From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:06:13 MDT
gts writes
> Why is it so bold to claim that *you* have an unconscious motivation to
> beat your heart? I gather that you are saying it is too bold.
Yes, it is too bold because by "unconscious motives" we generally
mean motives that would be conscious normally and fall into the
general category exemplified by lust, hate, love, jelousy, revenge,
admiration, etc. I might be unconsciously motivation to find the
defendent guilty just because he said something nasty to someone
that looked wrong to me. Or I might love someone, and then have
it pointed out to me the almost certain presence of an unconscious
motivation because of her resemblance to my mother from years ago.
Things like that.
If someone points out that I've been unconsciously tapping my
foot to the music, then I'm still at a loss of they ask, "what
was your motivation (admittedly unconscious?" WHY did you beat
your foot to the music. All I could say is, "I didn't even
*have* a motive. I just did. Yes, doubtless there is a reason
or an explanation for why I did it---or my body did it?---but
it was not any hidden *motive* that I had.
> But then, as you ask, to whom do your unconscious motivations
> actually belong?
Please point out to me if the following is inconsistent with
anything I wrote earlier (you've already caught me once):
My unconscious motivations indeed *do* belong to me, as in
the list of examples above. It's true that I love my mother,
it's true that I (say) detested the remark of the accused.
> but I hope we can agree that modern science shows that the
> motivation to beat the heart belongs to the person.
Well, not to my more restricted view of what a person is
(we have already established that you identify with your
body much more than I and other uploaders). BTW, would
you consider having your arm amputated and replaced by
a superior one that was more coordinated, stronger, and
more durable?
> > if you hold a flame near a bimetal strip that is
> > oriented a certain way, it will recoil away from
> > the flame. Would you say that it is motivated to
> > do this?
>
> No, I would not say the strip is motivated to do this on its own.
> However, if you construct a robot that uses this principle, and the
> robot acts according to the principle and in a manner you've previously
> deemed appropriate, then it is appropriate to say that the robot's
> actions were motivated by a desire for the reward experience.
Good. We agree here. I also think that if the robot can
be regarded as an independent agency (no matter how it came
into the world), then it's okay to speak of its motivations.
I think that its motivations would parallel fully human ones.
> > > So then the behavior of a robot *IS* linked intimately to
> > > motivation and driven by the pursuit of the reward experience.
> >
> > Another question: is it always the case that that which is
> > motivated is driven by the pursuit of the reward experience?
>
> Yes. I posit the theory that ultimately we humans do nothing separate
> from our pursuit of greater pleasure and happiness (Hedonism, if you
> will). I define happiness to include such things as the pleasure of
> sexual satisfaction, and the satisfaction that one experiences when
> drawing a breath after holding it for some time.
Yes, and this is where a number of us part company with you.
(You recall the example wherein the devotee to the political
cause throws himself into the fire knowing (and even presently
feeling intense pain and the intense heat) that he is choosing
the path of suffering and death. Again, to me, it is pedantic
(sorry) to insist that this is somehow giving him even more
sublime pleasure to take this action. What people like Rafal
and I *would* agree to is that he *is* choosing that action,
and so hence on some scale it *is* the more satisfactory of
his choices (and so then clearly *does* provide more satisfaction
in a sense), but that I think this to be most unhelpful in trying
to determine *why* he did it. By this light, of course, it's
trivial that every action one undertakes---because it *is*
commanded by one's brain---bestows some modicum of preferentiality
to the person.
> > > the truth is that we are as much physical beings as we are
> > > mental beings.) You are your body as much as you are your
> > > mind.
> >
> > Totally disagree, of course.
>
> And that is really puzzling to me. You seem to want to believe
> that your body is someone or something other than you.
Yes; it's a lot like my car. I have to be in it to get around
in the world, and I do feel as much sentimentality for it or
more than I do for my car... but when the time comes to trade
it in, it's history.
And **I** emerge unscathed.
> > Though apparently half the cryonicists believe as you do,
> > I think that only a minority of the transhumanists or
> > extropians do (though I could be wrong).
>
> My impression is that my fellow extropians would probably agree if they
> understood my meaning. I am not attempting to imprison the mind in the
> biological body. It is my contention only that codification of the human
> personality requires codification of the genetic material related to the
> brain.
Hmm. Don't you think that if there was some other magical
way to make the same proteins, then the genetic code itself
in your body could be dispensed with?
> We can in theory dispense with genetic instructions that control, for
> example, the healing of wounds. But the genetic instructions that
> control our brain are crucial if we hope to keep our personalities
> intact.
I don't see the difference, sorry, and am running out of time tonight.
> >>> In any case, I would say that though I would be highly motivated
> >>> to beat my heart if I could, I cannot consciously do so and so
> >>> therefore we should say that I am not so motivated.
>
> >> Try applying your reasoning above to your breath rather than your
> >> heartbeat. Here we see an internal process that you *can* control
> >> consciously, and which you will control unconsciously at
> >> other times.
> >
> > Yes, that's true. But you've lost me. So what? :-)
>
> So we see that your argument fails for this example of internal
> processes.
>
> Unlike the heart-beat, you *can* consciously breath to stay alive. By
> your own argument above you should say that your unconscious will to
> breath is motivated by you.
Sorry Gordon. I don't see it (running out of time here to think
further). Like I said above, I can't be unconsciously motivated
to breathe either, because my motive to stay alive isn't really
connected to my "motive" to breathe: if you ask me *why* I
want to stay alive, we can talk. But if you ask *why* I want
to breathe, I would say (in this discussion) it's not something
that I want to do---and have no conscious or unconscious motive
for doing so---it's something more like an involuntary reflex
although I *have* been equipped to control when the chips are
down. (Sorry if there's a logical error in there somewhere---
better to respond to your good point poorly than to just pass
over it.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:07 MST