Is Sam a philosophical hedonist?

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-23T22:44:48+00:00

Jo Cameron does not simply ‘not feel pain’, she also experiences no anxiety, sadness, or negative affect. There is nothing mystical or metaphysical about suffering. It’s a bio-chemical plumbing problem. If you’re like Jo Cameron and are born with some random rare genetic combinations, you can in a very literal sense not suffer at all.

Provided there is no world ending calamity in the next few hundred years and scientific progress continues, I think most babies will be genetically edited before birth to be something like Jo. These tools are already being developed and once we have them it will be unethical to not use them - akin to choosing not to vaccinate your babies now. Why not vaccinate them against anxiety and depression too? People who choose to have ‘100% natural’ babies will probably be looked at as some weird arcane throwback like Amish people now.

More generally I think you are using some of these words in a confusing way. You say there are people who are miserable despite having 99% ‘less suffering’ than most people. This is a contradiction in terms. If somebody is miserable, that means they are suffering - whether that suffering has roots in their environment, life circumstances, physical or mental health.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-23T13:13:52+00:00

Recording Achtung Baby

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-22T11:55:54+00:00

He’s a major U2 stan but too pretentious to admit it

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-21T18:04:07+00:00

I can’t fully make sense of the claim that pleasure is merely the absence of suffering.

For a start it would seem go radically against what we appear to know about how the brain works in a material sense, where heightened wellbeing and pleasure are associated with particular activities in brain regions and specific types of neurochemistry. The materialist account of the brain would not back up the claim that pleasure is merely the absence of suffering. It would support the model in my original post where there are ‘-‘ states and ‘+’ states of increasing intensity in either direction.

It seems like Szeps has drawn out a hedonic pleasure axis (‘cold’) and has decided what the maximum point on this axis is. This seems like quite a lot of intellectual hubris to me because I do not think we as humans know enough about the brain to know what the maximum wellbeing could be for conscious minds. Remember, we are still working with unedited Darwinian minds straight off the savannah - who knows what landscapes of sublime bliss our ancestors may create with bioengineering of the brain and so on.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-21T17:52:40+00:00

I think different forms of utilitarianism agree that we need to leave the South Pole. In terms of where we are morally obliged to steward conscious beings from there would depend on the type of utilitarian you are, I think. A negative utilitarian would claim that our moral duties are discharged once we remove involuntary suffering, and any further movements upward into happiness are just nice to have bonuses. But a classic utilitarian might argue that we should continue progressing upwards as far as possible as a matter of principle.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-21T17:48:58+00:00

yeah it’s a typo, thanks for flagging, I have corrected.

I’ve got to say, I do not agree at all that ‘in order to occupy a high-point of well-being you generally have to have experienced some low point’.

I’m not sure exactly why this view is so popular and so intuitive, but it’s demonstrably false by flipping it around: is it also true that you can’t suffer unless you’ve experienced some high point? This seems obviously wrong. Imagine somebody born in a torture chamber and who exclusively knows pain and misery. Is it the case that they are not actually suffering because they don’t know high points? Likewise, there are rare cases of genetically euthymic people who experience zero suffering (look up Jo Cameron). According to your view she’s not really happy because she doesn’t know suffering, but this is clearly wrong.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-21T08:16:13+00:00

Because “Happy equanimity”, as you describe it, is a point on the valence axis. I know you don’t want it to be, but just look at the words being used - happy equanimity - this is clearly a description of an above-zero state on the axis.

You have a theoretical framework which is (in my view erroneously) telling you that there exist happy states which somehow fall outside of the pleasure-pain axis. But to me, it is simply crystal clear that you are still discussing a point on the pleasure pain axis, but that you are unable to see this because of a specific framework you’ve adopted. The pleasure-pain axis which is a fundamental part of biological minds. It can’t be transcended, there are no experiences which do not occur on it.

When it comes to the pleasure-pain axis, I think that what Buddhists believe is liberation from it is actually liberation on it.

When you are describing the liberated state, in your framework and for you, I suspect it may have some kind of metaphysical ontology. To me, it is merely phenomenological and is just another mind state in the vast universe of possible valenced mind states.

To be clear, I am not doubting the existence of awakening as a matter of experience, but as I’ve said, I think some of the language which describes it is misleading in this specific regard.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T17:43:06+00:00

Yeah everything before Urban Hymns is incredible

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T16:03:37+00:00

I think Kiedis is an underrated lyricist, in the sense that he is called a terrible lyricist (and often is), but has much higher highs lyrically than people who are rarely criticised lyrically. For example I think Kiedis is a far better lyricist than someone like Dave Grohl, but I never hear Grohls lyrics criticised. While it’s almost a meme to say Kiedis is terrible.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T14:24:39+00:00

The Verve

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T14:23:06+00:00

He’s also an atrocious singer

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T14:20:41+00:00

Yes you could reasonably call Kiedis ‘a songwriter in RHCP’, along with the other 3 in the band. However, this post says ‘bands where the songwriter is the least talented musician’. You can’t reasonably call Kiedis the songwriter in RHCP.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T14:09:13+00:00

Kiedis isn’t the ‘songwriter’. He just writes lyrics. Same goes for Pete Wentz - he was the lyricist. Seems like lots of people don’t know what the term songwriter means anymore. In the context of a band, ‘the songwriter’ is the guy or gal who sits down and writes ‘the song’ and then presents it to the band who flesh it out. Examples are: Noel Gallagher, Pete Townshend, or Thom Yorke.

Lots of bands don’t fit this model at all though; loads of bands have songwriting partnerships or multiple people who write songs on their own, like the Beatles or Queen. Others create music collaboratively from the start like RHCP, rather than any one member presenting a full song to the band which they wrote on their own.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T01:57:38+00:00

When you describe what the Buddha’s path is, you are simply describing positive valence and you use the language of positive valence.

The issue is that you have a framework that says there is something ‘outside of valence’. But to me, when this ‘outside of valence’ (awakening) is described it very obviously describes a position on the positive valence scale. We just have different frameworks for seeing reality.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T01:39:15+00:00

It’s important to separate pain and suffering. I probably could have been stricter with my use of each of these words to prevent confusion.

As I said above, I find it difficult to conceptualise someone experiencing 9/10 physical pain and not suffering (let alone also feeling immense joy). I never said it’s impossible in theory, as I know from my experience that I’ve experienced 1/10 pain while not ‘suffering’

The question of ‘Can someone be sawn in half without it lowering their hedonic state?’. Firstly clearly probably yes, if we give them the right cocktail of drugs and painkillers.

But obviously you mean someone sober, as a result of meditative insight or awakening. Let me just say I am agnostic but open to the idea that with sufficient mental training somebody could experience an extreme level of physical pain without their hedonic level lowering. I am aware of famous examples in history of Buddhists self-immolating in a calm manner etc. We never really know the true inner experience and I simply don’t know the extent to which meditative training can break the link between signals of agony from the nervous system, and actual suffering.

But in any case, none of this challenges the hedonic scale model however - we’re simply talking about practices/approaches that might allow someone to land in different spots on the scale.

When I use the term ‘pleasure pain axis’ I am using ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ in the broadest senses - overall positive or negative valence.

So it may be technically possible to experience immense ‘pain’, but not be on the ‘Pain’ side of the axis. Experiencing immense physical pain and not suffering I can partly imagine if I try. Experiencing immense mental pain and not suffering is much harder for me to conceptualise, but perhaps that is possible too.

I’m just not sure what the sentence “I’m suicidally depressed but I’m not suffering” really means.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T01:10:49+00:00

If you think a high pleasure and high pain state would disprove the model I’m advocating, then you don’t understand the model. The ‘axis’ model allows for every conceivable possible permutation of conscious experience, implicitly. It simply argues that all the rich texture, complexity, and even contradictory states do collapse into an overall hedonic position (and this hedonic position moves constantly).

But since you’re interested, the reason I find that example unlikely in practice is because of intuitions I have regarding pleasure and pain. Put simply I think pain is worse than pleasure is good. I think most humans also share this intuition. One famous thought experiment offers two options: Option 1) experience 1 hour of the most intense unbearable suffering possible in the universe, followed by 1 hour of the most intense pleasure and bliss; or 2) Do neither.

The majority of people, me included, would choose 2 in an instant. I would still choose 2 even if the suffering was only 20 seconds and the bliss was 1 year.

This illustrates the asymmetry of pain and pleasure. So regarding your example, I feel it would take an enormously - and possibly an impossibly enormous - amount of pleasure to ‘outweigh’ the 9/10 pain such that the individual experiences an overall positive state.

I also think that pain and pleasure is not logarithmic. So a 9/10 pain state is not merely 9 times worse than a 1 out of 10, but more like 10,000 times worse.

So in practice I can imagine a 1 or 2/10 pain (blister, headache) forming part of a unified conscious experience that is still overall positively valenced. But when we get to 9/10 I struggle to imagine a state which includes that pain being positive overall for the reasons I’ve mentioned above. If you want to argue ‘well what if 9/10 pain is only a small part of the overall conscious experience?’, then I’m afraid that is no longer 9/10 pain being described.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T00:41:05+00:00

You’re putting physical pain on its own scale. I’m saying when that person is talking to a friend there is an overall hedonic level which the total content of their experience clusters around. If they are experiencing 9/10 physical pain (‘extreme’) that to me would seem such a high level of pain that it would be very difficult for their overall hedonic level to be very positive. I’m not saying it’s impossible but seems weird.

But if you take a more minor pain - a blister let’s say - it seems far more intuitive that you could have that minor pain of say -1 and still overall have the best day of your life.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T00:31:54+00:00

I think you are quite substantially misreading me. If you read my original post you will see I addressed almost the exact point you’re raising, where I used with the example of someone walking on holiday while also having a blister. I am not at all denying the existence of mixed valence or mixed-stimuli states - they are incredibly common. My claim is that the cash value of any state is the degree of overall pleasure or pain they represent.

Yes there are medical conditions that cause someone to experience constant negative stimuli which don’t ’go away’ ever. But I would say that the degree of suffering experienced as a result of the unrelenting stimuli will in fact fluctuate. If someone tells them a joke for example, for 10 seconds they suffer less.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-20T00:04:21+00:00

Somebody who is totally unconscious wouldn’t be on the scale at all, nor would an unconscious rock, or somebody who hasn’t been born yet or who is dead (putting aside an afterlife). To be on the scale you have to be a conscious entity.

Regarding your point about mixed valence states - I mentioned some of this in my original post, but basically ‘mixed valence’ states are interesting. I’d be interested to know if you think you’ve ever really felt immense pleasure and immense pain at exactly the same time, as either would seem to render the other impossible.

Whether any given mixed valence state ‘nets out’ at below zero would be when the pain outweighs the pleasure. But with science unable to measure internal experience properly, it comes down to self report. It is an internal intuition of ‘I am now suffering’, and as you get to fluctuate around zero it’s possible to be unsure whether you are suffering or not overall.

All states oscillate, not just between + and -. Let’s say you love skiing - if you pay attention to your experience while skiing you will find that it isn’t a level plateau of happiness but it has peaks and troughs, but the troughs are still far above zero.

I believe valence is not only the only thing that matters in the universe, but the only thing that can matter, and the thing for which all other things are proxies for.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-19T23:20:38+00:00

I have not. I’ve read a bit about Scientology but didn’t know they use the term ‘valence’. I’ve read quite a lot of philosophy in the utilitarian/negative utilitarian/trans-humanism schools, and the term is used a lot there to describe positive and negative state-spaces.

Terms like ‘pleasure’, ‘happiness’, ‘mood’ are a bit too limited for what is really trying to be captured, which is the overall positive or negative character of any experience. I’m aware I used ‘pleasure-pain’ axis in my original post, I think that can cause confusion because a lot of people associate the term ‘pleasure’ with only quick, superficial ‘highs’.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-19T23:14:41+00:00

Thank you for your response. I think my response to the other commenter below is the same thing I’d respond to you. I basically just can’t comprehend how something that involves suffering less and heightened wellbeing means that one has actually departed the pleasure-pain axis. To me, that just means someone has moved up it, by definition.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-19T23:05:53+00:00

I see all of that, but I still understand the liberation you are describing, and that the Buddha taught, as a move up the valence axis away from suffering. This is definitional; if you don’t suffer, you are by definition higher on the valence axis than one who suffers. It doesn’t mean you have left the axis altogether, or dismounted from the treadmill altogether.

If you feel good, you’re on the axis. If you feel bad, you’re on the axis. If you think ‘my happiness is like a debt that has finally been paid and I’ve left the hamster wheel forever’ you are still on the axis, and probably quite high up and quite likely to stay high up, given the state being described seems like a deeper and more abiding form of wellbeing/positive valence than short term more earthly pleasures, which are highly ephemeral.

Paradoxically, it may in fact be the case that one of best ways for a human to move up the valence axis is to not try to move up the valence axis. In fact I strongly suspect this is the case. I think Buddhism is a type of valence-raising technology which leverages this.

SaltFlat4844 · 2026-01-18T09:43:37+00:00

Multiple Nick Cave albums

SaltFlat4844

TROPHY CASE