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

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.

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

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?

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

What evidence do you have to support your claim that happiness is based on mindset alone?

The pain comes from the torture. The suffering comes from the frustrated desire to not be tortured. — matt

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?

Then where does the correlation between income and happiness come from?

If happiness were entirely self-delusion, how could it be dependent on forces outside the mind in any way?

Evidence? This is metaphysics, not medicine. It has to do with attitude and values - how you look at things. — T Clark

Are you implying that the benefits of adopting different attitudes and values are somehow exempt from the concept of evidence or proof?

Buddhism's First Noble Truth (there are 4) - All life is suffering. Second Nobel Truth - Suffering is caused by desire. The desire for pleasure. The desire not to feel pain. Struggle. — T Clark

Just because something is stated as being truth, does not make it true. All life is suffering? Nonsense, that would imply that happiness doesn't exist and would act as an argument in favor of my original argument anyway. To say that suffering is the default state of human nature is agreeable. Suffering is caused by desire? So when it comes to the desire not to be tortured, the suffering in that area comes from desire itself? Not the person shoving bamboo under your fingernails?

In what way wouldn't it affect us? — schopenhauer1

If we couldn't experience pain, it wouldn't affect us in any way.

What does Watts' status as an entertainer or a philosopher have to do with whether or not that is true? — T Clark

That's fair. My generalized view of what Alan Watts does is take important concepts and present them in a confusing way in order to provoke thought in that area. I'm not discrediting him as important, but I don't think he had the habit of presenting actual truths. To me, it seems he is more of a disinformationist in the same sense that Reggie Watts is.

But you're right, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. Does he propose any evidence to suggest that this is the case though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no way for pain to exist without struggle. Wouldn't the rejection of the struggle to ease one's pain just leave them stuck in it. I agree that expecting to rid oneself from pain completely is futile, but removing the struggle completely would just be counterproductive and I see no reason to suggest that would make someone happier than another person who attempts to solve the problem that is causing the pain in the first place.

The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the I out of the experience...Sanity, wholeness and integration lie in the realisation that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate I or mind can be found .... [Life] is a dance, and when you are dancing, you are not intent on getting somewhere. The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance. — T Clark

I disagree that happiness is not a form of pleasure and I don't think that this specific passage is about happiness. I used to read Alan Watts and it bothered me when I read he was considered more of a spiritual entertainer than a philosopher. But when I look back at it, he wrote very simple ideas that he convoluted with a bunch of poetic nothingness, Honestly I think he helped me get into philosophy because I doubt I would've taken what he said as seriously had it not been difficult to interpret at times, but I have to agree with the spiritual entertainer label. It's still entertaining to read, but the entire passage above can be summed up as, the meaning of life is life itself. I don't really see what that has to do with happiness but perhaps I am mistaken.

Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I like the passage, and I can agree to an extent that everything is fruitless, but wouldn't my proposal break the concepts that he speaks of. Things would still be pointless, but the pointlessness wouldn't affect us on an emotional level.

The surest path to the long hill and the big round rock is the stupefying loss of passion--the emotions. What mortal, above-ground proletarians should do about their work life is a good question, which bears on whether we will have a chance at happiness (one of those emotions you want to get rid of) or mere survival. — Bitter Crank

What if your passion is to reduce existential risk? In a world with a finite amount of resources, we can either dedicate them to a longer life or a 'happier' life for society. The answer to that question determines how to approach my passion. A balance could be struck between the two, but that balance runs the risk of killing us all. But does a balance need to be established? If pain is the default, the reason we would actually enjoy pleasure is because it is an escape from pain. Wouldn't this be a more efficient escape from pain than the natural one?

Because with pain and pleasure being the motivator, the default human state would be pain. If you were to do nothing, eventually you would experience some form of pain that would motivate you to do something, whether it is hunger, insecurity. Just as we are chasing pleasure, we're running from pain. The difference is in most cases you need to work for pleasure, but pain will always be waiting for you.

Instinct here is defined as an innate behavior in response to stimuli that is essentially "pre-programmed" in the organism. So, a bird flies south for the winter, sea turtles move towards the beach to lay eggs, etc. etc. I will also lump certain forms of learned behavior into instinct as well. — schopenhauer1

Just because a bird flies south for the winter doesn't mean that it doesn't 'think' it is doing that of its own accord. Just because a human thinks it has free will doesn't mean it does.

Yes, it is not innate, but it seems to be epigenetic in a way for some learned behavior in other animals, as they are "primed" to learn and cannot help but learn based on their programming — schopenhauer1

Is the process of learning in humans any different?? Do humans deliberately learn?? They may be able to deliberately choose what to learn, but the process of learning is mostly intuitive/instinctual in humans as well as animals.

An example of this is a daughter chimp learns how to be a "good" mother from watching its mom. However, the daughter chimp does not have a choice to do anything but learn from her mother. It cannot say one day, "eh, I don't feel like being a mother". — schopenhauer1

Is this any different from humans learning how to be good parents?? Is there any evidence to suggest that this is the only place that chimps learn how to be good parents?? That they have no thought process themselves?? And do you have any evidence that chimp mothers are genetically incapable of abandoning their offspring??

In a way, this is an instinct to learn specialized behaviors for survival. — schopenhauer1

Are there any behaviors that humans learn that aren't either specialized for survival or derived from behaviors that are?

This linguistic mind has changed the way human behavior functions from other animals. It gives humans the ability to create complex hierarchical thinking. — schopenhauer1

Is this the product of instinct or something else?

Even something as fundamental as child-rearing is not instinctual. If people want to have a child, it is a desire just like any other desire. That is to say, it originates with concepts (I, raise, baby, development, nurture, care for, etc.) and concepts are purely in the realm of linguistic-cultural. — schopenhauer1

Are desires not instinctual?? are concepts necessary for desires to exist?? Would a person that was raised in an environment without an existing language be unable to desire?? In my opinion, it seems more likely that desires are all instinctual and we use concepts to be able to communicate them to other people and ourselves, and the adaptation to a language is in itself instinctual.

How do you know it is an instinct and not just something that is what you simply desire based on your personality and linguistic-cultural enculturation? — schopenhauer1

The only way I could think of to prove that SOME desires are separate from culture would be to perform an experiment on humans to test what would happen if you raised someone in an environment without language or culture, and that would be deeply unethical.

This is learned behavior, and not the kind where we just can't "help" but learn, but ones where the culture/family/community transmits information and instruction. — schopenhauer1

Couldn't it be instinctual for the culture to transmit that information??

There is no decision, or alternatives. — schopenhauer1

You believe in free will don't you?

The content is wide and varied due to ability for conceptual transmission via language. — schopenhauer1

Yes our ability to learn is improved by our ability to use language, couldn't that be viewed as an instinctual evolutionary advantage? Can you really call the human thought process anything but instinctual???

In Einstein's epistemology..."the axiomatic structure (A) of a theory is built psychologically on the experiences (E) of the world of perceptions. Inductive logic cannot lead from the (E) to the (A). The (E) need not be restricted to experimental data, nor to perceptions; rather, the (E) may include the data of Gedanken experiments. — Galuchat

But even if the (E) is the data of Gedanken experiments, is that not to some extent the result of abductive reasoning? If we define abductive reasoning as a form of logical inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation, isn't that synonymous with the statement above which you proposed?

Einstein referred to the demarcation between concepts or axioms and perceptions or data as the 'metaphysical original sin' (1949); and his defense of it was its usefulness. — Galuchat

Was he saying that the sin was the separation of the two concepts or the lack of separation?

I mistyped when I said pure science and went back and changed it to logic being pure logic and science being applied logic.

My suggestion is to look further into what logic is: it's a formal discipline that has alot of specificity to it — StreetlightX

Here is my understanding of logic. Logic is a formalization of the concept of reasoning that has been slowly built over time by people trying to more effectively make sense of things. It's main categorizations are informal and formal logic. Informal including inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Formal mainly being deductive. Attempts to improve the rigor of deductive reasoning led to the creation of propositional, first-order, modal, and other similar formal systems. The scientific method is the cycle of these three forms of reasoning according to Charles Sanders Peirce and it seems to me that is an accurate statement. My main question, is there an application of logic that falls outside this cycle?

I think your'e in for a hard time trying to discuss anything sensibly if you're aren't familiar with even the actual axioms of logic themselves — StreetlightX

What are you referring to when you say the axioms of logic?

I don't mean this harshly, but only as a suggestion for study! — StreetlightX

Lol you don't have to worry about me getting offended about potentially being wrong. If it seems like I'm taking an aggressive stance, that's just how I can come off sometimes. But I'm just trying to develop my ideas further and it helps to have them written out and criticized by other people.

One can establish a system of logic without a single reference to any real life constraint, or scientific result. Logic is more or less entirely disconnected from the empirical — StreetlightX

When you say this, are you referring to deductive reasoning exclusively, or do you include informal logic as well? And if logic is separate from real life constraints, does it have any value outside of paving the way for its application to the real world? Would a good analogy for the relationship be "logic is 'pure logic' and science is 'applied logic', in comparison to pure and applied mathematics"?

Is the act of formulating a hypothesis not just abductive reasoning, testing said hypothesis deductive, and developing theories inductive?

But no scientific method establishes, say, the axiom of extentionality — StreetlightX

I'm not familiar with the axioms that you speak of, but if we define the scientific method as this:



Would it have been possible to have discovered the functional capabilities of those axioms without the use of this cycle?

One suspects that the very vocabulary here is wrong, that there is a mistake of grammar at work. — StreetlightX

If you're suggesting that I am misunderstanding what I am trying to say, it is very possible that you're right lol.

Let's not forget: logic is just a formalisation of rules for inference making. There are multiple logics, not all of which are compatible with each other, depending on what it is you'd like to do. It's just a series of games, like chess and checkers: it simply makes very little sense - it's not even wrong - to speak of the scientific method in establishing the rules for those games - likewise logic. — StreetlightX

I agree, but is the use of the scientific method not subject to those rules as well?

Ahhhh, the consequences of winning....

I'm still having fun. I didn't take away anyone else's ability to make rules, I just took away other peoples ability to take away my ability to make rules. It is a game, isn't it?

That violates rule #18

Rule #22: Exempting rule #20 and #21 no rule never applies.

Rule #21:Rule #20 never applies.

It doesn't matter when rule #11 does not apply when another rule states that it itself applies all of the time. Rule #11 doesn't state that no rule can apply at all times, it just states that not all rules apply at the same time. That statement suggests that some rules don't apply all of the time, not that all rules only apply sometimes.

How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself. — Noble Dust

Where is that a rule?

Rule #19: Rule #17 and Rule #19 apply at all times.

That doesn't state that no rule can apply every time.

Why does rule #11 take precedence over rule #17?

Rule #17: The hierarchy that the rules follow start at rule 18, with the rule number as variable x and for every rule if |x-18|=-y then the instance where y=0 is the most important rule

Rule #18: The user MonfortS26 is the only user with the privilege of being exempt from all rules and his rules are accepted as law.

Rule #16: Rule #11 never applies

Rule 15: All white people with brown hair must exclaim "Glub Glub Walla Walla" every time they use the word philosophy. Glub Glub Walla Walla

I guess I just have a problem with the word altruism in the same sense that I have a problem with the word soul. They are innately flawed concepts to me and their usage doesn't really align with my perception of reality. I'd much rather use philanthropy to describe my definition of a 'purely good' life. It doesn't necessarily promote the idea of 'selflessness' the way that altruism does

So, the circularity concerns rationality, not logic. — TheMadFool

I'd say that lines up with the reasoning that led me to my OP. That is if we're using rationality and reasoning as synonyms.

The logic I'm familiar with doesn't tolerate contradictions but some say contradictions are part of quantum physics. What should we do? Ignore real observation or change our logic? — TheMadFool

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to make a statement on that lol.

To get back to the problem of circularity of rationality the only thing we can say about being rational is that we learn it from the outside world. This breaks the circularity. We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool

I can get behind this.

Isn't this altruism? — TheMadFool

I guess you may have a point. But I think the reason to live a 'purely good' life in that sense is more narcissistic than altruistic. Is it truly selfless to do those things?

Can't I? I'll call this self-destructive altruism: altruistic behaviour with negative effect to one's happiness and/or well-being. — BlueBanana

Is there any instance of altruism that doesn't lead to some form of short term or long term happiness? Yes, altruism can be detrimental to one's well-being in the long run but I highly doubt any level of altruism exists that doesn't produce some amount of pleasure in the brain.

You haven't answered my point about us being more motivated by our inner moral codes than by external incentives set by, for example, society. — BlueBanana

Where do your 'inner' moral codes come from if not society?

What then is an example of perfect goodness? — TheMadFool

There isn't one, but the closest you can come to 'perfect goodness' is dedicating every action to the most productive ways of increasing the net happiness of humanity.

Yes there can, and no I don't. Are you claiming slef-destructive behaviour in general doesn't exist? — BlueBanana

I don't think there is any self-destructive behavior that doesn't provide pleasure in the short term.

Logic is not innate to the mind. We have to learn it. From where? From the external world. We learn the rules of logic by observing the world. Deductive logic works fine at the macroscopic level. In our everyday lives we never see violations of logical principles and deductive and inductive logic work well. — TheMadFool

I don't know that I agree with this. It is my understanding that to some extent, the circle of abductive>deductive>inductive reasoning is intuitive. I certainly followed that path before I knew what it is, and I think the creation of those terms was less about 'creating a way to think well' and more about understanding how we think. I don't think that logic was created by humanity, I think it is a tool that humanity is capable of intuitively using. So I disagree with the notion that logic is an aspect of the external world. I think it is a mental process that can be applied to external events and can be refined through understanding, not a mysterious product learned through nurture.