Should We Doubt And Question Everything?

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Yes

We should. But questioning is a different thing than outright rejecting it. To question is to weigh in the facts.

1Jo 4:1

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

You absolutely 100 percent should question everything, and question it hard. But you should also accept the right answer when you find it. There's a fine line between scepticism and cynicism.

Dee

@Pepsiguy

We should.

But you don't you call anyone who disagrees with your religious tripe a 'leftist ' or a 'Nazi ' 

But questioning is a different thing than outright rejecting

Says you a clot who believes in spirits

it. To question is to weigh in the facts.

LOL what are the 'facts ' regarding spirits?




¶

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

You honestly believe that piece of biblical clap -trap ? Seriously ? 

Nomenclature

@Dee

Says you a clot who believes in spirits

Well said Dee. Hope you are well.

Dee

@Nomenclature


Thanks Nom. I'm great as I hope you are , long time no see , hope life is treating you well

Nomenclature

@Dee

Hi Dee. Yes, I'm well thank you. I stopped using this place for quite a while. Afraid to say I was spending a lot of time posting on that hive of scum and villainy known as Reddit.

Dee

@Nomenclature


Hi Dee. Yes, I'm well thank you.

Glad to hear it 


I stopped using this place for quite a while. 

I don't use here as much as I used to , most Americans on here are your typical American gun nut type 

Afraid to say I was spending a lot of time posting on that hive of scum and villainy known as Reddit.

I'm on Reddit most days, mainly on the debate an Atheist sub , the site is very heavy on censorship and slamming down on ' bad language' seems to have a lot of very sensitive souls on site.

Any topics on there you recommend for good debate?

Nomenclature

@Dee

I don't use here as much as I used to , most Americans on here are your typical American gun nut type

Some of these guys are so silly I honestly don't know how they manage to tie their own shoelaces without assistance.

I'm on Reddit most days, mainly on the debate an Atheist sub , the site is very heavy on censorship and slamming down on ' bad language' seems to have a lot of very sensitive souls on site.

Censorship is exactly why I've come to dislike Reddit so much. You absolutely nailed it. It's a cesspit of censorship.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Yes

@Dee

I weighed the facts, and I believe the bible is true. I questioned and decided its true. If I decided it's false I rejected it - but rejection is not equal to questioning. If I rejected the fact that the earth was round then I would be dumb. Now you backwardseden-of-debateisland leave to space.

Nomenclature

@Pepsiguy

I weighed the facts, and I believe the bible is true.

You weighed no facts. The Bible is demonstrably historically inaccurate and is littered with stories which literally defy the known laws of physics.

I questioned and decided its true.

That's awesome. I questioned it also, but because I'm unaware of any other occasions where zombies rose from the dead, alchemists magicked wine from water and grand wizards parted the sea with their hands, I'm afraid I came to a more rational conclusion than you did.

Dee

@Pepsiguy


I weighed the facts, and I believe the bible is true.

What facts did you weigh you  id-ot?

 I questioned and decided its true.

Ahh right so you 'questioned ' the part that mentions a talking donkey and then concluded it must be right because there was a talking serpent in the garden of Eden .......is your st-pidity genetic?

 If I decided it's false I rejected it - but rejection is not equal to questioning. 

Yes we know you believe in talking animals but un like most infants who eventually at the age of 4 or 5 realise it's all fantasy you believe it's true 

If I rejected the fact that the earth was round then I would be dumb. 

But yet you accept serpents  talk

Now you backwardseden-of-debateisland leave to space.

I don't know who this is but coming from you with 3 different accounts I find that amusing , your every response to those who school you is "you're a Nazi " "you're a leftist " .........I also see that like the vile racist you are you  firmly align yourself with fellow racist Bogend ......seriously?

Dee

@Nomenclature

I make allowances for most being Muricans where stupidity seems to be a badge of honour; on here we have John who believes god is a mathematical equation ( he's Murican) Ersflat who seriously believes the earth is flat ( he's Murican) , Maxx who believes garlic is a wonder cure and hospitals world wide don't cure patients with it as there's no money in it for them.

You get the picture , then we have the rabid low IQ racist cretins like Bogend and Pepsiguy who accuse everyone of being leftist.

Mention minimum wage , free healthcare for the poor or any social policies and they all come out of the woodwork screaming blue murder , there are also in fairness a few decent sorts but they are the exception 

The censorship on Reddit is indeed ridiculous and yet again it's proves the collective cognitive dissonance that's a part of American life as Americans constantly bleat "we have the best  goddamned  constiiiiitiiitution in the world and freedom of speech like no other country " and then ban you for making comments that they don't agree with 

Nomenclature

I make allowances for most being Muricans where stupidity seems to be a badge of honour

I definitely understand. I watched a documentary a couple of weeks ago about the build-up to the capitol riots and they were showing some interviews with average Americans. Even I was shocked with just how dumb some of these people are. 

we have John who believes god is a mathematical equation ( he's Murican)

Yup, I was arguing with him last night. He doesn't understand basic math, physics, and he struggles with the English language. He essentially just writes large quantities of complete gibberish and hopes you're too confused to debunk it. 

Ersflat who seriously believes the earth is flat

Oh dear. Lol!

Maxx who believes garlic is a wonder cure and hospitals world wide don't cure patients with it as there's no money in it for them.

Hahahahaha!

You get the picture , then we have the rabid low IQ racist cretins like Bogend and Pepsiguy who accuse everyone of being leftist.

Yup, I've spoken to both of those halfwits. Bogend is a white power ultra-nationalist with the intellectual maturity of a four year old and Pepsiguy is a religious fanatic who thinks homosexuals should be stoned to death.

Mention minimum wage , free healthcare for the poor or any social policies and they all come out of the woodwork screaming blue murder

I know the type very well. In fact, it has pretty much become normal to violently protest against your own best interests in Muricah. 

What? You want to give me free healthcare, a job for life and a reasonable minimum wage? I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS COMMUNISM! 

If it wasn't so tragic it would be utterly comical.

The censorship on Reddit is indeed ridiculous and yet again it's proves the collective cognitive dissonance that's a part of American life as Americans constantly bleat "we have the best  goddamned  constiiiiitiiitution in the world and freedom of speech like no other country " and then ban you for making comments that they don't agree with

Dee, you are so precisely accurate it's uncanny. There's a cognitive dissonance going on in the States which is just simply shocking. 

Dee

@Nomenclature ;

Your observations regarding Muricans are spot on, when I mentioned on this site that Muricans are being fleeced on healthcare they defend tooth and nail the system that does and insists the system keeps doing it; an old saying in my country is " if you have an a-s you ride it " Muricans are a nation of asses that deserve to be ridden 

Many years ago I was looking at the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel with the wife when the silence was suddenly broken by a group of obese Muricans sporting the national attire of outsized Hawaiian shirts and baseball caps one of these village id-its bellowed " hey that ain't half as good as the wall painting my uncle Luther painted on a cafe wall in Texas " 

High culture to these drooling id-ots is a Big Mac with a gallon of Pepsi followed by a gallon tub of ice cream and a fantasy movie about how Murica won the Second World War the tragedy is they believe this fantasy is fact 

Just laughed at this site I tried to put in a-s as in the first s and it won't allow, more Murican freedom of speech 
 

Nomenclature

Many years ago I was looking at the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel with the wife when the silence was suddenly broken by a group of obese Muricans sporting the nation attire of outsized Hawaiian shirts and baseball caps one of these village id-its bellowed " hey that ain't half as good as the wall painting my uncle Luther painted on a cafe wall in Texas " 

High culture to these drooling id-ots is a Big Mac with gallon of Pepsi followed by a gallon tub of ice cream and a fantasy movie about how Murica won the Second World War the tragedy is they believe this fantasy of fact

Roflmao. Oh Dee, I was in tears reading this. So true. 

Dee

@Nomenclature

A site called bored panda asked viewers to post up the stupidest things Muricans have ever asked them , here are three ......I spit my beer out laughing  .......

They asked if I lived in a pyramid. I’m from Egypt. It has happened multiple times.

Got asked if we have electricity in Germany, I replied that in Germany we have to run in our giant hamster wheels to generate power.

"I didn't know Alabama had its own language." After I said I speak Albanian.

How do there's id-ots actually function as in make a living it's a complete mystery to me?

MayCaesar

I view epistemology not as a process of seeking the truth, but as a process of refining one's model of the world. When you are born, you are confused about everything: you do not know how everything works and, in order to survive, come up with a very rough sketch of the laws of this world. Then, over the course of your life, you test those laws, refine them, add nuance to them - and eventually you come up with the model of the world that generally works and that allows you to consistently predict the outcome of most of your actions. The better your model works, the less doubt you have in its fundamental assumptions, and the more focus is put on working out its fine details. At some point, out of practical considerations, certain assumptions should just be accepted and questioning them further serves no purpose.

One of the essential assumptions of my model of the world is that, all other things being equal, generally one is happier when not hungry than when hungry. I have tested this assumption in a variety of circumstances and have found it to consistently being true. There are rare exceptions to it: sometimes being hungry and still, say, keeping climbing that mountain, saving your food reserves for later, can be a fun challenge in itself - however, it is still a good idea to always have a food surplus on you, in order to make sure that you never are hungry when you do not want to be hungry.
If someone tries to convince me that no, actually, being hungry would make me generally happier than not being hungry, then I will not be open to considering this idea seriously: it would be, for all intents and purposes, a waste of time. The tiny 0.00000000000001% probability that I would change my mind upon considering this idea seriously is dominated by the amount of time and mental effort I would need to put into thinking this idea through. I will take the tiny chance of being wrong over the enormously high chance of wasting my time and energy for nothing.

When we get to finer points, however, then my mind becomes increasingly open for a change. During a hard and long hike, how should I distribute consuming my food reserves? Should I eat the bulk of it early on? Late on? Should I evenly spread my rations? Should I have 2-3 large meals in the middle of the hike, or a large number of small meals?
Over the course of hundreds of hard hikes I have developed certain strategies that empirically work. I find that generally stopping to drink a bit of water every 15-20 minutes and eating 200-300 calories worth of food every hour or so works well: this strategy has never failed me and has allowed me to consistently finish long hikes at an acceptable time and never run out of steam.
However, if someone tries to convince me that, in fact, it is better to only eat three large meals, one at the beginning of the hike, another in the middle, and the third at the end, then I will be quite receptive to the message. This strategy does not sound absolutely insane to me, and there is a merit to it. Empirically, this is not a strategy that works well for me - but, perhaps, I simply have not given it a fair shot.

In the end, it is all about efficiency: does the expected benefit of questioning the claim that you believe to be true outweigh the expected cost of doing so?

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

If someone tries to convince me that no, actually, being hungry would make me generally happier than not being hungry, then I will not be open to considering this idea seriously

You've already explained in the first part of your post that you had to go through a learning curve before accepting that. In your own words, when you were born, you were "confused about everything." You didn't instinctively know that you would be happier not being hungry. It was something you had to learn through experience (i.e. asking questions). 

When I read your post, I asked some questions. I asked whether there is a direct cause/effect relationship between happiness and hunger. Does being hungry preclude me from being happy? Since the answer is no, I was able to establish that you are using a fallacy. A well-fed man whose entire family has just been killed in an earthquake mere moments ago is probably not going to be as happy as an undernourished man who has just won the lottery. By asking questions I was able to discover the fallacy in your example.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

I added "all other things being equal" for a reason, and I followed the quoted part immediately with the clarification that this is merely the general rule of thumb and that there are exceptions.

I am not sure why every time you are responding to me, you are responding for something different than what I actually wrote.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

I added "all other things being equal" for a reason, and I followed the quoted part immediately with the clarification that this is merely the general rule of thumb and that there are exceptions

It isn't that there are exceptions, May. It's that you're trying to conflate two different variables which are only loosely related. Being happy is a condition of the mind and being hungry is a condition of the body. The body consumes food not to be happy, but to survive. 

Bogan

The social mores which drive human behaviour are usually never questioned until changing times cause changing circumstances, which cause long held social belief's to fail.     It is exactly how human's think.     We go about our business in the same old way every day.    We mostly value tradition, and we like living in a society where day to day existence can be predictable.    We do not like rapid change, because it may force us to think about doing things differently.      Most of the work our brains do is fully automatic.    It is programmed to work along predictable lines for it's day to day operation.    Our ability to rationalise is an evolutionary trick which allowed human brains to reprogram their settings when changing circumstances made it necessary to reprogram.

"Nomenclatures" brain has not learned that evolutionary trick yet.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

I am not conflating them, and I have clearly presented an example in which these variables take different values than what one would expect from the general trend. You are looking for something in my argument that is not there.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@Nomenclature


I am not sure why every time you are responding to me, you are responding for something different than what I actually wrote.

This ^^^^^. I believe the the guy is a troll only good for being trollfood himself. @MayCaesar.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

I am not conflating them

Please stop. Clearly, you are conflating them. You literally wrote:-

one is happier when not hungry than when hungry. 

You are assuming a direct causal relationship between happiness and not being hungry. Furthermore, you are deflecting entirely from the central point that you can only come to conclusions like that after asking questions. 

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

 I believe the the guy is a troll only good for being trollfood himself

You are the troll pal. Yesterday you spent three hours in a debate about a math question without ever answering the question. When I asked you what you were doing in the thread, you replied that you were "there to toy" with me.

Go away, you useless twerp. 

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

*sigh*... Here is the full quote which you conveniently cut off in the middle:

MayCaesar said:

One of the essential assumptions of my model of the world is that, all other things being equal, generally one is happier when not hungry than when hungry.

I think now is a proper time for an apology. Will you be the hero of the day and say the magic sentence?

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@Nomenclature

*sigh*... Here is the full quote which you conveniently cut off in the middle:

MayCaesar said:

One of the essential assumptions of my model of the world is that, all other things being equal, generally one is happier when not hungry than when hungry.

I think now is a proper time for an apology. Will you be the hero of the day and say the magic sentence?

You will find he does this a lot btw. @MayCaesar. I don't see much point in having a proper debate with someone this disingenuous.

Nomenclature

*sigh*... Here is the full quote which you conveniently cut off in the middle

Your full quote was three long paragraphs. I quoted the part which was relevant to the argument, which is how quotes work. 

all other things being equal, generally

That part of your sentence is irrelevant. The relevant part of your sentence is:-

one is happier when not hungry than when hungry.

As I've explained to you twice now, you are assuming a direct cause/effect relationship between hunger and happiness. Happiness is not necessarily affected by hunger either one way or the other, and so for the third time your argument is a fallacy.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Stop piggybacking someone else's argument, and go away you boring, useless, sad little man.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Something further for you to consider is that there are various stages of hunger. It isn't a single condition. 

And you're having a laugh if you expect me to apologise to you. How about you apologise to me for deflecting the main point for two hours, that you reached your conclusion after asking questions?

MayCaesar

Nomenclature said:

quote was three
how quotes
part of your sentence
are assuming a
is a fallacy

Sorry, your comment did not make a lot of sense to me. Could you please elaborate on what this means? And before you object, please realize that I only quoted the relevant parts of your comment, leaving out the irrelevant ones.

ZeusAres42 said:

You will find he does this a lot btw. @MayCaesar. I don't see much point in having a proper debate with someone this disingenuous.

He is creative in his butchering of others' words. I like that!

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

Anyway, you are right. One is generally happier when they are not hungry. What's funny about what Nom said is that there has actually been one or more causal connections observed between anger and hunger.

Now, I know you didn't mention anything about a causal connection. Correct me if I am wrong but the argument "that from my model view of the world is that people are generally happier when not hungry" means explicitly what is says, and says and implies nothing about a causal connection between the two.

As for being a causal connection between this has been observed. Thus :Nomenclature argument is both fallacious (AKA strawman as usual) And factually incorrect (He will never admit this.

Hangry: Why do we get angry when we are hungry?

It's one thing to feel a bit peckish before dinner, but another to feel so famished that it affects your mood. If you've ever felt irritable and overreacted to minor issues when you've not eaten, you may well have experienced being 'hangry' - feeling angry when hungry. But why do we get this when we are ravenous and what can we do to avoid it?



Authored by Lydia Smith · Reviewed by  Dr Sarah Jarvis MBE


08-Nov-21 · 4 mins read

Why we get angry when we are hungry

Hanger might sound like a silly term, but research suggests it is a very real phenomenon. In a 2018 study, University of North Carolina researchers found that people are more likely to be in a negative mindset when they are hungry.

Through a series of tests, assistant psychology and neuroscience professor Dr Kristin Lindquist and her team put participants in slightly annoying situations, such as being faced with computer problems.

The hungry participants were overtly irritated and more likely to give negative feedback later on, suggesting that hunger can increase anger in the face of frustrating experiences.

Blood sugar levels

One of the reasons we may experience irritability is because not eating can affect our blood sugar levels. "When we get very hungry and haven't eaten properly in a while, the sugar (glucose) levels in our blood can drop," says Reema Patel, registered dietitian at Dietitian Fit.

"If it gets quite low, this can lead to the hormones adrenaline and cortisol being released. These help raise our blood sugar but can also make us a bit more irritable than usual, which is why we can experience that 'hangry' feeling."

Our picks for Hangry: Why do we get angry when we are hungry?

Is your child eating too much sugar?

Children are consuming half of their daily allowance during breakfast alone, according to health... 6min

How to comfort eat healthily in winter 5min


How to eat healthily on a tight budget 7min

Is intermittent fasting healthy?


6min



Brain function



In addition, low blood sugar can interfere with higher brain functions, such as those that help us control impulses and regulate our behaviour.




Anger is also linked to hunger because of brain chemicals such as neuropeptide Y, which is released into the brain when we are hungry. However, it also helps to regulate anger or aggression.



Ultimately, experiencing anger when hungry is a biological mechanism that has helped our survival as a species. Being aggressive when hungry helped us fight for food as hunter-gatherers, ensuring we stayed fed when faced with competition.



What to do to avoid getting hangry

Although getting angry when hungry seems like a temporary problem, research shows it can have a significant impact on personal relationships. However, there are steps you can take to avoid getting hangry.


Eat regularly


"Try not to wait too long between meals to eat. Having more regular meal patterns can help us reduce dips in our blood sugar, which can prevent us feeling hangry," says Patel.

"Have a prepared snack with you if you are out of the house, so that you can have this if you feel yourself becoming hungry but know you won't be able to have a proper meal soon. Something like a small handful of nuts with a piece of fruit can work well."

Cut back on sugar

Try to avoid junk foods, which can cause a sugar crash. Nutrient-rich, high-fibre foods can keep your blood sugar stable and keep you feeling fuller longer."Reducing the intake of highly processed foods with added sugar can help prevent a rapid rise then crash in blood sugar, which can impact on mood," says Patel.

Eat wholegrains

"Focus on wholegrain carbohydrates such as brown rice or pasta, as well as fibre from vegetables, fruits, pulses, beans and protein food sources," says Patel. "These foods keep energy and blood sugar levels more stable, which will help you feel better overall. This is because they take longer for our body to break down to digest, reducing spikes in blood sugar."Fibre also helps to keep us fuller for longer by slowing down digestion and stomach emptying, as well as having many other fantastic benefits for our health and well-being," she adds.

Pay attention to your feelings

According to the University of North Carolina study, hungry people who pay attention to their feelings in the moment may be able to reduce their chances of becoming hangry.

Emotional self-awareness can be a personality trait, but it is also something that can be learned through techniques such as mindfulness. It can also help to take note of when you're more likely to feel hungry or irritable, so you can have snacks on hand.

https://patient.info/news-and-features/hangry-why-do-we-get-angry-when-we-are-hungry

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Sorry, your comment did not make a lot of sense to me.

That's because you cut and pasted five separate quotes together into one, included no context linking them together and didn't explain what relevance any of them had to your own argument. Clearly, this is another fallacy. Specifically, you're using something called a false analogy.

I'm still waiting for my apology. You owe me an apology for the following reasons:-

1) You conflated hunger and happiness, showing no direct cause/effect relationship for why one would affect the other. You then ignored me when I pointed out that the former is a condition of the body, while the latter is a condition of the mind.

2) You denied conflating hunger and happiness, and argued that because you'd prefaced it with "all things being equal", your fallacy was OK to use.

3) You ignored the main point of my argument several times (and continue to do so), that your entire premise would not be possible without asking yourself questions about hunger and its effect on happiness.

4) You ignored me when I pointed out that hunger is not a single condition, but rather a spectrum of conditions. 

In short May, you are one of these people who simply ignores anything you can't answer or which debunks your position, and you instead zero in on whatever you feel will win you the argument. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Eh, his comments are not worth discussing at this point.

On the topic of hunger, there seem to be many different mechanisms at play, often counteracting each other. Going on a long 24+ hour fast seems to have the opposite effect, with your feelings generally dulled (which is likely a consequence of the slowed down metabolism as the body tries to conserve as much energy as possible). From my personal experience, the 40+ hour fast that I did out of curiosity a few months ago put me in a strange serene state at the end of it, something similar to when you are quite a bit drunk, but also strangely happy at the same time.

But in my comment by "happiness" I did not really mean the immediate feelings of bliss or satisfaction, but, rather, general enjoyment of one's life. Someone who is very hungry can still enjoy whatever activity they are partaking it, but the feeling of hunger will necessarily take away from it. Enjoying hunger simply is impossible biologically, although enjoying certain implications of it ("Look how tough I am: I have not eaten anything for 3 days, and still I am crushing it!") is quite possible.

Which is also why severely restricted diets do not and cannot work and are not sustainable. A diet must be enjoyable in order to persist, otherwise the primal biological mechanisms will eventually kick in and override the conscious instructions in the brain. Again, there are outlier cases such as anorexics who derive some sort of pleasure from such diets - but it is not a physical pleasure, but pleasure of silencing one's inner demons. Anorexics are generally very miserable, and, somewhat ironically, staying severely malnutritioned is the primary coping mechanism they develop in response to that misery. It is a vicious circle.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Eh, his comments are not worth discussing at this point.

Lol. 

Translation: I lack the courage and/or emotional strength to acknowledge he has a point, so I'm just going to stop debating him, do the easy thing and team up with someone else to bully him.

On the topic of hunger, there seem to be many different mechanisms at play, often counteracting each other. Going on a long 24+ hour fast seems to have the opposite effect

Because there's no direct cause/effect relationship between happiness and hunger, just like I've been explaining to you for the last three hours. In fact, it has long been suspected that regular fasting can lead to an increased lifespan. Two billion Muslims are perfectly happy to perform Ramadan every year, and were they to break the fast and eat midway through, their actions would be abundantly more likely to produce feelings of deep guilt and shame than happiness, blowing your "generally speaking" pretext out of the water. 

But in my comment by "happiness" I did not really mean the immediate feelings of bliss or satisfaction, but, rather, general enjoyment of one's life. 

A person can't remain hungry indefinitely. They have about a month. Your backtracking is only going to tie you up in knots. It's much simpler to simply admit that what you wrote initially was nonsense than try to refine it with further nonsense. Almost every person in the world falls into this prideful trap.

Bogan

Good on you, Nommie.   You have succeeded in pe-eing off everydody on debateisland, both from the left and the right.   Even JulesKorngold.   That takes real talent.

Look sunshine, if you don't moderate your language and calm down, I think you will end up like Dee, Piloteer, Barnadot, and jack/excon.    Other contributors just will not respond to your posts.  

Nomenclature

@Bogan

Good on you, Nommie.   You have succeeded in pe-eing off everydody on debateisland, both from the left and the right.

Lmao. This, coming from the proud racist who thinks his bigotry is grounded in science, is a most amusing accusation. Listen Adolf, I'm here to debate people, not stroke their fragile egos.

I think you will end up like Dee

One of approximately three intelligent contributors on the entire site? I sure hope so.

Dee

@Bogan


Look sunshine, if you don't moderate your language and calm down, I think you will end up like Dee, Piloteer, Barnadot, and jack/excon.    Other contributors just will not respond to your posts.  

You really mean everyone who thrashes you in debate , no one responds to your  hate posts ......every time your mother looks at you she quiet reasonably thinks " christ I had the option to swallow , why the Hell didn't I?"

Dee

@Nomenclature

Hi Nom, Bogend after years of attempting to tie his shoelaces was presented with a pair of slip ons by the local charity  for Christmas his inbred family are still trying to work out how you get them on .....

Bogan

Another well reasoned and insightful logical argument from Dee.

Dee

@Bogan

Another well reasoned and insightful logical argument from Dee.

Says Bogend who types up a novel of pure nonsense when asked a simple question, your village  is missing you 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

@ZeusAres42

Eh, his comments are not worth discussing at this point.

On the topic of hunger, there seem to be many different mechanisms at play, often counteracting each other. Going on a long 24+ hour fast seems to have the opposite effect, with your feelings generally dulled (which is likely a consequence of the slowed down metabolism as the body tries to conserve as much energy as possible). From my personal experience, the 40+ hour fast that I did out of curiosity a few months ago put me in a strange serene state at the end of it, something similar to when you are quite a bit drunk, but also strangely happy at the same time.

But in my comment by "happiness" I did not really mean the immediate feelings of bliss or satisfaction, but, rather, general enjoyment of one's life. Someone who is very hungry can still enjoy whatever activity they are partaking it, but the feeling of hunger will necessarily take away from it. Enjoying hunger simply is impossible biologically, although enjoying certain implications of it ("Look how tough I am: I have not eaten anything for 3 days, and still I am crushing it!") is quite possible.

Which is also why severely restricted diets do not and cannot work and are not sustainable. A diet must be enjoyable in order to persist, otherwise the primal biological mechanisms will eventually kick in and override the conscious instructions in the brain. Again, there are outlier cases such as anorexics who derive some sort of pleasure from such diets - but it is not a physical pleasure, but pleasure of silencing one's inner demons. Anorexics are generally very miserable, and, somewhat ironically, staying severely malnutritioned is the primary coping mechanism they develop in response to that misery. It is a vicious circle.

MayCaesar

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (outliers as you call them) but that still doesn't change the fact that people tend to be generally happier when they are not hungry. Of course, some people may still not be happy when not hungry based on many other factors, however, this still doesn't change the fact that there is a causal connection between hunger and irritability as has been observed and studied as per the example I provided previously (also a study among many others at least within recent times with all different kinds of variability accounted for).

When you mentioned your stance I related as that was also my model view of the world as well as being my assumption of many other peoples views too. For example, we may have encountered statements from many people such as "you're a grumpy today, have you not eaten much?," "I am feeling a bit irritable right now. It's probably because I have skipped breakfast that I normally eat without fail," etc. And I guess I was referring to both the the bliss or satisfaction one gets when they are no longer hungry that was causing them to be irritable as well as the general enjoyment one gets from not being hungry. I have to say I was a bit perplexed at first here by what you meant regarding general enjoyment but I do think we are on the same page here now.

As for your bit about enjoying aspects of being hungry yes that makes sense too given the right conditions. If you are doing this as part of some hardcore diet programme the fact that you are achieving it might give you pleasure. I wouldn't necessarily call this happiness though. And yes, I make a distinction between happiness and pleasure. I see pleasure as some kind of euphoric feeling whereas happiness is more to do with just contentment. For example, I find chocolate pleasurable but that doesn't mean it's giving me happiness. In fact, I can find chocolate very pleasurable and still feel very irritated.

As for your 40+ hour fast you mentioned what happened at the end of it. I have done things like this myself before but to not that extent, however, I have found myself feeling somewhat irritable in middle of it. But you are right; there is a point where you will go past the point of actually feeling that hungry as your body start to use it's fat reserves for enegery (AKA starvation mode -https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/starvation-mode#calorie-intake). What's actually happening here is that your body is tricking you into thinking you don't actually need any food because you no longer feel hungry anymore, and thus  no more agitated. Even so, this can only last for so long before you go back to square one again. Additionally, doing this long term can lead to serious damage the end result definitely isn't happiness but much rather a state of pain and suffering.

As for your feeling in a strange state such as a drunk happiness I wouldn't call personally happiness but much rather the illusion of either pleasure or happiness. Likewise, I also see the same effect with being drunk. For example people may think they are happy, invincible, relieved of any stresses, feelings of euphoria, etc when they are drunk but all these feelings are nothing short of being illusory as a result of being intoxicated that has made altercations within our brain chemistry (FYI, I use that term 'Chemistry' loosely here).

As for your last point about anorexia that is again as you pointed out an example of an outlier case. That being said, and as you said that is more to do with pleasure, and in my view less to do with happiness (contentedness). And as you said most Anorexics are generally very miserable (and for good reason IMO) but that doesn't mean they cannot derive a moment of pleasure while still being generally unhappy. Similarly, an example of a person with OCD with respect to cleanliness (Obsessive compulsive disorder) will find temporary relief from hand washing but that doesn't mean hand washing is making them any happier.

Lastly, (and possibly just an iteration to what I said before ) as for my point about about a causal connection between hunger and happiness I was talking about the irritability one may get as a result of not eating much or properly compared to what they normally do, at least generally speaking. Again, there are of course outlier (exceptions) here too but that does not change the fact there is and has been observed a causal connection between the two. For example, there are loads of people that smoke but never get lung cancer but that still doesn't change that there is a causal connection between the two.

In summary, if we don't eat properly that is going to have adverse biological affects which will in turn affect our mood as everything is of course physiologically connected. And for most people this will result in feeling somewhat stressed; for some others this may not be the case based on some other variable and/or the cause just being unknown.

Nomenclature

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (outliers as you call them) but that still doesn't change the fact that people tend to be generally happier when they are not hungry.

Your problem is that you have not shown that to be a fact. You simply assume it to be true without actually testing your theory, which is precisely how people get things wrong. Once again, referring back to my initial point, this is exactly why everything must be questioned and/or tested.

Hunger Can Make You Happy.

Contrary to the moans of many dieters, being hungry may make you happy. Or, at least, it can be a serious motivator whose evolutionary intent was to help you find dinner instead of becoming dinner.

When our bodies notice we need more calories, levels of a hormone called ghrelin increase. Ghrelin is known to spur hunger, but new research suggests this may be a side effect of its primary job as a stress-buster.

Researchers manipulated ghrelin levels in mice through a variety of methods, including prolonged calorie restriction, ghrelin injection and a genetic modification rendering the mice numb to ghrelin’s effect.

Mice who had limited ghrelin activity seemed depressed. If pushed into deep water they made no effort to swim. When introduced to a maze, they clung to the entryway. And when placed with other mice, they tended to keep to themselves. (These behaviors were reversed when the mice were given a low-dose antidepressant commonly prescribed to humans.)

In contrast, mice with high levels of ghrelin swam energetically in deep water, looking for escape. They eagerly explored new environments. And they were much more social.

Mice are thought to be good analogues for humans in tests like these. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations, is detailed in the July 2008 issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

https://www.livescience.com/2694-hunger-happy.html

By arrogantly rejecting objections to your own conclusions without even investigating if they are valid, you only do the world a disservice. 

Swolliw

@Nomenclature @ZeuesAres42

Hunger Can (May) Make You Happy

Does the article conclude or state that hunger DOES make you happy? No it doesn't.

Your investigation and evidence are poor and amateurish to say the least.

Nomenclature

@Swolliw

Does the article conclude or state that hunger DOES make you happy?

As expected, you are radically missing the point. I don't need the article to conclude anything. All I need is for the article to demonstrate that arbitrary conclusions shouldn't be drawn, absent rigorous testing, simply because they seem reasonable to the observer. It is perhaps no wonder that someone of your low intellectual calibre automatically wants to deflect into a pointless argument about semantics.

ZeusAres42

Swolliw said:

@Nomenclature @ZeuesAres42

Hunger Can (May) Make You Happy

Does the article conclude or state that hunger DOES make you happy? No it doesn't.

Your investigation and evidence are poor and amateurish to say the least.

@Swolliw. Excuse me if I sound harsh but could you please try not to include me in arguments that having nothing to do with me. I have no idea who Nom is debating with but it definitely isn't me. However, if you would like to interfere with the debate between him and his imaginary converser then that is your prerogative. Please just don't include me.