What does that mean in this context, a “functional difference”? I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say with that.
If a fish has always been slightly warm and has never felt any other temperature, it cannot say “I’m warm” because it has nothing to compare it to. It doesn’t know from warm. You are right ant it experiences the temperature … but because it has nothing to compare the temperature to, it can’t say “I’m warm”.
The concept of “warm” would have no meaning to the fish, because it has never been cold, or hot, or any other temperature than what it is.
If it were to cool down,* then and only then *it could say “I feel cool” … because warm and cool only exist by comparison to each other. If there is no other temperature to compare to, it can say nothing about its sensation of its own temperature.
By “functional difference”, I mean there’s a functional difference - which is to say, being at some moderate temperature is certainly not the same as having been frozen to death or boiled alive! It’s different - in a way that effects the function of things.
It is blatantly false that warm and cool only exist in comparison to each other. There is more heat when it’s warmer. More energy in the water. Maybe enough to boil and kill you. Maybe only enough to keep the water from freezing around you and killing you. But either way it’s simply and obviously false to say this is only a matter of comparison.
Now, you are probably correct that a person who had only experienced a single temperature, or a single level of happiness, would be unable to comment on it. They may not even be aware of the temperature/emotion they are experiencing. But the question isn’t whether it’s possible to comment on or be aware of the temperature/emotion, now is it? It’s about whether it’s possible to experience the temperature/emotion in the absence of any variation to it. And the answer to that is that it’s obviously possible to experience the temperature/emotion. You’ll be effected by all the direct side effects of having that tempterature/emotion whether it’s being so hot that your blood boils, or being so angry that your blood boils. And this will occur whether or not you’re even aware that it could be any different than it is.
To reiterate, again, for yet another time, redundantly, the question isn’t wether you can comment on your eternal joy. It’s whether you can experience joy with no experience of sorrow to compare it to. Different questions. Different answers.
I keep chickens. I treat my chickens well, I let them roam free much of the day, I give them a good diet, I keep them safe from predators. I have only one rooster at a tiem do they never fight anbd all the hens are satisfied. It’s a pretty good life by chicken standards. Probably close to chicken heaven. And it’s the only life they have ever known
You seem to be arguing that if I crowded by chickens into tiny cages, kept them slightly malnourished and forced the roosters to fight and so forth, that this would be neither better nor worse from my perspective or the chicken’s perspective. After all, it’s the only life they’ve ever known, so if you asked them they would be unaware of whether they are experiencing joyful or sub-optimal conditions.
To me that seems to be self-evidently wrong. Joy and comfort are there own reward. A being doesn’t need to be made aware that it is comfortable by comparing to a time of discomfort. This is something thaat every organsim knows intrinsically. Each organism has hardwired biological needs, from homeostasis to companionship to reproduction. If those needs are al met the organism is content. If they are not met the organism is stressed. No reference point is required.
An organism with no experience of contentment may not know why it is dicontented, but it will certainly know that it is discontented and experience stress as a result. Conversely an organism that has never known discontent may not know why it is contented, but it will not experience dicontent and stress, and that lack of stress is a desirable end in itself.
IOW you don’t need to be aware that you are experiencing joy for it to be a desirable end. The absence of stress and discontent are worthy ends in their own right even if the subject isn’t aware of their absence. That’s why I treat my chickens well. It’s why most people treat their pets well. We don’t need to occasionally torture our pets so they are aware of how well they are treated. We treat them well as an end in its own right.
Me, I’ll turn the question around and ask - what is the good of knowing you are happy? How does that improve things? I mean, you’re already happy -and in the ‘heaven’ example that precipitated this discussion, you’re optimally happy, so you can’t be made happier as a result of knowing you’re happy. So what good is it?
The only thing I can think of is so that you remember you have a reason to waste all your time praising your god for letting you be in heaven. Which would mean that God only makes people suffer to remind them to build up his own ego…
That sounds like an Archie Bunker quote, referring to a young retarded man who delivers the Bunkers’ groceries (played by Richard Masur): “He smiles 'cause he ain’t smart enough to know how lousy everything is!”
“Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise…”
I’ve seen plenty of happy “retarded” people and plenty of miserable intelligent people. Happiness is not a function of intelligence, cultural sticom references notwithstanding.
Yeah, I know but that post was just so full of all kinds of stupid that I felt compelled to mention it. I have no idea how I missed it when it was first posted.
