My reward system theory

I have now come up with an absolute and final brief summary of my theory that gets my full theory across:

Since our reward system (pleasant emotions) are the only rewarding experiences we can have and since optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings, then optimism can only be our pleasant emotions themselves and not our attitudes alone or anything else. The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts or anything else alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. Therefore, optimism can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions while pessimism can only be our unpleasant feelings/emotions.

Optimism is love, joy, happiness, etc. while pessimism is depression, rage, hate, despair, etc. Therefore, love, joy, and happiness can only be our pleasant feelings/emotions while depression, rage, hate, despair, etc. can only be our unpleasant feelings/emotions. To have good meaning in one's life is always an optimistic statement which would mean that would have to be a rewarding experience as well. Therefore, our pleasant feelings/emotions are the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can be of good value and worth to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you would be no different than saying that something can be a rewarding experience to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement.

Since the moral version of good and bad is defined as being something subjective, then this moral version of good and bad no longer exists anymore. It is fake. Good and bad are now objective (scientific). They are now scientific terms. Our pleasant emotions would have to be the experience of the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions would have to be the experience of the scientific version of bad.

The fact is, there is a psychological basis that determines if one has good or bad meaning in his/her life that people are ignorantly leaving out and saying that a severely crippled depressed person who can hardly function is still living the good life since he/she has told his/herself he/she was still living the good life.

It would be no different than telling a blind and deaf person that he/she can still see and hear since he/she has told his/herself he/she can still see and hear. When you are in a hopeless, bland, and “dead” mindstate due to your depression and/or anhedonia, then that is the mindstate of perceiving neutral (neither good or bad) and the scientific version of bad meaning in your life. But when you are in the vibrant, “alive,” transcending, and vigorous mindstate of experiencing your pleasant emotions (good moods), then that is the mindstate of perceiving the scientific version of good meaning in your life.

The moral version of having good and bad meaning in one’s life would say that it doesn’t matter what mental state you are in. That if you tell yourself you are living a good or bad life, then that makes it so. But having good or bad meaning in one’s life solely depends on what mental state you are in. There is always a scientific (psychological) basis that determines whether we have good or bad meaning in our lives. I already explained it in my previous paragraph above here. That psychological basis is not our thinking. It is our moods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're so sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, it would save me from reading the OP.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no need to save you from reading anything. That OP was as brief as possible and was nothing long at all.

 

I find multitasking hard. Understanding English and drinking beer I can only do up to a given level.

 

No.

 

Then you just did nothing more than wasted my time with a useless and pointless statement.

 

Matt, I am sorry that you are depressed, but this is not the place to discuss it. I hope that you are receiving help and I hope that you feel better.

Good luck.

 

And you waste everyone's time with your drivel.

As origin says, get help. Elsewhere, please.

 

It's not a waste of time. I have a valid theory here that could change how we all think as human beings.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So I take it then that it is just a waste of time for you to debate with me so that I can demonstrate to you the validity of my theory?

 

I could debate a turnip to better effect.

 

Then do you wish to begin to debate or not? If you do, then go ahead and point out the flaws you notice in my theory and I will then refute your counterarguments.

 

So. You are a turnip. A sad one at that...

 

So is this all you are going to do here is give me these types of statements rather than engaging in a debate with me? I need to know the answer now. If you say that you are going to debate, then I will continue to respond to you providing that you actually debate with me. If you say no, then I won't respond to you anymore. But if you don't say yes or no and still continue to make these sort of statements, then I will also give up on responding to you.

 

Ok. I read it but what is your conclusion?

 

That because our pleasant feelings/emotions are the only things that can make things, situations, and people of good value and worth to us, then having good meaning in one's life is not a matter of moral (personal opinion). In other words, it is not a matter of thinking that our lives are good that make them good. It is instead a matter of science. It is our good moods that give good meaning to our lives. So our good moods would have to be the scientific version of good. It is scientific since it is not a moral version of good. It is a feeling/emotional version of good and not a moral or any other version of good.

 

I agree that good feelings are rooted in good experiences. It doesn't make sense to tell someone to think positive if there are no incoming pleasant experiences or stimuli. So that, I agree with you, assuming I understand you.

As far as the highest emotional experiences being a necessity for continued existence, I would maintain that is more a subjective assessment on our part. Look at all the species (including individual people) that can't experience a high degree of pleasant emotions and yet continue to exist and derive happiness at different levels. It is usually only by our understanding of comparison that we come to the conclusion that we need something higher than what we are given by nature.

I know how you feel, though. I write lyrics and short novels (so far, as a hobby) on the side, and I know how it is to wish and imagine if my lyrics or book was used in a hit song or my book in a movie script. Our dreams can certainly exceed our grasp, no doubt. And that can be torturous. But if you think about it, if we can still have simpler dreams that can produce a great deal of contentment without too much effort.