Originally Posted by Jasper84

What a leap, we are not talking about life here(not directly), where did that come from?

Originally Posted by Jasper84

That is why we are trying to find some things we can conclude from them, can be hard in such an abstract framework.

Originally Posted by Jasper84

So you love me too

Originally Posted by Jasper84

Perhaps they mean that you any one valuing should be valuing things at the intrinsic value(intrinsic as more like universal). Sounds like a realists sense of good. The reference of the wikipedia article seems interesting, although long. (I only read first chapter so far, do not expect you to read it, of course) I think i cannot justify being a realist on this, i consider the (feel-)good subjective. Based on what i associate with certain things. The linked article gives some things that happen to be good in many peoples views in practice, often just things having to do with my instincts. Repeating myself; Not that i am entirely bound by my instincts to determine feel-good, i can imagine having other instincts somewhat.
I can assume creature given freedoms do what gives them feel-good. And people can tell me stuff. god damn :amazed:, a better definition of feel good right in front of me and i did not see it? Maybe i should define feel-good as the things that consciousnesses do given freedoms. That still leaves the weights of consciousnesses or the level of consciousnesses perhaps. Ditch association ditch instincts, consider it a guess of what creatures do when given freedoms. When given freedoms and it is a test do what you want to. (or tell if you can talk) Maybe the problem of defining these things is less intrinsic then i thought.