http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489

has similar reasearch been conducted in a different setting, for example some tribes living in the Amazon forest, who although have no income and very little possessions, are thought to be amongst the happiest human beings? Could the results of the above study have been confounded by the cultural background i.e people in America generally think (It’s all in the mind!) of material comforts as a source of happiness and wellbeing?

Happiness is subjective in the sense that different people value different things, but the only way that happiness could be unaffected by external factors would be if one valued nothing. It isn't possible for someone not to value basic needs. I'm willing to bet that even tribes in the Amazon eat and sleep. Eventually, some bodily function like hunger, or shivering will kick in and cause pain and suffering for the individual and the desire to resolve that pain will cause them to value a way to get rid of it. So yes, it is likely that some aspect of that study was affected by American culture. But when you say that happiness is a self-delusion unaffected by external factors, what are you saying? That emotional well-being doesn't exist, or that emotional well-being is entirely independent from physical well-being?

What I’m saying is that happiness is created in the mind and is therefore independent of the material world. You are confusing survival with happiness. The absence of physical discomfort is not happiness. Some people get immense pleasure from physical pain -see masochism.

Do you believe that the brain plays any part in the creation of happiness?

One could argue that happiness has evolved into life as a survival mechanism. — MonfortS26

Evolution works FROM variation, not towards them. This makes the emergence of happiness all the more interesting. In fact all emotional states are evolved, as so each has to be offered towards this perspective. Hatred, love, guile, loyalty ... the whole panoply of human emotions have stood the test of survival and have had to remain to hosts who have had to produce viable progeny.

But evolution is not a thing that can choose or meld the creature's emotional spectrum. The only rubric is that some fail to reproduce.
So nothing really can be said on this topic despite the gallons of ink that are spilled by the fantasy science of evolutionary psychology.... except masturbatory speculation, based on a false and backwards teleology.

mind is synonymous with brain. Fairies and intangible entities in the sky are not involved in the process of thinking as far as I understand.

But evolution is not a thing that can choose or meld the creature's emotional spectrum. The only rubric is that some fail to reproduce.
So nothing really can be said on this topic despite the gallons of ink that are spilled by the fantasy science of evolutionary psychology.... except masturbatory speculation, based on a false and backwards teleology. — charleton

If this were the case, then every trait would either help or hurt the ability for an organism to reproduce. From a survival of the fittest mindset, traits that enable a species to survive and reproduce are obviously helpful. But traits that do not do so in any way are hurtful because they rely on the absence of a trait that is helpful. Saying that evolutionary psychology is a fantasy science is like saying that evolution is a fantasy science.

So if happiness is created in the brain, what determines the amount of happiness an individual brain creates?

If this were the case, then every trait would either help or hurt the ability for an organism to reproduce. From a survival of the fittest mindset, traits that enable a species to survive and reproduce are obviously helpful. But traits that do not do so in any way are hurtful because they rely on the absence of a trait that is helpful. Saying that evolutionary psychology is a fantasy science is like saying that evolution is a fantasy science. — MonfortS26

Well... obviously, except that at any given time 99% of all traits are survival neutral. The only ones that are significant are really important are negative ones - and they have to negatively impact on reproduction. Since the evolution is not 'interested', then you cannot say that any given traits has made a positive contribution, since the only rubric is having viable progeny. And that could be the result of an apparently pathological need to rape!!
I do not think you have any warrant to distill ONE emotion such as happiness out of the entire human set of emotions. Hate, since it also is part of human experience is as valid a candidate for an evo-psych analysis. But this is the myth of evo-psych, that they just cherry pick something and think of the nice traits and decide that is why we have it. It's rubbish. Because happiness can lead to not bothering to have children. Contentment can mean wanting to keep what you have rather then burden your life with kids!

the amount of thought it puts into it. And the kind of thoughts it occupies itself with.

I do not think you have any warrant to distill ONE emotion such as happiness out of the entire human set of emotions. Hate, since it also is part of human experience is as valid a candidate for an evo-psych analysis. But this is the myth of evo-psych, that they just cherry pick something and think of the nice traits and decide that is why we have it. It's rubbish. Because happiness can lead to not bothering to have children. Contentment can mean wanting to keep what you have rather then burden your life with kids! — charleton

Perhaps something as abstract as saying happiness is a survival mechanism is unwarranted, but it is rooted in the belief that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of human behavior. That is a 100% falsifiable statement. If they are the only motivators of human behavior, it would only make sense that they would structure themselves around behaviors that are beneficial to the survival of the species. Even if it also structures itself around the traits that are survival neutral, if it were to structure itself around something that was detrimental to the survival of a species, it would lead to that species extinction. Reducing emotions to pain and pleasure make them viable subjects for scientific inquiry in my opinion as long as pain and pleasure can be reduced to motivation and motivation can be structured around evolution.

If you say I'm confusing happiness with survival, how are you defining happiness?

A state of mind.

A state of mind. — CuddlyHedgehog

Thats not a very specific definition, couldn't any emotion be considered a state of mind?

Yes, they could and they are.

That just seems like an arbitrary boundary between the two definitions in order to make the statement that suffering is the result of desire true while keeping the reality that pain is caused by external forces also true. How are you defining pain vs suffering? — MonfortS26

Pain as physical, suffering as mental.

Life is made up of different forces. It is composed of different laws. Once you decided what path to take, that will be the moment you start your fate. http://bit.ly/2F41vXn

rooted in the belief that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of human behavior. — MonfortS26

So much , so obvious. But you are changing the goal posts.
All mammals, and birds, probably reptiles too; experience pain and pleasure.
Let me remind you, that you were talking about 'happiness'.

One could argue that happiness has evolved into life as a survival mechanism. In a general sense, the things that make us happy revolve around concepts that are central to our survival. Essentially, that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of our species and they have evolved in ways that increase our chances of surviving.

I think happiness is a way of being in the world which may have evolved "as a survival mechanism" but limiting happiness's scope to pleasure and pain does not differentiate man from beast. One of the fundamental aspects of humanity is its desire to know, as Aristotle stated in his metaphysics "All men by nature desire to know”. The generation of meaning in life is essential for a happy life in my estimation.

The creative/generative/active power of meaning is only possible in conjunction with our relationship with others. Meaning in this intersubjective sense is inescapable and necessary for survival and if done right :blush: leads to a happy life.

Pain as physical, suffering as mental. — matt

So are you implying that it is possible to experience physical pain without experiencing mental pain?

So much , so obvious. But you are changing the goal posts.
All mammals, and birds, probably reptiles too; experience pain and pleasure.
Let me remind you, that you were talking about 'happiness'. — charleton

I said humans specifically because I wanted to limit the domain of the discussion to the human experience. I don't think that humans are the only species that experience pain, but I don't know enough about the experience of all species to extend psychological hedonism to life itself and I doubt it would be correct to do so. And yeah I was talking about happiness, but I see happiness as being nothing more than a form of pleasure.

I think happiness is a way of being in the world which may have evolved "as a survival mechanism" but limiting happiness's scope to pleasure and pain does not differentiate man from beast. One of the fundamental aspects of humanity is its desire to know, as Aristotle stated in his metaphysics "All men by nature desire to know”. The generation of meaning in life is essential for a happy life in my estimation. — Cavacava

Yes, but can you say that there is no pain or pleasure present in the process of desiring to know and understanding? Perhaps that the reason we are motivated to know something is the same reason we are motivated to do anything else?

Yes, but can you say that there is no pain or pleasure present in the process of desiring to know and understanding?

No, but as I said "limiting happiness's scope to pleasure and pain does not differentiate man from beast" which is not to say that these emotions don't motivate us, but rather that they are not the entire story, that the differentia between man and beast is knowledge.

I said humans specifically because I wanted to limit the domain of the discussion to the human experience. — MonfortS26

But since the traits are not specific to humans you can't do that. Which is very much the point I was making, obviously. You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits that had already been a foregone conclusion for 100s of millions of years.
These traits are the very fabric of what makes an animal an animal. Evolution does not cherry pick, and so neither can you.

So are you implying that it is possible to experience physical pain without experiencing mental pain? — MonfortS26

Yes. Mind over matter.

You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits — charleton

And you know this how?

You are having a laugh mate. It's called the theory of evolution and it has been happening for billions of years. Ask any gorilla!

Or spend five minutes with by dog and try to tell me only humans have emotions.

I know all about theories. I just want to know how you know it? Someone v told you all about humans and animals a billion years ago? Did you ask them how do they know?

↪charleton I know all about theories. I just want to know how you know it? Someone v told you all about humans and animals a billion years ago? Did you ask them how do they know? — Rich

I think you are asking an epistemological question. How do you know I exist?