I think funches is trying to come from a pure determinism where either there is no free will, or it is a compatibilist/free wont, or other such determinism based model of consciousness.

ie what you do is always the results of cause and effect. ie you could not have done otherwise.

I am a compatibilist myself, however I wouldn't argue that wants and needs are the same thing. Even if the outcome of the action is identical, the perception of the motive is different.

Perception is based on a brain state, so the brain state of person a, who needs to pee, and person b, who perceives that he wants to pee but could conceive of holding it longer is different.

One has additional qualities of that snap shot brain state than the other, even if the outcome of the actions are identical.

I can live without sex.

WANTS
1. Television.
2. Jewelry
3. Cars
4. Laptops
5. Matchbox Cars

NEEDS
1. Oxygen.
2. Water.
3. Food.


A want is something you want, but don't need in order to survive.

A need is the exact opposite.

the fact that you have a long history of meeting with psychologists and therapists suggest that I'm right ....

then clearly you must still be a virgin?....er...right?

oxygen, food and water, are the needs/requirements for survival for ones physical state, but the other things you mention under "wants" may be a requirement/need for ones mental state

That really glosses over the distinction of needs vs wants. Every want would be a need for a given mental state.

This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. If each snap shot brain state is its own reference, then all of the factors that lead to that snap shot are requisites for that snap shot.

Not really profound and I cant really see how it adds anything to speak to the needs of a the person as a whole.

So what happens to your brain state when you dont have that matchbox car . . . it will change to a different brain state, perhaps one that includes tapping a pen on the desk from boredom.

I just dont see the need to justify needs with the reference being flexible brain states. You have to take snap shots in order to use it as a reference and it ignores any transitional characteristics and it ignores the being as a whole in favor of a singular brain state.

.ie you really need to stick to the standard definitions of needs/wants the more you fuzzy up the picture with references individual snap shot brain states, you just toss away any usefulness the distinction between needs and wants and really gain nothing in exchange.

PS: this would be a great topic in its own thread about cognitive functions, but when it comes to the cosmo argument it really is way off topic.

..for depression.

Not anger.
Not OCD.
Not Autism.

So, no, you are not right.

You asked the difference.

You didn't ask my preference.

A human can, and has, lived without ever engaging in sex.

Dude.

Mental State?

Still, no.

That's an addiction, not a requirement.

You do NOT need any of those listed to SURVIVE.

Thus lies the major factoring difference.

Think differently, yes.
Perceive differently, yes.

However, without that car, TV, or toy..

You will not die.

That is the major, significant, difference between a want and a need.

One is a necessity.
One is not.

Tell you the truth..
I'm not even sure how we got this far off topic...

it would be off topic if The Cosmological Argument claimed that God lacks a brain or lacked consciouness ..

clearly your psychologists informed you that your depression may be a result of anger or OCD and/or Autism or something else

....wow, now you are truly grasping for breathe.

PTSD.

None of which you mentioned.

Of course, now you will make the illogical concept of linking them to three totally unrelated disorders and proclaim the logic behind it.

Regardless, we decimated enough of Bushido's awesome cosmo thread, so if you wish to continue this, start a new thread. If not, I win you lose. Everybody gets a cookie.

I got work to do.

Later.

lock yourself in a room with just food and water with no light ......then you will understand why "want" is "need"

I agree, so if you misplace your reference, from the whole, to a singular brain state, then you can see what funches means.

However that is a mistake. It is comparing apples to oranges isn't it?

Needs reference survival of the being as a whole, not any given brain state. As if a brain states survival was meaningful to being with . . .

Wants reference brain states directly, not the being as a whole.

Apples meet Oranges.

..no I'll understand why I really want other things.

I can survive for as long as my life can take on that which you mentioned.

I do not need anything else to survive, so long as air is getting into this room of darkness.

So, no, sorry, still you are not making a point.

Here.

Just for you.

Need.

Something that EVERYONE will consider a necessity.

Want.

Something that will VARY for each individual.

How's that for clear?

I'm not trying to win anything simply pointing out what you posted ...and perhaps your psychologist and therapists aren't the best....all you have to do is look up the term "Autism Spectum Disorder/watching television upside down"

I don't need to look it up.

I know what it is.

However, to humor you, I did.

It repeatedly mention that you follow a routine of said action. Yet the times when I do it are very illogical and hold no true set pattern. Therefore, I would not be classified under it.

I have no other 'symptoms'.

So, therefore, your own words are now officially proving you wrong.

..as is your reference.

Anything else?