excreationist

Yes, the itch is "undesirable". When I talk about desirable things, I mean things that we want to have, *simply* because they result in pleasure. And undesirable things are things that we want to avoid because they result in discomfort or pain.
On the other hand, I think that relief from tension is a form of pleasure.

I never realized that this was so confusing....

It is simpler to talk about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, but this can make it seem quite supernatural. I try to talk in terms of desires, goals or priorities instead. The problem is that those terms can refer to the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.... maybe I could talk about positive and negative emotional responses instead... (it sounds more scientific than "pleasure" and "pain" I think)

hedonologist

Yes, but having and wanting are very different. Desire is wanting, pleasure is having, you blasphemer!!!

hedonologist

This I put in the Morals forum. It is for the general discussion of how materialists act different than dualists, so that I can make a case that materialism leads to nihilism, or something. <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000730" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000730</a>

excreationist

I didn't say that desire and pleasure are identical... but I am saying that desire is expected pleasure.

hedonologist

Unconscious programming. I'm defining pain as requiring consciousness. Maybe insects are zombies.

Programming can also change the behavior, at the same time that a person intends to change their behavior. I'm not saying the experiencer has any "supernatural" affect on matter, I'm saying rather that matter has an affect on the experiencer. Thus I call them an experiencer, instead of a chooser. Because experience refers to matter's affect on the person, and (free) choice refers to the person's (supernatural) affect on matter.

I know I'm not certain of any of this, because I see a paradox. I'm just saying how it seems on the one hand, to figure out what I'm missing, and what others maybe missing with their theories.

hedonologist

I desire all kinds of things I never expect to happen, but if you mean that we can only desire or prefer pleasure, I don't know about that.

excreationist

I mean you expect to get pleasure assuming that you finally get that goal. Or avoid pain. (Although I usually talk about desire involving the seeking of pleasure)
So it is basically about seeking pleasure then. You might get what you want, but you still might try anyway.

hedonologist

Imagine an experience which you consider painful overall, thus you desire not to have such an experience. When someone else experiences this, it feels painful to them, but they "desire" this, or maybe they feel an obligation to experience it (so it is not so much their free choice), like a they think they "deserve" a punishment. Is this impossible?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>

excreationist

The expected pain would have been outweighed by expected pleasure or a reduction in expected pain.
In the case of them deserving it, it could be a big habit for them to do that, and habits can be very difficult to break. So even that pain wouldn't be enough to break the habit.

Edited to add:
The motivational system behind "responsibility" is pretty complicated I think... for Christians, they might believe that they "deserve" a punishment to ensure that they go to heaven and avoid hell. Or people might think that unchecked irresponsible behaviour will lead to a downward spiral of immorality and to avoid this great pain, they can endure a lesser pain - the punishment. Taking the punishment might make them "wake up" and lead a better, happier life, that isn't caught up in a vicious circle.
People can also act responsibly to mirror their responsible role models (I believe that "connectedness" which is a sense of security results in pleasure).
People mightn't consciously know the reasons they do things since a lot of a person's behaviour was learnt before the age of 2, when they couldn't speak and organize their thoughts. But I think that their brain does things for reasons, that may be stubborn and misguided, but they are still reasons.

About people doing something that feels painful - they do it to attempt to seek pleasure (e.g. excitement, connectedness, etc) or avoid a greater pain. So they might endure a lot of pain at boot camp to feel more comfortable about themselves, etc. But even though overall it was an overall desirable thing to do painful pushups, they still felt the pain. This is because I think we are the part of our brain that looks at the different emotional components of experiences and weighs them up. The pain of doing pushups means "something's wrong! Do something!" - even though we chose to ignore it at that point in time, it is important to be reminded about that problem otherwise we'd keep on doing pushups until we lost consciousness or something.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

hedonologist

I understand that that is what you believe, I just don't see any reason for it. You can speculate as to how they could be seeking pleasure, but you could just as easily speculate that they sought pain. Is there anything preventing us from choosing something that is painful with no expected pleasure for ourselves or anyone else?

Are you simply defining pleasure or pain according to what a person chooses?

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]</p>