Thanks. I just enjoy challenging discussion because it allows each of us to improve our own mental faculties.
My view is you are still using the term 'feelings' too loosely.
Worse, you are trying to assert science over Buddha. Buddha was the pinnacle of evolution. Man cannot go further.
For Buddha, understanding 'feelings' is his central teaching because no-one can be devoid of feeling feelings when they are conscious (i.e., experience the sensory world by the senses); not even Buddha.
Thus Buddha defined Nirvana (the highest peace) as the absence of greed, hatred & delusion despite sense experience still giving rise to feelings of pleasure & pain.
What is called 'mindfulness' is responding to feelings with wisdom & understanding so pleasant & unpleasant sense impressions (feelings) do not generate desire-based-emotions & constructs that lead to suffering.
Buddha explained the following sequence of mental events that lead to suffering: sense experience clouded by ignorance > feelings of pleasantness & unpleasantness > craving (with enjoyment & delight) > attachment/fixation > self-becoming > self-identity-birth > aging & death of what is identified with, resulting in sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair
The mind does not feel enjoyment. The mind feels feelings of pleasure (such as sweetness of sugar) that creates enjoyment (relishing; delighting; lusting) . The mind concocts/builds/relishes/delights in enjoyment rather than 'feels' enjoyment. The thinks: "yummy, yummy, mmm, mmm, yummy, more, more..."
The same with "our own". "Our own" is an idea or thought concept rather than a 'feeling'. Feelings are vague things, such as feeling the pleasurable warmth of the sun. Where as "our own" is a very defined & concept definition, which results in things like prejudice & racism. This is why thousands of deaths, rapes & brutal beheadings by ISIS in Syria & Iraq did not move most Western people but once one of "their own" American journalists was beheaded then the Westerners thought there was a problem in Syria & Iraq that had to be addressed.
Like when one Aussie soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan the whole nation is outraged but when Australians partake in the killing of thousands in Iraq, we don't give a hoot.
We do not "feel" others are "our own". Instead, we define or identify via thought concepts & constructs that others are our own. This Buddha described this "becoming" & "identifying", born from craving, as follows:
The craving that makes for new (ego) becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.
Buddha explained:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies
