Science Cannot Explain Happiness

Thanks for the response Pro. Pro tries to cite my article saying: "so far all study that are conducted to get some reading of happiness are all opinions base of survey done with random volunteers." About this, Pro mentioned: "yes even the the source you used against me prove this, they even repeated it." My response: Pro, this is disingenuous. My article said that about previous studies in order to give reasons for why they actually took an OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE approach; they were expressing Pro's concerns about previous studies. Directly from the article: "The progress in affective neuroscience in recent years has been made possible by identifying objective aspects of pleasure-elicited reactions and triangulating toward underlying brain substrates...objective affective state can be measured in other animals, regardless of the availability or accuracy of corresponding subjective reports, and as such is especially tractable to neuroscience investigations that involve brain manipulations." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... This speaks to Pro's concern about happiness surveys that "the answer will vary depending on who you are asking, what time, what environment, what color are they being exposed to during this questions period. and so many other things are to be consider." This particular study acknowledged Pro's issues with subjective reports, and is the reason that this study used "objective aspects of pleasure-elicited reactions" rather than subjective ones. My friend, when reading a research paper, be careful of your neglect! Pro tried to make the point that words like "likely," "maybe," and "suggested" are somehow not explanatory. I reject that claim, and can show from the same study, words like "consistent" and "confirmed" are used anyway. The cited article mentions data gathered from brain imaging: "The logistic regressions speak to both consistency and specificity of increased brain activation. Consistency is observed when any variable significantly predicted increased activity in a given brain area. Specificity is observed when one variable significantly predicted increased activity in a given brain area but all others significantly predicted no increase in activity." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... So, the study was able to significantly and repeatedly predict which emotions, including happiness, would light up specific brain regions. Even if these ideas were only "suggested," the fact that the scientists could make repeatable, accurate predictions for specific emotions and brain regions means that the hypothesis, that specific regions are associated with specific emotions, has been confirmed. "Our logistic regressions CONFIRMED and expanded upon our density and X2 findings." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... You can see the data yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Also, the study mentions: "across our density analyses and logistic regressions, we found that instances of the experience of sadness and experience of happiness were each associated with relatively greater consistent increases in activation in areas of DMPFC than other emotion categories." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... I reread the article, and I found even more instances where science, neurology in this case, explains happiness in regards to brain activity. These scientists found consistent data which confirmed their hypotheses about happiness being associated with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. This data accurately shows particular brain regions responsible for particular emotions, including happiness/pleasure. The brain along with neurochemicals can be used to make accurate predictions about happiness states. Once we have something that is demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions, we have CONFIRMATION. Pro, is "confirmed" one of those words that I should be careful about when researching? Pro continues to insinuate: "detecting the activities of any object does not necessarily give you complete understanding of what it is or what it is doing, or even how it is doing what it's doing. you simply know that its there that is all you know." My response: Yeah, but if we can use the detection to make accurate predictions, then our inferences of what our brain is doing and how it's doing what it does are confirmed. Pro says: "the point of this debate was to explain what these instruments are actually witnessing in our brain thorough these electric systems. we can measure how high or low base on what our instruments tells us. but we don't know the why." My response: Why is not really a question for science, unless you're using "why" to mean "how." "Why" implies purposiveness, and lends itself to philosophy. This study, and our systematic knowledge, can explain HOW our brains produce happiness, and how happiness can be elicited in humans and some non-human animals. I maintain that science can explain happiness, because the data confirms our explanations.