There’s no cause for satisfaction? A beautiful sound, the cool breeze against your skin, the taste of a nacho, the sight of a rose, the smell of a pizza?
We’ve covered this, humans have created methods that can be demonstrated to remove subjective bias our senses alone may not. Science and logic are very good at doing this.
Those are all subjective feelings.
Remove subjective bias? How is that remotely related to the satisfaction of the mind by the senses?
Correct. And they subjectively satisfy the mind. To the extent that one can reach satisfaction, is there a limit?
Poor Poor ratty… A beautiful sound at 3 AM and I have work in the morning. A cool breeze and no shelter. The horror of shoving nachos into your body. The sight of a rose in your lover’s hand that was not meant for you. The smell of the guards’ pizza wafting through the bars of a prison cell. Foolish, foolish. ratty… does not comprehend the world he is in. The question remains moot. Senses have nothing to do with satisfaction. You are either satisfied or you are not. From where does such a question arise?
1 Like
Then satisfaction is without cause? Not even by way of birth? A poor child deprived of the conditions necessary for life need not be less satisfied than a child born into riches supplied with all the necessities? Not even by luck? Not even by the work of one’s own hands?
1 Like
Satisfaction is a motive for bias clearly, like wanting to believe something. Methods like logic and science are designed to remove subjective bias, and are far more successful at helping understand objective reality than our senses alone.
To the amount of satisfaction you mean? Satisfaction is probably finite, since we ourselves are finite beings at least, though that isn’t relevant to the to it involving subjective bias, and being a poor way to reason, especially when compared to methods like logic and science.
This is true, the brain interprets the senses, and our own minds either attach satisfaction or do not. Though I’d need to understand what “limitless satisfaction” is, and see some objective evidence such a thing is possible before I could believe it exists, and of course as w ehave discussed previously, we live a finite physical existence, and there is no objective evidence that we can experience anything when our brains die, and that would limit it of course.
If we seek objective truth, then yes, the satisfaction we derive from that is limited if we rely solely on our senses, which involve subjective bias.
Who ever told you that there was limitless satisfaction or limits to satisfaction? What a silly ideas. You are either satisfied or not. There is satisfaction in not being satisfied when you understand yourself. Now you know how the brain works and from where satisfaction comes. Wow! You can get a Nobel Prize. Perhaps send a PM to Sam Harris. I am sure he would be interested,
Silly silly ratty.
Sorry Sheldon,
The tone was meant for ratty. Interestingly, neuroscientists have determined that information comes into our brains before we know it consciously. I find these studies amazing. They can hook us up to a machine and know our response before we know it ourselves. So where does the idea of satisfaction come from? Are there physical limits? And for whom? Some people feel satisfied by sawing off an arm or a leg. Some people are satisfied with the feeling of pain. We agree the brain interprets senses but from where does the interpretation come?
On that, we are in complete agreement.
Is it biased of me to prefer eating ice-cream over a stick of shit I found on the ground? Or can I overcome such a bias with logic?
Scientifically speaking, there are some nutrients in the stick of shit left there on the ground in the ally by a crack head. Therefore I would be ignorant to prefer ice-cream over a stick of shit, since both contain nutrients?
No. To the “extent”. Is there an extent to which sensual pleasure can satisfy the mind?
So, you admit to a limit. For example, there is a limit at which point ice cream stops satisfying my mind when I eat it?
I’m not reasoning at the moment. I’m inquiring into the satisfaction of the mind by the senses.
But thank you for your input.
No one. Who ever told you?
Then a cause exists and it is the understanding of the self? And Sam Harris is unaware of this?
How much is a Nobel Prize worth at the pawn shop?
Oh! Here we are again! Playing favourites among fellow atheists! Well, I never would have imagined!
You can do as you like ratty. It’s your life. If something becomes important enough to you for you to change it, you have three choices. Admit that you can not change it and accept it. Change it. Tell yourself that you will deal with it later. Pretending you will deal with it later is the same thing as not making a choice. Not making a choice is the same thing as just allowing things to go on as they are.
Sheldon is rational. Unlike you. Sheldon can understand a rational argument. Unlike you. Sheldon will respond rationally and stay on topic. Unlike you. It’s nothing to do with favorites. It’s called effective communication.
I’m effective communicator. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
In the extreme that one satisfies the mind through pain and mortification, is there a limit to which that is possible?
That’s your assertion, not mine. 2020, which it was roughly $1 million. A pawn shop will give you 1/3 the value of any item you present to them. They have to make 2/3 profit. The prize would be worth about $333.000.
Where do you come up with such silly questions? The limit is ‘death.’ As far as anyone knows.
You said so your self.
Have I been mistaken?
Yes, obviously, we have evolved to respond with such bias to tastes and smells, as it had a pretty obvious survival advantage. However other animals have learned to redigest their own waste a second time, to squeeze any remaining nutrients out of them, and again where they had long periods with very limited supplies of food, this lent a survival advantage. Excrement and ice cream are not objectively tasty or nice smelling, those are simply how we have evolved, as it lent a survival advantage according to natural selection.
Well if my explanation above does not violate any principle of logic then I have just done precisely that. This doesn’t mean I want to start eating excrement of course, as it might well kill me, and there is no harm in subjectively finding its smell revolting, even if that is subjective.
Indeed, but we are not reliant on it for our survival luckily, and likely were not while we evolved, it could of course also kill us, since human excrement carries diseases we have not involved an immunity to, as we didn’t need to eat it to survive. Though science might be able to cure such diseases now of course, as it has helped understand the objective facts, and remove the subjective bias.
No, since I have just shared knowledge that explained why we have evolved to subjectively refer certain tastes and smells over others. It is not irrational or ignorant to indulge subjective tastes, only to deny that we are being subjective.
I said probably, and I’d imagine there would be a point then the satisfaction form eating would start to diminish yes, when you start throwing up or get crippling stomach pain for example. I also pointed out that one obvious limit would be our physical deaths.
Well if we are examining the topics we must be thinking about them, though whether we are doing so in a sensible and logical way is open to debate.
reasoning
noun
- the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
It’s a motive rather a cause, and the precursors for many of our motives are in our evolved past. We know objectively that overeating is not good for our health, but natural selection has meant we evolved when food was not limitless in the way it now is for many of us, and thus we would need reason and logic to overcome those strongly evolved motives whose survival advantage has long since gone.
1 Like
Yes. Your conclusion is erroneous. Face it ratty. When you try to paraphrase other’s comments, you always get it wrong and attempt to set up a strawman. That is what you do.