Does "RIGHT & WRONG" mean anything, without God or Religion?

[Jimmy Higgins]

While we can't objectively quantify pain or harm, it certainly can be subjectively assessed and reasonable limits can be determined. Otherwise, we couldn't possibly have a legal system which looks at harm and subjectively grades its magnitude in order to offer a punishment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

While we can't objectively quantify pain or harm, it certainly can be subjectively assessed and reasonable limits can be determined. Otherwise, we couldn't possibly have a legal system which looks at harm and subjectively grades its magnitude in order to offer a punishment.

Our legal system rests on positivism being true and objectivity being possible. Two things we can and have proven logically couldn't possibly be true. So we know it's utter bullshit.

Those are accepted because otherwise every legal case would take for fucking ever and each be a treatise on philosophy, and we'd never get anywhere. Our legal system is a compromise.

But another institution which spends a lot of time appraising pain is the medical institutions. How do they do it? They don't have to compromise. So they follow the science, which means that pain is 100% subjective.

Where these two meet is in insurance claims. But here the doctors perspective trumps the legal perspective.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The massive FRAUD of pain killers and anesthesia

While we can't objectively quantify pain or harm, it certainly can be subjectively assessed and reasonable limits can be determined. Otherwise, we couldn't possibly have a legal system which looks at harm and subjectively grades its magnitude in order to offer a punishment.

Our legal system rests on positivism being true and objectivity being possible. Two things we can and have proven logically couldn't possibly be true. So we know it's utter bullshit.

Those are accepted because otherwise every legal case would take for fucking ever and each be a treatise on philosophy, and we'd never get anywhere. Our legal system is a compromise.

But another institution which spends a lot of time appraising pain is the medical institutions. How do they do it? They don't have to compromise. So they follow the science, which means that pain is 100% subjective.

So all those claims about medical marijuana relieving pain are "subjective" and unscientific?

Are all pain-killers subjective and unscientific?

What are all the anesthesia procedures for surgery based upon? Are those just a mass hoax perpetrated by the medical establishment in order to promote sale of the pain-killing procedures? Those sneaky bastards'll pull any stunt to make a few more bucks off the gullible.

If you ever had surgery, you refused those procedures, obviously. You were too smart to be fooled by that stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

The ultimate ideal/goal is the minimum net sum total of pain to all creatures. We can't measure this precisely, but we can estimate it and do some things to approach closer to the goal.

Likewise net total desire gratification, which we want to increase rather than reduce.

So you're for free heroin to everyone?

No, it would result in overall more net pain in the long run, and overall less desire gratification.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So all those claims about medical marijuana relieving pain are "subjective" and unscientific?

Are all pain-killers subjective and unscientific?

What are all the anesthesia procedures for surgery based upon? Are those just a mass hoax perpetrated by the medical establishment in order to promote sale of the pain-killing procedures? Those sneaky bastards'll pull any stunt to make a few more bucks off the gullible.

If you ever had surgery, you refused those procedures, obviously. You were too smart to be fooled by that stuff.

1) Medical marijuana has nothing to do with relieving pain. It's about having fun. The medical terminology is just a pretense to make it semi-legal (which is it now). If they actually gave a shit about the pain they would extract the THC, put it in pills. Because that's the only way to know how much the patients are putting into their bodies. It would be the only way to figure out if it's working. Prescribing just marijuana leaves the doctor clueless. No medical doctor came up with that plan. Also, Marijuana has not been studied particularly well.

We don't really know how marijuana effects the body or brain. The fact that it is has been illegal has prevented researchers from studying it. It was made illegal on highly questionable grounds. All we really know about medical marijuana is that certain patients self-report that it's working great. Well, whoopdie-fucking-do. Good for them, but science it ain't.

2) You're conflating things. Painkillers kill off the signal that goes to the brain. We can measure that scientifically (well, somewhat). That's scientific objective data. What we can't do is accurately measure how much less pain the subject is feeling. This is subjective. Placebo is highly effective against pain. That is lessening the feeling of pain. Placebo does nothing for the signals going to the brain. Still works great. Science is dumbfounded on this. We have no clue why this happens.

Yes, we know that there is a connection between the strength of the signal and what the subject feels. But to what degree varies wildly. There's just no way of objectively measuring if the subject is feeling pain or not.

The ultimate ideal/goal is the minimum net sum total of pain to all creatures. We can't measure this precisely, but we can estimate it and do some things to approach closer to the goal.

Likewise net total desire gratification, which we want to increase rather than reduce.

So you're for free heroin to everyone?

No, it would result in overall more net pain in the long run, and overall less desire gratification.

No, it wouldn't. I don't think you know how life on heroin is. Life on heroin is great. Very relaxing and no anxiety. Sleep is awesome. It's only a problem if you take the heroin away. Heroin addicts with a steady supply can function just fine. It's not even unhealthy. If anything it slows down bodily functions which would allow us to live even longer. All the problems associated with heroin are secondary problems due to it's illegality.

I'm not saying I'm arguing for this. I still want it to be a controlled substance. I'm just saying that a life that is only about avoiding pain is an empty life. That would truly be a meaningless life.

The most emotionally painful events in my life have been the one's which I've grown the most by. In hind-sight I needed it. Until I had my first major trauma I was a miserable fucker. People who have never experienced great pain are terrified little anxious losers scared of everything. I didn't truly start to live until I'd learnt not to be afraid of death.

That BTW is the biggest problem with the Abrahamic religions IMHO. God as an extension of one's parents. God as an invisible super daddy in the sky. It's just extending childhood into adult life. You've got to ask your daddy for permission before you do stuff, and you have to follow the rules. That truly is a pathetic half-life. I think that is the greatest damage from believing in God. And the idiotic belief in the afterlife. Just like a child unwilling to accept death. It's like putting one's finger's in one's ears "Not listeining. LA LA LA LA. I am not going to die. I am going to go to beautiful wonderful place where I get to be with all my loved one's and it will be wonderful forever. I won't die. LA LA LA LA LA."

Accepting that we're all alone on a rock hurtling through empty cold space into the unknown is liberating. All we can know for certain is that we will die. Janice Joplin said it best. "Freedom is having nothing left to lose". Pain is good for the soul. It wakes us up. And so is euphoria. It's the bland crap in the middle I can do without. The stuff you're arguing is good.

Live a little, will ya'

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But isn't that the point, to quantify what they are feeling?

You can certainly also record their subjective take on what they are feeling, but it seems important to have objective criteria with which to relate.

You can correlate what they report they are feeling in relation to the biological activity being measured, fMRI, EEG, etc, but you can't actually measure what they are feeling or thinking.

I.e., can't measure it DIRECTLY. But INdirectly we can measure or estimate it. It's another piece of our knowledge of the facts of the world.

We can process it, react to it, and try to reduce the net total of pain, or increase the net total pleasure in the universe.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The ultimate ideal/goal is the minimum net sum total of pain to all creatures. We can't measure this precisely, but we can estimate it and do some things to approach closer to the goal.

Likewise net total desire gratification, which we want to increase rather than reduce.

So you're for free heroin to everyone?

No, it would result in overall more net pain in the long run, and overall less desire gratification.

No, it wouldn't. I don't think you know how life on heroin is. Life on heroin is great. Very relaxing and no anxiety. Sleep is awesome. It's only a problem if you take the heroin away. Heroin addicts with a steady supply can function just fine. It's not even unhealthy. If anything it slows down bodily functions which would allow us to live even longer. All the problems associated with heroin are secondary problems due to it's illegality.

I'm not saying I'm arguing for this. I still want it to be a controlled substance. I'm just saying that a life that is only about avoiding pain is an empty life. That would truly be a meaningless life.

The most emotionally painful events in my life have been the one's which I've grown the most by. In hind-sight I needed it.

Because it gave you a net increase in total desire gratification + net decrease in pain, overall, in the long run. Because of it, you think, your total net pain will actually end up being less, and total net pleasure more.

Until I had my first major trauma I was a miserable fucker.

I.e., you suffered pain. But the trauma reduced your overall net pain, in the long run, so it was a short-term pain which then eliminated later pain, leading to net total reduced pain. Which is the point. (If you're being honest in saying that it reduced your misery.)

People who have never experienced great pain are terrified little anxious losers scared of everything. I didn't truly start to live until I'd learnt not to be afraid of death.

"truly start to live" = increased pleasure, worth suffering some pain for. It all boils down to calculating the total net pain and pleasure.

Pain is good for the soul. It wakes us up. And so is euphoria.

I.e., it produces enough pleasure to offset the damage from the pain. It's all about calculating the total net pleasure/pain.

 

[DBT]

You can correlate what they report they are feeling in relation to the biological activity being measured, fMRI, EEG, etc, but you can't actually measure what they are feeling or thinking.

I.e., can't measure it DIRECTLY. But INdirectly we can measure or estimate it. It's another piece of our knowledge of the facts of the world.

What do you mean by ''INdirectly we can measure or estimate it?'' Do you have an example?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because it gave you a net increase in total desire gratification + net decrease in pain, overall, in the long run. Because of it, you think, your total net pain will actually end up being less, and total net pleasure more.

Fuck pleasure or gratification. That's for children.

What I'm talking about is something much greater. The stuff Aristotle called "eudaimonia" or Mihalo Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow". What Buddhists and hippies call "being one with the universe". Total ego extinction. It's ecstacy.

It's transitory by nature and will only pop up now and again throughout a life, but makes the rest of it worth it. It makes the chasing of pleasure or avoiding pain redundant.

I maintain that what you propose as a worthwhile goal for life is not a life at all. It's an empty life.

Until I had my first major trauma I was a miserable fucker.

I.e., you suffered pain. But the trauma reduced your overall net pain, in the long run, so it was a short-term pain which then eliminated later pain, leading to net total reduced pain. Which is the point. (If you're being honest in saying that it reduced your misery.)

Yes, because it made me accept that life is inherently meaningless. That if I wanted life to have meaning I had to create meaning myself. So I did. It also made me not fear death. I became fearless. Still am. I feel like my life didn't really start until this point.

People who have never experienced great pain are terrified little anxious losers scared of everything. I didn't truly start to live until I'd learnt not to be afraid of death.

"truly start to live" = increased pleasure, worth suffering some pain for. It all boils down to calculating the total net pain and pleasure.

Pleasure and suffering has nothing to do with feeling alive.

Example I've spent many hours painting paintings. All that time is suffering. All the time. But it focuses my mind. The joy of having the painting on the wall cannot make-up for the suffering. I still do it. It helps to discipline me. Helps me grow. Helps me to be more present in my life. Focuses the mind. Helps me pay attention to people around me. Helps me become a better listener. Helps me to become more emphatic. It helps me connect to people. It helps me become a better person.

I also go to the gym every day. Similar thing. I do yoga and meditate. Same thing. None of this has to do with pleasure or pain. I don't seek pleasure or gratification in life. It was many years now since. It does nothing for me anymore. I need more from life.

I work as a consultant. I get a lot of brutally honest feedback from clients after I'm gone. The number one thing they say about me is how genuinely happy I am and how good I am at listening and motivating the people around me. I think I'm a quite happy person. I think that is because I don't seek gratification or pleasure. I just see the beauty and joy all around me all the time. It's there if you just look for it. I don't need to go looking for pleasure. So I don't.

Like I said I think your goals in life are just immature. Just my humble opinion. I hope you grow out of it. And please don't judge other's by that standard. Please be open to the idea that there are still things in life you have left to learn. I think that is pretty obvious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But isn't that the point, to quantify what they are feeling?

You can certainly also record their subjective take on what they are feeling, but it seems important to have objective criteria with which to relate.

You can correlate what they report they are feeling in relation to the biological activity being measured, fMRI, EEG, etc, but you can't actually measure what they are feeling or thinking.

The problem is using the word "pain," which is a language issue. If you're going to measure pain or a person's "feelings" or how well someone "thinks" you've got to decide up front what you're going to measure to make that determination. People will disagree on what is the best method or how to take measurements or what exactly to measure, how precisely to measure, etc., but once that bridge is crossed it's no problemo. Does that make it a perfect measurement? Hardly, but that's how everything works.

 

[DBT]

You can correlate what they report they are feeling in relation to the biological activity being measured, fMRI, EEG, etc, but you can't actually measure what they are feeling or thinking.

The problem is using the word "pain," which is a language issue. If you're going to measure pain or a person's "feelings" or how well someone "thinks" you've got to decide up front what you're going to measure to make that determination. People will disagree on what is the best method or how to take measurements or what exactly to measure, how precisely to measure, etc., but once that bridge is crossed it's no problemo. Does that make it a perfect measurement? Hardly, but that's how everything works.

Go ahead, describe the physical nature of a conscious feeling and how to measure it objectively.

Based on what you say in your post, it shouldn't be difficult to do....right?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The problem is using the word "pain," which is a language issue. If you're going to measure pain or a person's "feelings" or how well someone "thinks" you've got to decide up front what you're going to measure to make that determination. People will disagree on what is the best method or how to take measurements or what exactly to measure, how precisely to measure, etc., but once that bridge is crossed it's no problemo. Does that make it a perfect measurement? Hardly, but that's how everything works.

Go ahead, describe the physical nature of a conscious feeling and how to measure it objectively.

Based on what you say in your post, it shouldn't be difficult to do....right?

Things worth doing are never easy. I was thinking along this line of investigation:

Are You In Pain

The signatures were distinguished from other sensory experiences, like nonpainful warmth, pain anticipation, and pain recall. They also found that painkillers helped to reduce the severity of the signatures.

The neuroscientists, a team led by CU-Boulder’s Tor Wager, discovered that the signatures in question are transferable across different people, allowing them to predict pain intensity with over 95% accuracy.

That's the scientist in me.

But you used the phrase "conscious feeling," which is back to the language issue I mentioned earlier. You'd have to describe what you mean by a "conscious feeling" and agree with a method to determine level of same.

 

[DBT]

Go ahead, describe the physical nature of a conscious feeling and how to measure it objectively.

Based on what you say in your post, it shouldn't be difficult to do....right?

Things worth doing are never easy. I was thinking along this line of investigation:

Are You In Pain

The signatures were distinguished from other sensory experiences, like nonpainful warmth, pain anticipation, and pain recall. They also found that painkillers helped to reduce the severity of the signatures.

The neuroscientists, a team led by CU-Boulder’s Tor Wager, discovered that the signatures in question are transferable across different people, allowing them to predict pain intensity with over 95% accuracy.

That's the scientist in me.

But you used the phrase "conscious feeling," which is back to the language issue I mentioned earlier. You'd have to describe what you mean by a "conscious feeling" and agree with a method to determine level of same.

I said 'conscious' feelings for emphasis, but it's a tautology. All feelings are conscious. You cannot feel while unconscious. To be conscious entails neural networks generating conscious activity in the form of 'mental' representations of thoughts and feelings.

As to your article, it does not support your contention of objective measurement of levels of perceived pain.

That there are signals that are associated with pain is not the issue. We know that the activity of various brain structures are related to fear, higher thought processing, emotions, pain, etc, even to the point where a decision can be predicted some degree of accuracy before the subject is aware of it.

As I've already said several times, biological activity alone cannot measure perceived or felt sensations.

That neural activity related to pain is detectable does not mean the scale of perceived pain is measurable.

One persons agony may rate as discomfort to another. The question of intensity on a scale of one to ten being specific to individual experience, and not transferable purely as signals within the brain.

It may be that in the future a means of interpreting thoughts and feeling based on their neural correlates becomes a reality, but we are not there yet.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As I've already said several times, biological activity alone cannot measure perceived or felt sensations.

What else do you have in mind?

 

[DBT]

As I've already said several times, biological activity alone cannot measure perceived or felt sensations.

What else do you have in mind?

As it currently stands, biological activity may be measured but feelings cannot be measured, so what happens when you go to the doctor....he asks you how you feel and you describe your experience to him, including whatever level of pain you perceive, which is specific to you regardless of all other people who may have a comparable condition with its related biological activity.

Anyone can predict that those who have broken their leg will feel pain at some time, maybe not so much immediately because of nerve shock.

Being able to predict the presence of pain (which can be quite obvious) does not mean that we can objectively measure the pain that the person is experiencing, only that there is most likely pain being felt.

Just as with fMRI imaging, the brain activity associated with thoughts and feelings is detectable but not the actual thoughts and feelings as they are being experienced..which the subject reports verbally to the researchers so that it may be correlated with brain regions, etc. Something like mind reading through analysis of brain activity may become possible in the future, but still a long way to go.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We can calculate the pains/pleasures, and reduce the net total pain, or increase the net total pleasures.

I.e., can't measure it DIRECTLY. But INdirectly we can measure or estimate it. It's another piece of our knowledge of the facts of the world.

What do you mean by ''INdirectly we can measure or estimate it?'' Do you have an example?

We can measure pain by the loudness of the "Ouch!" INdirect. Louder ouch = greater pain.

That pain, measured indirectly, is a fact of the world, like many other phenomena we can measure. Some direct, some indirect. Either way, it's more factual stuff we observe and measure and that we can respond to.

We can reduce the bad stuff and increase the good stuff. So we observe the pains and pleasures and other stuff, some indirectly, and try to add it up and calculate if we can produce a net increase in the good stuff and net decrease in the bad stuff.

 

[DBT]

What do you mean by ''INdirectly we can measure or estimate it?'' Do you have an example?

We can measure pain by the loudness of the "Ouch!" INdirect. Louder ouch = greater pain.

That pain, measured indirectly, is a fact of the world, like many other phenomena we can measure. Some direct, some indirect. Either way, it's more factual stuff we observe and measure and that we can respond to.

What if the person is faking? He just wants some time off work. You genuinely believe that you are measuring or assessing pain level, but you are being deceived.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the three of us are trying to indicate the same thing. What's preventing that is language.

 

[DBT]

I think the three of us are trying to indicate the same thing. What's preventing that is language.

To a point, but not quite. Two of us appear to conflate the ability to objectively measure or detect biological activity, fMRI, EEG, etc, with how this detected activity is being consciously represented/experienced, the how of conscious representation of information not currently understood....while one of us is not. He, as it happens, is making that distinction.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How you can satisfy your need for greater pleasure? Don't seek pleasure.

Revolutionary new rule for finding greater pleasure: Don't seek pleasure -- follow this rule and you'll find that pleasure you're seeking.

Fuck pleasure or gratification. That's for children. What I'm talking about is something much greater. The stuff Aristotle called "eudaimonia" or Mihalo Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow". What Buddhists and hippies call "being one with the universe". Total ego extinction. It's ecstasy.

Just different words for pleasure. Giving it a different name doesn't change what it is.

Isn't "ecstasy" a name for a drug which gives pleasure to those who use it?

It's transitory by nature and will only pop up now and again throughout a life, but makes the rest of it worth it.

Certain pleasures fit that description. Higher form of pleasure.

It makes the chasing of pleasure or avoiding pain redundant.

But the "it" you're talking about is a pleasure experience, and a pain suppression mechanism.

I maintain that what you propose as a worthwhile goal for life is not a life at all.

"not a life at all" = a life that's no fun, without pleasure, or without the best pleasure

It's an empty life.

= devoid of pleasures, of fun experiences

Until I had my first major trauma I was a miserable fucker.

I.e., you suffered pain. But the trauma reduced your overall net pain, in the long run, so it was a short-term pain which then eliminated later pain, leading to net total reduced pain. Which is the point. (If you're being honest in saying that it reduced your misery.)

Yes, because it made me accept that life is inherently meaningless.

No, if it was meaningless, you would not be posting in this message board.

That if I wanted life to have meaning I had to create meaning myself. So I did.

How do you know it wasn't already there and what you did was "find" it? Others also say similar things, so you found something similar to what they found. It was already there for you to bump into it.

It also made me not fear death. I became fearless. Still am. I feel like my life didn't really start until this point.

It started earlier.

People who have never experienced great pain are terrified little anxious losers scared of everything. I didn't truly start to live until I'd learnt not to be afraid of death.

"truly start to live" = increased pleasure, worth suffering some pain for. It all boils down to calculating the total net pain and pleasure.

Pleasure and suffering has nothing to do with feeling alive.

Sounds like you enjoy this "feeling alive" sensation. Sounds like this is a pleasure you seek.

Example I've spent many hours painting paintings. All that time is suffering.

If you chose to do it, then by definition it must have given you pleasure, and this must have outweighed the pain.

Pain/suffering by definition is something we try to avoid, and pleasure is an experience we want to have.

All the time. But it focuses my mind. The joy of having the painting on the wall cannot make-up for the suffering. I still do it.

But it focuses your mind, which empowers you to pursue a higher cause which leads to some long-term pleasures which are great enough to make that suffering worth it as a sacrifice.

It helps to discipline me. Helps me grow. Helps me to be more present in my life. Focuses the mind. Helps me pay attention to people around me. Helps me become a better listener. Helps me to become more emphatic. It helps me connect to people. It helps me become a better person.

All of which empower you in the longer term to achieve the higher goals which eventually produce the highest pleasures, which are valuable enough to be worth the cost of that suffering.

I also go to the gym every day. Similar thing. I do yoga and meditate. Same thing. None of this has to do with pleasure or pain.

I.e., short-term immediate pleasure or pain. Rather, it's the higher long-term pleasures it aims at, and reducing the long-term pain.

I don't seek pleasure or gratification in life.

I.e., the short-term superficial pleasure or gratification. Rather it's the long-term pleasure and gratification you gain through this discipline and focusing and being a better listener etc.

It was many years now since. It does nothing for me anymore. I need more from life.

I work as a consultant. I get a lot of brutally honest feedback from clients after I'm gone. The number one thing they say about me is how genuinely happy I am and how good I am at listening and motivating the people around me.

Which translates into a good payoff in long-term gratification, which is the whole point.

I think I'm a quite happy person. I think that is because I don't seek gratification or pleasure. I just see the beauty and joy all around me all the time. It's there if you just look for it. I don't need to go looking for pleasure. So I don't.

You used the technique of not seeking gratification or pleasure as the means to find longer-term gratification/pleasure.

Like I said I think your goals in life are just immature.

Does being immature lead to some bad consequences? like increased pain/suffering, or to less gratification/pleasure?

Just my humble opinion. I hope you grow out of it.

Does growing out of it lead to some good consequences? to a life with less suffering, or with increased long-term gratification?

And please don't judge others by that standard. Please be open to the idea that there are still things in life you have left to learn. I think that is pretty obvious.

Does learning new things lead to some good consequences?

Why do you keep recommending something which would lead to good consequences, like reduced long-term pain and increased long-term pleasure?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just different words for pleasure. Giving it a different name doesn't change what it is.

It's really not. BTW, this is something we can learn from religion. They all go on about that there's something greater. Some of it's bullshit of course. But fundamentally I think there's a core of wisdom. Wisdom that has been incorporated into religions. Which is something we've lost when we secularized.

Western secular culture is consumtion based. It's all about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. When we ditched religion we also ditched schools of thought that guided us away from chasing pleasure.

I suggest reading up on philosophy surrounding desire. Philosophers have, way back to the Greeks, figured out the emptiness of just satisfying our desires. And they're right. Maximising pleasure and avoiding pain is a worthless existence and a lot of people have already figured it out.

It's an empty life.

= devoid of pleasures, of fun experiences

Got nothing to do with it.

No, if it was meaningless, you would not be posting in this message board.

Yet, I'm still posting. Imagine that. I'd say that proves you wrong.

That if I wanted life to have meaning I had to create meaning myself. So I did.

How do you know it wasn't already there and what you did was "find" it? Others also say similar things, so you found something similar to what they found. It was already there for you to bump into it.

Because there's no evidence for it.

People who have never experienced great pain are terrified little anxious losers scared of everything. I didn't truly start to live until I'd learnt not to be afraid of death.

"truly start to live" = increased pleasure, worth suffering some pain for. It all boils down to calculating the total net pain and pleasure.

That makes no sense.

Pleasure and suffering has nothing to do with feeling alive.

Sounds like you enjoy this "feeling alive" sensation. Sounds like this is a pleasure you seek.

How about chopping your arm off. You'll certainly feel alive while also not feeling pleasure. Try it. It's an experiment.

Example I've spent many hours painting paintings. All that time is suffering.

If you chose to do it, then by definition it must have given you pleasure, and this must have outweighed the pain.

Pain/suffering by definition is something we try to avoid, and pleasure is an experience we want to have.

ha ha ha. That's circular reasoning.

Our impulses to do or avoid stuff can be explained neurochemically. And that doesn't have to have anything to do with pleasure or pain.

All the time. But it focuses my mind. The joy of having the painting on the wall cannot make-up for the suffering. I still do it.

But it focuses your mind, which empowers you to pursue a higher cause which leads to some long-term pleasures which are great enough to make that suffering worth it as a sacrifice.

It helps to discipline me. Helps me grow. Helps me to be more present in my life. Focuses the mind. Helps me pay attention to people around me. Helps me become a better listener. Helps me to become more emphatic. It helps me connect to people. It helps me become a better person.

All of which empower you in the longer term to achieve the higher goals which eventually produce the highest pleasures, which are valuable enough to be worth the cost of that suffering.

I would in no shape or form define that emotion as pleasure.

I don't seek pleasure or gratification in life.

I.e., the short-term superficial pleasure or gratification. Rather it's the long-term pleasure and gratification you gain through this discipline and focusing and being a better listener etc.

Ok, but it becomes awfully abstract at this point. I don't think you have a foot to stand on here.

Like I said I think your goals in life are just immature.

Does being immature lead to some bad consequences? like increased pain/suffering, or to less gratification/pleasure?

The way desire works is that if you chase pleasure, the moment you have fulfilled it you've just moved your baseline. The new level of pleasure stops being pleasurable. As a species we're just not wired to feel fulfilled.

Children have parents that act as their own regulators, because they suck at it. They are immature.

It's better to accept that chasing pleasure is pointless. Long or short term. It's better to get used to lack of pleasure. Then when you do indulge it feels all the better.

The point is that increasing pleasure in humans does not lead to happier humans. We know this experimentally. It's a truly worthless goal in life. You've just created a little hamster wheel for yourself to run in.

Just my humble opinion. I hope you grow out of it.

Does growing out of it lead to some good consequences? to a life with less suffering, or with increased long-term gratification?

I can only speak for myself. But it made me less selfish. Or I should say less self centered. My ego became weaker. My greatest joy comes from connecting emotionally with others. Taking their perspectives. Sharing their pain. I guess that is gratifying in a way. But I wouldn't call it joy.

I've thought a lot about it. I think it's instinct. I think we're a social species and we're wired for this. It was just easier to reach this state of "enlightenment" when we were hunter gathers. There were less sources of distraction. Now we've got all these sources of gratification and pleasure that allows us to constantly give into our desires. Today we have to actually make an effort to shield ourselves from this way of thinking. I don't think "my state of consciousness" is in any way remarkable. Just talk to old people. Regardless if they can formulate it they seem to all have figured this shit out. And the sooner we do the better. It's a much more rewarding life to live.