Boiled down to chemistry and electricity, yes. And people have been altering that chemistry artificially for centuries -- the idea isn't exactly new.
Is humanity inherently good, evil or neutral?
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
It would be free of charge if it were given to me regardless of what I do. And then getting something you seek is a reward.
I was referring to actually creating and injecting serotonin. Not simply eating certain diets to aid your own body producing serotonin. But yeah, I understand its not a new concept.
Well, you have to want it for it to be gift. It is not going to be forced down your throat. There is no work involved in receiving it. Unless you want to count the thought of wanting it as work.
By the way, if you want to count physical act of going to church as work, then I can see how you think salvation is a reward. But then, is the physical act of eating work or reward? Or is being full the only reward?
I wasn't talking about something as benign as diet. Alcohol, cocaine, opium, nicotine, marijuana, and countless other drugs have been used for centuries. I don't see what point you're trying to make with the serotonin example.
Those drugs stimulated production of certain proteins in your body. I was talking about actually producing those proteins and directly injecting them into your body. Thus bypassing needing those drugs.
Someone else brought up that all of our decisions are based on chemistry. So I was reminded of the theme of 1984. Big Brother asserting ultimate control through chemistry.
I know that. What does this have to do with selflessness, with the physical nature of mind, or, indeed, the topic at hand?
Jarod brought up the notion that there is no such thing as selfishness since every decision boils down to making yourself feel good, chemically.
Again, I understand this (though I don't agree with his opinion on selflessness). But the artificial introduction of serotonin still seems an irrelevant point. How is it relevant to this discussion?
ETA: I'm not trying to attack, I just really am failing to see what point you're trying to make.
So Jarod is suggesting that there is no such thing as love since everything is chemically based. So I took it further. Since all feelings are induced by chemistry, why bother with the work required to get the chemistry going? Why not just shoot yourself up with the proteins and you can experience those feelings anytime you wish?
The thread argument went from
1) good/evil/neutral ->
2) selfishness and selflessness defines good/evil ->
3) there is no such thing as selfishness, its all chemistry ->
4) might as well just shoot ourselves up to feel happy
Do you see the line of argument now?
^I don't think anyone actually said we should literally go against nature and just start manufacturing happiness. JR just affirmed that the basis for love is found in the biochemical reactions of our bodies.
Also, controlling society through drugs is the theme of Brave New World, not 1984.
Also, controlling society through drugs is the theme of Brave New World, not 1984.
^Yeah, it seems an illogical leap to me. I know everything is chemical, I wouldn't have even thought about extending the argument in that direction.
Sorry, I remembered incorrectly.
Fair enough. Let's disregard my last leap and go from there. What is selfishness and what is selflessness?
I don't think that was his reasoning. But more to the point, I don't think anyone holds that position. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite. Sure, everything in our body is chemically based. So, biologically speaking, "love" is actually a pattern of electro-chemical reactions in our brain. It doesn't mean that love doesn't exist, or that it's unimportant. For comparison: chemically speaking, the Mona Lisa is just a pattern of pigments on a piece of cloth. It doesn't detract from its awesomeness even one bit. In fact, I would say it's just amazing that such beauty and intensity could be composed by such simple elements. I see love, or any other affection, in just the same way.
Precisely. Nor does the rose smell less sweet because we understand how noses work!
As to the question of what is selfish and what is selfless? That's boring even for philosophy.
Exactly.
I would argue that attempts to chemically reproducing the rose smell are not as sweet.
But that's neither here or there.
Last edited:
Firstly, I wrote that. And secondly, it is the point. Let me spell it out for you: You seem to be claiming that because one doesn't think there is anything more to love, selflessness, or any other human thought or emotion than chemistry it somehow lessens the experience or makes it less real. Quite the contrary, our understanding of the science and truth behind the mystery can add to the beauty and awe of these things; it certainly doesn't detract from them. Therefore my analogy: The rose smells no less sweet for knowing the mechanics of the olfactory system. Furthermore, you're going back to the artificiality thing, which has no pertinence to the point.
That was a quoting mistake.
Concerning what I was referring to. You are misunderstanding my point.
No, I am not asserting that our feelings are any less real now that we understand the science behind it. I never said that understanding the science makes our emotions any less emotional.
I am asserting that IF I sit by myself in a room, stares at a blowup doll, shoots some serotonin into my arm, then what I am feeling for that doll isn't really love. If the feeling is being created by injecting artificial proteins into my body, then how real is the feeling?
^If that is your point then why is my analogy "neither here nor there"? It was totally apt, if I do say so myself!
As to whether artificially attained emotions are any less genuine than naturally occurring ones, I'll think one that for a moment.
As to whether artificially attained emotions are any less genuine than naturally occurring ones, I'll think one that for a moment.
Ahh... I see where the disconnect happened. When I said "its neither here nor there." I was referring to my own statement that the artificially created scent of a rose is not as good as the natural scent of a rose.
But on the point of the artificially attained emotion. My opinion is that we are used to having a cause to why we feel a certain way. eg. "She said yes when I asked her to marry me." or "My husband cheated." If we started shooting chemicals in body, then to what do we really attribute as the cause of how we feel?
