I have faced a philosophical problem. Guide or correct me please.
Here is the argument: From a neuroscientific outlook, when brain produces any of these six hormones of Endorphins, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Norepinephrine, Cortisol and Adrenaline, one feels pleasure.
So if someone is in a state of total inactivity, and thinks about nothing pleasurable or troubling and feels no pain in his body, the reward system of the brain is not working*. So it does not produce any hormones that create such effect which is generally known as pleasure.
But according to Epicurus, this state of feeling no pain at all, is the maximum level of pleasure and it cannot be increased and more than that is the embellishment of the pleasure. So production of those six hormones are not necessary for the existence of pleasurable state.
But here it comes a problematic issue (for me): When two or more Epicurean friends start discussing about philosophy or having conversations about beautiful things in life, the brain starts to produce hormones of happiness. This state is, for sure, recognized as a great pleasure in Epicurean philosophy, not embellishment. Accordingly, we have to admit that the production of any of those hormones is a necessary material condition for the creation of that feeling in such an occasion.
But when it is not produced in the brain, it means you did not enjoy the conversation, nor did you felt bad about it. So, according to Epicurus, you are still enjoying the maximum limit of pleasure. From these statements I reach to this contradictory conclusion: From an Epicurean point of view production of those six hormones are not necessary for reaching to the maximum level of happiness, but to enjoy friendship, any of those hormones must be produced.
* I could not find a reference to check whether this very claim is scientifically valid or not.