From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 13:39:27 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> IN http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians/1925.html
>
> gts writes a convincing summary of his findings and suggestions
> about the role of motivation within human beings. But it may be
> best to first review his basic contentions that some of us
> found problematic. The following can be found in his message
> in the "Psych/Philo Brains want to cooperate" thread sent Mon
> 9/2/2002 11:05 PM:
>
> > ...the axiom I proffered was this:
> > "Every human behavior has a motivation."
> > Apparently you thought I meant this:
...
> First, I must suggest that you try out your axiom
>
> "Every human behavior has a motivation."
>
> on friends or other people whose judgment you respect, and empirically
> determine the extent to which it's found acceptable.
That might be interesting experiment but I don't really see this an
exercise in democracy. Surely a significant percentage of people would
agree that every human behavior has a motivation, which is enough for me
to consider the proposition one worthy of defending.
> I'll wager that a lot of people besides Rafal and me find it
problematic, and
> you should be interested (if I'm right) in why.
I think a lot of people would consider it simple common sense. People do
not do things for no reason, which is to say that every behavior has a
motivation.
Also the negation of the axiom flies in the face of evolutionary theory,
which as you know I hold dear. Behaviors require precious energy,
measurable in calories. It makes no sense that any organism should
expend energy for no reason.
>> In an earlier message here I quoted from an article by
>> Desmond Morris. <snip>
> We must keep in mind a possible reason for your inclusion in your
> statement of this apparent digression: I presume that you utilize
> theoretical findings about reward from "opportunistic behavior"
> in your general conclusions.
Yes. I mentioned Desmond Morris because his views mesh nicely with mine,
particularly with my pet theory that I have only barely touched upon,
which seeks to explain all addictions in terms of the innate desire for
novelty.
Despite their apparently maladaptive nature, addictions to behaviors and
substances are very prevalent in human society. Use of mind-altering
substances has been a part of the human experience since the dawn of
civilization, and there is no reason to think humans were immune to
addictive behaviors prior to the discovery of mind-altering substances.
Given the evidence that addictive personality traits can be transmitted
genetically, and given their potential for destruction and misery, one
must wonder why nature has not de-selected them. In answer to that
question I think one must look at other similar traits that are
prevalent yet apparently maladaptive. The trait for sickle cell anemia
is a classic case. Sickle cell anemia is a genetically transmitted
life-threatening disease, yet it is also adaptive in some circumstances:
the sickle cell trait provides resistance to malaria. This adaptive
value of the sickle trait blocked its deselection from the human genome.
What, if any, is the adaptive value to addictive traits? My answer is
that addictive behavior is a manifestation of the same genetic traits
that motivate humans to seek the reward that comes from novelty. This
idea is supported by the observation that addictive behaviors and the
experience of novelty both activate the same neural reward circuitry. It
is supported also by the reason most people give for trying potentially
dangerous and addictive drugs. They will tell you they were
"experimenting" because there were "curious." In other words, they were
motivated to experience novelty because they find novelty rewarding. In
some people this propensity for seeking novelty is more pronounced than
in others. As I demonstrated in my last message, research shows this
difference in personality to predictable via genetic testing for
specific polymorphisms of dopamine receptor genes.
We humans have succeeded in large part because we are novelty seekers.
We are curious and inquisitive creatures. We thrive under conditions of
sensory and intellectual stimulation. We seek new experiences because we
find them intrinsically rewarding. This is a major reason for our
success as a species, but it did not come without a price. Those of us
who are most motivated to seek sensational and novel experiences are
also at potentially greater risk of falling victim to addictive
substances and behaviors.
>> Studies show increased activity
>> especially in the nucleus accumbens when the organism is
>> confronted by novelty...
>
> Now I would most pressingly like to know if such increased
> activity is seen when an organism merely avoids unpleasant
> stimuli. For example, a pigeon is conditioned to walk back
> and forth between two compartments to obtain enough to eat,
> and this behavior settles into a long term routine. We
> monitor the activity in the nucleus accumbens and the levels
> of drugs in its brain. Presumably when first discovering that
> he can obtain more food by checking out both rooms at the
> end of the corridor, the novelty of the discovery raises
> levels. So I am speaking of months later when a "normal"
> level of all this has been reached.
Assuming we can extend my ideas to pigeons, (something I have not
considered, and which I am reluctant to consider now in light of past
disagreements about alligators), the pigeon will after some time no
longer experience novelty in the circumstance you describe above.
However the neurological reward from obtaining food will not have
dissipated. It is ultimately for this reason that the pigeon eats. He
does not eat because he is hungry, even if it is convenient to speak in
those abbreviated terms. He eats because he has a desire to experience
the reward that results from satisfying his appetite. In the same way,
all human behaviors are in my view motivated ultimately by a desire to
experience reward.
> We now cause the right 25% of the corridor to be electrically
> charged so that when the pigeon wanders towards the right side
> on his path, he receives a painful shock. The pigeon leans to
> keep towards the left. Does this motivation to avoid the pain
> result in increased activity in the nucleus accumbens, or in
> increased drug levels? If it does, then your theory is
> bolstered (though not, perhaps, disproved if that's not the
> case).
Any behavior that serves to avoid expected pain can also be seen as a
behavior that serves to increase expected pleasure. The expectation of
increased pleasure is certainly an expectation of reward, and thus
should activate the same circuitry.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:26 MST