What is happiness?

[mhss1992]

Okay. From now on, then, if you feel that something needs clarification, ask. If we keep discussing like before, we'll end talking about completely different things and we will not move on.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I haven't ignored your examples of models, things I'm largely not talking about are things I generally agree with you about. But for me, an example of a concept that I haven't really thought of for myself doesn't define it for me at all. Call me stupid however much you like, you're still not enlightening me. However, what I do think I understand is that, by definition, your 'models' MUST be centered around happiness. Therefore it IS impossible for me to give you a counterexample.

I didn't call you stupid.

I'll try to make myself clear:
Pick an object or thing that exists in reality: food, music, flowers, etc.

Each of these things has several different traits. We, as sentient beings, have models for each of these things, meaning that we have a certain expectation of what something of a certain kind should be like.

Nobody knows a perfect object of any kind, but everybody knows a certain quantity of each trait that composes an object which can be considered satisfactory. If some of these traits are lacking(e.g: tasteless food of any kind, not counting water) or excessive(e.g: very loud music, very salty or sweet food), then it isn't good.

Okay... You said that, by definition, these models are centered on good things. But what happens if we try to use the same logic for badness instead of goodness?

Let's pick an object which is usually considered bad: poop. Unlike the previous objects, we cannot think of a certain limited quantity of traits that define what "the most disgusting" poop should be like. The poop will not automatically turn good by making certain of it's traits lacking or excessive, it will become good only if it changes enough to fit in another model (like turning poop into a diamond).

Think of it like this: goodness is limited to a few "peaks" in the sea of possible combinations of traits something can have, and badness is everything below a certain "height" considered neutral, that is, the rest of the sea.

I think that telling you really isn't enough. You have to try and apply these thoughts to the things you see in your everyday life and see if it makes sense.

I also find it pretty annoying that you took my use of the word 'ugliness' to be literal in a paragraph where its synonym is clearly 'misery', and my pargraph really had nothing whatsoever pertaining to physical beauty, yet you grasped at it and then talked about it as if to show I was wrong about what ugliness is. Who's not listening to who now, really.

Sorry. It's just that the whole thing was very confusing. I was thinking of physical models when I answered, so the thing seemed incoherent for both sides.

I'm not addressing your examples that show that happiness can dictate unhappiness, because I agree. I know. But this by no means proves what I have a problem with, which is that happiness is always first and everything's always compared to it.

Let me try something else. IF models are always centered around happiness, then why does pain exist at all? If unhappiness can't exist without happiness, then why would we, as living beings who evolved into who we are, have separate feelings and emotions for pain? Why would we not solely be regulated with 'neutral' being the worst feeling, and then we'd be regulated solely using more and less happy? It seems very unlikely that if happiness were always the first thing we must feel, then we would never ever have bothered with pain in the first place, and we'd all just really be functioning around more and less happy.

Because the simple contrast between a less satisfactory situation and a more satisfactory one automatically generates suffering.
You cannot make a world containing just "good or neutral" or "bad or neutral". It's either just "neutral" or "good, neutral or bad".

It's like making a world containing only "bright or neutral", "big or neutral". No! Those are all relative concepts. If one side exists, the other one automatically does by contrast!

Also, the physical sensation related to pain would be neutral if comfort didn't exist. Like I've said before, the physical feeling considered painful is not necessarily unpleasant. I told you that it's even possible to neutralize it by ignoring the notion of comfort.

And I'm actually trying to prove that the negative feelings aren't separated from the good ones at all.

I said that it seemed like you must think we're in a constant state of comfort because you say that pain exists only because it deviates from comfort, but I still say that we can feel pain when it only deviates from neutral. Consider a person in solitary confinement who has reached a 'neutral' state (an example YOU first brought up), and then a rat bites them and it hurts. IF pain exists only when deviating from comfort, then your theory falls apart unless you change it by saying that a) say that that person was not actually in a neutral state at all, but rather in a state of comfort or b) physical pain is not always linked to happiness.
I suppose you might say something that at the exact moment of the bite, the person was neutral, but now that they are in pain, they yearn for that comfort of not being in pain. But still, even if you say that, the CAUSE of this change was the pain of the bite, not the yearning for not being in pain. The yearn happens AFTER the pain, and the model changes BECAUSE of the pain. It cannot be the otherway around, because then there is no catalyst, nothing to cause the change to happen in the first place. And if the pain is the cause, then it clearly MUST exist by itself, happiness not included.

Actually, it's more like this: if there is a person who, SOMEHOW, never felt any kind of satisfaction or comfort in it's life, it will not be able to suffer. I don't think this is possible unless if someone is born with a severe neurological problem.

People in solitary confinement for long periods still have a (very deteriorated) sense of comfort (they're not FEELING comfort, they just have an idea of what comfort feels like). They will most definitely suffer less from rat bites and mosquitos leeching their blood (seriously, I've read about things like this myself in a book about victims of the holocaust. Not entirely solitary, but still...). However, if you pick some spoiled rich kid who always lived in comfort and make a rat bite them, I guarantee you: the kid will care a lot more than the person in solitary confinement.

And lastly, you asked me for an example of perfect ugliness, and no, I can't give you one. But neither can you give me an example of perfect beauty, so I don't know where you were going with that.

I was trying to imply that which I mentioned earlier: even if we can't define perfection, there is still a small range of combinations that can be considered satisfactory, but there are no small ranges of combinations that can be considered dissatisfactory(only huge ones, because it's everything outside the small satisfactory ranges).

Originally Posted by bobeck2

Happiness is complete contentment and satisfaction. The actions one does to achieve this depends solely on the individual. It must be contrasted with "thrills" and "pleasure" which are more potent forms of positive energy.

Hmm...
What's the difference?

[Cavernio]

"Nobody knows a perfect object of any kind, but everybody knows a certain quantity of each trait that composes an object which can be considered satisfactory. If some of these traits are lacking(e.g: tasteless food of any kind, not counting water) or excessive(e.g: very loud music, very salty or sweet food), then it isn't good.

Okay... You said that, by definition, these models are centered on good things. But what happens if we try to use the same logic for badness instead of goodness?

Let's pick an object which is usually considered bad: poop. Unlike the previous objects, we cannot think of a certain limited quantity of traits that define what "the most disgusting" poop should be like. The poop will not automatically turn good by making certain of it's traits lacking or excessive, it will become good only if it changes enough to fit in another model (like turning poop into a diamond).
You have to try and apply these thoughts to the things you see in your everyday life and see if it makes sense."

Ok, lets say I hate eggplant. However, if I cook it just so, take away its bitterness and dry it out some so that it no longer has that slimy texture that it usually cooks up into, and all of a sudden I kinda like the eggplant. I have a bad thing that, when taking away its bitterness and its slimy texture, it becomes a good thing. The eggplant is still eggplant.

Setting the eggplant thing aside though, I finally think I FULLY get what you're saying now. BUT..."Actually, it's more like this: if there is a person who, SOMEHOW, never felt any kind of satisfaction or comfort in it's life, it will not be able to suffer. "...this statement I disagree with.

"It's like making a world containing only "bright or neutral", "big or neutral". No! Those are all relative concepts. If one side exists, the other one automatically does by contrast!"
Ah, but the biology for something like 'bright' and 'dim' only DOES have brightness to fall back on. We see black when there's nothing to be seen at all, and as such it is truly neutral or nothing, but as you say, because there's a contrast, we acutally have bright and dim. In comparison with physical pleasure and pain however, there ARE different physical receptors in our skin and in our body for both. We have erogenous areas which give us pleasure, and we have various types of pain receptors. In fact, even if you weren't to include erogenous zones in this, we have even more different receptors on our skin simply for touch. The same neuron that sends a signal to our brain when we get touched is NOT the same neuron that sends an 'ow' signal to the brain when that same area gets pinched, and is not the same neuron that sends a pleasure signal if that area that was touched was an erogenous one. They don't go up the spine on the same pathways either, and they don't go to the same brain areas. That's why when I take an ibuprofen and my cramps subside, it feels so damned good, but that is because there is physically, and therefore mentally, a lack of pain. The comparison to being in comfort is still valid and is likely a part of my relief, however it certainly does not account for the majority of the relief I feel when my cramps are gone.

If you see that there can exist physical pain without necessarily having to have comfort, then it follows that there is a distinct possibility for other negative feelings to exist of themselves also, like sadness and anger, without necessarily needing happiness and contentment as a contrast.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Ok, lets say I hate eggplant. However, if I cook it just so, take away its bitterness and dry it out some so that it no longer has that slimy texture that it usually cooks up into, and all of a sudden I kinda like the eggplant. I have a bad thing that, when taking away its bitterness and its slimy texture, it becomes a good thing. The eggplant is still eggplant.

That was actually a good answer.
But it's indeed pretty complex:
Despite the fact that you hate eggplants and have an expectation of what an eggplant should look and taste like (a model of eggplant), things like bitterness (similarly to pain) are automatically out of all good models (again, for most people) due to their "excessive" nature. That's the reason why many people hate pepper, too. The intensity of these feelings is beyond the comfort range for the majority.

Of course, even bitterness can be good when not in excess (like in bitter chocolate or coffee).

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Setting the eggplant thing aside though, I finally think I FULLY get what you're saying now. BUT..."Actually, it's more like this: if there is a person who, SOMEHOW, never felt any kind of satisfaction or comfort in it's life, it will not be able to suffer. "...this statement I disagree with.

"It's like making a world containing only "bright or neutral", "big or neutral". No! Those are all relative concepts. If one side exists, the other one automatically does by contrast!"
Ah, but the biology for something like 'bright' and 'dim' only DOES have brightness to fall back on. We see black when there's nothing to be seen at all, and as such it is truly neutral or nothing, but as you say, because there's a contrast, we acutally have bright and dim. In comparison with physical pleasure and pain however, there ARE different physical receptors in our skin and in our body for both. We have erogenous areas which give us pleasure, and we have various types of pain receptors. In fact, even if you weren't to include erogenous zones in this, we have even more different receptors on our skin simply for touch. The same neuron that sends a signal to our brain when we get touched is NOT the same neuron that sends an 'ow' signal to the brain when that same area gets pinched, and is not the same neuron that sends a pleasure signal if that area that was touched was an erogenous one. They don't go up the spine on the same pathways either, and they don't go to the same brain areas. That's why when I take an ibuprofen and my cramps subside, it feels so damned good, but that is because there is physically, and therefore mentally, a lack of pain. The comparison to being in comfort is still valid and is likely a part of my relief, however it certainly does not account for the majority of the relief I feel when my cramps are gone.

If you see that there can exist physical pain without necessarily having to have comfort, then it follows that there is a distinct possibility for other negative feelings to exist of themselves also, like sadness and anger, without necessarily needing happiness and contentment as a contrast.

There are indeed different neurons especialized for detecting pain.

There are also neurons that specifically detect heat, cold, pressure, flavors, etc. And all of these things can be unpleasant or pleasant depending on their quantity.

And the physical feeling perceived by the pain neurons itself is not always bad, like I've said many times.

You see, the mistake you're doing is making "detecting physical pain" identical to "detecting dissatisfaction".

What determines whether a feeling is good or not is your brain, and not your sensors. There is no purely good or purely bad feeling in itself, because satisfaction is an interpretation your mind adds to the feeling, not inherent to the feeling. Pain is bad most of the time due to biological reasons: to protect you. That's why the neurons responsible for detecting damage give such an intense (excessive and, therefore, dissatisfactory) feeling. This bad feeling is only intensified by it's negative meaning, danger.

I gave you an evidence: the thought experiment many have done trying to ignore the notion of comfort and neutralizing pain (or even converting it into pleasure). The physical feeling STILL existed, but it was no longer dissatisfactory. There are also many people who try to deny suffering entirely by learning not to depend on external objects to obtain satisfaction (ever heard of Nirvana? There are people who claim to have almost achieved that, thought I don't think it's humanly possible). Doesn't that mean something?

If you lived in neutrality since the beginning of your existence, as if you've never felt NOTHING at all, the first thing you'd feel would most certainly be a satisfactory feeling, regardless of intensity. The simple fact that you'd feel something would make you happier.

Unfortunately, I cannot prove you that, but I could ask you to imagine. If you didn't have to worry about survival or comfort whatsoever, wouldn't you like an intense feeling that allows you to conceive your own existence? A feeling that makes you feel alive? Remember: you've never felt anything before, just try to picture that. It's impossible, but try anyway.

Perhaps I've gone too far, but I have thought a lot about this. You should too. The things I say sound nonsensical to many people for similar reasons.

[Cavernio]

My mind interprets things, yes, but does it not matter that in the vast majority of situations when someone experiences physical pain, it interprets it as dissatisfaction? The fact that we can experience pain differently doesn't change the fact that it appears to mainly exist outside of a happiness model.

I would say that feelings are always interpreted, that feeling doesn't exist without interpretation, by definition. When pain is not painful, my mind overrides a natural function of my body, and is just really dulling the pain, not changing its nature. If the pain is pleasurable, there is a whole other layer, such that the idea of being in pain is pleasurable, and that knowing I'm in pain (which is still painful), is giving me a different type of pleasure; I am now experiencing pleasure and pain at the same time, or perhaps just feeling pleasure and dulled pain if I were good at doing such things.
If you think pain is only intensified because of negative meanings, then why would people have chronic pain when there's nothing really dangerous about what's giving them pain, when they full-well know that its really just benign?
Those pain neurons don't give excessive pain, they just act regularly. The whole point of that biology was to say that those neurons don't ever give you anything BUT pain, and that they are 100% connected to dissatisfaction and the brain regions involved with it, as compared to other types sensory receptors which aren't. It is not a question of excess with them. To your mind it might feel like excessive cold or hot, but we've actually switched which neurons are responding to the hot and cold. Pain is not something we perceive from regular neurons that are firing at excessively slow or fast speeds.

As to your last few paragraphs, this is where we differ. If a fetus that has just become into a state of being such that they had never experienced anything yet, and the very first thing it experiences is something that would usually be pain, I think they would find it painful. Much in the same way that if you give an infant anything bitter tasting, they will make a face of disgust, but yet seem to love anything sweet.

If we were to look at other animals besides people, something much lower on the evolutionary scale, something with a small brain, something that doesn't have much of a mind, do you think their pain is ever not painful?

If I didn't have to worry about survival or comfort, I could see myself getting an intense negative feeling of frustration and unhappiness over my existence, quite contrary to being happy about it. I could also perhaps be happy though too, it would really depend on my mood. Perhaps this is why sad people piss you off, because you don't understand just how deep-rooted it can be.

[kommisar]

I'd attribute happiness as an absence of fear, which one would normally be conditioned to feel as unpleasant. Though without these negative and unwanted emotions, one wouldn't be able to feel the contrast of happiness. Without a reason to be happier most people would become depressed anyway.

[ichliebekase]

Everyone has all these in depth answers as to what happiness is. The scientific terms, the speeches, is all of that what happiness is?

Personally, happiness is something that cannot be described, because it is different for each and every one of us. Killing Jews made Hitler happy, but it doesn't make a lot of Jews happy. My dog makes me happy, but maybe some others don't like dogs.

Happiness is an indescribable feeling :]

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

My mind interprets things, yes, but does it not matter that in the vast majority of situations when someone experiences physical pain, it interprets it as dissatisfaction? The fact that we can experience pain differently doesn't change the fact that it appears to mainly exist outside of a happiness model.

Of course the vast majority is dissatisfactory. The original purpose of pain is to be dissatisfactory, I already said that. Still, the fact that is not always is a simple proof that pain is not evil incarnate, it's just a feeling that gives a dissatisfactory answer most of the time.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If you think pain is only intensified because of negative meanings, then why would people have chronic pain when there's nothing really dangerous about what's giving them pain, when they full-well know that its really just benign?
Those pain neurons don't give excessive pain, they just act regularly.

That "only" was actually misinterpreted... I didn't say that meaning is the only thing that intensifies pain, it was just to emphasize that negative meanings do nothing but intensify the dissatisfaction of pain.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

The whole point of that biology was to say that those neurons don't ever give you anything BUT pain, and that they are 100% connected to dissatisfaction and the brain regions involved with it, as compared to other types sensory receptors which aren't. It is not a question of excess with them. To your mind it might feel like excessive cold or hot, but we've actually switched which neurons are responding to the hot and cold. Pain is not something we perceive from regular neurons that are firing at excessively slow or fast speeds.

100% connected with dissatisfaction?
The myriad examples I've shown have disproved that long ago. The physical feeling considered painful and dissatisfaction are not the same thing.

Change of neurons? Yeah, of course the answer changes, but it's still not the same as pain. Excessive hot or cold can be painful, but just feeling hot and sweaty can be extremely uncomfortable and not "painful" in and of itself. Having your nose filled with mucus is not painful, but it's extremely annoying because it interrupts your breathing.


You keep saying that pain is bad and stuff, but you've never actually refuted my argument that people no longer suffer from pain when they forget about comfort.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

As to your last few paragraphs, this is where we differ. If a fetus that has just become into a state of being such that they had never experienced anything yet, and the very first thing it experiences is something that would usually be pain, I think they would find it painful. Much in the same way that if you give an infant anything bitter tasting, they will make a face of disgust, but yet seem to love anything sweet.

Probably, because these models are actually genetically based. That was more of a philosophical question. You'd have to try to forget every positive model to understand it.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If I didn't have to worry about survival or comfort, I could see myself getting an intense negative feeling of frustration and unhappiness over my existence, quite contrary to being happy about it. I could also perhaps be happy though too, it would really depend on my mood. Perhaps this is why sad people piss you off, because you don't understand just how deep-rooted it can be.

You misinterpreted again.
I meant you didn't have to worry about these things given that you've never felt anything before, not that you actually lived a normal life with these feelings.



Why do you think I insist so much on this "bad is lack of good" thing?
Well, the answer is pretty simple: everything can be well described with it.

Suffering is clearly the polar opposite of satisfaction, why would there need to be a separate entity for it if it can simply exist due to the lack of satisfaction? If there are so many examples where sadness is clearly caused by the lack of a certain loved thing, or several liked things, why would it also appear out of nowhere as something entirely independent?
There are several cases in which dissatisfaction is simply nonexistent when there was no experience of the satisfactory experience related to it (that is, the satisfactory thing need to be experienced first).

I have to say it again: the fact that you don't always know the reason of your sadness doesn't mean that there's no reason for it.

[Spenner]

Originally Posted by kommisar

I'd attribute happiness as an absence of fear, which one would normally be conditioned to feel as unpleasant.

Not necessarily. Think of being at the base of a roller coaster that looks REALLY scary, yet you're a roller coaster person nevertheless. The element of fear is part of the excitement, which makes most people happy.

Anticipation related fear can be the prelude to happiness, just as easily to more elaborated fear. Proposing. Beforehand, you're optimistic, "happy", If she says yes, it's a big shot with the happy hammer. If no, well, yeah.

I try not to define my emotions, as they're so diverse, and sometimes very interchangeable. For me personally, happiness is comfort and numbness without any depressive feelings alongside. With them... it's only half happy.

[kommisar]

By fear I meant the obsessive feeling of melancholy, not the thrill

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

"Suffering is clearly the polar opposite of satisfaction, why would there need to be a separate entity for it if it can simply exist due to the lack of satisfaction? If there are so many examples where sadness is clearly caused by the lack of a certain loved thing, or several liked things, why would it also appear out of nowhere as something entirely independent?"

Because suffering and happiness come in many forms. Not all unhappiness is restricted to sadness. There exists anger, sadness, longing, bitterness, hatred, disappointment, despair, etc. Not all of these have clear polar opposites. The only polar opposites we seem to have are satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and I wouldn't even call 'dissatisfaction' an emotion. If we only had satisfaction/happiness as defining where those emotions come from, then how on earth do we differentiate these feelings, and why do we have different ones? The negative emotions I listed are all very different and separate entities to me, and they do not have opposite positive feelings that I can think of, and I can't see how they could exist using opposites.

Furthermore, I could take your quote and flip it and say that satisfaction exists only because disatisfaction does, and have the same outcome as you do. In fact, I would say that that makes more sense, since I can identify more distinct negative emotions than positive ones. It is definitely possible to have 1 emotion (happiness) be the opposite of many pre-existing ones.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

"I meant you didn't have to worry about these things given that you've never felt anything before, not that you actually lived a normal life with these feelings."

Fine then, you would by neutral. Evolutionarily speaking, this makes way more sense too. To have a state of 'something' as our standard means it takes energy and effort to achieve it. It seems highly unlikely that we would have evolved such a state as our standby.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

That "only" was actually misinterpreted... I didn't say that meaning is the only thing that intensifies pain, it was just to emphasize that negative meanings do nothing but intensify the dissatisfaction of pain."

But if you say that those aren't the only things that cause pain, then logically your theory is wrong. The very fact that there exists something whose purpose is to bring about dissatisfaction, and which does so irrelevant of other comparisons, proves that happiness is not necessary.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

You keep saying that pain is bad and stuff, but you've never actually refuted my argument that people no longer suffer from pain when they forget about comfort.

But I have addressed it. People no longer suffer from pain when they ignore it. If that involves you forgetting about comfort, so be it. I can ignore pain by just focusing on something else too though, so I'm not sure what you want me to address here. I can also ignore happiness and sadness and other emotions too. I find this point irrelevant to refuting your theory.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

100% connected with dissatisfaction?
The myriad examples I've shown have disproved that long ago. The physical feeling considered painful and dissatisfaction are not the same thing."

Right, I didn't say pain = dissatisfaction. Pain is always dissatisfaction, and I will point to the paragraph I wrote in my previous post that explains why, despite it being pleasurable sometimes, and sometimes it is not very painful. I never once said dissatisfaction is always pain, nor did I imply it. You interpreted that yourself.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Probably, because these models are actually genetically based. That was more of a philosophical question. You'd have to try to forget every positive model to understand it."

Come again? There's more than 1 interpretation of what you've said here, and even if its the one I think it is, I'm still not sure why you're not using the idea that a human could come into being knowing pain as concrete evidence against your theory.

[G.S.M]

Originally Posted by Magooskie

Happiness.
Listening to music and socializing. That's when I'm happy.

Yes... same with me.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Because suffering and happiness come in many forms. Not all unhappiness is restricted to sadness. There exists anger, sadness, longing, bitterness, hatred, disappointment, despair, etc. Not all of these have clear polar opposites. The only polar opposites we seem to have are satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and I wouldn't even call 'dissatisfaction' an emotion. If we only had satisfaction/happiness as defining where those emotions come from, then how on earth do we differentiate these feelings, and why do we have different ones? The negative emotions I listed are all very different and separate entities to me, and they do not have opposite positive feelings that I can think of, and I can't see how they could exist using opposites.

All of these feelings are derived from satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Anger: you want to destroy something that dissatisfies you.
Sadness: the opposite of happiness, which is also the same as dissatisfaction, but refers to the more intense type.
Longing: you want something satisfactory and don't have it.
Bitterness: not very simple to define, but I see it like this: due to a strong dissatisfaction, you tend to become less trusting and less sentitive to good things, in order to protect yourself and avoid dissatisfaction.
Hatred: this feeling only exists when something somehow opposes what you love. Love (not necessarily romantic) is what you feel towards something extremely satisfactory.
Disappointment: something doesn't live up to your expectations, and that is dissatisfactory.
Despair: see sadness above.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Furthermore, I could take your quote and flip it and say that satisfaction exists only because disatisfaction does, and have the same outcome as you do. In fact, I would say that that makes more sense, since I can identify more distinct negative emotions than positive ones. It is definitely possible to have 1 emotion (happiness) be the opposite of many pre-existing ones.

That argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I already explained this: models, which determine both good and bad things, are defined by the experience of good things.

The number of distinct negative feelings is irrelevant. There are many positive feelings as well: Pride, joy, relief, humor, etc.
They're all derived from satisfaction. The only difference is the cause.

I sincerely don't know what else to say about that. Satisfaction is a clear entity, and every negative feeling is it's clear lack. I used the pain/comfort example, but nothing seems to work for you.

But if you say that those aren't the only things that cause pain, then logically your theory is wrong. The very fact that there exists something whose purpose is to bring about dissatisfaction, and which does so irrelevant of other comparisons, proves that happiness is not necessary.

NO.
Dissatisfaction and satisfaction exist in two possible forms: Models and meanings.
I said that not only meanings cause dissatisfaction, because I had already explained that the deviation of a model is the primary cause.
E.G: you feel a certain light pressure in your ear which means that your mother is going to die in a few seconds. The meaning is negative, but the feeling doesn't really deviate from any model.

But I have addressed it. People no longer suffer from pain when they ignore it. If that involves you forgetting about comfort, so be it. I can ignore pain by just focusing on something else too though, so I'm not sure what you want me to address here. I can also ignore happiness and sadness and other emotions too. I find this point irrelevant to refuting your theory.

WHAT?
People no longer suffer from pain when they forget about comfort. That's not just "ignoring" pain by focusing on something else, that's nullifying the primary cause of pain itself. There is a clear relation between pain and comfort, here, it's not just about focusing on a random thing.
Perhaps the fact that this same thought can turn pain into something pleasurable means something.

Right, I didn't say pain = dissatisfaction. Pain is always dissatisfaction, and I will point to the paragraph I wrote in my previous post that explains why, despite it being pleasurable sometimes, and sometimes it is not very painful. I never once said dissatisfaction is always pain, nor did I imply it. You interpreted that yourself.

That's a paradox. If pain is pleasurable sometimes, it's evidently NOT always dissatisfaction. Pleasure and satisfaction are the same.

Come again? There's more than 1 interpretation of what you've said here, and even if its the one I think it is, I'm still not sure why you're not using the idea that a human could come into being knowing pain as concrete evidence against your theory.

You cannot treat a baby as someone who has never experienced anything. It has been in a nearly perfectly comfortable position for about 9 months. So it's perfectly capable of feeling dissatisfaction.
My point was that you cannot treat a baby as the perfectly ideal being who never experienced anything, since it clearly did.
Models are genetically based, because that's what determine the ideal quantities of things in a comfortable situation. Still, the baby needs some experience of comfort to feel dissatisfaction.

[Without A Contraceptive]

happiness is never having to say youre sorry

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by Without A Contraceptive

happiness is never having to say youre sorry

Haha this is kind of what I think - happiness is when you don't have to care so much.

For example, not having to care about whether there's a heaven or hell. I don't care about faith in religion, and I don't think about being an atheist either - I just live my life without needing to label myself or fall into a certain group.

Happiness in my eyes is also being able to compete but at the same time be reasonable, and being able to receive decent responses/answers to the questions you ask.

[Cavernio]

"I sincerely don't know what else to say about that. Satisfaction is a clear entity, and every negative feeling is it's clear lack"

To you maybe, but you show no proof, and I've already cited examples that weren't, which you simply slough off as not being true, or being incorrect, due to the fact that it doesn't fit your model. If you cannot accept that your model is equally valid in the opposite direction (seeing as you think there are as many separate negative emotions as there are positive ones), then you clearly are delusional, apparently because its obvious that merely existing is pleasurable.

"People no longer suffer from pain when they forget about comfort. That's not just "ignoring" pain by focusing on something else, that's nullifying the primary cause of pain itself. There is a clear relation between pain and comfort, here, it's not just about focusing on a random thing."

Umm....and how would you simply ignore comfort without having something else to take its place? I mean, even if we're on the same page here, we're clearly not, because you are saying that its NECESSARILY not focussing on comfort to reduce pain, which again, you do not prove in any way shape, or form, but rather just say that that's how the model works.

"That's a paradox. If pain is pleasurable sometimes, it's evidently NOT always dissatisfaction. Pleasure and satisfaction are the same"

If you had actually bothered to read what I said earlier, then you will see that I say when pain becomes pleasurable, the pain is still painful, and there's still pleasure. Like if you get turned on by being in pain. The pain is still painful, even if you are getting other satisfaction out of it. Also, PAIN is always painful. If its not, then ITS NOT PAIN.
Besides which, you are AGAIN ignoring what I'm saying and completely NOT PAYING ATTENTION to what I'm trying to refute here. I am not arguing that there's not a dichotomy to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but rather that this dichotomy is not necessary for dissatisfaction to exist, and I'm using physical pain as the counterexample. 1 counterexample is all I need to prove you wrong.

"You cannot treat a baby as someone who has never experienced anything. It has been in a nearly perfectly comfortable position for about 9 months. So it's perfectly capable of feeling dissatisfaction."

Right, well next time don't equate 'fetus that has yet to experience anything' to mean 'baby'. And again, you're simply saying how your model works, not proving anything. If you're allowed to ask such hypothetical questions 'if you can forget about everything, wouldn't you be in satisfaction?', then I'm allowed to ask 'what if a fetus were to experience pain first thing'.

Not everything we experience only has 1 side to something. My idea of how satisfaction and dissatisfaction work would be closer to something like how we see color rather than how we experience brightness. We possess a few receptors for seeing 3 different colors. From that, we get a whole multitude of colors. However there are still opposites in colors. Even though red and green are opposites, doesn't mean that yellow and blue don't exist. And although you could argue that perhaps you only need to see either yellow or blue in order for the other one to exist, its perposterous to claim that you see blue ONLY because you've seen yellow before, without saying that it might be that you see yellow ONLY because you've seen blue.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

To you maybe, but you show no proof, and I've already cited examples that weren't, which you simply slough off as not being true, or being incorrect, due to the fact that it doesn't fit your model. If you cannot accept that your model is equally valid in the opposite direction (seeing as you think there are as many separate negative emotions as there are positive ones), then you clearly are delusional, apparently because its obvious that merely existing is pleasurable.

The first line of that paragraph is exactly how I feel about you.

What are you talking about? You mentioned a bunch of negative feelings and I defined all of them within the scope of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The different number of "feelings" is actually the different number of possible causes for dissatisfaction/satisfaction, which is innumerable for both sides.

Delusional?
I've shown so many examples about the model thing and how they do not work for negative things... But I just can't prove it for you. You have to try to apply the same logic for everything. or you'll never understand why it makes sense to me.

Umm....and how would you simply ignore comfort without having something else to take its place? I mean, even if we're on the same page here, we're clearly not, because you are saying that its NECESSARILY not focussing on comfort to reduce pain, which again, you do not prove in any way shape, or form, but rather just say that that's how the model works.

If you actually TRIED this instead of speculating, you'd know what I'm talking about. The fact that you have no satisfactory physical situation to compare the painful situation to automatically nullifies the dissatisfaction of the situation. I know that because I've experienced it. Simply focusing on something else doesn't have the same effect, it's much less effective.

If you had actually bothered to read what I said earlier, then you will see that I say when pain becomes pleasurable, the pain is still painful, and there's still pleasure. Like if you get turned on by being in pain. The pain is still painful, even if you are getting other satisfaction out of it. Also, PAIN is always painful. If its not, then ITS NOT PAIN.
Besides which, you are AGAIN ignoring what I'm saying and completely NOT PAYING ATTENTION to what I'm trying to refute here. I am not arguing that there's not a dichotomy to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but rather that this dichotomy is not necessary for dissatisfaction to exist, and I'm using physical pain as the counterexample. 1 counterexample is all I need to prove you wrong.

I did bother to read what you've said earlier, and it doesn't change the fact that you said something incoherent.
Pain is obviously always painful, meaning it's always an intense physical feeling that is normally dissatisfactory. However, pain is not always DISSATISFACTORY. It's obvious, because I've been in many situations in which physical pain (only the physical feeling) was not unpleasant. That automatically disqualifies pain as a purely evil thing. Doesn't it? Especially when you consider my other paragraph above, where I repeat something that was supposed to have ended this pain issue long ago.

Right, well next time don't equate 'fetus that has yet to experience anything' to mean 'baby'. And again, you're simply saying how your model works, not proving anything. If you're allowed to ask such hypothetical questions 'if you can forget about everything, wouldn't you be in satisfaction?', then I'm allowed to ask 'what if a fetus were to experience pain first thing'.

Not everything we experience only has 1 side to something. My idea of how satisfaction and dissatisfaction work would be closer to something like how we see color rather than how we experience brightness. We possess a few receptors for seeing 3 different colors. From that, we get a whole multitude of colors. However there are still opposites in colors. Even though red and green are opposites, doesn't mean that yellow and blue don't exist. And although you could argue that perhaps you only need to see either yellow or blue in order for the other one to exist, its perposterous to claim that you see blue ONLY because you've seen yellow before, without saying that it might be that you see yellow ONLY because you've seen blue.

Fine, that's how you see it. However, the way I see it is more coherent with what I've experienced and thought about for many years: satisfaction and dissatisfaction are polar opposites like light and darkness. Even though it's possible to feel both at the same time, it's due to different causes. And I'm certainly not an idiot, delusional or whatever.

[Cavernio]

It just doesn't make any sense that all negative feelings are always clear lacks of something when we clearly have receptors in our bodies for somethings which are usually negative, like pain and bitterness. Those are something, they are not nothing. The fact that they can become pleasant is irrelevant to the fact that they are something.

And it also doesn't make sense that you're not considering what 'neutrality' is in all this. If you think it exists, then why do you not consider that we are using this as a comparison?

If they are polar opposites, then why is it even possible to feel more than 1 feeling at a time? We don't see light and dark at the same time.

Have you ever read anything about expectation being the cause of happiness and unhappiness?

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

It just doesn't make any sense that all negative feelings are always clear lacks of something when we clearly have receptors in our bodies for somethings which are usually negative, like pain and bitterness. Those are something, they are not nothing. The fact that they can become pleasant is irrelevant to the fact that they are something.

On the contrary. The fact that these somethings are generally bad but can be neutral or good is automatic proof that they are not inherently evil. Evil is an interpretation of these feelings, but not a part of them.

Do you understand? I'm not saying that dissatisfaction is something that comes with void. It's actually something that comes with feelings that deviate from the good ones. It doesn't mean that these feelings aren't something, only that dissatisfaction comes from contrast. These feelings are not dissatisfaction itself, they're only interpreted as dissatisfactory.

Just thought of another (real) example: yesterday I woke up with a really annoying pain in the left of my neck. the pain itself is not very strong, but it disturbs me when I move my neck forward and feel nothing on the right side. I'd rather feel pain on both sides or no pain at all than just feel pain in only one side. (yeah, I have this weird thing. I feel unbalanced when there's something in one side of my body but not the other)
The thing here is that the main dissatisfaction comes from something other than the pain. It's just purely a notion of comfort not being satisfied.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

And it also doesn't make sense that you're not considering what 'neutrality' is in all this. If you think it exists, then why do you not consider that we are using this as a comparison?

Sorry... I didn't really understand what you meant here.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If they are polar opposites, then why is it even possible to feel more than 1 feeling at a time? We don't see light and dark at the same time.

You can still look at a lit room with shadows, so, yeah, we can see light and dark at the same time.

Similarly, it's possible to feel good and bad at the same time, but for different reasons.

Have you ever read anything about expectation being the cause of happiness and unhappiness?

Maybe.

[Cavernio]

Why can someone neither feel neither satisfaction or dissatisfaction with your theory? Explain how can someone ever feel neutral using your theory.
The biggest crux with your theory is that in order for it to be valid you must assume that the very first thing you experience will always be positive, and that mere existence is comfortable, something unprovable one way or the other. (I say that you say mere existence must be comfortable because to say so is the only way it invalidates the idea that pain is painful irrelevant of previous experiences of comfort.) If something like this is the case, then how would it be possible to ever reach a state of neutrality? If comfort just exists, like brightness existing, how do we ever reach neutral feelings, since neutral 'brightness' doesn't exist.