From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:26:45 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> gts writes
>
>> Why is it so bold to claim that *you* have an unconscious
>> motivation to beat your heart?
> 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.
Perhaps we should then speak of "drives" in addition to "motivations."
To my way of thinking, a drive is a primitive motivation. I would say
you have a basic drive to live, which is the motivation (or drive) that
drives your heartbeat. Is that language more acceptable to you?
In Freudian terms, each of us has a libido. The word libido is sometimes
used to describe all basic instinctual drives including but not limited
to the sex drive. It is this larger sense of the libido to which I am
referring.
And you are in part your libido... it is not someone or something that
exists aside from you. Your libido is an integral part of your
personality, no less critical to your existence than your conscious
thoughts.
Via your libido you have an instinctual drive to live, so you do
whatever is necessary to live. You eat, you breathe, you beat your
heart, etc. These actions are performed by *you*, consciously or
unconsciously.
> BTW, would
> you consider having your arm amputated and replaced by
> a superior one that was more coordinated, stronger, and
> more durable?
Yes I would consider that.
>> 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.
I think it is unfathomable that someone would find happiness in suicide
for a political cause, but my inability to understand such acts does not
mean they are not driven by the pursuit of happiness.
> What people like Rafael
> 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.
Actually Rafael and I were pretty much in agreement on this idea that
altruistic acts are driven by a motivation for the reward experience. It
was Eliezer and you who suggested that people sometimes act
altruistically separately from the desire for the rewarding experience
that comes from helping others. I replied by challenging anyone to show
me a single person in this world who acts altruistically and who does
not do so because it makes him feel good to do so.
We humans are genetically programmed to feel good about ourselves when
we help others of our species. That is the only reason we do it.
I think honest altruists are completely aware of their real motivations
for doing good. They will tell you they like to help others because they
find it to be a rewarding experience.
Dishonest altruists will tell you they sacrifice their own happiness for
the greater good. They hope to make you feel selfish and guilty, and
perhaps guilt you into making a donation.
To respond to your paragraph above: why is it not sufficient to say that
he did it for the satisfaction? Why do people do any act x, if not that
by doing x they anticipate greater satisfaction than that which would be
had by doing not-x? This satisfaction can be purely "mental" (as in the
case of someone who makes the decision to harm himself physically to
further a political cause) or it can be purely physical (as in the
decision to eat). In both cases the reward circuitry of the brain is
activated, giving the person a sense of satisfaction.
> > > > 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.
But if someone shoots me in the head today, I will not emerge unscathed.
I will cease to exist (as far we know). So it is not correct for me to
say that my brain exists separately from me. Are you saying that you
exist separately from your brain?
>> 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?
That magical means can come about only if we take the instructions from
our DNA and encode them into some other protein synthesizing device.
This means the genes survive, even if in another form. As I wrote once
to someone here, our genes can be recorded on cassette tapes if
necessary. Genes are best considered items of *information*. They are
*instructions*. They exist now in the form of biological material in the
nucleus of each cell, but someday they may exist as digital 1's and 0's
on a massive DVD disk.
>> 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.
Each neuron in your brain contains your DNA. In your brain, only those
genes that are relevant to the activity of the brain are active. Those
genes control the activity of each neuron, and thus thought itself. Your
personality is, to some degree, a function of your genes.
Assuming for a moment that we can as you hope extract the personality
from the body without need for the instructions encoded in the genes
that control the brain, I see that a problem arises when such a
personality is confronted by a novel experience. It is largely our genes
that determine our response to novel experiences -- such responses are
not 'learned behavior' and do not exist in some pre-recorded form in the
idealized personality. The personality separated from its genetic
instructions would be at a loss to handle the new experience.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:08 MST