rationalskepticism.org

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I don't think so, because hunger is nothing to do with mood.

Well, David, this got me to wondering whether it's more urgent to know the true nature of hunger, or to get cosmology right. I don't think I know the answer, so between you and me, you're going to have to help us out, here.

People with severe insulin imbalance can get so far gone that they can't understand that they're having an insulin imbalance, and then they die. Same sort of thing happens to some people who think they know everything about everything, when it turns out they don't, really. That fate is worse than death, but just not for them.

Cito,
1.) dying of an insulin imbalance isn't equivalent to dying of hunger.
2.) You may have noticed that I don't post in all threads. That's because you are incorrect to claim that I think I know everything. The truth is that I only post when I think I can contribute something that others have not yet contributed. I hope that clears things up for you.

Well, then what you should have offered was that dying of hunger (a form of malnutrition) has nothing to do with mood. That's not to say that malnutrition never has anything to do with mood, because dying of malnutrition is just about guaranteed to put one in a bad mood. Or did you want to pick another nit from my post, having failed to pick it properly from your own post? You don't post in all threads, mainly because nits are hard for you to find. The point is that commenting on psychology ("mood") requires one to do much more qualification than you seem prepared to offer.

The absurdity of fantasizing a device that can motivate one to do anything has already been addressed. It's not as if fantasizing has nothing to do with mood.