3.) Pleasure is a good experience in of itself and we don't need any thoughts or knowledge to tell us that it is good (this might hold as an example for cats and dogs). The version of "good" that we create in terms of our knowledge and thoughts is neutral. But the version of "good" that comes from our experience of pleasure alone in of itself is not neutral and can never be neutral or bad and is always good no matter what. Also, what I mean by pleasure is all good feelings including love. I do not mean only a limited spectrum of good feelings when referring to pleasure.

4.) So all thoughts and knowledge do not tell us that pleasure is good or that anything else is good which means that pleasure is the only good thing in life and that everything else besides pleasure and pain and despair are all neutral. Thoughts may tell us that things are good or bad in life, but only in the sense that they are nothing more than neutral words, images, sounds, etc. Our thoughts and pleasure stand alone by themselves which means that it doesn't matter whether you regard your pleasure as being bad or that you regard your thoughts as something good, your pleasure will always still be good and your thoughts will always still be neutral. I don't even care if you were to say that your thoughts and other things are regarded by you as true "happiness" even without your ability to experience pleasure. All concepts such as things like value, worth, beauty, and happiness are just words and ideas created by our neutral thoughts while pleasure is the experience of good in of itself that is not subjected to being neutral or bad (perhaps due to a misconception that it is only our subjective thoughts and meanings that come up with the idea of good and bad and that pleasure cannot somehow be objectively good since "good" and "bad" are still subjective things). Based on what I'm about to say below, what was just stated in parenthesis above is false and pleasure is still the only good and greatest thing in life in of itself independant of our subjective thoughts and meanings and all other aspects besides suffering and pleasure are all neutral.

5.) So if you had emotional numbness and/or depression which is a loss of pleasure, then it doesn't matter how much great things you do in life and help others because it is only your own brain in life and it is only your own pleasure that makes your life good and worth living. You are not in the minds of other people which means that it doesn't matter how much value and worth they have towards you despite your loss of pleasure or for anything else for that matter. It's only your own pleasure that gives your life value and worth.

6.) Pleasure is never subjected to being a bad or a neutral emotion and this also holds true for other emotions such as rage, sadness, and depression. Your created meanings do not somehow infuse themselves with your pleasure or other emotions and make them good or bad in of themselves. These emotions stand alone by themselves as good or bad. We can all obviously agree here that pleasure always feels good and is always a great experience. So why wouldn't that make it objectively good in of itself (disregarding all other things in life because these other things are either neutral or bad)?

7.) If you are going to say something such as that, although pleasure feels good, but can be bad if it is used in harming others and other bad deeds, then what you are doing here is combining other things in life (such as the harming of others) and placing that upon your pleasure and saying that the experience of pleasure in of itself is something bad in this situation. The fact is, pleasure and other things in life stand alone by themselves as separate things since they are completely different things. They do not somehow combine with your pleasure and make your pleasure good or bad when pleasure is always just simply good in of itself no matter what. The neurons that become active in our brains and elicit a state of pleasure are different and separate from the neurons that are responsible for other things in our brains such as thoughts, knowledge, movement, breathing, etc. This also goes for other things in life. All other things in life consist of chemicals, atoms, etc. that are separate from our neurons that give us pleasure. So these things cannot somehow infuse themselves with your pleasure and make your pleasure something bad or neutral.

Some might say that we cannot separate our thoughts, knowledge, etc. from our pleasure because all functioning of our brains is all one thing as a whole. So if that's the case, then what I should be saying here is that the state of mind we would be in without our ability to experience pleasure would be a neutral state of mind as opposed to being in a state of mind in which we have pleasure regardless of how much we use that neutral state of mind in helping others and doing great things in our lives and it would make everything neutral from our perspectives no matter what and no matter how much we viewed things in life as being good anyway.

8.) If you are going to say that everything in life is just a bunch of chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. with no good or bad meaning whatsoever, then that would only be true in terms of things besides pleasure, pain, and despair. If you are going to ask how can pleasure, pain, and despair be objectively good or bad when they are nothing but a bunch of atoms, molecules, etc.? The answer to that would be that they just are. It is a scientific fact that the different functioning of atoms and such yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and such in our brains has yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things be objectively good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking "How can this piece of metal even objectively be metal in the first place since it is nothing but the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.?" The answer to that would, again, be that it just is.

9.) As for what I said about the neurons, there might also be more complicated processes in the brain than simply just neurons. Therefore, it would be all the atoms and subatomic particles in the brain rather than just simply neurons. As for me trying to scientifically test as to whether pleasure, despair, and pain are the only good and bad things in of themselves, how would one go about doing that? Why would it be any different than scientifically showing that a certain material is the way it is due to the functioning of its atoms and such? Also, in terms of evolution, pleasure is what encourages our survival in life. Encouraged survival is what is "good" in terms of evolution. So pleasure is good in of itself even despite the fact if we had no thoughts, knowledge, or sense of meaning in life. Feelings of fear might encourage our survival in life and are bad because it is a warning sign of danger. But pleasure encourages our survival in a good sense which is what makes it a good feeling in of itself no matter what.

10.) I have a unique world-changing viewpoint about pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life no matter what and I wish to change the way the world thinks. Although my belief backs up hedonism to a certain degree, I think it might actually be a bit different from hedonism, I am not sure. If you are going to ask something such as how my beliefs are so unique and world-changing when we already have similar established beliefs such as hedonism, then I am going to explain. My arguments for how pleasure is the only good in life are what is unique and will support hedonism in such a way that scientifically proves hedonism in such a way that the pleasure of others does not matter from your own perspective and that only you own pleasure matters (that is, if my beliefs are true in terms of science). But I am frustrated and tired of people who go about their lives telling me that there are greater things in my life than my pleasure while I sit there in the midst of my own lack of pleasure longing to have it back, but with no way to convincingly explain to other people how pleasure really is the only greatest thing in life. Although I have come up with an explanation that is, from my point of view, very convincing despite the fact that it has not yet been tested through science, I wish to someday have it tested through science and hopefully demonstrated as true in order to prove to everyone that I was right all along. But if it turns out that I am wrong, then I would have learned that there really are greater things in life than pleasure and knowing that might make me feel less angry and such with myself and my life knowing that I have not lost something in my life that was supposedly the only good and greatest thing.

Now even if pleasure really is the only good thing in life like I'm saying here, science does not tell us that me must live worthwhile (good) lives and that all that is needed to live is to breath, eat, etc. and just live for the sake of living and nothing more even without your ability to experience pleasure. However, for people like me who seek good worthwhile lives no matter what, our lives must be pleasurable and this is something that can't change for people like me. Also, evolution has designed us to find good meaning in our lives and to avoid pain and suffering and/or a lack of anything good in our lives in which our lives would be neutral (neither good or bad). Even our lives being neutral is something the mind's of many people such as myself will interpret as bad no matter what. So it is imperative that people such as me live lives of pleasure. I can give an example of how evolution has designed us to not live neutral lives and/or lives of suffering and despair. For example, if you had to live your entire life in empty space with nothing to do and no one to talk to as well as no ability to experience pleasure, I think very very few (if any) could be content living such a life. But what I've said about evolution here designing us to not live meaningless lives and lives of suffering and despair might be false, I'm not sure.

11.) As I said before, it doesn't matter whether your pleasure causes you harm or not, the pleasure in of itself is still good no matter what because it stands alone by itself and everything else in life is separate and different and cannot infuse themselves with your pleasure and make it bad or neutral. If you are thinking that you can counter my argument with somethings such as that if you can't infuse bad and neutral things with your pleasure and make it bad or neutral, that this would somehow mean that pleasure also cannot be good because deeming it something good would mean that you have infused "good" with your pleasure, this would be false. I have, in fact, explained why pleasure is the only good thing in life in terms of science for two main reasons. One being that pleasure in of itself always feels good (so it is already good right here). Second being that all other things in life are different and separate atoms, molecules, etc. and it is not scientifically possible to infuse these bad or neutral things into your pleasure and make your pleasure bad or neutral. Therefore, these two scientific facts add up to that pleasure is a good feeling in of itself and that all other things in life are different and separate and cannot make your pleasure bad or neutral. You can do anything you want (even harm others) and it would still make your pleasure good. For you to say that pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that pleasure can feel bad or can feel neutral which would make no sense because pleasure is just a good feeling in of itself and that's it. Based on my own beliefs in pleasure which I think might actually be true in science, you are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it brings you the most pleasure in life because you are only in your own brain and you are not in the minds of others and you cannot feel their pleasure, pain, or despair. Therefore, it is only your own pleasure in life that makes you a good person and makes your life good and worth living. So this is why you can harm others and you would still be a good person (since pleasure is the only thing that defines "good"). The pain, despair, and pleasure of others is neither good nor bad from your perspective since you are only in your own mind and it is only your own pain and despair that is bad and it is only your own pleasure that is good. Now I need to say something very important here which is that I am a compassionate and caring person and would never harm or take advantage of others despite my personal beliefs here. There is a difference between a person's belief as opposed to who they are as a person. Just because a person has a belief that is perceived as bad from other people does not also make this person a bad person as well.

This idea I have come up with about pleasure being the only good thing in life might be nonsense and might be false in terms of science, I don't know. But I want it to perhaps someday be tested through science and determined whether it is true or false. People tell me that life is not all about pleasure and that there are greater things in life such as my contributions in life and who I am as a person. But I feel that this is false. Some intelligent people and scientists say that everything is just chemical processes and atoms, molecules, etc. that has no meaning and that things such as "good" and "bad" are just personal meanings we attribute to things (such as to feelings of pleasure and depression that actually have no meaning in reality). But personal meanings are not just subjective values we attribute to things that are meaningless in reality. They are, in fact, experiences in of themselves. Pleasure is the experience of good while pain and/or depression are the experience of bad. So they are objectively good or bad. All other things in life such as our thoughts, actions, etc. are all neutral (neither good or bad).

Any personal meanings we create in life are all neutral as they all come from the exact same functions of our brains that create nothing but neutral words, sounds, images, etc. in the first place. For example, create any sound, letter, image, etc. in your mind that provokes no emotional response and is bland to you. Therefore, all other meanings we create in life are the same in that sense because, again, they are all the same functioning in our brains. So that makes our own created meanings all neutral as well. These created meanings are no different than the creation of neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because there is no difference between any personal meanings we create in life as opposed to neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because they are the exact same things since they are all the exact same functioning of our brains (just simply with different words, images, sounds, etc.). Our personal meanings we create in life may make us do good things in life, but they are all still neutral anyway. Only our pleasure itself that arises from any personal meanings we create in life is good (positive) and is the only thing that makes our lives good and worth living and you would be delusional to somehow think that, without your ability to experience pleasure, that your life is still somehow good and worth living. If things such as value, worth, and beauty are only good things and cannot be neutral or negative things, then this would mean that only pleasure in of itself is value, worth, and beauty and that, without it, then your life has none of those things and neither do you as a person. You might from the perspective of other people, but you are only in your own brain and it is only your own pleasure that gives you and your life these things regardless of how much others love, value, and care for you. Also, pleasure, in of itself, is a good experience and we do not need any created meanings in life (which would be knowledge, thoughts, etc.) to tell us that it is good. So if you were happy, but had no knowledge or thoughts whatsoever, your happiness would still feel good to you despite the fact that you are completely unaware of what happiness is and the fact that you are unaware of the word "good" and what it even means (I think this might hold as an example for cats and dogs). Therefore, any created meanings in life by themselves do not tell us that anything is good (they are not the activating of the pleasure centers of our brains which is the only thing that gives us the "good" signal). The same thing goes for depression and pain. Depression and pain in of itself is a bad experience and we do not need any knowledge or thoughts to tell us that it is bad. Thoughts and such may tell us that things are good or bad in life. But only in the sense that they are still nothing more than neutral words, images, sounds, etc.

Also, this goes for feelings that are bad in of themselves such as rage and sadness. They are just like the opposite of pleasure in that they are bad no matter what and no personal meanings or any good deed or action you do in life will ever make them anything good. It doesn't matter whether you perceive, for example, your depression as being a good thing due to you helping others who also have depression and other problems because the depression in of itself is a bad thing. In other words, any positive meanings you have attributed to your depression are meanings that stand by themselves. They do not become infused with your depression and make your depression something good. Why? Because depression itself is not any thought or meaning whatsoever. It is where the pleasure activity of your brain is shut down. Thoughts and meanings are activity of our brain. So it would make no sense for you to say that your depression in of itself contains positive meaning since, again, depression is the "shutting down" of the pleasure activity of our brains while thoughts and meanings are the activity of completely separate parts of the brain. So it doesn't matter whether your depression made you more empathetic towards others, more intelligent/creative, or anything else because this still does not make your depression itself anything good. The fact is, depression is a bad experience no matter what and nothing can make it anything good. The same thing applies to feelings such as rage and sadness in that the only meanings that are perceived as being good send pleasure signals to the brain while meanings that are perceived as bad send emotional signals that make us feel sad or angry and also depressed. So it would make no sense to say that your sadness, rage, or depression has good meaning or that feelings of pleasure have bad meaning. Meanings, though they do cause us to feel emotions, meanings and our emotions are not one thing and are completely separate functions of our brain.

Now even if you are going to say something such as that, if it weren't for anything else in life to begin with (even pain and despair), that we wouldn't be able to experience pleasure, then what I would have to say about that would be that all those things are still neutral and that suffering is still negative anyway and pleasure itself is still the only good and greatest thing there is in life. You can still experience pleasure even after having gone through no suffering and/or despair in the first place. Even if it was somehow necessary to have suffering and/or despair to begin with in order to have the experience of pleasure (which I doubt), then you would no longer need any suffering and despair in your life anymore. And you can achieve all benefits and achieve great things in life just as good (and even better) under the right circumstances through living a nicer and happier life anyway and you can achieve these things having no suffering and/or despair whatsoever in your life.

Therefore, even everything else in life and even your own attitude is neutral and you are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it gives you the most pleasure in life. However, I would never harm others despite my own personal beliefs because this is not who I am at all. Also, you are not in the minds of other people anyway and cannot feel their pleasure, pain, and/or despair. So it's only your own pleasure in life that makes your life good and worth living. Not you helping others and giving them pleasure despite your own absence of pleasure. Even them feeling pleasure or even pain and despair is neither good or bad from your own perspective since you are only in your own brain and not in the minds of others and it is only your own pleasure, pain, and despair that is good or bad from your own perspective. Even meanings that you create regarding others without your ability to experience pleasure such as that "I may have lost my ability to experience pleasure, but at least I have brought others pleasure and helped them out," even that would be a neutral meaning and it is still only your own brain and perspective in life which means that it is only your own pleasure that makes your life good and worth living. Only the pleasure itself from helping others is good as well as the pleasure obtained from other things and nothing else in life is anything good at all. Finally, the only difference between a thought and such that has meaning to us as opposed to one that doesn't (one that is neutral) would just be the fact that with one meaning, you are experiencing emotion while with another you are not. Also, I do not even care if your pleasure is detrimental to you and only brings you and/or others harm or even hinders you and/or anyone else from obtaining more pleasure down the road. Your pleasure is still good in of itself no matter what and everything else in life is nothing in comparison to it. So it's only our emotions and pain/despair themselves that have the meaning of "good" or "bad." As in terms of one thought that has meaning to us as opposed to another that doesn't, the only difference between these two thoughts is that one sends an emotional signal to the brain while the other doesn't--that is all. Different meanings might make you do good or bad deeds, but they are all still the same anyway in that they are all neutral. Even if this knowledge is used to help and benefit our lives and society and/or to even obtain more pleasure, that still does not change the fact that our thoughts, meanings, and knowledge, etc. are all neutral since I have just already explained why that is in terms of science (that they are all the same functioning of the brain that comes up with neutral sounds, images, words, etc. in the first place).

(Note to Reader: This debate (post) is continued below)!

As for people who like to feel pain or despair or who don't like to feel pleasure, that still doesn't change the fact that pain and despair are always bad while pleasure is always good. With liking pain or despair, you have two experiences going on at the same time here which would be the good sensation of pleasure and the bad sensation of pain or despair. Although I think it is possible to experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time, I don't think it is possible to feel despair and pleasure at the same time. As for disliking the experience of pleasure, this same concept applies here as well (just with the experiences flipped around this time).

So how much something matters to you and how much value, worth, and beauty it has to you (how good it is to you) all solely depends on your own level of pleasure in life. If you have no pleasure, then life itself as well as everything and everyone will have no value, worth, and beauty whatsoever to you and will not matter to you at all no matter what you think otherwise. If you have little pleasure, then things will only matter little to you. But if you have a lot of pleasure, then things will matter greatly to you and the things and actions that give you the most pleasure would matter the most to you (again, even if it is harming or taking advantage of others). Actually, as I stated before, none of these things matter anyway and all these things besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. That is, providing that thoughts/meanings and pleasure are two separate things. But if they are actually one thing only when it comes to experiencing pleasure (that our thoughts/meanings actually become the pleasure itself only when we experience pleasure), then these thoughts/meanings would be good (would matter) to us. So if you are then going to ask if that's the case, then why can't our pleasure be neutral or bad since neutral and bad thoughts can also become our pleasure? The answer to that would be that, in this case, there is no separation between pleasure and our neutral or "bad" thoughts (bad thoughts also being neutral anyway). I stated before that pleasure feels good which is an objective scientific fact and I stated that the reason for that is because different functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. yields different things and also yields our experience of pleasure which always feels good in of itself. So to say that our pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that a piece of metal (or in this case, pleasure) can be a different type of material entirely (that pleasure can be something different such as something good or bad) just because a majority of atoms/other particles that make up this piece of metal (the atoms/other particles that make up our pleasure in our brains) has some inherit characteristics of other types of material (or in this case, the characteristics of the functioning of atoms/other particles responsible for our "bad" and neutral thoughts). Therefore, pleasure can never be something different and will always be good in of itself no matter what while all thoughts/meanings and everything else in life besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral.

Now you mattering to others and them having value and worth towards you and viewing you as a beautiful person does NOT give you or your life value, worth, and beauty because, once again, you will be and forever will be in your own mind and it will only be your own pleasure that gives you these things. Other people cannot somehow magically "project" their mindset and their value, worth, and beauty towards you onto you.

In conclusion, I am going to present some answered quotes below that are very important and you should read them because they might answer any questions you have:

[quote]Yes, this is the conclusion that naturalism requires - nihilism. And it is itself absurd and meaningless. You are correctly seeing that the naturalist is necessarily reduced to saying that everything just is. But you are not noticing the definite implication that flows from this. If everything just is, then nothing means anything. Absolutely everything 'just is.' Everything is arbitrary, fungible, and of equal--which is to say no--meaning or significance. That includes the words you and I are thinking and saying, the concepts and things they attempt to describe, feeling, pleasure, awareness, knowledge, experience - everything. And this destroys itself. Literally. Your words, thoughts and ideas cannot possibly have any meaning - you are fooling yourself with an illusion - you have no place to stand to make distinctions, draw conclusions, weigh evidence, reason, understanding, anything. It may seem like you do, but you have already ceded that all this stuff just is, and that's it.[/quote]

Now what makes you think that if everything is "just is," that feelings of pleasure would not feel like anything good at all and that feelings of depression would not feel bad? What if pleasure feeling good is, in fact, something that is "just is?" Same thing for depression. What if depression feeling bad is also something that is "just is?"

[quote]1. Doing well and doing badly are opposite 2. Opposites can't be compresent in the same thing (e.g. I can't be both healthy and sick at the same time). 3. So doing well and doing badly can't be compresent in the same thing. 4. An appetite (e.g. thirst) is painful. 5. Satisfying an appetite (e.g. drinking when thirsty) is pleasant. 6. When we satisfy an appetite we experience both pleasure and pain at the same time. 7. So pleasure and pain can be compresent in the same thing. 8. So feeling pleasure and feeling pain are not the same as doing well and doing badly.[/quote]

If you had a cold and were 80% from being over it, then wouldn't that mean that you would be both 80% healthy and 20% sick? Therefore, couldn't you be both healthy and sick at the same time? Also, if you had full pleasure in life, but experienced physical pain at the same time, then wouldn't you be considered to be "emotionally well," but also "not doing well" just in terms of your physical misery? But if you somehow wanted to combined the pleasure and pain by, for example, saying that if you have 100% pleasure and 30% pain, then that would mean that you are doing 70% well overall (since 100% minus 30% equals 70%).

Now if being "well" is defined by having no pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure whatsoever and having full pleasure in life (just like completely being over a cold), then as long as you have pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure, then you are not doing well and you would still be defined as being "sick" (or still having a "cold"). But if you have full pleasure in life with no pain and/or despair, then you are doing well.

[quote]1. In satisfying an appetite pleasure and pain cease simultaneously. 2. Good and bad things don't cease simultaneously. 3. So pleasure and pain are different from what is good and bad.[/quote]

How so? If there was a war between good people and bad people and there was a time bomb placed in the battlefield that killed both all the good and bad people, then couldn't we say that both good and bad things cease simultaneously? This argument can also hold for natural disasters since these things kill both good and bad things/people simultaneously all the time.

[quote]1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad because of the presence of bad things). 2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as brave people. 3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as intelligent people. 3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid are as good as the intelligent and brave. 4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They are equally good and bad—which is absurd.[/quote]

Based on everything I've said about pleasure in of itself being the only good thing in life and pain and despair only being the bad things in of themselves and everything else being neutral, then it is not absurd to say that, when a person is feeling depressed, that he/she has negative value and when he/she feels pleasure, that he/she has positive value.

[quote]You're conflating two different meanings of "good" - feeling good and being good. These are two different things. If something feels good it just means you're attracted to the sensation and want it to continue. That's different from something being good. Drugs are an obvious example - there's a reason people try to get off of them no matter how good they feel.[/quote]

The drugs don't feel good, it is just pleasure that does. The drugs aren't bad either (they are neutral). Only the pain and despair induced by the drugs is bad. Everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral (neither good or bad) which means that you can never be a good person without pleasure or that your life is somehow good without pleasure.

[quote]I once knew a guy whose pleasure was drinking. He drove his car into a tree and killed his girlfriend. I'd say his pleasure turned out bad for him, as he also lost his legs. I'd also say that the molecules of the alcohol certainly not only brought on the pleasure but also the pain, going against your notion that these other atoms and molecules can't affect one's sense of pleasure. You shouldn't make your pleasures life dependant in a world that's more complex than the sense of pleasure and depression. I would think most people would agree that being content has more meaning in the world we live in than expecting absolute pleasure or constantly feeling depressed.[/quote]

It's only the pain and despair that is induced by the alcohol that is bad and it is only the pleasure that is induced by the alcohol that is good. The alcohol itself and the effects leading up to the experience of pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral (neither good or bad). Everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral (neither good or bad) which means that you can never be a good person without pleasure or that your life is somehow good without pleasure.

[quote]If I present to you a bunch of kittens and ask you, on a scale of 0-10 kittens, how much pleasure is that? How would you answer?[/quote]

How we would find out the combined amount of pleasure that all of those kittens would be experiencing would be to measure all the activity in their brains (activity that is responsible for giving them the experience of pleasure) and we would combine all the pleasure activity and say that this would be the amount of pleasure in total of all those kittens. As for our personal subjective pleasure based on witnessing those kittens, we would measure that in our brains as well.

If what you are asking is how much of a person you would be based on your level of pleasure, now there is a difference between being a lesser person and being a person who is less good. Your conscious is what makes you "you," so to lose a part of your conscious would make you a lesser person than who you were before with more conscious brain functioning and in comparison to those who do have more conscious brain functioning. So since pleasure is a part of your conscious experience, losing that would make you a lesser person. As for measuring how good of a person you are, we would measure that by measuring the amount of pleasure you are experiencing at the moment. Moments where you have little pleasure are where you are not a very good person in comparison to who you were with more pleasure and in comparison to others who do have more pleasure while moments of greater pleasure would make you a greater person. As for the difference between being a lesser person and being a less good person, being a lesser person comes from also losing other conscious functioning in addition to your pleasure while being less of a good person can only come from losing your pleasure (since pleasure is the only thing that defines "good").

[quote]I'm not sure that's a scientific claim. For a start, an arguably more scientific definition of a person is as homo sapiens. I think either a person is a member of the species or not. I'd also have to say that I think there's a lot of difficulties with the concept of consciousness and even greater difficulties trying to use it as a conceptual tool in thinking about things like human rights.[/quote]

But what would define a person as a homo sapiens in the first place would be his/her conscious as well because you cannot take out the mind and just say that the body itself is a complete homo sapiens. And even if this person's conscious didn't define him/her as a homo sapiens, then we can look at a specific grouping of atoms/particles that defines him/her as a homo sapiens and find a similiar grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious that are exactly the same and say that this specific grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious defines him/her as a homo sapiens.

[quote]If you cannot measure it, nor postulate a mathematical formula to explain how it has physical existence, say as a particle of good, then you have not refuted my statement that good is a value judgment, not a physical, measurable state. Pleasure is a feeling, " good " is the judgment you make of that feeling. You can view it differently, but as that's an opinion? It holds nothing provable. Saying if you " could" prove it...well, you can't. Come back when you can, alright? I'm not wasting my time with this any further. Please go to Sciencedaily.com and read, read, read about neuroscience.[/quote]

That's just it. As of now, there might be no way to measure it since we do not have the advanced neurological technology to measure the pleasure activity (which is the amount of "good") in people's brains by measuring the activity of the neurons and other particles that give the experience of pleasure. But in the future we might. But first, I will say what I said before which is that pleasure does always feel good in of itself no matter what and this is a scientific fact. Second, it is also a scientific fact that the functioning of the atoms and other particles of all other neutral and bad things in life cannot somehow be infused with our pleasure and make our pleasure bad or neutral or make our pleasure a bad or neutral experience. Therefore, these two scientific facts add up to the scientific fact that pleasure is always good in of itself no matter what and nothing can make it bad or neutral. Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life. Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such.

[quote]There is something that can turn pleasure into neutral experiences...its called clinical depression including anhedonia (emotional numbness).[/quote]

Then it's no longer pleasure anymore. It is now a lack of pleasure.

(Note to Reader: This debate (post) is continued below)!

I am Matt and I am a deep thinker. Or at least, I try to be and try my best and give it my all in coming up with personal theories and beliefs despite having little to no education of science or philosophy. They are likely to be flawed, but I wish to discuss them with other people anyway so that I learn how I am wrong from other people who would refute them once I present them to these people. It is my own personal way of learning as I do not have the time, patience, or desire to spend years and years reading up and studying science and philosophy. I just simply wish to present the beliefs/theories I already have and have people refute them so that I learn how I am wrong.

This idea I have about pleasure in of itself being the only good and greatest thing in life is an idea I believe is scientific and can be demonstrated as true or false. My idea is that good is pleasure, bad is pain and despair, and neutral (neither good or bad) would be everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure (even who you are as a person). How we would go about scientifically demonstrating this as true or false would be, I think, the exact same method that is used to demonstrate how the different functioning of atoms and other particles yields different chemicals and materials because this same concept applies to pleasure since the functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains have yielded an experience that is always good in of itself no matter what (which would be our experience of pleasure). The version of "good" or "bad" that many people think of are usually what is created by our thoughts which is always something objectively neutral (despite the fact they are subjective values) because life is meaningless in terms of science (just for things besides pain, despair, and pleasure) and our thoughts/meanings and everything else besides pain, pleasure, and despair are nothing but the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. that have no good or bad meaning. But the version of "good" that comes from our experience of pleasure alone and the version of "bad" that comes from our experience of pain and despair alone, these are objective regardless of what our thoughts and created meanings are and regardless of the fact that they are also the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. One of the main reasons I state why pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things in of themselves is that these things feel good or bad regardless if you were to judge them or not or to even place a value judgement on your pleasure and say that it feels neutral or bad or to place a value judgement on your pain or despair and say that they feel neutral or good. The fact is, pleasure will always be a good experience in of itself no matter what while pain and despair will always be bad experiences in of themselves no matter what. So that right there says that they are objectively good and bad (in addition to the convincing arguments I am going to make below). You cannot make your pleasure feel bad by saying it feels bad or make your pain and despair feel good by saying that they feel good. Same thing applies with trying to make these feelings feel neutral (neither good or bad) which would also be impossible. As for people who like to feel pain or despair or who don't like to feel pleasure, that still doesn't change the fact that pain and despair are always bad while pleasure is always good. With liking pain or despair, you have two experiences going on at the same time here which would be the good sensation of pleasure and the bad sensation of pain or despair. Although I think it is possible to experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time, I don't think it is possible to feel despair and pleasure at the same time. As for disliking the experience of pleasure, this same concept applies here as well (just with the experiences flipped around this time).

I would like to say that for you to be offended, irritated, or angry about the fact that my personal issue is presented in a long scientific explanatory (or maybe perhaps philosophical) form or that you are angry, irritated, or offended by what I'm saying here for some other reason, then that would mean that you are not a full compassionate person in that you do not have full compassion towards my issues and wish to help me out. Imagine if there was a person who was very depressed and said "I am very depressed because I feel that one is inferior and worthless and that one's life is inferior and worthless without his/her pleasure and I wish to talk about my issues here regardless of how long what is that I have to say," would you then make this person feel even more depressed and rejected by scorning upon him/her and being offended by what he/she has to say? Or would you instead not scorn upon this person and try and help him/her out? Therefore, I will freely speak my mind regardless if it offends you or not. (NOTE: This whole issue with being offended is not directed towards people who are nice and wish to help me out such as my parents and/or mental health professionals because I know that they would be kind to me in trying to help me out with this issue and won't be offended at all by what it is I'm saying here).