[Marketa]

Fear is as balanced distribution of energy as happiness; any state you can exist in is a BALANCED one, otherwise the whole "system of you" would collapse.
Emotions don't have nothing to do with distribution of energy in our bodies (or just a very little), I know it, because I suffered a mental disease and I had depressions and stuff and you know what? I experienced a great variety of emotions which were caused by different states of my brain and some pills for increasing or lowering a level of some chemicals in my brain influenced what I felt. So the truth is very simple: we feel emotions according to state of certain chemicals in our brains.

[Guille]

marketa,


that's something I'f been defending since the begining of the thread! at last another defender.

But of course, or atleast this is what I think, we need to have the scientific explenation and the philosofic explenation. The second one is were I doubt. any ideas?

[Marketa]

I doubt, too. Because even if I was very smart and suggested a very good philosophical system inside which I would prove what I thought about the matter, there always could come another person with a totally different opinion and prove it inside his/her own philosophical system...
Only things that can be proven are those from the "objective universe" - the things we see, hear, feel the same due to our shared history (evolution of universe, atoms, moleculs, DNA, cells,...). And that's the scientific explanation.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Marketa

Fear is as balanced distribution of energy as happiness;

You would do well to research the literature. Since the 1920s the evidence has mounted against your position (see below). Fear is considered a "stress" state while happiness is not. Balance refers to a non-stressed state of the body.

Originally Posted by Marketa

any state you can exist in is a BALANCED one, otherwise the whole "system of you" would collapse.

First, "balance" is used for convenience. Homeostasis is the correct term which has many implications. The most important is that systems have tolerances. As you approach and exceed a tolerance, collapse is not necessarily immediate. Deterioration preceeding collapse is frequently the case. At these junctures, the system is "stressed." Prolonged stress weakens the system which leads to collapse. The concept is closer to driving your car through the city with unavoidable pot-holes. Compounded with fast starts and fast braking as well as poor maintenance, the vehicle becomes severely stressed and will have a shorter life. But it may not collapse at the first pot-hole or first fast start or first fast stop. Weakening occurs over time and by degree. Similarly, the human body can be stressed and be given poor maintenance (poor nutrition and little exercise). It, too, will not suffer immediate collapse but will suffer a shorter life span as a result of the stress.

Originally Posted by Marketa

...
Emotions don't have nothing to do with distribution of energy in our bodies (or just a very little),

If emotions are not a manifestation of energy, what else could they be? Are you suggesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics (Einstein's famous E=mcc) is wrong? Or are you suggesting that emotions have mass (particles of matter, perhaps)?

Originally Posted by Marketa

I know it, because I suffered a mental disease and I had depressions and stuff and you know what? I experienced a great variety of emotions which were caused by different states of my brain and some pills for increasing or lowering a level of some chemicals in my brain influenced what I felt. So the truth is very simple: we feel emotions according to state of certain chemicals in our brains.

That is absolutely true: "we feel emotions according to state of certain chemicals in our brains." But these emotions are based in neurotransmitters which are based in charged particles (ions) and molecules.

And if a pharmaceutical pill is taken, aren't the additional chemicals a "change" in the chemicals of the body? And do these chemicals get distributed through the blood circulatory system to the brain? And does a change in the emotions occur after the change in chemicals and distribution of them occurs?

Nevertheless, these chemical changes have effects within the body. Those suffering from depression typically become lethargic (even though their mind remains quite active - or overactive) - see Dr. Gregg Henriques' Behavioral Shutdown Model (BSM). Basically, with depression, the conscious mind has not created a plan of action which is acceptable. Because the conscious mind perceives a serious problem ("my wife is leaving me," "I lost my job," "I have a fatal disease," "nobody cares about me," etc.), the body is placed in a state of stress which includes energy conservation (outward lethargy). Meanwhile, with the mind in a "problem solving" mode, beta-CCM is heightened. The beta-CCM molecule is known to create greater awareness, mental alertness, and greater anxiety (and ultimately convulsions).

With anxiety, a variety of bodily changes occur which are differences in energy distribution by virtue of them being changes in blood flow (the key distributor of energy resources). As far back as Walter Cannon in the 1920s-1930s it was known that during stress ("fight or flight" was his term), blood flow is diverted to the extremities and the torso (digestion) is sacrificed.

From the www.theoryofmind.org website ...

We are "control systems" which respond to environmental factors by adjusting our internal bodies in an effort to maintain homeostasis, to maintain balance. Balance is like a target with our whole being focused upon it. Wavering away from this target is immediately noted and corrected to get us back on target. As Walter B. Cannon explained:

"If a state remains steady, it does so because any tendency towards change is automatically met by increased effectiveness of the factor or factors which resist the change. ... If changes threaten, indicators at once signal the danger, and corrective agencies promptly prevent the disturbance or restore the normal when it has been disturbed." (Cannon, 1932, 1967. Pg. 299, 303)

This principle also underlies William T. Powers' Perceptual Control Theory (PCT):

"When a disturbance occurs, a control system acts automatically to oppose the incipient change in the controlled variable. ... perceptual control theory says that behavior is not produced by computing output; it is produced by comparing inputs with desired inputs, and using the difference to drive output." (Powers, 1990.)

Remarkably, descriptions of the hypothalmus are perfectly in accord with Cannon and Powers:

"Factors such as blood pressure, body temperature, fluid and electrolyte balance, and body weight are held to a precise value called the set-point. Although this set-point can migrate over time, from day to day it is remarkably fixed. ... To achieve this task, the hypothalamus must receive inputs about the state of the body, and must be able to initiate compensatory changes if anything drifts out of whack." (Molavi, et al., 1997. pg. 1,2)

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Marketa

I doubt, too. Because even if I was very smart and suggested a very good philosophical system inside which I would prove what I thought about the matter, there always could come another person with a totally different opinion and prove it inside his/her own philosophical system...
Only things that can be proven are those from the "objective universe" - the things we see, hear, feel the same due to our shared history (evolution of universe, atoms, moleculs, DNA, cells,...). And that's the scientific explanation.

1.there is no objective thing that can exist.

2.philosophy is needed to explain things science doesn't: empirical proves are as valid as philosofical ones.

[Guille]

Happiness and all the other feelings are abstract subjects in metaphysics. I believe that they are very relative: they depend on how you feel them (intensity), how you show (express) them, how you strike it back.... Thus, having a conclusion in this subject, even if it is for oneself, is extremely dificult.

[Guille]

I have been reading in wikipedia about G.E. Moore, an English philosopher, one of the founders of analytic philosophy.

Quote from Wikipedia:
"Moore began his ethics by proposing exactly what "good" is not. He did this by forming the Open Question Argument, showing that the assumed definition of "good" is incorrect due to an inability to localize "good". We begin by using one of the most common definitions of "good" (that being "good" is that which is desirable), then we proceed with the following line of argumentation: If we assert that "X is good", we are really asserting that X is desirable. In doing so, we must then ask "Is it good to desire X?" Thus leading to "Is it good for us to desire to desire X?" As it is plain to see, Moore's point is that by assuming "good" to be equal with another property leads to a line of questioning that never ends. The argument could also be structured as such:

1. "X is good" = "X has property P"
2. X has P, but is X good? (are things that have P good?)
3. X has P, but does it have P? (do things that have P have P?)

Ultimately, all you end up with is an infinite number of Xes being desirable for being desirable for being desirable ad infinitum...Therefore, "good" has to be its own property, separate from all others, "good" cannot equal that which we desire (or "happiness", or "pleasure")."end of quote.

Well, just change the word with happiness.

What do you think about this?

Moore also worked on the non-naturality and indefinability of good or happiness.

[michellemfry]

We're missing the usual 'gets pleasure from pain' people?
I know you are there, you are always there.
Sincerely,
Michelle

[michellemfry]

The opposite of gravity. The superlevitational is possibly that which no matter
what the mass or density, continues to expand and curve upwards. We are
reexamining gravity so a look at levity seems to be useful at best. I like the no matter what clause most of all in physics! Can't you just feel the grin take shape as you think, no matter what?!
I'll take (levity)^2 any moment will do. If I ever learn this keyboard correctly, it will be a small wonder.
Michelle

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

happiness is absolutely subjective. It only exists in the mind. To be happy is to have no fear because fear leads to worry and anxiety and indigestion and life is too short to have all these problems but nobody is perfect.

Happiness is finding what you are looking for. In this sense, I can say that I am not a happy person. Remember, a wise person does not have any smugness or complacency and wise person is not just modest but proud (self-worthiness and self-esteem without any form of inferiority complex).

Very well said Antonio,I agree 100%,happiness is a warmth from within.

regards michael.