First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Psychology of Happiness is a Fuzzy Logic
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



Of course you can't see through your skin. I didn't imply that you should peer into your own solar plexus to find your heart. The concept of a heart I speak of is indefinable because we all have a different one, so it is subjective. That will be a specially-classed ''thing''. Right to me, and I do believe it, is when we support something beneficial. Wrong is when we simply destroy for no good reason.

The universe is chaotic, but somewhere amidst quantum physics, as I will put it, there is a definition of right and wrong. Nothing is quite clear, distinct or relevant when all we see is discord.


INTJs just have to be right by virtue of being right. There just IS this thing. Full stop. I'm really getting a feeling that I'm talking to a wall or myself, because no reasonable counterargument is mounted, only assumptions returned and ambitious claims.

What you believe, what I believe, third parties believe is of absolutely no relevance. If there is no evidence for something, it is not reasonable to assert its existence.
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10


Nothing ever stops since it continues to resonate with itself. As for relevancy in beliefs, what do you think keeps us alive most of the time? The belief that life will become better if we strive to attain is what we need when we don't have proof that it will. Reasoning is by and large the most coldly calculating and unfeeling methodology we have. I hypothesize things as many others do. Those who hypothesize are typically branded as insane, yet often, they prove their theories. Ultimately, I do not speak of the supernatural, but rather, what is natural to human beings. We believe many things because we want to, some of which turn out to exist in some form or another. Nothing really needs to be evident. Will and drive sometimes come from the "stupidest" imaginable possibilities.
Posted 1/9/10
This thread is making me depressed. Heesh, sometimes I wonder if it's possible to over think things too much.
Posted 1/9/10

kyoukoujin wrote:

You're thinking about it too much.


Who? Me? There is no such thing as too much thinking. Exercising the mind is important.
Posted 1/9/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

This thread is making me depressed. Heesh, sometimes I wonder if it's possible to over think things too much.


Possibly. If we think too much about some things, our performance in them reduces greatly.
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:


kyoukoujin wrote:

You're thinking about it too much.


Who? Me? There is no such thing as too much thinking. Exercising the mind is important.


Not you.

Anyway, since it feels that you're an ass, I'll say you should exercise things in a proper way.

-end
Posted 1/9/10

kyoukoujin wrote:


Jiggalo wrote:


kyoukoujin wrote:

You're thinking about it too much.


Who? Me? There is no such thing as too much thinking. Exercising the mind is important.


Not you.

Anyway, since it feels that you're an ass, I'll say you should exercise things in a proper way.

-end


That's funny. All you could do was flame me a little. Nice try.
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10
Let me give another example at how we can all find that deeper sense of happiness, rather than just keep fulfilling ourselves with a superficial sense of pleasure.

I'll invoke the Taoism example of a Zen moment, which is the sense of accomplishment when one mentally figured out something. In Western analogy, this is known as the "Aha!" or "Eureka!" moment. And basically we're all equipped with this mechanism in our brains, to be precise it's what we all get when we all got the same joke.

Think about it, what's so empirically and evolutionary important about the mechanism to understand humor, that natural selection want all of us to have? Well to be frank it allows our brains to enter a mental state that's more acceptable to change. In fact, self-depicted humor is what we do best individually when we admitted to ourselves that we made a mistake, and then we'll move on to change our method because we got the joke, now get over it. Yes, in a sense humor can also act as a mental buffer to lessen the negative impact of mistakes and setbacks.

In the business of entertainment, a comedian tells the best jokes when he/she feels angry about something he/she thought that is wrong. And when the individuals mindset is in that state of invoking their humor, they also became less aggressive. It's also important for us to make clear distinction between humoring ourselves as to venting our frustration, AKA having a temper tantrum. For psychology has very different view about those two behaviors.

Furthermore, when we invoke the sense of accomplishment once again when something went right for us, it's more often in the case where we overcame monumental challenges. And although this genuine reward is only individually self-attainable, the good news is that it is also measurable, predictable, and therefore designable by any good observer. This is also one of the greatest evolutionary accomplishment that our brains obtained when they evolved what's now known as the frontal lobe; the ability to generate synthetic happiness in the form of accomplishment(citation).

However, when we engineered an external reward system for us to encourage individual accomplishments, this is when I think we failed ourselves big time in a major proportion. Simply by us ruining the only condition for individuals to obtain their own self-attainable genuine reward, and get this, when we rewarded them with an external reward before they could truly realize for themselves that they accomplished something monumental.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:



Nothing ever stops since it continues to resonate with itself. As for relevancy in beliefs, what do you think keeps us alive most of the time? The belief that life will become better if we strive to attain is what we need when we don't have proof that it will. Reasoning is by and large the most coldly calculating and unfeeling methodology we have. I hypothesize things as many others do. Those who hypothesize are typically branded as insane, yet often, they prove their theories. Ultimately, I do not speak of the supernatural, but rather, what is natural to human beings. We believe many things because we want to, some of which turn out to exist in some form or another. Nothing really needs to be evident. Will and drive sometimes come from the "stupidest" imaginable possibilities.


I withdraw. We have irreconcilable views, and I will leave it at that.
Posted 1/9/10


I see. That is fine. I don't exactly wish to make an enemy out of you. I also observed you made a group and have a taste for extreme metal. We at least have something in common. I did have a group, but axed it since it accomplished nothing. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the happiness attained through heavy metal.
Posted 1/9/10


What would we be without the gift of laughter? It is magic when people laugh with you and not at you.
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10

Jiggalo wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



However, when we engineered an external reward system for us to encourage individual accomplishments, this is when I think we failed ourselves big time in a major proportion. Simply by us ruining the only condition for individuals to obtain their own self-attainable genuine reward, and get this, when we rewarded them with an external reward before they could truly realize for themselves that they accomplished something monumental.



What would we be without the gift of laughter? It is magic when people laugh with you and not at you.

Not only that, what's so utterly astonishing is the fact that this "external reward system" is what religiously know as God.

If you don't believe me, what do you think about the phrase "God must have a twisted sense of humor"? Or more empirically the often overused "Jesus died for our sins" scenario? And the reality in the world of business that board of directors want to attract creative and talented CEO's with great tenures and big bonuses, when truly innovative individuals will create their own genuine rewards.

Money can buy happiness? Not worth my talent.
Posted 1/9/10


God is no reward for me. If anything, Jesus is the one who sinned by thinking he was so great as to die for all our sins.

Money is entirely worthless. Let it be known. Businesses only want exploitable assets such as their human resources. A work addiction isn't for me and should not be for anyone. True rewards are gifts of joy received from knowing what you did was right for you.
Posted 1/9/10 , edited 1/9/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Firstly, let us identify the realities of this issue.

1, Happiness is an unbrella term, for the hell knows only what exactly. Using the conventional connotation of happiness, we will get nowhere. If we are to analyse the pursuit of happiness, it is better to use a more abstract definition for happiness: fulfilled incentives or desires. If what I desire is fulfilled or attained, I become content in that regard. Now, to allow people to do exactly this, no revolutionary solution is necessary.

2, We do not have a system, mechanism or technique for ascertaining what would bring happiness or a state of feeling content to individuals, so identifying the fact that people are being bombarded with ideology and morality and whatnot does not mean we can do anything to put them on the right track by pointing to what is important to specific people. We can allow them to ascertain their incentives and desires with more efficacy, but we cannot ascertain them in their stead and given our current state of scientific progress we will not be in the near future.

3, Any discussion as to what needs to be done in the actual world will have to be limited to how to allow people to better ascertain their true desires. To allow them to do this, clear, critical thinking must be taught, trained and encouraged. In addition, an atmosphere must be created where the attainment of any desires is possible, within reason. For this reason we need liberty.

4, Contrast human rights with liberties. Human rights are negative provisions to the extent that a person, for example, may not be tortured, given an unfair trial, detained for unreasonable periods of time and so on. Human rights are great, but they don't facilitate the attainment of desires as well as liberties. Basically, liberties are implied provisions to the extent that a person may do what is not classed as something he or she may not.

5, Current restrictions apply to fields that are not capable of injuring other persons in their liberties related to their own conduct. Liberties, in other words, does not entail that you enjoy the liberty to force others to forfeit it. You do not enjoy the liberty to force other persons into marriage against their will. Now, there are a few policy restrictions on this principle, such as that parents and guardians are responsible for the financial accounts and education of underage persons, but generally, if there is no public interest involved, limitations truly are pointless. Take for example some non-discrimination laws that may exist in certain countries, such as where religious services may not be refused to homosexual people on grounds that they do no accord with their envisioned rules, such as when homosexual people want a Christian marriage, which is simply nonsensical, as Christianity is an 'if - then' institution, and it is not compulsory to belong to it, so logically, they should have the liberty not to admit certain persons. But take the converse, where homosexuals are not allowed to enter into the legal equivalent of marriage, eg cohabitation, marriage, union or whatever. That again is unwarranted.

6, In my view, the right way to settle the issue is to grant individual liberties to groups and individuals and few rights to infringe those liberties, such as when human rights legislation labels the refusal to provide homosexuals with a Christian marriage an act of discrimination, as may very well happen in the future, but also, at the same time, allow homosexuals to enter into legal equivalents of marriage that are legal or even constitutional facilities and are thus, ideally, secular and not specific to any other cell than the populace at large.

7, To conclude this. Let me say, it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to provide everyone with the right guidance for the attainment of desires, and probably the least complicated and illogical way is to empower persons to act in accord with their wishes and ascertain them freely. Reality does not allow of complicated mechanism for the ascertainment of desires to function desirable, so until further progress is made in the respective areas, the idea should be abandoned.

Didn't think I left you out in the dark, did you? Well the truth is I didn't know for sure if I was ready to answer your proposal, that is, until now.

Your No. 2) and 5) scenarios are exactly my definition of an "external reward system" needs remodeling with a more liberal guidance. Whereas No. 3) and 4) gave birth of intellectual debate in the field of experimental science.

However, a problem arise when business and politics interjected their own "external reward system" into the field of science as research grands and academia tenures. In the interest of them wanting to exploit benefits from scientific research, thereby them gaining a powerful idea or concept to expertize their own morality. And suddenly, the intellectual debate in the field of science is no longer for the scenario you described in No. 1), but rather it's for a horse being guided by someone on its back, by them holding a stick with a carrot on a string in front of the horse.

Therefore I ask, are we individually capable of becoming scientific intellectuals? Or is our political, economical, and educational systems are turning some of our most brilliant scientific minds into horses or worst, lab rats. For example, we've got Creationism in the West and Japanese Whaling in the East.

Another look at this is to invoke my personal approach; I did not get money for me engaging this particularly intellectual debate, when I enjoy stimulating my mind with challenges. Just as I did not get paid for me teaching others how to exercise, when I enjoy the benefit of an active fitness lifestyle. I'm not in any state of superficial hype or habitual behaviors when I'm in that state of mindset, but the joy that I derive from both social activities nonetheless give me great sense of accomplishment. But my humanitarian services generated zero economic growth in my immediate future, when they are future life investments on my mental and physical health and well being. AKA "use it or lose it".
Posted 1/9/10


meh i see what your saying but my happiness hell i have never been happy is nothing... if i put a bullit in my brain would that make anyone else happy or sad that I made that decision? It's all up to the perception of each individual and even if they really liked me or not sigh...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.