Is unhappiness still neccesary at this point in human evolution?Eternal bliss anyone?

[edicius]

--Warning: this is kind of an inner dialogue, though one which I would like your opinions on---

Why can I not have eternal bliss, or even a "switch" to turn on euphoria? Most certainly positive and negative emotional responses are necessary to shape behaviour towards self-preservation and procreation. But why not alleviate depression and despair? Do they serve any positive function? Could the scale of happy/unhappy be replaced with a scale of how-happy?

Why does our brain not grant us euphoria at all times? Would this destroy self? Is it impossible to have both things you like, and don't lieke, with eternal bliss?

Somehow I think our design is broken. That it was made for a time when we were both hunters and hunted; when tribal battles were common. I in our current design that confidence reigns over capability. I strongly wish for euphoria at all times, yet in different degrees for different things. To replace pain and unhappiness with simply less euphoria. But I think the enemy of this inner-utopia is relativity.

God damn relativity. Can you really be euphoric if you find everything euphoric. Certainly there could can and is different degrees of bliss. Could this scale replace the scale of happy/unhappy. Or does due to relativity lower end of bliss scale become unhappiness. For it is they still are equally away away from the greatest bliss, as they are on the existig unhappy/happy scale. Perhaps unhappy/happy is already different defgrees of bliss, and unhappy things are simply closer to 0 than happy ones. Like a drug, would we quickly build a tolerance to it?

Then why not let us experience greater euphoria, drug like euphoria, in things that we already enjoy? What harm is there in that? But again I guess, like with drugs, addictions would form, and aspects of life on the happy side would quickly be ignored. And many things we don't like to do are necessary.

So in the end, eternal bliss seems impossible. But I hesitate to conclude this completely, I do know from experience that no matter the situation, I can be far happier via opiates. Indeed it is an across the board +++ in happiness. Again I guess this is at the risk of not recognizing pain, both physical and emotional. And the little things that normally are bad for you can be ignored because their -happy is destroyed by the drugs +happy. Additionally, I know I am no longer INTP when on opiates, I am far more ENTP. Why is it I feel that when I am of that personality type, that I am less of a person, a lesser-man per-say?

I guess, that I think INTP is the ultimate expression of human as self; as an independent beings, truly aware of what is the reality of reality.Perhaps not only is ignorance bliss, but bliss is ignorance. Euphoria destorys your capacity for self-awareness. Or maybe I am an arrogant fuck.

Well...I think my thoughts have come full circle. I have to program some c++ now. I'll look forward to seeing what you all have yo say about

[Sojourner]

I take it that you mean euphoria to be one extreme of a linear happy-unhappy scale?

[daseinmind]

How about this? Your mind forms because of the ebb and flow between states of happiness and sadness. A newborn in its purest form is naturally in a state of happiness and balance. The problem is that it takes constant nurturing to make that state endure. In happiness, the child exerts seemingly random behaviors. The nurturer is thereby responsible to possitively reinforce desired behavior and negatively reinforce undesired behavior. This is not just going on from a Pavlovian perspective. This conditioning is what causes the brain evolve higher functions. If all neurological paths led to reinforcement then there is no need to develop complex perceptory and judgment systems. It all comes back to MBTI? WHAT?!?! Depression is just the same thing, negative reinforcement. It's a learning opportunity. It's that same process as before, again telling you that behavior needs to change.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by daseinmind

How about this? Your mind forms because of the ebb and flow between states of happiness and sadness. A newborn in its purest form is naturally in a state of happiness and balance. The problem is that it takes constant nurturing to make that state endure. In happiness, the child exerts seemingly random behaviors. The nurturer is thereby responsible to possitively reinforce desired behavior and negatively reinforce undesired behavior. This is not just going on from a Pavlovian perspective. This conditioning is what causes the brain evolve higher functions. If all neurological paths led to reinforcement then there is no need to develop complex perceptory and judgment systems. It all comes back to MBTI? WHAT?!?! Depression is just the same thing, negative reinforcement. It's a learning opportunity. It's that same process as before, again telling you that behavior needs to change.

Yup, if you go from an evolutionary development mindset, a constant state of euphoria removes "drive" from the organism, resulting in its imminent demise. You have to desire something (i.e., want something you don't yet have, and experiencing a type of anxiety for not having it) in order to pursue it.

Why do you think druggies, if given their drug, do nothing but sit around in a euphoric state? That's not really conducive to their survival as organisms.

Organisms without drive do not reproduce. (Honestly, even "sex" and thus reproduction is a drive based on an internal dissatisfaction with life -- you crave intercourse and want to have it, because you currently are not having it). Hence, mutations that would lead to a constantly euphoric state would die out quickly if resources are not plentiful/readily available.

[Anonymous]

For the same reason that humans tend to get bad backs. Natural selection just isn't interested in comfort.

[LongSilence]

Is unhappiness still necessary at this point in human evolution?

Yes. The only reason you want more 'euphoria' is because you know what it's like without it. Without it human beings are able to be more aware of and sensitive to the world around them. Comparatively more euphoric beings would seem inactive and incapable to us. On the other hand, creatures that might be even more aware of subtle changes to their conditions would experience greater pain. They would likely consider us insensible and euphoric in our situation.

As it is, we are capable of experiencing a great range of sensations without the physical or mental need to retreat while at the same time being aware of change and having a desire to encourage or restrict it.

[Latte]

The natural human brain works in 2 separate systems (that compromises and kind of merges). One of them uses the emotional carrot and stick.

Until you are about three years old, your right hemisphere is the one you use the most and develop fastest, making it dominant, but after that one tend to slowly shift to a left-hemisphere dominance and get stuck in it.

The underdeveloped left hemisphere might explain why very young kids tend to not have much sadness, and usually just cry to manipulate, get attention or signal that they are hurt.


Left hemisphere type individual and self-worth logic is also highly stimulated and encouraged by the method most kids are raised and how most earthly cultures are today.



One can't really just take away the stick and expect the system to still work though. Removing that whole system could be nice, i don't see the average population being able to compensate for it with the other system though.

I see it as a kind of evolutionary framework that enables humans to develop larger societies and survive together without any competition while they develop their other type of thinking.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Lattey

The underdeveloped left hemisphere might explain why very young kids tend to not have much sadness, and usually just cry to manipulate, get attention or signal that they are hurt.

Do they?

How young are we describing, and how many children have you worked with and tried to determine which ones were "sad" or just "manipulative, attention-signaling, or hurting"?

And can you really separate "sad" from those other functions?

[Latte]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

Do they?

How young are we describing, and how many children have you worked with and tried to determine which ones were "sad" or just "manipulative, attention-signaling, or hurting"?

And can you really separate "sad" from those other functions?

Yes, i haven't worked with any children, i just read a recent article about early brain development and then applied knowledge of differences between hemispheres.

By very young i mean 2-3.5'ish. (a very small number develop earlier than others)

They haven't developed a proper emotional relationship to their "self" yet. One can recognize that they cry because they feel uncomfortable due to not having something they want (being fed? Being in the proximity of one's parents? wanting to explore that thing with senses?).

All children of that age are manipulative and attention-signaling in various degree. One shouldn't place single attributes on to individual children, that is the wrong way to go about it, then one categorizes them into separated categories that doesn't really reflect how they really think/work.

They can certainly be momentarily scared or upset(uncomfortable), but sadness isn't by far the same thing. Sadness is a hard emotion to pin down, but if you ever felt sadness, then you should know the difference.

It might be tempting to categorize by direct symptom-attribute correlation, but that never reflects reality.

[rhinosaur]

Happiness cannot exist without sadness.