Then won't it be more good if you don't give it in the first place?

^Then in this case, what kind of action that you would call "Mental Activity" ?

^But do you feel a sense of joy? like really 0 joy from giving money to poor people, You don't feel joy because you help people. Really? The Fact that you just help a people bring no joy to you whatsoever

^Hmmm more like Walking is a physical activities because it depleted energy. Is like Thinking is an mental activity because it produce thought, or Like the process of those pre-contemplative, unconscious, third-person observable brain that produce thought.

I mean if the definition of mental activity is "It is activity of the mind resulting in a collection of thoughts"

Surely the process that those pre-contemplative, unconscious, third-person observable brain does is a Mental Activity because it produce thought.

^They are not thought, but they are indeed "Mental Activity" because they produce "Thought?" or maybe "a Decision-Making Judgement?"

^You know it beforehand, Can we say it like this then,

You want to give the poor dude money because you want to Help him, even though it will worry you, you still want to give him money because the pleasure of helping people is greater than those worry.

Either that or, "I want to give these poor people money because I want to feel worry" ....... in that case maybe you are a masochist???

^Now the problem is do you know beforehand, that when you give those money, these worry will come up to you? i

^Hmmm, the definiton of mental activities is "It is activity of the mind resulting in a collection of thoughts"

can I say it is mental because those pre-contemplative, unconscious, third-person observable brain states produce "Thought", the thought to press the button.

So, you don't regret the fact that you give the money. Assume that it is true That's mean you don't feel displeasure if you don't give it. By worry what are you feeling exactly? are you feeling "Does that man that I give live better now or not? does my Give is enough"

Interesting, you mean right now you feel worried, are you perhaps regretting your decision to give the money?

Che! It seems I wont be able to proof PE. I found an article that state that "Unconscious Mental Activity" indeed happen,

Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity.

"is In the study, published in Nature Neuroscience, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before the person felt the decision was made. The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take up to seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not at what happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding."

"Many scientists argued that if our decisions are prepared unconsciously by the brain, then our feeling of "free will" must be an illusion. In this view, it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person’s conscious mind"

"Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts -- even up to 7 seconds ahead of time -- how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made"

but indeed I can't link it to the Pleasure-Pain system heh. But still, I considered Psychological Hedonism is logical. Cheers :D good talk dude

NEVER MIND, NOW I REMEMBER :D WAIT A BIT

unconscious MENTAL phenomena. — Terrapin Station

^Ahh that's it :D that's why I'm having trouble following you, because why are we arguing whether is it mental or not? Like at the basic , what is you want to say and what are your dis proofing statement.

^This claim that, we can imitate other without knowing about it WHILE also consciously imitate other.

^ It will be long, but that the "physical behavior" is called Contextual Priming.


"contextual priming is a mechanism that provides still more precise adjustment to events and people in present time (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). In contextual priming, the mere presence of certain events and people automatically activates our representations of them, and concomitantly, all of the internal information (goals, knowledge, affect) stored in those representations that is relevant to responding back.

The evolved, innate basis of these ubiquitous priming effects is revealed by the fact that they are present soon after birth, underpinning the infant’s imitative abilities (see Meltzoff, 2002).Such priming effects, in which what one perceives directly influences what one does, depend on the existence of a close, automatic connection between perception and behavior. Indeed, this tight connection has been discovered in cognitive neuroscience with the discovery of mirror neurons in the premotor cortex, which become active both when one perceives a given type of action by another person as well as when one engages in that action oneself (Frith & Wolpert, 2004).

The automatic perception-behavior link results in default tendencies to act in the same way as those around us (Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001). [b]Thus, as a default option or starting point for your own behavior, blindly or unconsciously adopting what others around you are doing makes good adaptive sense, especially in new situations and with strangers.[/b] These default tendencies and their unconscious and unintentional nature have been demonstrated several times in human adults in the research of Chartrand and colleagues (see Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin, 2005). Not only do people tend to adopt the physical behavior (posture, facial gestures, arm and hand movements) of strangers with whom they interact, without intending to or being aware they are doing so, but this unconscious imitation also tends to increase liking and bonding between the individuals, serving as a kind of natural “social glue "

Summary Contextual priming is a trick that our subconscious do in the brain because of mirror neurons in the premotor cortex.

I may not understand your question, it is mental because we do it unconsciously, so our body might work because of unconscious pelasure-pain system.

^You are having trouble because if PE was true then Charity is only an act of selfish which I can respect. But think of it this way, it is not more so about selfishness, how about we viewed it like,

All it does is make me hope the person I gave money to will up it to good use and help him or herself get out of their bad situation. — Tzeentch

You feel happy because of Hope. That makes you a good guy who felt happiness by giving poor people charity. That is not selfish, but that Charity is indeed making you happy.

^You're asking if

Why are we saying that it's a mental phenomenon? — Terrapin Station

because the the action of

These default tendencies and their unconscious and unintentional nature have been demonstrated — diesynyang

(From my previous post) is link to the post about Hammer Gripping, in which both are the example of Unconscious Mental Activity. Why is it Unconscious mental activity? For the Hammer Grip, it is because of some form of "selective disinhibition"

Secondly, The Paragraph below it is to support my claim that Unconcious Mental activity is indeed real and have been proven (or at least research). Linking it to the PE argument, at least we can concluded that "There are indeed some behind the screen motive or activity that we our self cannot be aware of" although I can't say that it is the PE itself, we can at least conclude there are something that we ourselves aren't aware when we do something

^
Further supporting this notion of natural contextual tuning of one’s behavior to the present environment, cognitive research indicates that action-related objects activate multiple action plans in parallel and that action production is driven by some form of selective disinhibition.[/b] For example, findings suggest that ambient stimuli (e.g., hammers) automatically set us to physically interact with the world (e.g., perform a power grip, Tucker & Ellis, 2001). The simultaneous activation of multiple action plans is obvious in action slips (Heckhausen & Beckmann, 1990) and in the neuropsychological syndrome of utilization behavior, in which patients are incapable of suppressing actions that are elicited by environmental, action-related objects (Lhermitte, 1983).


The idea that action precedes reflection is not new. Several theorists have postulated that the conscious mind is not the source or origin of our behavior; instead, they theorize that impulses to act are unconsciously activated and that the role of consciousness is as gatekeeper and sense maker after the fact (Gazzaniga, 1985; James, 1890; Libet, 1986; Wegner, 2002). In this model, conscious processes kick in after a behavioral impulse has occurred in the brain—that is, the impulse is first generated unconsciously, and then consciousness claims (and experiences) it as its own.

1 of it, Taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/ >

Thus, as a default option or starting point for your own behavior, blindly or unconsciously adopting what others around you are doing makes good adaptive sense, especially in new situations and with strangers. These default tendencies and their unconscious and unintentional nature have been demonstrated several times in human adults in the research of Chartrand and colleagues (see Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin, 2005). Not only do people tend to adopt the physical behavior (posture, facial gestures, arm and hand movements) of strangers with whom they interact, without intending to or being aware they are doing so, but this unconscious imitation also tends to increase liking and bonding between the individuals, serving as a kind of natural “social glue.”

^I agree that PE is unfalsifiable (for now), because it should be a conceptual not empirical. Because PE is a Tautology.

The thesis of psychological egoism is a tautology, and tautologies are not falsifiable. No one has yet devised an experiment that can conclusively settle the matter empirically..

^ Well for now, then rebbuting point by point, I think is better to look at the core,1 by 1, one at a time which is

1) A man can find the action itself as their psychological motivation

Feinberg said : We cannot transform 1 selfless act to a selfish one by having the person feel pleasured by their selfless act. If they were selfish, they won't find the selfless act pleasurable. (Abraham Lincoln Story). That mean as Joseph Butler said in the comment of Wayne Johnson


"Butler argues that while we do get satisfaction when the object of our desire is attained, this does not show that it was the resulting satisfaction itself which we desired. The Psychological Egoist mistakenly believes that we want to do something because of the satisfaction we will get from doing
it."

Butler, though, simply gets it backward in his understanding of human psychology.

As Scott Berman argues:

"It is wrong to suppose that a human could want some external object for its own sake because in order for a human to want some particular external object at all, she must be able to integrate her beliefs about what’s best given her circumstances into an initially indefinite thought-dependent desire for what’s
best given her circumstances."

As Berman highlights, the view that we inherit from Butler, namely, that humans can want objects or states of affairs completely apart from themselves, is misguided. Speaking in terms of first-order and second-order desires, Johnson likewise exposes the mistake in Butler’s reasoning:

"Any first order desire must be accompanied by the second order desire of self-love before an action would be reasonably undertaken. This second order desire clearly involves a motive which is either self-regarding or has a self-referential stimulus. Thus Butler fails to demonstrate that we are not aiming at our happiness when we act on a first order desire."

Or, Take other example, Pursue Revenge

Butler discusses the situation in which a person pursues revenge even though it will ultimately leave the person himself worse off.

This would seem to suggest that Butler is correct in arguing that we sometimes ultimately want something external to us for its own sake, in this case the harm done to another person through revenge. This is not correct, however. Rather, the person seeks revenge in order to satisfy a desire that he cannot bring himself to ignore. He thus considers pursuit of revenge to be in his self-interest; it is a
desire that he ultimately endorses. He recognizes that scratching that itch will leave a scar, but concludes that scratching the itch is nonetheless what he wants to do. He would prefer that it leave no scar, but he is irrationally overcome with the emotional desire to scratch the itch despite the inevitable scar

The decision-making process is usually much more subtle, and can even be self-deceptive. Indeed, motivation is often so influenced by biochemistry that we do not ourselves know why we do the things we do; it is not always completely transparent to us what our motives are. And, of course, not everything we do follows from deliberation. Rather, some things we do from unthinking habit. Indeed, lots of our mental activity is unconscious.

^Yes, I think we can rooted by testing themselves mean to know more about them self, if they know about themselves they became happy. Some want for a better life, which can also be rooted down to "seeking happiness". Strengthen oneself can also be rooted down to happiness. Some "Don't know" then itt will need a deeper meta analyse.


I really want to answer you dude, but before answering you, I need to know what are your argument, why is it that you can't receive my argument, and for that, I must learn about the Tautological meaning of the Psychological Hedonism statement

^Why do you think they want to embrace that hardship? is it for the hardship sake, or because they desire another thing that could be get from that hardship?

^Excatly

^That metric is called, Wisdom (Because it's hard, diffrent situation and diffrent people like that)

^Hmmm again ( / w \ ) you could rooted to pleasure. K how's this then, give me a "Motivation" to do something, that couldn't be rooted to "happiness" because Human are animals, and animals acts in pleasure pain impulse. it just Human has a greater knowledge to what is Greater Pleasure is. If you want to use "Duty" that is fine, but animal doesn't have sense of duty, because you can say it is an animal duty to protect their children, but some animal eats them. Duty can also "Changed" depending on the culture. :D

^I Agree, so do you *give sign of respect

*I agree that I have to read more hahahaha

Really, every person is motivated by a sense of duty — Terrapin Station

^ I agree,You can say that. But you can rooted "Duty" to "Pleasure and Pain", But you can't exactly rooted "Pleasure/Pain" Because when you are left with "I don't know, it makes me happy because of dopamine"

^Even the alien example, like "Why do u want to collect data?" "because I want to know about alien" "why do u want to know" "because i want to be stronger" "why stronger" etc etc and in the end you're left with happiness ( / _ \ )

^At that specific time of time, the Body thinks The pain of losing one's friend is greater than to die in battle.

^Fair enough, But let's talk Novelty right now, that paper is done in 2004, in 2004 people still debating that. Now, is 2018 and people still debating that while taking the criticism of that 2004 journal in question. But as time goes on, so those the research to defense Psychological Egoism.

https://reasonpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/rp_392_5.pdf < Which is this one.

The debate still going dude, and in this forum, I'm trying to test that view.But Fine, I agree that it is empirically hard to proof. But it still can be defend. And i'm looking for the theory worship bypass evidence or example.

^Yes, and again, Up until now, there are still no evidence that that One Person exist. Because when you "Theory Worshiping" You can break down those claim. ( / _ \ ).

Sigh..... okay dude, I know you're a bit frustrated by me. But let's make it this way. How about you tolerate my "Theory Worshiping" and give me an example that can even pass my theory worship. Do you think you can give me that (/ w \)

^Well, I'm talking about PsychologicalHedonism though, but point taken. But no, that's not a strict hedonist. I would call that stupid hedonist. Because net Happiness mean being healthy dude.

^Very Well, Then we need a research that does that right, or at least the paper from a people who know this better. at least any evidence to support that right?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848615001612 < The Research

If you can't see it, you can see it here > https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.011#

:D

:D

"In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge)."

I agree that if "One person is motivated by something else will fail the theory" (that's why I want an example of that 1 person). The Well, this was really going on but they just weren't aware of it" is also valid, if you said it is invalid then you can say that the Psychoanalysis is false. and Psychologist is theory worshipping ( / _ \ )

^Well, a smart people choose "Higher Pleasure" and unwise people choose "Lesser Pleasure". We drink bitter medicine, because we want to avoid the bigger pain and want to feel the bigger pleasure (That is being healthty)

In this case, you're starting with the theory that you don't want to be wrong — Terrapin Station

^ But dude, I want to be wrong, but I will accept it is wrong, if my rebuttal is wrong. and because it haven't been disproved, it is still valid

^The thing with evidence is. You can disproof a theory if you give a disprove evidence. You can also proof a theory if you give an evidence to proof. Well, because there are no evidence to disprove it, it can still be valid (Hence the debate is still going in today's time)

As for my proof

"https://jura.ku.dk/jurabog/pdf/juridiske-monografier/ross_on_guilt_responsibility_and_punishment_1975.pdf"

I'll posit something 'behind the scenes' that the person isn't even aware of, — Terrapin Station

^Umm, why is that wrong exactly, "Interpretation" like that is needed and used you know, Psychologist who use Psychoanalysis does this. When their patient say A, the Psychologist must interpret and point what that person isn't aware of to make the person aware. If you want to defend a theory, of course this is okay. What you can do however, is to find the fault in my analysis

^What if I say if we look deeper, the thing with people with "Duty" is they feel happy when "They Done their Good Duty" (A Dopamine Release because of that), and they can choose, either they do their duty, OR they feel guilty (Because the thing with Duty is, if you know you have to do it, and you don't do it, you feel guilty). Then I can say "People who trim tree voluntarily, because of duty, know it is their duty to trim it, and they do it, to avoid the displeasure of guilt".

^ You are free to continue to argue using this example, or change to another example by the way :D