|
|
I subscribe to Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious.I'm interested to know what objective meaning you believe spirituality imparts on the world because I have a very hard time seeing how something you propose doesn't just push the "problem" of no meaning one step further without eliminating it.
You see, what makes the Universe subjective (and gives life no meaning) is the fact that everything is Deterministic, or determined only by cause and effect. Choice doesn't exist in this Universe because everything that has ever happened was basically the result of a chemical reaction or a cosmic accident, even my "decision" to type this to you right now.
If you actually believed this (which I don't think anyone besides Nihilists do) then you would have no logical reason to do anything. Nothing is your choice and even debates are a pointless excercise. Imagine two bottles of pop - one of Mountain Dew and the other of Dr. Pepper. You put them both on a table and shake them up, then take the tops off. When they fizz all over the place because of the chemical reaction, it's really no different than the conversation we're having right now. It's just two chemical reactions reacting to each other.
If you actually believed this, you'd have to be a Nihilist - because why would anything actually matter? Which is why I say, people who assign meaning to life aren't Determinists, they just claim to be because they think it's the most intellectually honest position (jumping on the bandwagon). Unfortunately, it's not.
Anyway, back to the point, free choice can only exist when there's an objective standard by which to measure any given decision. If there is a spiritual dimension which is shared by all human beings (a collective base of knowledge), then all of our decisions are influenced by this - thus giving us a choice in any matter. When you have choice, you have meaning. When you have meaning, you have happiness. I think there are compelling reasons to believe in Spirituality, but someone who views the world from a completely Skeptical/Naturalistic viewpoint has inherent biases which prevent them from believing anything that can't be concretely proven with physical evidence. Unless of course, it's that the entire Universe, which we know so little about, is Deterministic, which they'll happily believe because it fits their worldview.
I admit that spirituality could not exist, and that free will (and meaning) could be an illusion, but I think that makes my world view more intellectually honest than Scientific Elitism, because I at least admit the strong possibility that I could be wrong (this problem is inherent in all worldviews).
I suppose the gravity of creating a person strikes me a little differently. The entire process is kind of terrifying. It feels as if the decision to bring a person into the world shouldn't be up to me - hell, what do I know? I can't know what that person will want, its mental needs, whether it will have problems. Procreation is strictly out as an option for me.Originally Posted by Apostate
Even if I bite the apple, I'm still going to want to know why it tastes the way it does. :PI'm very supportive of your pursuit of truth Beany, but be careful not to get too "heady" about it. To learn the truth of how an apple tastes, you can't think about it. You just bite into one.
I can assure you that I will never want to procreate. If I do have kids, it will be as I said.. through adoption. I think it's kind of strange to bring another person into the world when there's other kids out there who want and need a home and should be just as good a kid as any other. That's just my choice.
But, as for those who say they never want kids... better to hold that position and change your mind later in life than the other way around, yes?
I think, to some extent, this shows a weakness of ethics and maybe illuminates some absurdities.. if we always choose the choice that reduces suffering, are we really living? It seems that there's a balance to strike or a threshold to meet. Suffering isn't meaningless and absolutely negative. Nothing in life seems absolutely black or white.
There are things that seem inexplicable to science rather than simply unexplained.. they feel outside the realm of physicality. You seem to have the same sort of ontological views as I do, but I'd like to put some pressure on them anyway. In completely physical terms, can you describe to me the sound of a wave crashing?
As I read it, your argument is as follows:
1. Free will cannot exist without an objective standard.
(this is the 'objective morality can only come from god' argument that William Lane Craig et all put forward)
2. If free will does not exist then meaning cannot exist.
3. If meaning does not exist then happiness cannot exist.
4. I want to be happy, therefore I must believe in an objective standard of morality.
In other words, what it boils down to is, "I believe that this is true because if it were false I would be unhappy."
I think this is a very common reason for people's belief in <god / life after death / karma / whatever> but you must grant that simply wishing something to be true, or finding comfort in it, does not in any way make it so. Believe in whatever you like if it helps you get through the day, just don't claim its anything other than a safety blanket.
Oh and yes, of course any (or all!) of us could be wrong, that should rather go without saying. Personally however, I find that there is little point in not arguing for one's position based on the supposition that one is correct.If you're not reasonably sure of yourself, what hope have you of convincing others?
That doesn't mean anything. It would be rather difficult to explain quantum theory to the passengers of the Mayflower, but that doesn't mean anything either. Likewise, whether he can or cannot describe the sound of a wave crashing has absolutely zero bearing on whether crashing waves are a supernatural phenomena.
As we move along the finite timeline of human existence, we continue to remove things from the 'unexplained' basket and eventually put them in the 'understood' basket. The temptation to shortcut this process by moving things from the unexplained basket into a third basket, variously named but which I shall simply call 'magic' has always been there, but has never managed to retain a single item of content under scientific scrutiny. You can't prove a negative, of course, but you can look at the thousands of years of evidence and say you have a fairly good guess at the truth.
Last edited by Dominare; 06-24-2012 at 06:28 AM.
Accident I can't agree with. After all, if I'm right, nothing else could have happened.
I had no idea there was a bandwagon nor does it affect me, my deterministic viewpoint is very much the result of an individual process. I also never said that I couldn't be wrong, one can always be wrong. Ranging from simple to quite elaborate reasons, some knowable, some not.
Assigning meaning to ones life is not incompatible with determinism, not by any means. I know that this ride started and I know that it will end but the part inbetween is just as much a mystery even if i believe it is predetermined. I like life, so I will live. I will find things meaningful just by virtue of being human, I acknowledge that there is no universal meaning to it but I can enjoy it anyway.
An objective standard does not result in free will. It results in what ought to be but the processes that leads to what will be can be completely deterministic anyway. The mechanisms of drawing upon this base, the mechanisms of influence, of decision, nothing you mentioned is inherently indeterministic. What, in this worldview, do you see as intrinsically indeterministic?
It seems indeed like pushing things one step further, the spiritual realm must still be explained and shown atleast indirectly otherwise what grounds do I have to believe in it?
no, I can't. Something like that is immensely complex if one wants a definitive explanation. I have no problem with this since if it turns out it actually can't be explained like so (which I do very much doubt) I will subscribe to the new and better explanation instead. The problem with the spiritual explanation the way I see it is that it does nothing but explain. If it isn't predictive in any sense then I can see no merit to it, just another ad hoc theory.
That's assuming that everything we do is dictated by logic, which is untrue. The multitude of things that we do are motivated by physical needs or societal pressure. Living is just what we do, logic would be needed to give us a reason to stop living but any such reason would conflict with our base nature. That's not a case for some transcendental spiritual dimension, it's just an interaction of biology and society.
Precisely right, I see no evidence to the contrary.
Objectively? Nothing matters.
The thing is, we are downright incapable of thinking objectively with any real consistency. A human mind percieves the world entirely subjectively. We can realise that everything is dictated by causality, but we can't really shift our perception of reality accordingly so that realisation fades into the background with the continuous influx from our senses, emotions and other thoughts. If we were able to hold on to that realisation then nihilism might very well be the result, but true nihilists are generally weeded out by survival of the fittest, which is probably why our minds are so averse to true nihilism.
Following an "[instert random word]+ism" is like following a hero guide for Heroes of Newerth, it will never work in every situation. Everything in HoN (and life) is situational and what is best to do in a certain situation is never set in stone because the setting is defined my probably infinite amounts of variables.
It's like solving a chaotic differential equation, it isn't possible to write a complete guide to how to win IRL. Same as there isn't a complete guide to win pub games, etc etc.
So what I'm saying is, stop trying. =) It doesn't do anyone good to try and force isms on people, other than yourself and whatever income you might get from memberships (if your ism swings that way).
But we in the NWO have always known this, isms are meant to contain population, lately they have started to fail however, less religious wars nowadays etc.
Stats are like women in bikinis, they are interesting to look at however they don't show you everything.
Disagree on point 4. I don't believe it because I want it to be true, I believe it because I find that there's a lot of evidence for it.As I read it, your argument is as follows:
1. Free will cannot exist without an objective standard.
(this is the 'objective morality can only come from god' argument that William Lane Craig et all put forward)
2. If free will does not exist then meaning cannot exist.
3. If meaning does not exist then happiness cannot exist.
4. I want to be happy, therefore I must believe in an objective standard of morality.
In other words, what it boils down to is, "I believe that this is true because if it were false I would be unhappy."
I think this is a very common reason for people's belief in <god / life after death / karma / whatever> but you must grant that simply wishing something to be true, or finding comfort in it, does not in any way make it so. Believe in whatever you like if it helps you get through the day, just don't claim its anything other than a safety blanket.
As an example, if we really are JUST creatures of Evolution and Natural Selection, then the survival instinct should still be our most powerful guiding force, because it is at the core of every animal of nature. Shouldn't human beings be motivated by our uncontrollable and natural urges to survive at all costs?
Correct - yes. Okay, then explain why there are so many suicides? No other animal in nature commits suicide, yet thousands of humans do it on a daily basis. This goes against everything that Natural Selection teaches - no animal with a powerful survival instinct that we evolved with would commit suicide.
Secondly, we do many things which we consciously know are dangerous for our health. Smoking is horrible for your health and everybody knows it. Eating too much food causes obesity and heart attacks. Drinking too much alcohol can cause liver failure etc. As a society, we make all KINDS of decisions that go against our natural instincts. Now if was true that we have no control over our decisions, this doesn't make any sense. Our survival instinct should be, as explained by Natural Selection, our most powerful instinct, so we should never do something to put our own lives in danger unless it is absolutely necessary for survival.
This doesn't mean, of course, that I don't accept Darwinian Natural Selection, I just think there's another aspect of human beings (Spirituality) outside of that.
As Beany has mentioned before, all intellectual knowledge must first start with a presupposition. You make a presupposition, then you see if your worldview is logically coherent after that. If your worldview isn't logically coherent, you change your presupposition(s).
My presupposition is Dualism, or that Spirituality exists alongside the natural world. If my presuppositions are true, I would expect to see:
1. Many human practicing Spirituality, or claiming it to be an important part of their lives.
2. Many people having spiritual experiences and experiences that can't be easily explained by Science.
3. Spirituality being necessary in order to live a happy life (just like food is in the natural world). I've found that this is true.
4. The corruption of Spirituality. Anything that exists, such as technology or government can be twisted or corrupted by people. In fact, you would EXPECT anything that exists to be corrupted. Which is why religion, which is the corruption of spirituality, seems to make it more plausible.
5. Meditation, which is one of the most spiritual activities you can do, is shown to have a very positive effect.
6. Many spiritual leaders throughout the ages would appear to lead humanity - Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, etc.
7. Proof that human consciousness isn't completely dependent on the physical brain. With all the evidence of near-death experiences, in which many cases the person's brain activity was flatlined, yet the still saw and heard things around them, I think there is overwhelming evidence for this.
I think all of these things are more properly explained in Dualism than in pure Naturalism/Determinism whose explanations for these things seem weak to me. Of course I respect a Naturalist's desire to have physical evidence to believe anything, but once again, these people are being intellectually dishonest in their worldview. If you need physical evidence to believe anything, then you can never fall in love, since there's no way to physically prove someone loves you or vice versa. If you're willing to suspend your need for evidence in this scenario (and take it on "faith"), then you're not a true Skeptic (or at least not an intellectually honest one).
Assigning meaning to one's life is intellectually incompatible with Determinism. Chemical reactions having chemical reactions can't assign meaning. If you are assigning meaning, it's an illusion. You must recognize that any meaning is an illusion that you had no choice in making. Now you may make the argument that you can still be emotionally satisfied while believing in Determinism, but only because you're not living your life in an intellectually honest way.Assigning meaning to ones life is not incompatible with determinism, not by any means. I know that this ride started and I know that it will end but the part inbetween is just as much a mystery even if i believe it is predetermined. I like life, so I will live. I will find things meaningful just by virtue of being human, I acknowledge that there is no universal meaning to it but I can enjoy it anyway.
Well this is fine, as long as you are content to live an intellectually dishonest life. Personally, I'm not. If I really believed Determinism were true, I would rather be a Nihilist than convince myself life has meaning just to make it easier on myself.That's assuming that everything we do is dictated by logic, which is untrue. The multitude of things that we do are motivated by physical needs or societal pressure. Living is just what we do, logic would be needed to give us a reason to stop living but any such reason would conflict with our base nature. That's not a case for some transcendental spiritual dimension, it's just an interaction of biology and society.
I am reasonably sure of myself, that doesn't mean I don't like sharing my view with others. I don't hope to convince anybody, I just like talking about it. It's good to have discussion on topics like these, I think it's important.Oh and yes, of course any (or all!) of us could be wrong, that should rather go without saying. Personally however, I find that there is little point in not arguing for one's position based on the supposition that one is correct. If you're not reasonably sure of yourself, what hope have you of convincing others?
Last edited by Hat_Truck; 06-24-2012 at 10:52 AM.
All those examples hijack our natural instincts, actually, they don't oppose them. We are simply too crafty as a species.
I will also point out that the strongest problem with dualism is there is the brain. As far as we can tell, the brain is responsible for almost all thought activity. We have good reason to believe this. A good example is when you drink and become drunk - you feel as if you're drunk, not as if your body is drunk. If this is the case, then how does the alcohol make your spirit drunk? We understand how it affects the brain, but then how does the brain translate this drunkenness to the soul? And we know that our body is controlled by the brain, so how does the soul relay actions to the brain? There isn't an understood mechanism for doing this, leaving us with an unaddressed objection to dualism.
It's not just that it's complex, it's that it cannot be explained in any physical terms that we will find satisfying. I'll quote an essay by Daniel Dennett.
In that essay, he argues that qualia or the sensations of feeling are illusory. He brought up many interesting points, but I don't think he entirely made the case. I agree, I'd prefer a better explanation which is why I reject spiritualism. But it's good to keep in mind the problems with the current model. Consciousness is a hard thing to address in strict deterministic physicalism, and it may require additional ideas to capture it.Suppose, in intuition pump #13: the osprey cry, that I have never heard the cry of an osprey, even in a recording, but know roughly, from reading my bird books, what to listen for: "a series of short, sharp, cheeping whistles, cheep, cheep or chewk chewk, etc; sounds annoyed." (Peterson, 1947) (or words to that effect or better). The verbal description gives me a partial confinement of the logical space of possible bird cries. On its basis I can rule out many bird calls I have heard or might hear, but there is still a broad range of discriminable-by-me possibilities within which the actuality lies hidden from me like a needle in a haystack.
Then one day, armed with both my verbal description and my binoculars, I identify an osprey visually, and then hear its cry. So that's what it sounds like, I say to myself, ostending--it seems--a particular mental complex of intrinsic, ineffable qualia. I dub the complex "S" (pace Wittgenstein), rehearse it in short term memory, check it against the bird book descriptions, and see that while the verbal descriptions are true, accuurate and even poetically evocative--I decide I could not do better with a thousand words--they still fall short of capturing the qualia-complex I have called S. In fact, that is why I need the neologisim, "S", to refer directly to the ineffable property I cannot pick out by description. My perceptual experience has pinpointed for me the location of the osprey cry in the logical space of possibilities in a way verbal description could not.
But you're not understanding - I'm drawing a difference between the unexplained and the inexplicable. Science, it would seem, will never be able to tell us why red looks red or why pain feels the way it does. The question is, however, whether or not this is knowledge. I am not trying to invoke magic, or explain anything. I am identifying a phenomenon that is inexplicable in the current ontological framework of science (physicalism).
You can't just look at one piece of evidence (like the effect of alcohol on the brain/body) without looking at everything else. Near-death experiences are just as much an indication to the contrary, and if I only looked that the tens of millions of reported cases of these around the world, I could draw the exact opposite conclusion that you have.I will also point out that the strongest problem with dualism is there is the brain. As far as we can tell, the brain is responsible for almost all thought activity. We have good reason to believe this. A good example is when you drink and become drunk - you feel as if you're drunk, not as if your body is drunk. If this is the case, then how does the alcohol make your spirit drunk? We understand how it affects the brain, but then how does the brain translate this drunkenness to the soul? And we know that our body is controlled by the brain, so how does the soul relay actions to the brain? There isn't an understood mechanism for doing this, leaving us with an unaddressed objection to dualism.
If we were only to look at one planet, or even one galaxy, we would probably have no indication that "dark matter" even exists. But when you look at the entire picture, and see how the gravitation pull of planets and galaxies should be affecting each other, you start to realize that there is an invisible, undetectable force at work. I claim that spirituality is no different.
If you were to tell a Scientist, even ten years ago, that there was an invisible force in the Universe that pulled the planets and galaxies together, they would have looked at you like you were crazy. Now, it's pretty commonly accepted among the Scientific community. In my opinion, the reason spirituality isn't as accepted as that, is because there are so many more factors involved.
When you look out into space, and see that the gravitational calculations of planets aren't the way they should be - it's pretty obvious that there's only one other conclusion - a force that we can't detect.
However, when you look at human behavior, and see the wealth of reports of group hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, spiritual experiences, seeing dead people, seeing spirits, etc. it's much harder to pinpoint the cause because there are so many more options. It could be cultural, it could be biological, it could be chemical, it could be psychological, or there could be an invisible force involved.
Now Scientifically minded people will ALWAYS choose the invisible force last, because it seems the least plausible. I can respect this, but when you examine all the other options, I think this is still the best explanation. How does the saying go, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth."?
I don't think we can explain all of these phenomena with natural causes, even though many have and continue to try. However, religious and spiritual people have appeared in all cultures since the dawn of recorded history, giving explanations to all of these phenonema, long predating modern Science.
Asking how alcohol affects the soul does not disprove spirituality, any more than asking how blowing up a planet with the Deathstar would affect dark matter. It's almost impossible to tell.
I mean it could turn out that there were good natural explanations for all human behavior and it could turn out that there is no dark matter, we just didn't understand gravity well enough, but until that time, I still think an invisible force is the best explanation.
It's absolutely knowledge. More than knowledge, it's a way of understanding. Beany, you can give a computer all the knowledge in the world, but if it never understands that knowledge, it's just a storage facility or a robot. Knowledge without understanding is worthless.But you're not understanding - I'm drawing a difference between the unexplained and the inexplicable. Science, it would seem, will never be able to tell us why red looks red or why pain feels the way it does. The question is, however, whether or not this is knowledge. I am not trying to invoke magic, or explain anything. I am identifying a phenomenon that is inexplicable in the current ontological framework of science (physicalism).
As human beings, we have so many different ways of understanding outside of just intellectualism:
You can see a woman.
You can feel a woman.
You can smell a woman.
You can taste a woman.
You can hear a woman.
You can love a woman.
You can know a woman.
(Replace with man where necessary)
All of these things are different ways of understanding a woman. You can't say that they aren't different ways of understanding, you can only say that one way of understanding is more important than another. You seem to make the claim that understanding something intellectually is the most important way of understanding, but I see no reason to accept that. How does understanding something intellectually make it any more true than understanding it with any of your 5 senses? It doesn't. You've arbitrarily chosen intellectual understanding to be more important than the others for some random reason - they are all just as important and different ways of understanding. This is why I say, without understanding spirituality, you're missing a huge part of the human experience.
Last edited by Hat_Truck; 06-24-2012 at 04:05 PM.
And yet, if dark matter is undetectable, how come we've detected it?
Not so, there is many different possible reasons. Dark matter is the most popular one currently, but other possibilities include: the gravitational constant is variable and depends on the mass in the equation - at larger masses it changes dramatically (this is probably the second most popular idea). Another possibility is that there is another variable or value in the equation that is very small on the small scale of gravity, but that begins to effect galaxies on the galactic mass scale. There's probably more possibilities than that, too.When you look out into space, and see that the gravitational calculations of planets aren't the way they should be - it's pretty obvious that there's only one other conclusion - a force that we can't detect.
And this is why I don't believe it.However, when you look at human behavior, and see the wealth of reports of group hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, spiritual experiences, seeing dead people, seeing spirits, etc. it's much harder to pinpoint the cause because there are so many more options. It could be cultural, it could be biological, it could be chemical, it could be psychological, or there could be an invisible force involved.
But it isn't an explanation of anything.. it doesn't explain anything at all. That's why it's not usually considered as an option. Any scientific hypothesis must be so much more vigorously defined and explained to be treated as such. And there's still far too many explanations not entirely eliminated.Now Scientifically minded people will ALWAYS choose the invisible force last, because it seems the least plausible. I can respect this, but when you examine all the other options, I think this is still the best explanation. How does the saying go, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth."?
However, religious and spiritual people don't exactly have a good track record for accuracy.I don't think we can explain all of these phenomena with natural causes, even though many have and continue to try. However, religious and spiritual people have appeared in all cultures since the dawn of recorded history, giving explanations to all of these phenonema, long predating modern Science.
I don't deny we need better understanding, but I'm still holding out for a better explanation. I am satisfied with not having the answer immediately.
We haven't detected it directly, we've detected its effects and by logical inference have concluded that it exists. Similarly, we can't detect spirituality, but by logical inference we can conclude it exists, though a lot of people aren't ready to accept that yet.And yet, if dark matter is undetectable, how come we've detected it?
The same with spirituality. There are tons of possible explanations for strange human phenomena, I just happen to think spirituality is the best explanation.Not so, there is many different possible reasons. Dark matter is the most popular one currently, but other possibilities include: the gravitational constant is variable and depends on the mass in the equation - at larger masses it changes dramatically (this is probably the second most popular idea). Another possibility is that there is another variable or value in the equation that is very small on the small scale of gravity, but that begins to effect galaxies on the galactic mass scale. There's probably more possibilities than that, too.
I agree with you. The same goes for dark matter. Once again, I think spirituality is the best one and will eventually win out.But it isn't an explanation of anything.. it doesn't explain anything at all. That's why it's not usually considered as an option. Any scientific hypothesis must be so much more vigorously defined and explained to be treated as such. And there's still far too many explanations not entirely eliminated.
I could say the same for Scientists ;pHowever, religious and spiritual people don't exactly have a good track record for accuracy.
I think when religious people try to give explanations for physical claims, they fail miserably. Alternatively, when Scientists try to give explanations for non-physical things, it ends miserably as well. In other words, I think we should all keep our day jobs ;p
Me either, but I'm leaning towards spiritualism, and you're leaning towards naturalism. That's fine! Just be true to your word and don't become a Nihilist before you get the answer please.I don't deny we need better understanding, but I'm still holding out for a better explanation. I am satisfied with not having the answer immediately.
Few thoughts :
Depression can be biologically explained. If a member of a species feels like it is not contributing to its societal group, it goes into a state of distress where it loses interest in taking care of itself and in finding a mate. Many species do this. Its an effective
Adaptation that helps make sure the creatures that don't help society die off without procreating. Humans also do this, except we can go a step further because we can conceive of death, and so can commit suicide.
about near death experiences... Ever heard of DMT? Its a chemical found in the body that releases at death, causing profound hallucinations. This results in near death experiences. I have smoked the chemical myself before and experienced what felt like ten years inside my had in ten minutes.
Forum Moderators are not S2 Games employees. My posts in no way represent the view of S2 Games or any of its staff.
Please use the report post functionto have me review a post that you believe is breaking the Forum Rules.
Check the Sticky Threads for additional information on this sub-forum and the Announcement Threads for more information about Heroes of Newerth as a whole!
-----------------------------
Ah, then yes, you're right - I did misunderstand the point being made, thanks. That allows me to skip the explanation of why red looks red
I think the key difference here is that I do not necessarily accept the premise that there are unexplainable things. There are things with which - as you say - our current understanding has a great deal of difficulty, but to me it does not follow that those things are therefore forever unexplainable... we'll get there some day. To be honest, it mystifies me how anyone can examine the progress the human race has made in its understanding of the universe within just the last 100 years, and then point to something (anything!) and claim, "Well, science can never explain THAT!"
--
I'd write more, but I really want to go and watch England v Italy
Not sure if this was directed at me, but this isn't what I was saying at all. I think that one day we will have a very good understanding of currently unexplainable things, it just may not match our current Scientific model (in fact, considering the rate at which things have changed in the past 100 years, it's almost inevitable that it won't).To be honest, it mystifies me how anyone can examine the progress the human race has made in its understanding of the universe within just the last 100 years, and then point to something (anything!) and claim, "Well, science can never explain THAT!"
I think this is an oversimplification of depression. People can become depressed for various reasons, and not just because they don't feel like they're contributing to society. In fact, it's very common for people who DO think (based on our current social standards) they are contributing to society to become depressed. You hear stories all the time about people who have all the money in the world, who own giant corporations that employ tens of thousands of people, who are miserable. You also hear stories about church members who spend most of their time "saving souls" who are miserable. My point is, I think happiness is a little deeper than volunteering for a soup line every week.Depression can be biologically explained. If a member of a species feels like it is not contributing to its societal group, it goes into a state of distress where it loses interest in taking care of itself and in finding a mate. Many species do this. Its an effective
Adaptation that helps make sure the creatures that don't help society die off without procreating. Humans also do this, except we can go a step further because we can conceive of death, and so can commit suicide.
I'll take it a step further: Scientifically-minded individuals claim that happiness comes from endorphins or other "happy chemicals" being released by your brain. So if you do the activities requires to release these endorphins, it will create happiness.
Therefore, according to that theory as long as you:
Exercise regularly
Eat a healthy diet
Get plenty of sunlight
Take Vitamin D
Get lots of sleep
Have a good relationship
Have sex everyday
Volunteer to help society
etc.
You are guaranteed happiness right? All of these things release endorphins that are the natural happy drug - and since happiness is just a chemical reaction in your brain, this is all that's necessary to have happiness.
I contend that you can do ALL of these things and still not be happy. Granted, it would be much easier to be happy if you did all these things, but they don't create happiness. If simply doing all these things made you happy everybody would do them and most of our problems would be solved.
Happiness is a state of mind, not just the result of chemicals being released in your brain. This is more evidence against a purely Naturalistic view.
I agree with you on that-and well written. I think that depression is more complex with Humans because we have more complicated brains.
That said, I think you're definitely right that achieving happiness, true deep set joy that abides throughout your life, is a very complicated and beautiful thing to achieve. I don't claim to know the magic recipe and I don't know if the soul is involved.
My main spiritual claim is that everything is connected. I think that the human perception is a sort of illusion caused by our perception. What we fail to realize is that we are constantly exchanging our bodies with everything else on the planet, with each breath. Everything is one. It's a cliched thing to say, I realize, but I think it's impossible to realize how meaningful this claim is until you've experienced a true egodeath using a chemical like lysurgic acid or peyote or DMT. the human perception is sooooo limited. We can't begin to comprehend how things actually may be, no more than a deer or aphid.
this has been a generally really civil, engaging conversation. Cheers, gentlemen! We are improving on OTs sordid reputation.
Forum Moderators are not S2 Games employees. My posts in no way represent the view of S2 Games or any of its staff.
Please use the report post function
Check the Sticky Threads for additional information on this sub-forum and the Announcement Threads for more information about Heroes of Newerth as a whole!
-----------------------------
No
I'll also quickly respond to the 'chemical happiness' thing by saying that while the factors involved in any given human's state of mind are obviously incredibly complex, it is also demonstrably true that if you pump the right drugs into even the most clinically depressed person on the planet, they will experience boundless euphoria (although of course it may also kill them!). How do you reconcile this fact with the statement that happiness is anything other than a certain physical brain state?
God is a farce. I have children and grandchildren. They give me all the meaning for life I need.
That's not what I said.I'll also quickly respond to the 'chemical happiness' thing by saying that while the factors involved in any given human's state of mind are obviously incredibly complex, it is also demonstrably true that if you pump the right drugs into even the most clinically depressed person on the planet, they will experience boundless euphoria (although of course it may also kill them!). How do you reconcile this fact with the statement that happiness is anything other than a certain physical brain state?
As I've mentioned before, my position is Dualism. There is a physical side and a spiritual side, and they influence each other. In my last post I said:
Pumping someone with drugs is a temporary high, it doesn't last. It's not happiness.I contend that you can do ALL of these things and still not be happy. Granted, it would be much easier to be happy if you did all these things, but they don't create happiness. If simply doing all these things made you happy everybody would do them and most of our problems would be solved.
These temporary highs are very common in human beings. You may get a temporary high when you get a new video game, or watch a good movie, or have sex, or laugh at something funny. This is not lasting happiness, I don't think lasting happiness comes in the form of temporary, chemically-induced highs.
In fact, some people try live their lives inducing these highs with drugs, alcohol, sex, or even sadistic things like masochism in order to find these highs - but this is a sign of a mental disorder, not a healthy lifestyle. In addition, many people live on depression medicines which increase the rate of their dopamine and serotonin, yet these people are still often completely miserable (I should know, both my parents are on depression medicine).
So what I'm saying is yes, the chemical aspect is one part, but there is something else involved too which I consider to be spiritual in nature.
I'm sorry, but yes, that's EXACTLY what you said, and you even said it again here:
My question was, "How do you reconcile this fact with the statement that happiness is anything other than a certain physical brain state?". By asserting that Dualist view that there is a secondary, non-physical component to this state of happiness, you are absolutely and unequivocally saying that happiness IS something other than exclusively a particular chemical state of the brain. These two things are logically exclusive, and arguing semantics over the difference of being happy and being high isn't addressing the crux of the argument before you.
Moving on to the temporary high point, the same can be said for non-artificially induced emotion as you rightly point out. Everyone goes through ups and downs throughout the course of a normal day, let alone over a period of weeks or months, I don't think you'll argue that point. The question then becomes, what is 'lasting happiness' if not a general positive aggregate of these peaks over daily life's troughs? If the majority of my days are spent playing new video games, having sex and laughing, am I not likely to be content with my life? What, in other words, is the actual DIFFERENCE between being happy on the micro- and macroscopic scale? I say, not much.
Excuse me, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "How do you reconcile this fact with the statement that happiness is not partly a physical brain state". I thought you were implying that I said that there wasn't a physical aspect involved. I understand what you mean now though.My question was, "How do you reconcile this fact with the statement that happiness is anything other than a certain physical brain state?"
You're basing your happiness on external factors that are always changing, and very liable to change. You can play games now, but happens when you get bored of those games, or when you get too busy to play anymore? You can have sex now, but what happens when your girlfriend leaves you, or when you get too old to do it? You can laugh now, but what happens when events in your life happen that make it difficult to laugh?If the majority of my days are spent playing new video games, having sex and laughing, am I not likely to be content with my life?
I'm saying that when you base your happiness completely off of external influences, you're setting yourself up for a rollercoaster ride of emotions, not true happiness. I think that true happiness comes from within, and this is basically spirituality in a nutshell. Spirituality means something different to everybody, but to me it simply means learning to love and trust yourself unconditionally, and coming to a greater understanding of yourself and learning to follow your intuitions above all else.
When you love and trust yourself completely, (which I don't think most people, especially skeptics do - as a skeptic, you have to be skeptic of your own thoughts and feelings too right?), then no matter what happens you can be happy. If you love being around yourself, then no matter how bad your situation gets, you at least have the pleasure of your own company - you don't need the external to be content with your life. That's all I mean by spirituality. Most people will never understand this.
Posting Permissions
