What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
_Well, since it’s necrod anyways…_
Happiness is an emotion that tends to relieve people of stress and negative emotions and give them a positive outlook on life. A happy person often improves the mood of those around him or her, seemingly through the good vibes they give off. A happy person’s worth ethic is generally higher than that of an unhappy person. Happy people get along with other people much easier. The cause of happiness can vary somewhat from person to person, though one source of happiness that usually stays consistent from person to person is bacon.
This is my first post!
ViolentAJ, what a great post.
Happiness is many things to many different people. What makes me wonder is how it can be different from one person to another, with one person’s happiest moment being a small satisfaction, while the other’s happiest moment being an explosion of emotion enough to knock them off their feet and keep them crying in happiness for hours on end.
This next part isn’t too related, so sue me.
It interests me that most or all drugs that take away pain also make you feel happy. I know it has to do with chemicals being turned into certain neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, et alii), but the interesting premise for me is that it does both.
Happiness is a bar of chocolate, depending if you do or don’t take a certain medication.
In Devil’s Advocate, the Devil mentions that love is no different than eating large amounts of chocolate, which the Architect in The Matrix mentioned as well. Here’s something I heard on a movie (I forgot which, I think it was non-fiction). The people were talking about chocolate and its effects on the brain. The people were talking about how people eat chocolate for the taste and how it makes you feel. There was a study done where people who love chocolate were given a certain medicine that blocked the pleasure hormones from being accepted by the receptors in the brain. This medicine was originally used for drug addicts who overdosed, and the doctors used this to keep more of the drugs from effecting them. After the medication worked, those people would ease out of their self-induced comas and come back to life. Back to the study, the people on the medication were given a good amount of chocolate. The people ate a couple pieces, and inevitably wouldn’t eat the rest of the chocolate. It still tasted the same; they were missing the pleasure they were used to getting from it. They simply stopped because it wasn’t fun anymore.
> *Originally posted by **[halotrixzdj](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6486502):***
> This is my first post!
Welcome to SD :)
> In Devil’s Advocate, the Devil mentions that love is no different than eating large amounts of chocolate, which the Architect in The Matrix mentioned as well.
The chemical they’re referring to is phenylethylamine, the neurotransmitter responsable for releasing endorphins. The reason why you have to consume large amounts of chocolate is because phenylethylamine taken orally, is usually broken down into phenylacetic acid as part of the digestion process. Relatively little survives to enter the bloodstream.
If you were to mix chocolate into a solution and inject it into the bloodstream directly, you would get a _much_ stronger reaction with only a very small amount of chocolate.
> *Originally posted by **[ViolentAJ](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6484794):***
> Happiness is as you define it. Simple as that.
and how would YOU define it? dont troll on forums, give your opinion instead of stating.
Aw, I miss the time when you could make a reasonable, short and to the point thread in SD without it being locked for “Not making a satisfactory conversation starter” (AKA not being the ten page essay/rant, constantly repeating itself in a struggle to look better than a just as good (if not better), short OP’d thread).
i feel terrible for being such a bad person, but the whole world treats me the same. why should i continue being good and not just post comments like the one i just did?
if you can find me 1 nice person, then i’ll revert to being a good human again :-)
> *Originally posted by **[Galdos](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6488839):***
> > *Originally posted by **[ViolentAJ](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6484794):***
> > Happiness is as you define it. Simple as that.
> and how would YOU define it? dont troll on forums, give your opinion instead of stating.
I wasn’t trolling; I was serious.
To me, happiness is having what I need and getting what I want. Pleasure here on earth and peace of mind.
money. being able to buy what you want and without regard for the price and never having to stress is happiness.
relationships: wastes your time(life) and money
family: waste of time and has no benefit to you unless they can help you advance your career or give you money.
i would be REALLY happy if i could retire young and play video games for the rest off my life. maybe have eternal youth too.
> *Originally posted by **[Galdos](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6507235):***
> happiness is having fun. playing videogames and not caring about anything.
Keep spamming threads. Eventually even the mods will wise up and ban you instead of just deleting your posts.
> *Originally posted by **[Rpoman2009](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6543642):***
> it’s an illusion.
some people are so gung ho about existential nihilism it doesn`t make sense
The metaphysical characterization has already been covered in detail throughout the entrails of this thread
However, keeping in mind that (axiom) brain processes are essentially mental processes and, of course, vice versa, it would be patently clear that happiness is a define state of neurochemical thermodynamics… which you can digress upon through Google (specifically Wikipedia). When a person is happy, it is because certain reactions are taking place by the neurons as receiving and transmitting data through the information highway of the synapses. in ward of neurological congestion, it would seem there are overload functions of short circuiting the faculties of rationality given particular circumstances in which one reverts to a plane of pure impulse and instinct tantamount to that of the great apes.
> *Originally posted by **[simeng](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6545873):***
Or, in non-gobbledygook, what Simeng was trying to say, and failing rather badly because he doesn’t actually understand how the brain works, is this:
Happiness is instead a general stimulation of the brain, produced by a half-dozen or so tiny areas within it, that emit a pleasure signal when prompted to do so by the hypothalamus, the septum lucidum or the accumbens nucleus, each of which produces a trigger signal from a different precursor.
All three are located in the mid-brain, which technically puts happiness-production as a mid-brain task.
In this image, the mid-brain is represented by the orange and yellow areas combined. The purple and red are of course the hind-brain or reptile brain, and the cyan area is of course the cortex.
Our abstract thought, imagination, personality, language… everything that makes us individuals, resides in the cortex. The hind-brain deals solely with regulating the body. We can clearly say that happiness is not in either of these areas.
Instead, that small section of the mid-brain, the orange bit alone, is where the hypothalamus, the septum lucidum and the accumbens nucleus all reside. In a piece of the brain typically dealing with mood and memory. No other part of the brain is responsible for triggering the sensation of happiness.
@Viki – thanks for appending on the subject. I concede i didn’t have a thorough understanding, but now I do. However, one question to facilitate development of further discussion…
Would one be able to enhance certain parts of the brain by substituting neurological prostheses for living brain tissue or landlocking particular regions of the brain with interlacing consolidators to furtherance brain performance?
> *Originally posted by **[simeng](/forums/9/topics/8914?page=2#posts-6546032):***
> Would one be able to enhance certain parts of the brain by substituting neurological prostheses for living brain tissue or landlocking particular regions of the brain with interlacing consolidators to furtherance brain performance?
Yes… with some limitations. We do that now.
We can use a [neural prosthetic reader](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrainGate), embedded into the tissue of the brain, to detect electrical impulses from adjacent neurons, and transmit those signals to an external computer, which determines from the signal strength, which neurons in proximity to each sunk electrode, fired. By doing so it can reconstruct the thought and act on it.
The problem comes from the implantation of the electrode itself. It causes trauma in the brain when you thrust something into the tissue, and over time scar tissue forms around the wound site. This insulates the electrode from the electrical signals it was supposed to detect. 18 months is pretty much the record at the moment, for an active in-situ neuroprosthetic reader inside a human brain. After that it needs resiting.
Writing is a lot more complex. We do have [deep brain stimulators](http://www.neurosurgery.pitt.edu/imageguided/movement/stimulation.html) which effectively write new commands into the brain. However, they are not currently targetable. They blast a charge into all the surrounding neurons at once – again because its not currently possible to connect to them individually. So whatever signal they send out, blankets every other signal in the area.
We use them currently, as a control for irregular brain activity – the signal they send out, silences the area of the brain, preventing the activity pattern from continuing.
However, because of this, we cannot currently pair up a neural reader with a stimulator, as all the reader would read would be the output from the last stimulator pulse. This does greatly limit what we can do.
There are long-term plans for chips, not just electrode arrays, to be implanted inside the brain itself to restore lost function. however, for the moment, plans are all they are. We still have a long ways to go in that regard.