I agree,You can say that. But you can rooted "Duty" to "Pleasure and Pain" — diesynyang

You could suggest that but you'd be wrong. What's really going on is only that you have a duty to suggest that. You just don't realize that that was your motivation, and that your motivation had nothing to do with pleasure and pain.

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

*I agree that I have to read more hahahaha

We really need a metric on defining and categorizing pain and pleasure. Like which is of greater degree and significance. Do you all have some reference or idea on how we could do 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

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

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. — diesynyang

No, that's wrong. Animals might believe that they're acting on a pleasure pain impulse, but that's not really what's going on subconsciously.

Re "animal doesn't have sense of duty, because you can say it"--that's exactly what you're doing here. Everything is a pleasure/pain metric just because you can say it. Otherwise, what else are you claiming there is to this?

Then would it not be opinionated and based on the person's perception? I like Kant better.

^Excatly

If it's opinionated then you can't say it's universal. There's that problem.

The Basic Reason for a human to do something is to Be Happy and to avoid Pain. — diesynyang

For a lot of humans, this is probably true. But hardly for all. There are many who consciously abstain from pleasures and embrace hardship.

^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?

There are so many reasons. Some seek it to test themselves. Some believe it is a step to leading a better life. Some believe it will strengthen themselves physically and mentally. Some don't even know the answer.

Why do you think they want to embrace that hardship? is it for the hardship sake — diesynyang

You think that it couldn't be for hardship's sake, even if they were to say that it was, to say that that's all it is.

What supports the claim that it can't be for hardship's sake?

^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

I need to know what are your argument — diesynyang

What are my arguments with respect to what?

why is it that you can't receive my argument — diesynyang

"Everyone does anything they do for x reason(s)" (where the reason in question is mental content) is obviously wrong, because it's easy to find people who say that they're not doing something for x reason at all.

^Yes, I think we can rooted by testing themselves mean to know more about them self, if they know about themselves they became happy. — diesynyang

That's not necessarily true. It may bring them knowledge about themselves, but knowledge doesn't always lead to happiness. In fact, I'd say it rarely leads to happiness.

Some want for a better life, which can also be rooted down to "seeking happiness". — diesynyang

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Some people may simply want to lead a life that isn't harmful to their environment.

Strengthen oneself can also be rooted down to happiness. — diesynyang

How?

^ 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.

^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..

Indeed, lots of our mental activity is unconscious. — diesynyang

What would count as evidence of any unconscious mental activity?

^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.. — diesynyang

If it's just an issue of how someone is using words, that's fine. That's how they use words. But that doesn't tell us anything else.

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.”

. . . 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." — diesynyang

At least as presented, that's pretty much all completely unsupported crap, by the way. It's a bunch of people making claims with no logical argumentation or empirical, evidential support to suggest any of the claims being made.

Not only do people tend to adopt the physical behavior (posture, facial gestures, arm and hand movements) of strangers with whom they interact, — diesynyang

Let's suppose that's true empirically.

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

^
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.

"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." — diesynyang

I disagree with this.

Take for example the concept of charity. Why would someone give to the poor?
A cynic may say "because giving to the poor makes one feel good", so it would be inherently selfish.
But this doesn't have to be the case. When one gives to charity, one may also want that person to stop being poor. Not because of any feelings that may be attached to giving freely, but for the sake of the well-being of another person, who is unrelated to oneself. Speaking from a personal perspective, it doesn't make me feel like a good person for giving to someone in need. All it does is make me hope the person I gave money to will put it to good use and help him or herself get out of their bad situation.

As with all these theories that state selflessness doesn't exist; they're usually written by cynics who, by virtue of their own inability to commit selfless acts, project such abilities on everyone around them, and, as with all things psychological, its fairly easy to create a framework that supports it. After all, it is impossible to look inside people's heads to figure out the truth.

Unsurprisingly, given that what you're quoting isn't a response to me, none of that answers the question I asked.

Why are you changing tactics to ignoring questions that you're asked and instead quoting a bunch of stuff that's at best loosely related to what you're being asked?

^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

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

Which has nothing to do with what I'm asking you.

You had posted about this:

Not only do people tend to adopt the physical behavior (posture, facial gestures, arm and hand movements) of strangers with whom they interact, — diesynyang

I said let's assume that that's the case empirically. I'm fine with accepting that. And I'm not saying that that is conscious, or intentional, or that it's not a default tendency. I'm fine with all of that.

Now, given that, what I'm asking is this: why are we calling that "mental"?

In what way is it like a thought, or a desire, or a concept, or an idea, or whatever mental phenomenon we're saying that it is or is like?

^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.

^ 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.