26

Re: Happy people

Hello, SergeyOsipov, you wrote: SO> Hello, pilgrim _, you wrote: SO> Happiness - internal state of the person who is not in an extreme measure. Just  on the contrary. The sensation of happiness, as well as sensation of misfortune are states of an extreme measure and are short on time. Generally "the happy person" is not the one who lives with a state  happiness, such simply is not present (as well as those who lives in a state permanent misfortunes). It simply person who is happy at present. Generally, this one of the most global errors of the person that it is possible to reach at last conditions when it is possible to live happily all time. Such never will be. Would be more correct speaks about level of comfort, tranquility, low frequency of appearance of negative emotions if we want to estimate a long time frame of life. Here it is really possible to tell that the less than psychological stresses and pressure, the "more joyfully" life.

27

Re: Happy people

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> Hello, vl690001x, you wrote: vsb> Who hinders you technologically  in the nature? One does not eliminate another. Or it is necessary to overcome? Live in the country, breathe fresh air, drink fresh milk, eat fresh  and simplify to itself life the modern achievements. Basically it is true. But also to expect happiness (and answers to all questions) from technological singularity as it does S, too an error.

28

Re: Happy people

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> It is useful is means who helps to understand we as we appeared and to learn that is . You think that it is possible only by means of technologies. Whether S> you cannot tell at all there is a purpose, whether there is for the sake of what there is a mankind. You do not know it. Can eat and can and is not present. Do not check up - do not learn. For example, I know.  (the data converges with observations). Whether More I am useful to mankind? By any criterion of an affirmative reply is not present. Even in the plan " to understand who we" not the fact that someone does less than another. You think, what the answer to a question "who we?" It is possible to find the scientific answer which it will be possible to describe technological language, and it not so. Therefore as a question, actually, you set not the scientific. The scientific answer to a question "who we" it: the Type of a sort People (Homo) from family  in group of primacies. All is very simple. One of types of animals on mother Earth in which the intelligence  developed to level of the abstract thinking. The answer is for a long time already also anything in it difficult is not present. The question which  you, imply such answer which would give you personally sensation of own significance, greatness, would provide to you sincere filling. And it absolutely other parsley.