this constant pursuit of pleasure (here pleasure is understood in a broad sense, it can mean eating, drinking, partying, or listening to classical music, bungee-jumping, or volunteering, etc. etc.) is 1. possible, and 2. inherently satisfying. — baker

The pursuit of pleasure is in the nature of every living being, together with its opposite, avoiding pain. In Man, however it has a broader sense, as you say, and it includes happiness, among other things. Many philosophers suggested that experiencing pleasure and happiness meant allowing yourself to indulge and enjoy things to excess. Epicurus, however, the first philosopher --from what I know-- talking about pleasure (hedonism, from Greek "hedoné"), suggested that pleasure was found in simple living. Did he know better?

I don't think that's it. Personally I don't drink, am indifferent to food and rarely go out. — Tom Storm

So you don't have that "taboo", as @Baker says. :smile: Well, I don't have it either, but although I enjoy all that, I certainly don't believe that this is why we are here. In fact, I can't find any reason why we are here! :grin:

Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified. — baker

Why "tabooed"? It's not a forbidden subject. Most people believe they are here to enjoy all that and that this is the purpose of life! And it's not an "assumption"; it's a belief and way of life.

questions like whether "the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc." are abstract ideas and belong to metaphysics,
— Alkis Piskas
I couldn't agree less! That's why I find it rather strange that these concepts are seen as physical reality. — EugeneW

I didn't say that. But nice try ... Turning the negative element of my stetement to positive. You should be a journalist! :grin:

I have admitted in the past to being an interloper here Alkis. I — universeness

I had to look up "interloper" ... I learned a new word today. Thanks! :smile:
I really have no problem with that. If I could say I have a problem --I don't, actually-- it's only with people who do not consider themselves "interlopers", and indeed, they don't look like ones, yet I wonder what they are doing in here! :grin: ... Sometimes, I think of myself as one of them! :grin:

I am sure you can find a philosophical aspect, relevant to the thread — universeness

That could be maybe nice, but, as I often mention, I'm bad in Physics! :smile:

Metaphysica. You can't discuss this on physics fora. — EugeneW

If you think that questions like whether "the fundamental quanta are in-fact 'field excitements' and have 'no definte edge' and are 'cloud like' etc." are abstract ideas and belong to metaphysics, it's fine with me. :smile:

How does this topic and its description relate to philosophy? :chin:

OK, since you look for a serious confrontation on the subject, I will point out the weaknesses and unsound points in your long quote of Schopenhauer. I do that, and put extra time on this, only because it's your topic. Otherwise, I don't even see the need for it ...
I hope that my time is not wasted!

1) "man is a compound of needs and necessities": This is an absurd notion. Man does not consist of needs, he is not needs. He has needs.
2) "even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness": Too vague, an "empty" statement. What needs are (to be) satisfied? Some of them in particular? The more important ones? All of them (which is just impossible)?
3) "nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom": A totally arbitrary, skewed, biased conclusion. And more importantly, it does not reflect what actually happens in life. How often can you see such an ending, a course of action, a result? But most importantly, can anyone satisfy all his needs? Almost impossible, I think.
4) "This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself": Well, nothing has been proved based on the above. Then, the belief that "existence has no real value in itself" is shared by a lot of people --including myself, I am "the first" to tell that life has no purpose in itself-- but this has nothing to do with any kind of emotion. You don't have to reach despair to realize that! It' a rational conclusion, reachable by simple logic.
5) etc.

Well, I don't have so much time to spend to take on more points ... You see, when one's basic assumption or (pro)position is false, based on a fallacy or otherwise, then one statement-argument after another that are used to support it just fall apart.

Then, all that is mentioned in Schopenhauer's quote, are based mainly on concepts and not life itself. Actual experience is missing. I could dare say that rational thinking is missing or faulty too, as I have shown out in these 4 points of mine.

Instead, I have talked about my experience on the subject of emotions, what has happened to me, but mainly to people I have worked with and help them in handling their emotions. The data from all this, paired always with critical reasoning, are more valuable than just an analysis based mainly on concepts and very little on experience.

Because I have an idea that you missed most of my posts in this thread, I will only mention here that I have shown that all the human feelings/emotions are equally offered for handling. Boredom is just one of them, as I said in the beginning. There's no special feeling/emotion that dominates. Some are more easy to handle than other, and some individuals can handle them more easily than other.

So, the final conclusion, based on a host of things that I --and others-- have written in your thread, and which is worth mentioning it again, is that "no particular emotion or emotional state can be considered to be "at the heart of the human condition".

(I hope that this time you'll take more seriously what I have to say than the first time! :smile:)

I don't know if I addressed anyone with my post as a response. My post was rather a reflection of my thoughts starting from the point of the quote. — god must be atheist

You are right. You weren't addressing to someone in particular. I was misled by your quoting me.

So, getting back to your previous post ...

They say boredom is the forerunner to depression. — god must be atheist

The distance from boredom to depression is very long. There are a lot of emotional states in between. The main of them, in order of decreasing "livingness" are: antagonism, hostility, anger, hate, anxiety, fear and grief. Next come depression and apathy, about which I talked earlier in this thread. This is not a theory. I have seen them occurring a lot of times when I was working on the subject of emotions and helping persons getting up these states.

A healthy person deals with boredom much like he deals with any other displeasure — god must be atheist

This is right and it is very important as a remark for this particular topic, which treats boredom as something special. All emotions are part of the human condition! Only that the lower you are on the emotional scale, the more difficult is to work out things and esp. getting up. I'm sure you have seen that a lot of times in your environment. It has to do though with the ability and mental state of the individual. Some can regain their regular mood easier than others after this has been dropped for various reasons.

So,based on the above statement of yours, my extension of it, as well as other things that have been said in this thread, we can say that no particular emotion or emotional state can be considered to be "at the heart of the human condition"!

I cannot consider it as a "human condition". It does not characterize human life. It's a disease. And if one is generally sane, it will pass when the causes of its occurance are lifted.
— Alkis Piskas
A bit of a difference between boredom and depression — god must be atheist

Where in my above statements that you have quoted --or even the whole post to which they belong-- do I talk about "depression"?

Anyway, I know well the difference between the two, and have talked about that a little earlier ...

Your quote is from me, alright, but your comments seem to be addressed to someone else. (@Tom Storm maybe?)

I manage psychosocial services in the area of mental health, suicide prevention and substance use — Tom Storm

This is very good! :up: (Hard job, too!)

medication works for many people and it works well. But it's not for everyone — Tom Storm

OK. Yes, of course, it's not for everyone.

Some would say there are no pills for depression. — Tom Storm

I assume that you mean that (the existing) depression pills are useless --hence "treated and untreated". I not only agree with that but Ialso believe that they even do more harm than good.

I don't know exactly what is your relation with depressed people ... I have worked on a couple of these cases and I know that depression can be treated with no medicine or any physical means whatsoever, and in a relatively short time, depending on how severe it is, how long it has lasted and, of course, the person him/herself. A depressed person can become a healthy and happy person in a relatively short time. And never regress.

, who has offered us the opportunity to discuss about all these things --Thanks!-- talks about a subject, "boredom", about which, as I can see, has very little knowledge. And unfortunately, he doesn't seem to want to learn more ...

To me that sounds like depression. — Tom Storm

Depression is a "higher" state on a livingness scale. It is a feeling of loss of hope or courage, and often being guilty and inadequate or useless. Enter the depression pills. In apathy, you have no feelings --except apathy itself, which can be barely called a feeling. (Actually, the word "apathy" comes from Greek "a-" (privative) + "pathos" (passion, feeling) => no feeling. There are no pills for that!

I've never quite understood what boredom actually means because the word seems to be an umbrella term what boredom actually means because the word seems to be an umbrella term — Tom Storm

Right. There's this too.

It also seems to be related to anxiety. — Tom Storm

Well, as I wrote to @schopenhauer1 a while ago, I have felt pathological boredom to my bones. I know well what it is. It might be connected to "stress" (I said I was feeling a big pressure inside), but not to anxiety, i.e. worry, nervousness, etc. These feelings are much higher on a "livingess" scale. Boredom --pathological one--is more like apathy. Nothing can interest you or make sense to you. It's close to death. Temporary, transient boredom is of course a totally different thing.

“All of man’s misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly in a room” — Tom Storm

Nice! And true. It can be said in a million ways ...

Listen. I know about boredom as a few know ... Boredom can become pathological, a mental disease. I suffered from it for about two years, during my compulsory military service in the Navy. I had lost my interest for everything. And I was feeling a big pressure inside, like a knot. I hope no one knows ever that feeling! Yet, as serious as that could be, I cannot consider it as a "human condition". It does not characterize human life. It's a disease. And if one is generally sane, it will pass when the causes of its occurance are lifted. As it has passed with me, a little before my service came to its end.

And, as you saw, I can even joke about that! :smile:

Go back to some posts discussed on here for reference. — schopenhauer1

I'm sorry, I didn't. But reading other posts won't change what I think about "boredom" being at the the heart of human condition. It's too dramatic and too shallow. That's why I joked. You shouldn't take it that seriously. Here's another joke, not mine this time:



And here's something showing the unimportance and uselessness of "boredom", from another important philosopher:
"Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves?"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)

Some of Schopenhauer's best insights were his ideas about the centrality of boredom. — schopenhauer1

Why boredom, especially? Wasn't he certain about fear or grief or anger or any other among of a host of feelings too?

[quote="schopenhauer1;d12594"Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition.[/quote]
Boredom is just one of the many feelings a human being can be aware of at any time. Most probably Schopenhauer was "bored to death" and boredom dominated all his other feelings! :smile:
If he had lived today, he would maybe have chosen "stress" as the basic element at the heart of human condition in our times ...

But then, we can say of a lot of other things besides feelings to be at the heart of the human condition, i.e. which are more characteristic of the human condition (than boredom): Suffering, love, compassion, communication and understanding, acknowledgment and recognition, ... All these are very important needs --at the heart of the human condition-- that characterize humans, making them different from other species.

there are no physical infinities. — Agent Smith

If you mean that there's nothing physical that is infinite, it seems true but I cannot be sure about it. For example, I think that it has not been proven or decided by science whether the Universe is finite or not. Then, what is the size of a physical circle (drawn on paper)? Isn’t "pi" infinite? (Actually it is not even a rational number.)

nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical — Agent Smith

In part or in whole, neither "physical" or "nonphysical" are physical (material): they are concepts! :smile:

Even if I'm totally certain that my brain cells have absolutely nothing to do with ethics, I can see your point. :smile:

I think you may be falling into the trap of adopting the Cartesian categorisation of elements of existence. — Daemon

I cannot know whether I fall into a trap or not. If I knew, it wouldn't be a trap, would it? :smile:
And certainly, you cannot know myself better than me! :smile:
Then, I do not adopt any theory at all. I can bring up Descartes only as an example or for description purposes. If I share common points with him, this is another story.
What I say is all based on my reality, which in turn is based on my experience, logic and knowledge (facts).

But how does that account for your soul? — Daemon

"That", what?

Well, I have to go out now ...

My mind, as I mentioned. — Daemon

I read that. But your mind is not physical!

I don't see that in the paper you refer to AP — Daemon

Alkis Piskas. — Daemon

Ah, OK. Well, I have mentioned that paper 3 or 4 times already in this thread. Here's one more: "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks"(https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full)

I've got a body that can do things like pushing the keys on the piano — Daemon

Do you mean that your body plays piano automatically, like a robot? :smile:
What is that directs it, not just to play (i.e. tap on the keys), but also what to play and how to play it, how to express a melody, how to compose a music piece ... ?

Ethics, unequivocally. — Garrett Travers

Unequivocally? I cant't even think about how ethics get involved here ...
Do you want to give justice to Neuroscience in general?

I don't see that in the paper you refer to AP — Daemon

What does "AP" stand for?

They aren't talking about art or music appreciation, they are talking about "wakefulness" — Daemon

I already explained the lack of validity regarding "wakefulenss", and also that this is just an attribute and cannot stand for a definition/description of consciousness.

I believe the statistics show a general downward trend in violence, and a general improvement in the human condition over recent history — Daemon

You don't have to "believe" ... Statistics talk for themselves! :smile:

About crime, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2cqrwx/revision/8: "The crime rate increased in the 20th century, particularly after the 1960s. Many new crimes have emerged due to the rapid technological, social and economic changes."
(Notice that one of the reasons is technology, which is quite pertinent to our case.)

About suicides, from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-59259-910-3_10: "Although reports of suicide have existed since the Greek and Roman times, the trends of suicide specifically in the United States have drastically changed, especially within the past century."

About drug abuse, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144502/:
"Overall illicit drug use reached a peak in the late 1970s, declined during the 1980s, rose again in the 1990s, and has remained relatively stable during the past several years."

I wonder if you could tell me what it is that your soul or spirit actually does? — Daemon

Come again? :smile:
(I mean, can you be more precise?)

This view is "hammered" into people from early age on — EugeneW

Very right. In the beggining, the material world --later represented by science-- was part of philosophy, but I believe that philosophers could distinguish between material and non-material things and they were putting them in their right perspective. Then, in 19th century, "science" (a word coined in that period) gained its "independence". Since then, it has grown up to become more more and important than the other part --the non-physical one-- of philosophy. The Western world has followed (the philosophy of) Aristoteles, who was a "materialist" but only in relation to Plato. That is why even today "materialism" is contrasted to "idealism" --a totally wrong idea-- because Plato is considered an "idealist" --I guess, mainly because he talked about "Ideas"!

We don't know how the West would have been evollved if it has followed Plato's philosophy instead of Aristoteles' ... (But I like to imagine about it, even if I'm certainly not an "idealist"! :smile:)

Science is nice, but it's only knowledge. About the external side of material reality. — EugeneW

It's good that you made the distinction, because knowledge contains non material things too! :wink:

it [technology] will never, if sophisticated enough, be indistinguishable from magic, for the magic lies within — EugeneW

Nice!

I see neuroscience as attempting to describe the biological mechanisms that produce and govern aspects of consciousness. — Daemon

This is a totally different thing, and I generally agree with it. But it's not what the paper I referred to was talking about ("Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Network", https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full), in which these guys try to handle consciousness as a whole. They even consider it as a subject matter of --or belonging to-- Neuroscience! And it's not only them: the whole scientific community (except a few cases) shares the same view.

I think you should be targeting philosophical materialists, cognitive scientists and computationalists. — Daemon

Oh them, for sure! :smile:

Glad we are both viewing things from quite a similar perspective. It's always good to have allies! :grin:

Which isn't to say neuroscience is completely useless. — EugeneW

Certainly not. I have stressed that point earlier in this thread.

Well if they're happy with that.... — EugeneW

I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc.

But then, scientists themselves as well as technology are directed by powerful beings on the planet with financial interests and dominance as an end purpose.

Just a last point and to give credit were it is deserved: There are honest scientists, who accept the limits of Science and consider "consciousness" as "a mystery" or not in the realm of Science.

I know, I have told you that I can't support you in your topic, i.e. support your position, but maybe I can help in indicating its vulnerabilities. (No offense!) You can see more (clarifying) points --quite important too in my view-- I just brought up regarding the "Neuroscience-consciousness" issue at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/663265

Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness — EugeneW

They are wrong even in that limited --if not wrong-- view of consciousness: even when we are asleep, a part of our consciousness still works! How can simple things like that be missed? Well, they can, if one is biased --"blind" to the general picture-- and tries stubbornly to prove the improvable!

"The important internal factor" and (as?) "the physical basis". That's exactly what it isn't. — EugeneW

Right. Neuroscience --and Science in general-- tries to describe consciousness as if Otology were trying to describe music (art) in terms of sounds (vibrations). Of course, music depends on sound, but (the sense of) harmony, melody and rhythm, the main --but not the only-- ingredients of music, are not of a physical nature. Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature.

I just need some more support from you guys, that's all. — Garrett Travers

As far as I am concerned, I'm sorry for not being able to support you in this topic, Garrett ... :sad:

The brain is no digital computer. It reflects or recreates analogous. Like a planetarium representing the solar system. — EugeneW

Right. And I am afraid that the neuroscientists refers to (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full) totally ignore this fact and are moving in a totally wrong direction. (It cannot be a considence that they have chosen the ttile "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks" as their title.)

Consciousness is distinguished by wakefulness and attention. That's specifically how they define it in neuroscience — Garrett Travers

This is not a definition. The word "distinguish" is used as an attribute/characteristic of something or for comparison purposes. But even if I accept this as the official definition of neuroscience about consciousness --I doubt it is-- it is extremely limited. Actually it's not at all what is commonly believed that consciousness is. Just check the terms "wakefulness", "attention" and you will see how ridiculous this is as a definition!

I really don't undestand ... Why do you defend neuroscience so persistently in the matter of consiousness ... What it's for you? And esp. why are you doing that in here? Are you here to promote Science or Philosophy?

Again, I accept your position, I just need to figure out how it can be empirically validated for my to adopt it. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for accepting my position. That's all you needed to do. You don't have to adopt it! :smile:

Acknowledge, not granting. — Garrett Travers

Well, I made it a little more dramatic ... It was a joke, anyway!

for years people have been trying to pin down what structure(s) actually produces consciousness — Garrett Travers

This is exactly what I was talking about: How can one be concerned about the structure, etc. of something if one cannot define this something or even know what this something is? One can talk about the structure of DNA because one knows what DNA is. If one had no idea what DNA is, could one talk about how it functions? It's totally absurd.

They do define it. Just not in terms that align with traditional views on the subject. — Garrett Travers

OK, but where? One shouldn't have to read and read and read down the article to find out how these guys define "consciousness", what does it mean to them, etc. Because maybe they talk about a (totally) different thing than what "consciousness" traditionally and generally means. In fact, in such a case they should better used another term. Same or different term, a disciplined mind --esp. a scientific one-- defines that term before starting to talk about it so that the reader know what he is talking about!

What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define?
— Alkis Piskas
Qualify these questions, they don't make sense to me. — Garrett Travers

The title of the paper is "Consciousness: New Concepts and Neural Networks". If you look the term "Neural Network" in tthe Web, you will see that it is a very known AI (Artifical Intelligence) term: "Artificial neural networks (ANNs)". And they apply that to "the network of consciousness". And again, I ask, how can they talk about a network of consciousness if they cannot --or do not-- define what conciousness is. My reasoning is clear, simple and straight down the line.

***

Well, I will not annoy you anymore with my remarks on your topic. Maybe some day you realize what's going on with Science and Consciousness. I might as well do the same, and get a new perspective on the subject., Let's see! :smile:

all of you are absolutely entitled to your own personal opinions — Garrett Travers

Thank you for granting us this right! :grin:

what I cannot permit to pass, intellectually, is the wholesale disregard of the entire corpus of neuroscientific research that has provided us ... — Garrett Travers

Well, this sounds a little too stern ...
But ... whom are you referring to? Who is disregarding neuroscience research "wholesale"? That would be quite absurd.

"Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 2019 meta-analysis" — Garrett Travers

1) Re "The definition of consciousness remains a difficult issue that requires urgent understanding and resolution. Currently, consciousness research is an intensely focused area of neuroscience.": How can there be a research on something that it is so difficult that one cannot even present any definition? In other words, how can a whole research be based on something that cannot be defined?

2) Re "to establish a greater understanding of the concept of consciousness": Since when is Science dealing with concepts, i.e. with abstract ideas? This sounds quite off-beat ...

3) Re "an accurate assessment of the level of consciousness ...": How can one talk about "levels" of something that they cannot even define?

4) Re "proposes our assumptions with regard to the network of consciousness": What? Network? Do they talk about Neural Networks in the field of Artificial Intelligence? And this, again, about something that they cannot even define?

Again, no one can disregard neurology as a whole. It has done --and still does-- a lot of good work in the field of medicine. But as you can see from the above, these guys are not even able to present a decent paper, i.e., one that is coherent and makes sense. Concepts! Science dealing with concepts, and particularly, with things that it cannot define? This is quite absurd.

That is why I say that Science should only deal with things that it knows and handles well: physical things. It should not enter and get involved in fields that are of a non-physical nature. It is out of its jurisdiction. The tools and methods it uses do not apply there. Simple as that. The above case is a good example.

Garret, I suggest that you leave the subject of "consciousness" to philosophy. Which, anyway, is what TPF is all about! :smile:

I know that the list in the poll is not exhaustive — Benj96

Not exhaustive??? This is the longest poll list I have ever list by far!
Then, if you think that it isn't exhaustive, why don't you just ask everyone to present his/her version?

What theory or proposition do you hold as to the original cause of existence — Benj96

Your question is incomplete: you should add the word "Universe" next to "existence", even if --or, especially because-- it is contained in the options, since alone, this term can refer to a lot of things.

Also, the word "original" is redundant. Can there also be a "second" or "later" or "newer" cause of the existence of the Universe? In fact of the existence of enything? A cause is something that makes X happen. After X has happened the cause and effect relationship and the corresp. phenomenon are complete.

I know. There's much more ... Modern attempts to keep materialism alive in another form or create a compromise with non-materialist(ic) views ...

"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it."
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy)

You must probably know that "naturalism" is mainly or usually contrasted to "supernaturalism" and "materialism" to "idealism". Well, who is talking about "supernatural" things other than parapsychologists and ignorant people? Likewise about "idealism", which refers mainly either to our old friend Plato or to aesthetics. Philosophers do not talk about these things today. Not in my knowledge, at least.

in what way is materialism dead? — IP060903

It's a dead issue. It's a dead end. It's a lost cause. It is dead wrong. It makes no sense. It is based on a lie.

Materialism is dead among philosophers.