life that is nothing but horrible pain and misery.

So to say that severely depressed people who commit suicide are selfish since these people could still have the chance to find good meaning in their lives even while struggling with their depression, then this would be no different than saying that this person lit on fire was selfish for ending his/her life since he/she could still find good meaning in his/her life even while being lit on fire and screaming.

So that is the reason why I am on a mission here to destroy this moral version of good and bad and to instead uncover this scientific (feeling/emotional) version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of. I can't seem to destroy it alone since I lack any means necessary to actually disprove this moral version of good and bad. Therefore, I need other people on my side including my family to help me destroy it.

The fact is, if people are going to be cruel and insensitive towards my suffering of depression and anhedonia with this moral version of good and bad, then I am going to be cruel and such in return to these people. I will return the favor for what they did to me. I will not only destroy their moral version of good and bad (their hope) that they live by in order to make their lives hopeless and meaningless to them, but I will also return the favor in other ways as well. Since my life has been destroyed and rendered meaningless by this depression and anhedonia, then that is why I am going to return the favor and take away the hope and meaning of the lives of these other people.

This life is currently a life of suffering that is inevitable for us all as human beings. People who go through much suffering would hear moral advice from other people who are highly intelligent such as:

"Yes, this life has and always will be suffering. And, yes, when you die, that is it. There is no afterlife of eternal bliss. But what is important here is what legacy you leave behind for others in this world."

This seems to be the very defining of life itself here. That severely crippled depressed people who are treatment resistant are supposed to accept their misery and are supposed to somehow find good meaning in their lives through their thoughts alone anyway. Not only while struggling with this crippling depression their whole entire lives, but also despite knowing that when they die in the end, that they will have no eternal blissful afterlife as a reward for all their suffering.

So you can see why it is I am so enraged against this moral version of good and bad. I wish to take it in my hands, grind it and crush it until it bleeds to death, and instead have the rebirth of something new. An eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, and no more anhedonia created by science in the future and have people such as me who have missed out on life resurrected so we can live this eternal blissful life. I personally don't think there is an afterlife. So that is why science is now my only hope here.

But the 1st step to getting there is to help me disprove this moral version of good and bad. If this scientific (feeling/emotional) version of good and bad were to be proven, then that would really encourage scientists like never before to create this eternal blissful life and to find a way to resurrect people knowing that us having no unpleasant feelings/emotions (suffering) and us having our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) for all eternity is the only greatest life there can be for us.

This moral version of good and bad has done basically nothing for most people who suffer from severe crippling depression and other forms of suffering as well. A severely crippled depressed person on the brink of suicide who is treatment resistant might be told by someone that he/she still can have good meaning in his/her life despite his/her crippling illness. But does that stop him/her from feeling suicidal and does that stop him/her from committing suicide? No!

Even with Robin Williams who was a highly moral individual who helped many people out in this world. Did the moral version of good give his life any good meaning despite his depression? Apparently not since he committed suicide in the end. So much for this useless and mocking/insulting moral version of good and bad then!

The only thing that will work here would be the scientific version of good and bad. That is, creating an eternal blissful life through science in the future to free all people of suffering. I realize that there are, in fact, some people who would become suicidal from living an eternal blissful life and that there are, in fact, people who still find reason to live on through the moral version of good and bad despite all their pain and misery. But even so, I still highly suspect this moral version of good and bad to be a deluded lie that people believe in and delude themselves in.

[Faith No More]

I'm not at all sure what your point is. Can you summarize in a paragraph?

[abaris]

Being the Phil Spector of text isn't a good way to catch attention. Also, it seems to be your opinion - what exactly is scientific about your opinion?

[Detective L Ryuzaki]

Being the Phil Spector of text isn't a good way to catch attention. Also, it seems to be your opinion - what exactly is scientific about your opinion?

Well, if it was just my personal opinion and nothing more, then you would be able to come up with a counterargument against it.  If you can't, then it is very likely to be scientific.

[Faith No More]

Well, if it was just my personal opinion and nothing more, then you would be able to come up with a counterargument against it.  If you can't, then it is very likely to be scientific.

You should stop throwing around terms you don't really understand.

[Detective L Ryuzaki]

I am on the quest for truth here.  I need to know the answer to my theory.

[Pyrrho]

Your idea of "rewarding experience" reminds me of David Hume's ethical theory, which can be found in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.

A very condensed discussion is at these links:

#17

#35

There is more discussion of it in that thread.


However, you might find it easier to start with Epicurus instead, though his position is less rigorous.  But it has the advantage of being easier to understand.

http://www.epicurus.net



As for suicide, here are three essays on the topic that I think are worth reading:


ESSAY IX: OF SUICIDE1

Letter 70

Letter 77


Regarding your idea of bringing back people from the dead and drugging them to feel high (which is what "eternal bliss" would be), that is rather fanciful.  I doubt we are going to be raising the dead.  Of course, it somewhat depends on what, exactly, one means by "dead," as one's heart can stop beating and it can sometimes be restarted, so if you were to imagine that "dead" just means that one's heart stopped beating, then one could raise the "dead" at least occasionally.  But if they are well and truly dead, rotted in the grave, then no, it is just a fictional fantasy.



As an aside, you might want to work on your essay writing skills, as much of the reaction you are getting seems due to that rather than the actual content of your post.

[Detective L Ryuzaki]

Your idea of "rewarding experience" reminds me of David Hume's ethical theory, which can be found in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.

A very condensed discussion is at these links:

#17

#35

There is more discussion of it in that thread.


However, you might find it easier to start with Epicurus instead, though his position is less rigorous.  But it has the advantage of being easier to understand.

http://www.epicurus.net



As for suicide, here are three essays on the topic that I think are worth reading:


ESSAY IX: OF SUICIDE1

Letter 70

Letter 77


Regarding your idea of bringing back people from the dead and drugging them to feel high (which is what "eternal bliss" would be), that is rather fanciful.  I doubt we are going to be raising the dead.  Of course, it somewhat depends on what, exactly, one means by "dead," as one's heart can stop beating and it can sometimes be restarted, so if you were to imagine that "dead" just means that one's heart stopped beating, then one could raise the "dead" at least occasionally.  But if they are well and truly dead, rotted in the grave, then no, it is just a fictional fantasy.



As an aside, you might want to work on your essay writing skills, as much of the reaction you are getting seems due to that rather than the actual content of your post.

Well, I have two questions here:

1.)  Has it ever been tested whether there is a scientific version of good and bad (what I've explained above)?  If not, then it's no wonder there is no supporting evidence for my theory.  If my theory could be tested, then there just might be supporting evidence for it.

2.)  I'm thinking there might be a way to resurrect people back to life after they have completely died and rotted away.  All of their atoms and particles that made them alive in the first place are all still there.  They are all just scattered about across the world in different locations.  So what we would need to do here is to create a supercomputer that has a connection to all atoms and particles of this world.  From there, we would create a template of a human life form that can combine all atoms and particles in all possible ways to create all possible different types of people.  We would then initiate this program which would create all possible different types of people and would bring people such as me back to life.

[Pyrrho]

---

Your idea of "rewarding experience" reminds me of David Hume's ethical theory, which can be found in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.

A very condensed discussion is at these links:

#17

#35

There is more discussion of it in that thread.


However, you might find it easier to start with Epicurus instead, though his position is less rigorous.  But it has the advantage of being easier to understand.

http://www.epicurus.net



As for suicide, here are three essays on the topic that I think are worth reading:


ESSAY IX: OF SUICIDE1

Letter 70

Letter 77


Regarding your idea of bringing back people from the dead and drugging them to feel high (which is what "eternal bliss" would be), that is rather fanciful.  I doubt we are going to be raising the dead.  Of course, it somewhat depends on what, exactly, one means by "dead," as one's heart can stop beating and it can sometimes be restarted, so if you were to imagine that "dead" just means that one's heart stopped beating, then one could raise the "dead" at least occasionally.  But if they are well and truly dead, rotted in the grave, then no, it is just a fictional fantasy.



As an aside, you might want to work on your essay writing skills, as much of the reaction you are getting seems due to that rather than the actual content of your post.

---

Well, I have two questions here:

1.)  Has it ever been tested whether there is a scientific version of good and bad (what I've explained above)?

What you appear to be discussing is metaethics, about the definitions of "good" and "bad."  After one has settled on a definition of the terms, then one can set about answering the question of what can and cannot be properly verified.  In practice, of course, people go back and forth on this in order to refine their definitions to fit their particular purposes.  Clearly, people can and do investigate the question of what does give people pleasure and what gives them pain.  Those things can be investigated scientifically.  Some things are generally true of most people for pleasure and pain, some are more variable.  But certainly, there is an underlying structure to humans that makes these things as they are in each individual, and are generally very similar from one person to the next.  The same is true of feelings generally.  But it is partly a definitional matter whether one wishes to equate certain types of emotions with good and bad.

 If not, then it's no wonder there is no supporting evidence for my theory.  If my theory could be tested, then there just might be supporting evidence for it.

2.)  I'm thinking there might be a way to resurrect people back to life after they have completely died and rotted away.  All of their atoms and particles that made them alive in the first place are all still there.  They are all just scattered about across the world in different locations.  So what we would need to do here is to create a supercomputer that has a connection to all atoms and particles of this world.  From there, we would create a template of a human life form that can combine all atoms and particles in all possible ways to create all possible different types of people.  We would then initiate this program which would create all possible different types of people and would bring people such as me back to life.

In order to be able to do that, one would have to first map all of the atoms in a particular person.  Otherwise, one would never know if one recreated that particular person or not.  And you are being quite optimistic that there will ever be the technology to arrange atoms so precisely.  We are certainly not going to have such technology any time soon, if ever.  You will be long dead, and there will be no record for how your atoms are exactly arranged at any point in your life.  So you can forget about you being recreated that way.  You are going to be dead and never come back.  Just like me and every other person alive today.


Also, there is not enough matter in the universe to create every possible combination of atoms that would be a person.  Just think about it for a moment.  You at this precise moment are arranged a bit differently from how you were arranged a millisecond ago.  If one memory of yours were changed, that would involve a different arrangement of atoms.  And, of course, there are all sorts of genetic combinations that have not been tried, which would involve incalculably many different possibilities.  Imagine, for example, the humans that would be created if one man were to mate with every woman who ever lived.  All of those, with all of the possible variants (remember, the children of two people are not all identical, not even "identical" twins are identical on the atomic level), and for every possible combination of every other man mating with every other woman who ever lived.  And then one would have to create all of the humans that would be possible from those artificially created humans mating with every other human ('natural' or artificial), with all possible variants for each, and then one would have to create what would be the offspring of those mated with every other human, etc., etc.  

In addition to that, one would also have to imagine each and every one of those humans with every possible diet, making different ones for the different diets, and imagine every possible life experience for each and every one of those variants, as each of these will make differences on the arrangements of the atoms.

In other words, there are likely infinite possible variations for humans, so trying to create all of them would be impossible due to a lack of resources; i.e., not enough matter in the universe, not to mention whatever energy would be needed for this magical atom arranging machine.

[Alex K]

So yes, aren't basic motivations for our actions irrational by definition? Otherwise, they would be logically derived from others and hence not basic.

You might still have to show that all our actions are enforced by an internal reward system. Maybe most of them. There may be automatic unconscious actions which are not.