Suffering is undesirable but it is not undesirable because of personal preference. No one with a working nervous system could hold their hand in fire for a long period. — Andrew4Handel

"Personal preference" refers to something being a preference that a person has. The fact that every person happens to have the same preference (just in case they do) doesn't make it something other than a preference that a person has.

Think of it as being akin to, say, noses. Noses are structures that are present on persons' faces. The fact that everyone has one (just in case they do) doesn't make it something other than a structure on a person's face (well, and a structure that lots of other animals have, too). It wouldn't make sense to say that noses are not personal just because everyone has one..

I don't know what a "subjective way" is supposed to refer to. The issue is ONLY whether something is a mental phenomenon that an individual has.

You seem to keep wanting to read other things into what I'm saying.

I think you can meaningfully measure suffering and I think that is substantially difference than recording opinion or preference.

I am not sure what you believe exactly whether you think morality is a purely mental subjective like pain. Like I have probably said I don't think private pains and other sensations are the equivalent of thoughts and opinions.
You can be wrong in belief and idea but you can't be wrong about having a pain experience or red experience.

I am not sure what you believe exactly whether you think morality is a purely mental subjective like pain. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know what I could do to make it clearer that in my view, morality is purely an individual mental phenomenon. It's not something that one can be correct or incorrect about.

morality is purely an individual mental phenomenon. It's not something that one can be correct or incorrect abou — Terrapin Station

It's just about maximising pleasure for the individual and group whilst minimising pain. It mathematical. We are just computers after all that seek to optimise between two variables: pleasure and pain (I include emotional as well as physical).

Everything we do is due to the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. There are no other motives.

It's just about maximising pleasure for the individual and group whilst minimising pain — Devans99

It's only about that for a given individual if they think about it that way. I don't think about it that way, for example.

Everything we do is due to the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. There are no other motives. — Devans99

You must buy the idea of unconscious mental phenomena. I do not.

You must buy the idea of unconscious mental phenomena. I do not — Terrapin Station

Whatever motivates you must give you pleasure. If it gave you pain, it would not motivate you. If it gave you nothing it would not motivate you.

Whatever motivates you must give you pleasure. If it gave you pain, it would not motivate you. If it gave you nothing it would not motivate you. — Devans99

Are you saying that that is empirically the case, or are you basically just announcing how you're going to use particular terms?

I think its a self-evident truth that the only human motivations are:

- The pursuit of physical/emotional pleasure
- The avoidance of physical/emotional pain

All our behaviour can be characterised by the above unless you have a counter example?

The gods argued with each other too. Arguing about what is desirable and what is not desirable is how gods and humans increase their understanding until they come to a consensus on the best reasoning. Really what could be better than this? As birds were born to fly, we are born to reason. Democracy is an imitation of the gods. We are as the gods because we have the capacity of reason. Arguing is how the gods resolved their differences and when Christians learned of this they largely replaced their the model of a kingdom with the model of Greek gods. Unfortunately, we stopped educating for this understanding and now we are in trouble. We are locked in power struggles that are devoid of reasoning and we are destroying our democracy and our planet.

We might want to add to the story of the gods, Sumer's story of creation, about the river that displeased a goddess by overflowing its banks, and how the goddess created a man and woman out of mud to help the river stay in its banks. Many aborigine people around the world had creation stories that made them caretakers of the earth. Surely we would make better decisions if we thought we were the caretakers of our one and only planet. :grin: Add to this the Greek understanding of the gods and reasoning or the NE native American story of the man who taught them to live with reason, and we might return to a reality we can enjoy.

"You must buy the idea of unconscious mental phenomena. I do not."

Most of our thinking is unconscious. At least 80% of it is automatic thinking. Automatic thinking makes it possible for us to drive cars or dance gracefully. Before we learn these skills we must focus intensely on the effort and we are very clumsy. But it is much more than this. We live by the habits we develop and this leaves our minds free to think of more important things. And advertisers love the fact that they can influence our thinking without us being aware of this.

Recently we have gained a lot of knowledge of how our brains work and if this interest you look it up. You will find exciting information on youtube by googling "fast and slow thinking".

All our behaviour can be characterised by the above unless you have a counter example? — Devans99

That's basically asking if I think that you'd not be able to forward an interpretation of any arbitrary phenomenon in that framework, which is unfalsifiable for you. The answer is no. I do not think that.

In general, for any arbitrary theory someone has that they believe covers all phenomena and that's unfalsifiable for them, there's no suggested phenomenon that they'd not be able to interpret under the framework of their theory.

Most of our thinking is unconscious. — Athena

Obviously I don't agree with that. So repeating the idea, or acting as if I must not be familiar with conventional views (that followed what I'm quoting above) isn't going to have any effect in terms of persuasion.

I'm not denying autonomic functions, doing things by muscle memory, etc. I'd say that there's no good reason to say that any of that is akin to mental phenomena.

Your limited understanding of human motives is really sad. :cry: Some of us hold ideas to be more important and we will make great sacrifices to for our family, our country, an ideal like democracy or fascism, or communism and for future generations we will never know.

I hate the selfish gene talk. I think it is has caused us much suffering. And I know it is a lie because I did not live for self-fulfillment. Before my children left home, my archetype goddess was Demeter, the mother goddess. I sacrificed my desires to fulfill my family duty as society once said we should do. When we understood what family order has to do with democracy. That is our duty to family is also our duty to our country. I can not comprehend feeling our lives are meaningful if we do not have a sense of duty? If we do not live for others, then how do have a sense of self-worth?

In general, for any arbitrary theory someone has that they believe covers all phenomena and that's unfalsifiable for them, there's no suggested phenomenon that they'd not be able to interpret under the framework of their theory. — Terrapin Station

We can interpret phenomenon in terms of the short-term/long-term pain/pleasure they give use. So the theory is falsifiable, all we'd need is an example of someone motivated by other than pleasure/pain.

Some of us hold ideas to be more important and we will make great sacrifices to for our family, our country, an ideal like democracy or fascism, or communism and for future generations we will never know. — Athena

I think you will find that such sacrifices are made to give you some form of emotional pleasure.

For example, a mother may sacrifice much for her child, but those sacrifice's make the mother emotionally happier.

If you do not agree with what said, then you are not familiar with the science. I will be interested in what you have to say after you are better informed.

If I were to give you a counterexample, such as "Joe added crimson red to his painting because Joe dislikes crimson red," then you'd interpret it so that Joe was at least unconsciously motivated by some other pleasure, making your theory unfalsifiable, because you'd do something similar for any counterexample (otherwise, you'd have easy counterexamples yourself without having to solicit them). I have no doubt that you could do this. I've seen it countless times. One could do this with any arbitrary theory.

If you do not agree with what said, then you are not familiar with the science. I will be interested in what you have to say after you are better informed. — Athena

Yeah, just crank up the patronization. That's a good look.

. . . As if one can't disagree with conventional wisdom in the sciences.

"For example, a mother may sacrifice much for her child, but those sacrifice's make the mother emotionally happier."

Oh yes, hormones affect how we feel and what we do, and the same is so for all animals. However, our mental capacity adds another layer to this. Animals do not stay in a relationship because of notions of love and duty and our notions of love and duty can make us appear irrational. Nature has programmed us not for our individual survival but the survival of our species. All animals are programmed for the survival their species.

If I were to give you a counterexample, such as "Joe added crimson red to his painting because Joe dislikes crimson red," then you'd interpret it so that Joe was at least unconsciously motivated by some other pleasure, making your theory unfalsifiable, because you'd do something similar for any counterexample (otherwise, you'd have easy counterexamples yourself without having to solicit them). I have no doubt that you could do this. I've seen it countless times. One could do this with any arbitrary theory. — Terrapin Station

I did not present the idea that we are driven by pleasure/pain as a theory, just a self evident truth or axiom.

It is a good axiom in my opinion.

Whatever you want to call it, just swap out the words.

What you said makes no sense to me, because it had nothing to do with science, but maybe we can move towards science by examining why humans are patriotic? Could it be because we are programmed by nature for the survival of our group and its way of life and ideals? Thousands of people have died in wars defending democracy. Why? It sure as blazes was not limited to self-interest. People don't throw themselves on grenades out of self-interest, they do not run up a hill defended by an enemy shooting guns and sending bombs because of self-interest. They do it for love of family and country. Now they may get into this situation because of self-interest, wanting an adventure or wanting the excitement they imagine war to be, but they used to be drafted into wars and went if they wanted to or not. Even if you can still find self-interest in their choice, it would not be there if they did not care about others. And if people do not care significantly about others, they tend to die in concentration camps or other extremely bad situations because they loose their will to live. Over and over again survival stories are about how thinking others made it possible for them to endure and survive.

PS science is vital to our liberty and our progress and our ability to save our earth. It would be sad if you do not value science.

Are you getting me confused with Devans99? I didn't forward anything about "self-interest"

:yikes: you didn't say
"Obviously I don't agree with that."?

Terrapin Station
4.7k
Most of our thinking is unconscious.
— Athena

Obviously I don't agree with that. So repeating the idea, or acting as if I must not be familiar with conventional views (that followed what I'm quoting above) isn't going to have any effect in terms of persuasion.

I'm not denying autonomic functions, doing things by muscle memory, etc. I'd say that there's no good reason to say that any of that is akin to mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it is akin to mental phenomena. Science has provided a clear explanation of that.

What do you means here

" . . As if one can't disagree with conventional wisdom in the sciences."?

I must admit when the point being argued is not part of the agrument, things can be confusing. You appear to lack knowledge of the resent science and most of this knowledge hasn't been around long enough to be conventional wisdom. With the knowledge we have recentaly gained I think hope for humanity has greatly improved. However, we have a lot of work to do to make it common knowledge.

"I did not present the idea that we are driven by pleasure/pain as a theory, just a self evident truth or axiom."
Hum, how often do you exercise and do you restrict your food to what is healthy? Obviously, both exercise and healthy eating are essential to feeling good. So why are people obese and sickly and crippled by the excessive weight on their knees? We feel better when we exercise and restrict our diet to healthy food, but most of us are reluctant to it. Why? Nature rewards us for making good choices but many of us are not making good choices. However, some people are making good choices, why?

What does anything in your post starting with the following have to do with what I had said or what we were talking about, though?

maybe we can move towards science by examining why humans are patriotic? — Athena

However, some people are making good choices, why? — Athena

It's down to willpower I think: The general rule is that you have to make a short-term sacrifices for a long-term gain in order to do a good/right action. That takes willpower, eg with exercise or diet you have to make short-term sacrifices.

Obviously something similar applies to evil/wrong actions - attractive in the short-term but detrimental in the long-term. Willpower is again required to resist them.

And as you mentioned before; education is so important too.

It is about science. Science improves our understanding, and the issue with you came up when you said you do not agree with what I said about all the unconscious thinking we do.

Science also helps us understand what hormones have to do with our feelings and decisions. It may be my bad but I thought that was important to the discussion. All animals, are programmed for the survival of the species, not just self nterest. This is especially so for social animals that live in groups for their mutual survival.

How are we to understand anything if we do not include science in our understanding? What is the bases for our arguments without science?

?? You started a long thing about why we're "patriotic," and commenting on whether we're patriotic out of self interest. Unless you're saying that's supposed to have something to do with the notion of unconscious mental content, it had nothing to do with me.

Okay if I understand Terrapin Station correctly he wants me to address the issue of self-interest versus group interest with you. Do we have agreement that social animals live in herds or troops for their mutual survival and that members of these groups will act to defend each other, protect and feed the young? :smile: Females often have much more to do with protecting and feeding the young than males and among some species they must protect the young from the males. :lol: Possibly some of our disagreements are the result of being male and female and by nature having different hormones and therefore different truths?

I do workshops on living with diabetes and getting people to make good decisions is very complicated! They must feel good about themselves and their future before they will take the steps they must take. Some cases of diabetes are worse than others. Some people can do all the right things, but not get the desired results and this can destroy willpower. The better people's relationships are, the better they tend to do. However, there are some single people who excel on sheer willpower and self-interest. Obviously, these people do not depend on others for their happiness or anything else.

Oh my, we are all so different, it might be a little insane to argue truth as though there is only one truth and not many.