[saxon]

For the purpose of keeping this thread simple and to the point, I will use the word "happiness" to refer to the sum of any positive emotions or feelings, including physical pleasure.

Every action that a person does is ultimately for the happiness of themselves or others, so therefore the best possible action that one can do is to maximize the happiness of everyone. Therefore, the best possible thing that mankind can do is to build computers to which we can upload our consciousnesses to live in the happiest state possible. Any other future would be less preferable than us simply being dormant, inactive machines, albeit as happy as possible.

To clarify,

The idea of uploading yourself to this machine is that it basically kills you. It destroys everything that makes you "you." Only your basic consciousness survives. Your memories, thoughts, and everything that makes you "you" ceases to exist. There is no source of happiness in this new world that you live in, you're just happy by default. Theoretically we could do this without the computer; just put a person in a room and give them excessive doses of meth or heroine, but of course tolerance, body, and brain damage means that this isn't a good idea. And of course a person can still be depressed due to external factors in this situation.

But if your mind is in a computer, that all changes. You can just run the "meth times a million" program 24/7 on the host's brain, and they would live a better life than they could have possibly lived by natural means. Even if they are dead in practice, they will feel somewhat infinite happiness for all eternity, even though everything about them is lost. The argument that "this is a drug, and drugs are bad" really doesn't apply here. Why are drugs bad? Because even though they make the user happy for one moment, they ultimately lead to more unhappiness. I doubt we would consider them bad if all they did was make us happy with no negative drawbacks whatsoever - which is exactly the role of this far-fetched hypothetical computer.

I believe that there is nothing more important than happiness. If there was, it'd only be important because it either makes us more happy or less sad.... which still means that nothing is more important than happiness. This being said, I believe that building such computers - even if it kills everything about us - is objectively the BEST thing that any sentient species can do.

Think about it like this. Humans live lives in pursuit of happiness. You might not think of your life as that, but that's basically what it is. Whether it's being social and talking to people, playing games, working for achievements, or eating a yummy meal, it's all ultimately for happiness or pleasure in some form. Why do we continue to live? Is there a goal of these organisms covering earth, like mold covering an apple?

We live because we may enjoy our lives. In this sense, a human being is like a little "happiness farm." Each one lives a life, gets to live more prosperously than they would in nature, whilst never having to starve or be eaten to death. They likely won't yield any kind of good resource over the course of their lives, and if they do, it will only be considered positive because it helped others. See what I'm getting at? We live to benefit ourselves or others, and that's all that's important.

Humans are inefficient happiness farms, though. It's as though nature is riding on top of man dangling a carrot in his face to keep him moving. Enjoyment was created for us to stay alive, not the other way around. Positive and negative feelings, in a human life, are a series of roads and bumps. Even if you've accomplished everything you've wanted, you can still end up being miserable at the end of it. True happiness is locked inside of the human brain, and in order to get the key, we must do strange little rituals. Eat something good. Have six. Watch a good movie. But all of these activities are really different paths to the same thing: positive emotion.

If all we're doing here is farming happiness, why not have the most efficient one possible? Why scraqe life for little happy moments, when you can yield one in true, blissful bulk?

Agree? Disagree? Why?

[Skivs]

I disagree. Nobody is taking away what makes me human. I'm thankful for all the experiences I've had, happy and unhappy, and I'd off myself before I let some computer send me into a rainbow sunshine stasis.

[Nicole M]

So you're saying that being human makes you happy - or otherwise makes you feel some kind of positive experience, which, for the sake of this thread, we can say is interchangeable with happiness.

The positive experiences of being in a rainbow sunshine stasis greatly outweigh that which you feel from your pride of being yourself. Isn't one clearly a better option than the other? I can't imagine any argument for the contrary that would sway me, but I'm still open to what people have to say.

[kirsty joanne hines]

I would much rather be dead and gone to dust than live that kind of existence. If you're never unhappy/sad, what is the worth of being happy? Thus sad is just as important as happy, since the two can't exist without the other, so to speak.
Drugs don't make you happy, btw. They make you high. There's a difference.

[Nicole M]

How could you even theoretically achieve a state of mind called "happiness" without a mind?

Edit: And as Crimson here said, drugs =/= happiness, which works the same way for a computer generated happiness.

[chloe hampson]

I hope you know the meaning of "happy" has changed throughout the centuries. Back then, it was fulfilling a good life, with all the good and bad in it. For the Ancient Greeks, roughly the same, though more in their own societal way. For those who are very Christian/Muslim/Jewish, it's keeping faith and staying the course outlined in the Bible/Quarn/Torah.

It's only recent that the definition of happy became what makes one feel 'good' and maintaining it. Also, there's no point in what you suggest. That's being mindless, not happy.

[Leanne Molloy]

Happiness isn't worth anything without depression to balance it.

[Jason White]

Happiness isn't worth anything without depression to balance it.

Indeed. In other words said, "If everyone is rich, no-one is rich." (applied to the if you are contantly happy, you're not happy)

[Alexander Lee]

[Redacted.]

The entire thing doesn't make much sense. Your premises are wonky and unsupported, as are your conclusions, as are your solutions.

Night, folks.

[Gracie Dugdale]

I would much rather be dead and gone to dust than live that kind of existence. If you're never unhappy/sad, what is the worth of being happy? Thus sad is just as important as happy, since the two can't exist without the other, so to speak.
Drugs don't make you happy, btw. They make you high. There's a difference.

This is true - within the limitations of the human mind. I see a conflict between nature and man here.

Nature gave us pleasure and pain to keep us alive. But from a human's point of view, it's the other way around - we stay alive for pleasure and happiness, and avoid the opposite.

Like you said, if we could be happy all the time, it would become meaningless without suffering. This is compliant with how nature designed us; by getting "bored" of being happy, we must strive forward even more, which aids in the propagation of the species. The fact that we can't be happy without ever being sad is a necessity for human survival.

My hypothetical computer is the ultimate perversion of nature. Since survival no matter means anything, there is no need for these tools that we have to keep us alive. So of course, the computer would be designed so that every moment is just as beautiful as the next. The human brain of course changes all the time. Feeling happiness from an activity will slowly degrade the level of happiness felt from that activity.

This computer, however, does not change. Any one moment will be just as enjoyable as the next into infinity. The "happiness/pleasure filter" of the human brain is gone because it is not needed in this state.

@Hellmouth: I know, I read cracked.com too. But of course, "happiness" is still a real thing. In this thread, I simply use the word to refer to any positive emotions/feelings.

[Noraima Vega]

disagree. i like boobs. real boobs, not computer boobs.

plus an eternity in a constant stable mood would be duller than old age in meatspace. it's good to get angry sometimes, to feel blood pumping as you scream and shout and stomp. it was fun to be scared as a kid when you got yourself into stupid kid situations. some people will even say they enjoy shedding a tear too. humans are emotional creatures. if you take that away you might as well save on development costs and totally wipe out humanity instead.

the best thing this sentient species could do, which would ensure happiness across the world, is get fusion power up and running globally.

[George PUluse]

disagree. i like boobs. real boobs, not computer boobs.

plus an eternity in a constant stable mood would be duller than old age in meatspace. it's good to get angry sometimes, to feel blood pumping as you scream and shout and stomp. it was fun to be scared as a kid when you got yourself into stupid kid situations. some people will even say they enjoy shedding a tear too. humans are emotional creatures. if you take that away you might as well save on development costs and totally wipe out humanity instead.

the best thing this sentient species could do, which would ensure happiness across the world, is get fusion power up and running globally.

The enjoyment that you get from being angry or shedding a tear, are part of the happiness to which this thread is about. Any kind of pleasure or happiness, regardless of what form it's in, is included in this dark paradise.

[Ross]

Cracked? I was just using what I learned from a philosophy and ethics class.

[Spooky Angel]

Oh. I assumed you got it from here:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19376_5-scientific-reasons-your-idea-happiness-wrong.html

Usually when someone recites something from a cracked article I assume they got it from there, and this is the only time I've ever been wrong lol.

[Fanny Rouyé]

Why even bother designing some computer system to keep simulated versions of people forever happy? Just kill everyone and no one will care anymore. It ultimately serves the same purpose. But I expect most people will agree that this is not a moral solution.

[elliot mudd]

Let's freeze this discussion till such computers exist.

[emma sweeney]

What is happiness without sadness, or light without dark? If you remove the existence of one, you can no longer fully appreciate the other. If sadness didn't exist, we would not be able to fully appreciate happiness. Likewise, we would not be able to appreciate pleasure without the existence of pain to compare it to. That's just part of human nature. We view our experiences largely by comparison. I would not change any of my experiences, and I've had some really bad ones.

This "rainbow sunshine stasis" is something I want absolutely no part of. I don't want my "pain" taken away, because it's part of what makes me who I am.

[Budgie]

Why even bother designing some computer system to keep simulated versions of people forever happy? Just kill everyone and no one will care anymore. It ultimately serves the same purpose. But I expect most people will agree that this is not a moral solution.

In one scenario, the net happiness is 0, and in the other, it's roughly infinite.

@Viper: The enjoyment that you get from being angry or shedding a tear, are part of the happiness to which this thread is about. Any kind of pleasure or happiness, regardless of what form it's in, is included in this dark paradise.

Moar text:

Think about it like this. Humans live lives in pursuit of happiness. You might not think of your life as that, but that's basically what it is. Whether it's being social and talking to people, playing games, working for achievements, or eating a yummy meal, it's all ultimately for happiness or pleasure in some form. Why do we continue to live? Is there a goal of these organisms covering earth, like mold covering an apple?

We live because we may enjoy our lives. In this sense, a human being is like a little "happiness farm." Each one lives a life, gets to live more prosperously than they would in nature, whilst never having to starve or be eaten to death. They likely won't yield any kind of good resource over the course of their lives, and if they do, it will only be considered positive because it helped others. See what I'm getting at? We live to benefit ourselves or others, and that's all that's important.

Humans are inefficient happiness farms, though. It's as though nature is riding on top of man dangling a carrot in his face to keep him moving. Enjoyment was created for us to stay alive, not the other way around. Positive and negative feelings, in a human life, are a series of roads and bumps. Even if you've accomplished everything you've wanted, you can still end up being miserable at the end of it. True happiness is locked inside of the human brain, and in order to get the key, we must do strange little rituals. Eat something good. Have six. Watch a good movie. But all of these activities are really different paths to the same thing: positive emotion.

If all we're doing here is farming happiness, why not have the most efficient one possible? Why scraqe life for little happy moments, when you can yield one in true, blissful bulk?

[Brian LeHury]

In one scenario, the net happiness is 0, and in the other, it's roughly infinite.

No, it's not infinite. It becomes the base line. It's 0 too. With nothing better or worse to which you can compare, there's no value to it.

[Big Homie]

Disagree. So you would kill me and put my conscience into a computer that allows it to be happy 24/7. But you would still kill ME, so this makes it ultimately a decision that would go against my moral beliefs. And who gives a dime about their conscience, anyways?

[Anthony Diaz]

The simple problem with the human mind is that it will dull the effects of dopamine, which is what the machine would aim to create, on it in in direct response to increased stimuli. Just look at our current version of this, drugs. People will start out on drugs that only tickle their dopamine production a bit, and then they will need stronger stuff to feel the same way they felt the first time they tried whatever drug they started out on and this will go on in increasing levels until they reach a drug that has such profound effects on their minds that it can kill them.

The machine would do the same, if it would only up the dosage in direct proportions to dropping levels of happiness to a point where it would kill you, and if it just kept doing the same thing eventually the feeling would be dulled and it would no longer be doing anything for you.

You need bad experiences to appreciate the good ones. That's just how we are designed and quite frankly I'm content with how we work especially as someone who aspires to work in creative areas inspiring others and making them feel happy through my work. I would be outdated with such a machine.

[Tiffany Carter]

The simple problem with the human mind is that it will dull the effects of dopamine, which is what the machine would aim to create, on it in in direct response to increased stimuli. Just look at our current version of this, drugs. People will start out on drugs that only tickle their dopamine production a bit, and then they will need stronger stuff to feel the same way they felt the first time they tried whatever drug they started out on and this will go on in increasing levels until they reach a drug that has such profound effects on their minds that it can kill them.

The machine would do the same, if it would only up the dosage in direct proportions to dropping levels of happiness to a point where it would kill you, and if it just kept doing the same thing eventually the feeling would be dulled and it would no longer be doing anything for you.

You need bad experiences to appreciate the good ones. That's just how we are designed and quite frankly I'm content with how we work especially as someone who aspires to work in creative areas inspiring others and making them feel happy through my work. I would be outdated with such a machine.

What he's suggesting isn't even a machine, it's a computer. We die and a computer program simulates our conscience. So technically there won't be any dopamine, just 1s and 0s telling our simulated brains that we're happy. Since the technology is impossible today, there's no way to know we'd actually feel like the same "person". And really, if it destroys our memories, we can't possibly be the same person. And to suggest that it's perfect (like what seems to be the case with the OP and is insistence that we're all wrong) is just an exercise in "What if?" futility.

It's not a neurological problem, it's a psychological problem. If we don't know anything but happiness, we can't know happiness.

[katsomaya Sanchez]

What he's suggesting isn't even a machine, it's a computer. We die and a computer program simulates our conscience. So technically there won't be any dopamine, just 1s and 0s telling our simulated brains that we're happy. Since the technology is impossible today, there's no way to know we'd actually feel like the same "person". And really, if it destroys our memories, we can't possibly be the same person. And to suggest that it's perfect (like what seems to be the case with the OP and is insistence that we're all wrong) is just an exercise in "What if?" futility.

It's not a neurological problem, it's a psychological problem. If we don't know anything but happiness, we can't know happiness.

It certainly is a "what if" scenario.

I don't quite get how you can argue that no sadness = no happiness. Sure, maybe for a human brain. For a machine designed specifically for pleasure? I'm sure it could be made to be different.

[CORY]

Your starting point is that happiness is the ultimate goal. That's a dubious starting point. Your extrapolation to include making others happy, in that starting point, is even more dubious. Your elevating making others happy to the super-hyper-ultimate point of life is even more dubious.

I'm not even going to touch the rest.

I thought I'd feel better about this thread after I slept some, but no. It's still misguided; annoyingly so.

[victoria johnstone]

Your starting point is that happiness is the ultimate goal. That's a dubious starting point. Your extrapolation to include making others happy, in that starting point, is even more dubious. Your elevating making others happy to the super-hyper-ultimate point of life is even more dubious.

I'm not even going to touch the rest.

I thought I'd feel better about this thread after I slept some, but no. It's still misguided; annoyingly so.

And how so?

Name ANY reason to do ANYTHING that doesn't involve making you or someone else happy. Would you do any of the things you do if they didn't lead to any happiness or pleasure in the short or long term? And as stated in the OP, happiness includes any kind of positive emotion or physical pleasure (for the sake of this topic).