X-Message-Number: 10169
From: 
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:11:38 EDT
Subject: feel-good

Thomas Donaldson (#10157) writes:

>To Bob: you think it obvious why we would not take a happiness drug.
>I even agree with your dislike of such a decision, but that was not
>what I was discussing. I do not find it obvious at all IF the aim of
>our actions should be happiness (whatever happiness may be). Can you
>please give me the logic by which it is obvious? I mean the LOGIC, here.
I> even agree with you, as I've said, but I'm questioning your reasoning,
>not your conclusion.

Sure.

First of all, one may currently speak loosely of "happiness" or "pleasure"
simply as labels for something which, as everyone knows, is still very poorly
understood and under active investigation. I sometimes use the term
"satisfaction" or the more basic term "feel-good." 

It is obvious--or at least extremely plausible--that the earliest forms of
feel-good in evolving animals were simple, physical feelings of pleasure/pain,
closely tied to what I call the "self circuit" or the mechanism of qualia, and
functionally related to survival and reproduction. Over time, things became
more complex and subtle. Human physiology and underlying anatomy of feel-good
(including feel-bad) are still mostly unknown, but must exist and
presumptively can be found, studied, and understood. 

At the most basic level, we want to feel good (and avoid feeling bad). We want
nice qualia, not nasty qualia. Therefore the most basic value is to maximize
personal feel-good over future time, appropriately weighted.

Obvious problems arise with the concept, but these are only apparent and not
serious. For example, not all actions are the result of conscious or rational
choice; many are the result of mere habit, or even accidental. 

Horses are said to run back into burning buildings, because in panic they seek
the security of the barn. I don't know if this is really true, but if it is
there is no conceptual problem. They do what is bad for them, but they are
responding to a habit which in the past has resulted in feel-good. 

A woman was reported to have burned to death because she could not bring
herself to run naked into the street. No mystery or anomaly here either; she
was trapped by habit or conditioning or brain-washing.

In humans, feel-good may be associated with such things as fulfilling one's
duty (maintaining honor and dignity), solving a puzzle, and many other things
not closely related to simple physical pleasures. Are "physical" and"
"cerebral" pleasures incommensurable?  No; we just haven't learned the
mechanisms yet. 

In ANY case, it is ALWAYS possible to make an estimate of what the future is
likely to bring, based on available choices. Your estimate might be good or
bad, but it is all you have or can have, and you MUST be guided by that (if
you are rational). But the key questions are always whether you are being
honest, and whether you are utilizing all available information.

Are there conflicts between types of feel-good? At the higher or derivative
levels, of course there are many. The most obvious are the occasional
conflicts between self preservation and self sacrifice; conditioning makes
many choose self sacrifice, which is usually (objectively) wrong.

Are there conflicts between types of feel-good at a basic level? In a sense,
there could be; e.g. an animal may be attracted to the water hole because it
is thirsty, but warned away by fear of predators. This type of conflict is
really not one of principle, however, just of decision theory. It seems
unlikely that there could be any true conflict at the most basic level. If
there is, we will have to correct it.

Ah yes, I've allowed myself to be sucked in again, and still haven't nearly
laid it all out. But since it's already written, I'll post it, for whatever
it's worth.

Getting back to Thomas' question about the logic of declining something like a
permanent drug high:

The logic is simple. My most basic value is to maximize personal feel-good
over future time. Opium, or electronic giggles etc., would leave me helpless,
hence probably with a short life expectancy, hence (however measured) with a
very limited integrated total of feel-good. A different choice would give me a
much greater life expectancy, and also the option of other kinds of feel-good,
maybe better ones, hence probably a much larger total integrated feel-good.
That's it.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10169