From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 10:56:24 MDT
gts wrote:
For now let me say that there is no question in my mind that
the mesolimbic system, especially the nucleus accumbens (NAC), is the
"seat" of the reward experience. The NAC is to the brain's reward system
what the hub is to a wheel.
### It is the seat of reward generation, yes, but the seat of its
experience? Which publications and methodologies can make this fine
distinction?
We know too little to tell.
-----
The mesolimbic system (and lower systems) is sometimes referred to as
the "reptilian brain." Do you deny that reptiles experience a sense of
reward when they, for example, capture and devour their prey? If so then
why do you suppose they bother to hunt and eat? And if not then where do
you suppose that reward experience arises? Reptiles have no cortex to
speak of.
### Have you seen the robots on "Robot Wars"? One could swear they must
experience something, when they smash and cut, otherwise, why would they
bother?
Do you think that reptiles have consciousness (I mean, how could you
"experience" without being conscious)? I'd rather think their consciousness
is of a much lower level than ours, including the absence of subjective
experiences subserved by the cortex. We'll know for sure once we learn how
talk with a forked tongue :-)
-----
Considered alone, the cortex is essentially in
emotionless information processing machine.
### How can you be sure? The cingulotomized patients might say otherwise, if
they only had an emotional attitude about it left.
------
Our experience of pleasure
from thought is possible only via the cortex's connections to the more
primitive and emotional limbic system.
### Maybe. But this wouldn't mean that the primitive system is *sufficient*
(as opposed to merely indispensable) for experiencing the sublime.
-------
I submit that the satisfaction that comes from understanding an abstract
scientific concept is qualitatively no different than that which a mouse
feels upon learning how to negotiate a maze to find a bit of cheese. I
have no doubt that the mouse who first learns the maze feels at least as
happy as the human who first grasps Einstein's relativity theory.
### You might be going out on a limb here. Having no doubts about the
details of subjective experiences of mice strikes me as rather
overconfident, wouldn't you say?
-------
There exists in my view a false distinction between our basic drives and
the genes that encode for them. A gene is best considered to be a parcel
of information (as opposed to a bit of biological material).
### A gene is a piece of DNA. Within the context of the organism (but not
alone) it does represent data about chemical reactions needed for survival.
The basic drives, the subjective experiences we have, arise a couple levels
above the genes and it is crucial to maintain a distinction between the two.
------
It is therefore not inappropriate to speak
anthropomorphically about a gene or group of genes that encodes a
statement about a basic human instinct or drive. Our thoughts,
personalities and behaviors do not exist separately from our genetic
material. To think otherwise is to think egocentrically rather than
scientifically.
### So you say an organic mind would find it impossible to transfer his/her
personality to an inorganic substrate, dispensing with the genes? Every time
you anthropomorphize a bunch of DNA's, you will have trouble with defining
your own self. You are a slave of the selfish gene only if you believe in
its existence. It's called thinking genecetrically, instead of
egocentrically. But, to each his own.
-----
For example it is the height of vanity and self-deception to pat one's
own back and think of oneself as an "altruist" when in fact one in
merely acting according to the genes that encode for socially
constructive behavior. It is more accurate and less vain to speak
anthropomorphically about the genes that give us this strange urge to
help others at our own expense.
### I am a self-sustaining information processing structure, a vortex of
thoughts. I think what I wish and my neurons do my bidding, with my genes
being the lowest-level slaves of my transcendent power. I am altruist
because I want to (proximate cause). One day I will discard all of my genes
(maybe I'll keep a sample as a memento). I will sculpt my mind and my drives
to suit my wishes. I will be what I want to become. I will stay altruist
because this is what I am.
Vanity? Yes!
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:26 MST