From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 17:40:16 MST
Wei Dai writes
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:57:23AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > So long as our motivation isn't affected, why not obtain all
> > the positive emotions that we can regardless of our progress
> > towards our goals? Yes, it's a little tricky: one wishes to
> > still be disappointed when one's project in Gratification
> > Research or Mathematics (ultimately all that is left to do
> > in the far future) fails. But why shouldn't one be ecstatically
> > happy anyway? We can control our motivation by the time you
> > refer to.
>
> Is it possible to be ecstatically happy all of the time and still be
> motivated to do anything? Assuming yes, if you do decouple those feelings
> from motivation, then what makes joy joyful and pain painful?
Joy is joy because certain parts of the brain are undergoing
certain kinds of events. Rafal or gts could possibly tell you
today exactly what parts, but the important point is that it's
just a process like any other process.
> Today you can tell when someone feels happiness or pain by observing
> their behavior. (For example they'll avoid things that cause them pain.)
But, especially with humans, sometimes there are no outward guides
to their mental states, so skillful are some in concealing it.
But nonetheless, their mental states are objective phenomena.
> How will you do that when happiness and pain are no longer
> coupled with motivation? How will you yourself know whether
> you're feeling joy or pain?
I know if I'm feeling afraid by the neural connections
between my amygdala and other centers, together (I guess)
with input from the hippocampus and from my sensory
modalities (i.e., it helps to understand my situation).
I know that I'm feeling joy by analogous processes.
Likewise, a well-functioning brain is able to determine
whether it's in pain. I don't know what this has to do
with motivation.
> > There will be some so-called "hedonists" for which the above is true. But
> > that's because they're not *true* hedonists. The true hedonist has great
> > goals at least in Gratification Research.
>
> I assume Gratification Research is about finding ways to feel great
> happiness. But again, how do you tell when you've found it? Do you
> think we'll eventually discover objective criteria for deciding
> which feelings are more valuable than others?
When our brains aren't working quite right it's possible to be
afraid without knowing why, and also to be very happy without
knowing why. We will always, IMO, rely on our feelings to
guide us in these matters, but it will be much easier in the
future. A quick glance at the "happiness gauge" will confirm
that I'm as happy as I'm suspecting I am. Without meaning
to sound flippant, I predict that it will be possible to
measure (rather roughly, probably) what emotions a mammalian
brain are experiencing. I wouldn't be surprised to read that
brain scans of mice are getting more reliable at telling us
the emotion experienced by a mouse.
I doubt that there can be objective criteria for evaluating
what feelings or emotions are superior or more valuable than
others. The reason that I think not is that values are not
objective. So, for example, in some hypothetical future
(perhaps on another planet far from a Singularity) it could
happen that A-type people believe that feeling X is preferable,
whereas B-type people put their faith in feeling Y. And I do
mean "put their faith in", because their cultures and intuitions
may lead them to prefer Y despite what the meters say and even
what they themselves feel.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:09 MST