I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective. I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starva

I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective. I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. 'Ideal signal' is almost like sensation or feeling, except it may not be always or in full precision accessible by consciousness. It is a physical signal, or a function from the physical state. Extent of starvation seems objective (after fixing its definition), and so hunger seems objective too (correspondence is exact). By this definition, if you are starved, but don't notice a feeling of hunger, it's that, you still are hungry, just don't notice it. > What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. How can that be? Do you mean definition, or something else? What do you consider hunger?