Before I give any comment, I'd like to know what you all make of this interesting article (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/the-spoils-of-happiness/?hp).
Watered down underlying theme:
Quote...an interesting hypothesis: Happiness is not a state of mind.
Happiness isn’t just up to you. It also requires the cooperation of the world beyond you.
QuoteHappiness isn’t just up to you. It also requires the cooperation of the world beyond you.
Happiness happens as a result of chemical reactions in the brain in response to stimulus around us. There is no way around this as we are currently made up as. However technology has already been developed to intercept these signal and retransmit ones of their own. It was developed to help people with mental health issues however it certainly can be used to help people be more complacent with there standings in life artificially.
I think it's more interesting to find that the diversity in stimulus that give people happiness and how even deviant nature is somehow interwoven in our species to produce happiness.
Suppose you were plugged in at an age before you could experience true happiness, and all you were to know was the simulation? If you were to learn later that there was another happiness but on you had to work for, and at times even experience hardship and sadness to attain, would you choose the machine that has already given you a life's worth of happiness and anything you might want or would you turn to "real life"?
QuoteSuppose you were plugged in at an age before you could experience true happiness, and all you were to know was the simulation?
The belief that there is something more mystique then the chemical's in your brain firing being the difference between artificial and true happiness it's just some innate superiority complex that the human experience is somehow unique. That by living through a simulated experience is much more important than than the actual reaction that is occurring in your brain. As was stated earlier if a person happiness is a response to the world around them and for the most part the world around us is out of our control why not have the ability to regulate your chemicals, I think it would give you more control and ability to better manage life. In the very least it can give people with imbalances choices.
I'm avoiding discussing this on the level of the "matrix" as it's a) a hollywood movie and b) would never happen. We are however working on technology for neurotransmitters and are giving active control over to the person with the imbalances as where matrix is much more a passive idea.
Hmm o.o...
Then happiness is only the chemical reaction to your environment, is satisfaction only a branch of happiness?
I'd have assumed that happiness gained through hard work also comes with a sense of satisfaction, but now that I think about it I'm sure that could be simulated as well.
I think it can be controlled to some degree, at least if one looks for reasons to be happy.
Is happiness really a choice? Can we personally control the chemicals and eletric signals in our brain? I don't think so. Happiness, IMO, is a reaction, a result when our ideals are made real however minute they may be. But I agree with Sophus that we may consciously look for reasons to produce the likelihood of happiness. That, we have control. And since it's J. Lennon's birthday, happiness is a warm gun.