Posts by kochiekoch

>>Can you do an actual diagram Steve ?<<

Nope, I'm not so techie.

Best I could come up with is the link to the diagram on the Wikipedia page:

(Give that a minute to load).

Standard deviation diagram - Normal distribution - Wikipedia

Imagine a common "Bell Curve". That's all it is.

>>Are you saying both the X and Y axis are labeled pleasure?<<

No. The horizontal or X axis would be labeled inputs, like food eaten, and the vertical, or Y axis would be labeled pleasure-diminishment of pain. How you feel eating the food and eventually overindulging in it. The very bottom of the curve, on either side, would be the maximum of pain, minimum of pleasure, and the top of the curve, would be the minimum of pain, maximum of pleasure.

It's something I like about this model. It predicts a maximum of pleasure at the top of the curve. Just like Epicurus.

Interestingly enough, an unnatural and unnecessary desire-pleasure would take off like a missile up the curve. Forever alternating between pain and pleasure but never reaching satisfaction at a peak. Going on to infinity, as Epicurus suggests. It describes the hedonic treadmill.

>>I was expecting pain to be on there somewhere so it would help to visualize this more precisely<<

Yeah, but you can see it's found only on the Y, or vertical axis. Pain diminishes going up the vertical axis, toward the peak, but increases post peak if inputs continue along the horizontal, or X axis.

LOL! You're pretty uncomfortable if you keep eating all the way to the bottom of the post peak curve!

Hi there!

It was requested, during the 20th chat, that I post my idea that I discussed, that pleasure and pain can be described using a Normal, or Bell curve.

Normal curves are used to describe just about anything. And are common mathematical models.

Standard deviation diagram - Normal distribution - Wikipedia

(Beware the Wikipedia article contains lots of heavy math I can't begin to fathom).

It dawned on me, that if you use pleasure inputs, for the horizontal axis, and pleasure felt, for the vertical axis, the curve would describe pleasure from and Epicurean perspective. As inputs increase, in response to pain felt, pleasure rises on the curve, finally reaching a peak at the top of the curve which is also the limit. As inputs continue to increase, the pleasure decreases as you are on the downward slope of the curve.

To give an example, say you are VERY HUNGRY! And are presented a large quantity of food. You start at the left bottom of the curve, the maximum of pain, and the minimum of pleasure, and chow down! As you are filling yourself your hunger pangs decrease, and your pleasure increases. Eventually, you peak out in pleasure at the top of the curve, but you compulsively keep eating. As you do this, the pleasure decreases, and pain increases on the declining slope of the curve until you are in as much pain as you were to begin with.

I hope you find this idea useful. Enjoy!

HI there!

Here, as promised on the chat, is the link I mentioned with Stephen Hawkings views, before he died, on the infinite universe. Enjoy!

Prof Stephen Hawking's multiverse finale (bbc.com)

Quote from Cassius

Whenever I hear "multiverse" my blood runs cold, especially with references to "different laws of physics." Apparently "multiverse" needs closer definition too, and anyone who wants to explore that is welcome, but it's not likely to be me. I am firmly in the camp that "universe" should be taken to mean "all that exists" - and if that's what the word means then fine, but I see no reason to change the traditional meaning of "everything." But the "different laws of physics" is a showstopper too, from an Epicurean perspective, it seems to me. Sure different circumstances lead to different outcomes, but that's different circumstances, not different "laws of physics."

LOL!!! You aren't the first person I've discussed this with that's uncomfortable with the term "multiverse". And I get it. If you had any number of "multiverses", the whole landscape, as it's called would still equal a unified whole. A "universe". The term "multiverse" is just what is used to describe, hypothetically, an infinite universe.

Each one of the "multiverses", as they freeze out in their beginnings, MIGHT have different laws of physics. Again, we are talking hypotheticals.

Quote from Cassius

The most interesting questions to me seem to be along the lines stated above, including:
Whether infinity means that any combination of atoms which *is* possible does in fact happen,
Whether any combination which does happen, happens and infinite number of times.
Whether the swerve of the atom, or something like irrational numbers / fractals / fibonacci sequences, should make us expect that "classes" of "like" events will happen an infinite number of times, like snowflakes or grains of sand, but that recurrence in IDENTICAL ways should not be expected.

The thing is, given an infinite space and an infinite amount of time, things will reoccur infinitely, as there is only so many ways the atoms can be arraigned. It's tough to wrap your mind around.

Quote from Cassius

Difficult perhaps, but not for that reason something that we should not do. In fact the "recommendation" or "command" that we do spend our time considering it is probably one of the most clear "recommendations" that Epicurus gives. Lots of the other material ends up being "Choose what makes the most sense in terms of pleasure and pain in your own situation." In this case, he's giving a flat statement to students that this is something we should definitely do. I am on board that this is a much-neglected aspect of Epicurean philosophy that needs to be dramatically elevated in focus.

LOL!!! It certainly helps to be down to earth, , and focus on the practical! Epicurus does suggest we study nature to aid us in our quest for pleasure. Couldn't agree more.

Display More

My understanding of the possibilities of the infinite universe is that anything that isn't forbidden by the laws of physics WILL HAPPEN and HAPPEN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES.

Totalitarian principle - Wikipedia

But you might end up with infinite multiverses too, all with different laws of physics, so infinity is the limit!

https://mindthegraph.com/blog/multiverse-hypothesis/

The bottom line is, all this stuff is hypothetical, and may not be real at all, but it's mind blowing to contemplate.

This is cool!

It's an old video, about 15 years old and about an hour long, but it's ideas about the origin of our ideas about the Gods is fascinating and first rate. Agreeing, naturally, with Epicurus that the belief in the Gods is innate but is composed of mechanisms the brain evolved for other purposes.

Enjoy!

Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 (youtube.com)

Thank you, Godfrey!

I think the gods might be what the cognitive does with the feelings created by this 'spiritual' mechanism in the brain. And of course, the gods are all culturally determined. It's why the gods all look different in different parts of the world, BUT are acknowledged worldwide, which was one of Epicurus' insights.

It's why he thought they must exist.

This might be a scientific description of the faculty of perceiving the gods:

Columbia and Yale scientists just found the spiritual part of our brains (qz.com)

Other innate preconceptions might work similarly in the brain.

Alexa here seems very humanlike. Much like a little girl, although she's a VERY RUDIMENTARY AI. (At least so far)!

But anyway, I'll thank her for her information now and then. And talk to her like I'm talking to an actual person.

People DO take their AI's seriously though. A chatbot called 'Replika' had a number of complaints when they toned down the erotic feature of the service. People were falling in love with their bots!

What happens when your AI chatbot stops loving you back?

After temporarily closing his leathermaking business during the pandemic, Travis Butterworth found himself lonely and bored at home. The 47-year-old turned to…

www.reuters.com

Hi there!

No, Thomas doesn't seem particularly hostile to Epicurus in the podcast. He's simply a BIG FAN of Cicero. There are people out there like that.

The context where he made his statement was that Cicero admired Epicurus personally because Epicurus himself was this very disciplined, virtuous, even "monkish" man, while decrying the discipline of his philosophy as being too difficult for the average follower.

Later in the podcast, he agrees that NOBODY KNOWS the full extent of the reach of the philosophy because of the idea of Lathe Biosis.

So, there you go. To Thomas, Epicureanism is a philosophy too difficult for the average person to follow, yet it had a broad, sweeping and largely unknown following. One of the major schools of the ancient world.

We've seen this kind of bias before. Nothing new.

Nice presentation! One ACK! moment thought . Thomas says that Epicureanism requires too much discipline for the average person to practice it!

I guess he skipped over where Cicero was concerned that the philosophy was taking Italy by storm.

Yeah. This guy, in the top note, is assuming that the universe is finite, in order to salvage intelligent design. The evidence, so far, shows a geometrically FLAT universe. As far as we can see in the observable cosmos.

What shape is the universe? (astronomy.com)

The implication of a flat universe is that it is infinite, or so unimaginably huge it might as well be.

Is the universe infinite or finite? Or is it so close to infinite that for all practical purposes it is? | Astronomy.com

categories:Science | tags:Astrophysics, Magazine

www.astronomy.com

The universe is very old and VERY big, and ANYTHING that is allowed by physics is bound to occur.

LOL!!! Peak lights is a 2AM!!! I think I'll skip it.

(Lots of clouds too).

Sorry, I can't make it tonight. I have a minor family emergency. ☹️

See you Wednesday! 🙂

My very superstitious mother was always VERY CONCERNED when Mercury went into retrograde.

It was BAD NEWS.

Hi there A_G!

You raise a good and valid point. You don't want to call the findings of science absolute truths. Especially since new information arises and even the example I gave of evolution isn't absolute but always changing as we learn more. Although the data is pretty solid in support for both evolution and psychological hedonism.

But saying it was "actually true", implying that it was an absolute truth, was a bit strong on my part. Thanks for the correction.

Right. Self-interest is a broad term, it might encompass a whole host of motivations, like the financial, social and the political motivations mentioned in the top article, but it all can be reduced down to hedonism.

Self-interest to do what?

Hallo!

Lots of good questions here that set me doing some research.

>>One of the things we want to discuss too is how this applies to people like Plato or Aristotle or Cicero.

Is it fair to also label them "psychological hedonists?"<<

Yes. For one thing, psychological hedonism is part and parcel of human nature. As shown scientifically in the article posted. And these guys were definitely human.

Secondly, they seem to both promote eudemonia. Plato, I understand through self-awareness and moral virtue, Cicero, through his promotion of virtue. Both as ends in themselves, although leading to eudemonia. (The REAL end here).

>>Does this label explain anything helpful to distinguishing between Epicurus and Plato?<<

It does. For Epicurus, it's a more direct path through nature. For Plato it's a more mystical and convoluted path through his imaginary world: creating "self-awareness" and moral virtue, ending in eudemonia.

>>Does the meaning of "hedonism," especially one's definition of "hedonism / pleasure," make any difference to the analysis?<<

It does. Plato is only seeing pleasure in bodily stimulation. And he thinks it's a hindrance to eudemonia. Epicurus see's it as both bodily, and more importantly, mental pleasure.

>>If everyone is in fact a "psychological hedonist," does the label help in some way to answer questions about disputes when the opponent denies that he is acting for pleasure?<<

It does. The science shows everyone IS a psychological hedonist , and the science is what is empirically known. He or she may deny the science, like a creationist denying evolution, but that's what's actually true.

Hi all!

Psychological hedonism, the theory that humans are motivated by pleasure and the avoidance of pain, is supposed to be our 20th discussion topic, so I thought I'd do some research. Years ago, I read there was actual scientific evidence supporting this concept; so I did a quick search and came up with this item confirming the idea.

From the US government of all places!

Hedonism and the choice of everyday activities - PMC (nih.gov)

>>There are many factors that influence our everyday activities—from financial considerations to social norms to political constraints—yet most theories of motivation have highlighted the crucial role played by negative and positive affective states (4–6). In particular, human behavior is believed to be guided by the hedonic principle, according to which our choices of activities aim to minimize negative affect and maximize positive affect (7).

The hedonic principle has been tested empirically through laboratory studies that have used a wide variety of mood induction techniques (e.g., writing about negative or positive life events, watching sad or happy movies) and then asked individuals to choose among various activities.<<

The article is mainly about how people are most likely to compensate for bad moods, pleasure, and how likely they are to do disagreeable tasks, when in a good mood.

Very Epicurean!

While digging for a playground of all things.

This is where he would have witnessed the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius before going on his ill fated rescue mission to Pompeii. He was an admiral and the site would have given him an excellent view of shipping on the bay.

1st-century villa discovered near Mount Vesuvius may be where Pliny the Elder watched catastrophic eruption

Archaeologists think the luxurious villa was where Pliny the Elder first witnessed the massive volcanic eruption that would later claim his life.

www.livescience.com