turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/05/90)
----- kirlik@chmsr.UUCP (Alex Kirlik) says, >> Now here's where I have problems. What measure are we going to use >> to measure success, that is, who has got the inside track on what I >> should value, what the "utilities" in my choice engine should be? In article <3565@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes: > I actually had a point to make that illuminates this problem, though > it doesn't solve it. I wasn't telling you what to do. I was saying > something quite different: that maybe you might say to yourself, "Am I > really liking this? What am "I", indeed? When one part of my brain > "likes" something very much, is it possible that there are other parts > of my brain -- maybe much <larger, better, more evolved -- whatever > you think>> that are being suppressed, put out of it, deprived of life > and liberty etc. Ask yourself (as some stoic philosophers did, I > suspect) -- "Who are those little proto-mammalian pleasure centers in > my brain to tell me what I really *should* like. Those larger, more evolved parts of the brain do not themselves care that much about life and liberty, the value of which lies partly in those proto-mammalian pleasure centers. A lizard knows to flee or fight when its life is in danger, and will struggle against what it views as confinement, but DeepThought does not care whether it is ever allowed to play another game of chess. Mr Minsky does well to point out that a person is many things, even at the level of what makes us persons. But I don't think he stays faithful to his vision, that personal identity lies in the composite, and is not to be identified with any of the parts separately. Ironically, he worries that the proto-mammalian pleasure center will kick around the more evolved part of his brain, as if "he" is more the latter than the former. But that there is a worry, that he can attach to it the emotional phrase "life and liberty", shows that his proto-mammalian brain is involved in bringing this caution against itself! The stoics are wrong because the fears and hopes that make them want to suppress certain emotions and drives are themselves part of what they want to suppress. Man has always worried about that which drives him, but that worry is wrongly attached to thinking man, because the part that thinks has no need to worry. Philosophy sooner or later comes down to sex. Mr Minsky thinks that it is only the proto-mammalian pleasure center that fixates a man on certain curves, and then by turning off the more evolved parts of his brain. Not so. Were we like lizards, many of the things that people look for in their partners -- social ability, intelligence, wealth, religious compatibility, political correctness, sexual sophistication, whatever -- would not matter. It is likely that one role the larger parts of the brain evolved to serve was the more sophisticated selection of a mate. When one looks at the variety and occasional sophistication of human sexual behavior, it is clear that the more evolved parts of the brain have not been turned off, but are playing a full role in it. (Doubters should begin their investigation by adding alt.sex.bondage to their reading list.) Russell
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/05/90)
In article <13197@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >----- >The stoics are wrong because the fears and hopes that make them >want to suppress certain emotions and drives are themselves part >of what they want to suppress. Man has always worried about that >which drives him, but that worry is wrongly attached to thinking >man, because the part that thinks has no need to worry. In fact I would even go further. The stoics are dangerous because they are trying to suppress the human alert signals which tell us about our basic operational needs. The raw emotions of the proto-mammalian centers are all signal fundamental, survival-related needs. Fear is what makes us pay attention to, and deal with, that which could harm us. If it is occasionally triggered by something that is not truly dangerous, this does not make it any less vital to survival. The man who truly *has* no fear is the man who will be killed quite young. >Philosophy sooner or later comes down to sex. Mr Minsky thinks >that it is only the proto-mammalian pleasure center that fixates >a man on certain curves, and then by turning off the more evolved >parts of his brain. Not so. Were we like lizards, many of the >things that people look for in their partners -- social ability, >intelligence, wealth, religious compatibility, political >correctness, sexual sophistication, whatever -- would not matter. >It is likely that one role the larger parts of the brain evolved >to serve was the more sophisticated selection of a mate. When >one looks at the variety and occasional sophistication of human >sexual behavior, it is clear that the more evolved parts of the >brain have not been turned off, but are playing a full role in >it. A very good point. This is why I like to distinguish between primary (or raw) emotions and composite or secondary emotions. The basic sex drive of the proto-mammalian pleasure center is a primary emotion. It ensures that all humans have a fundamental drive to reproduce, however it is actually manifest in behavior. [That is it is what ensures that *all* humans are interested in sex in some form, and to some degree - even those who loathe it]. However, the sexual desires and responses we are conscious of are much more complex then a simple reproductive urge. I, for instance, am particularly responsive to the styles of clothing that were current just as I entered puberty in the mid 1960's [i.e. I like mini-skirts]. This is clearly a cognitive level response, since it is based on prior experience, and requires recognition of complex relationships (like what clothing is, and how it relates to sexual identity, and so on). This kind of interection between cognition and primary emotions is nearly universal. It is the source of phobias, and many other complex social interactions. It also seems to me that this is the basis of what we call personality. I am a unique person, with my own unique style because my cognitive skills interact with my emotions a different way than do yours. Thus to deny emotions, and emotional responses is to deny individuality. ------------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (10/07/90)
In article <8@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >The basic sex drive of the >proto-mammalian pleasure center is a primary emotion. It ensures that all >humans have a fundamental drive to reproduce, however it is actually manifest >in behavior. [...] However, >the sexual desires and responses we are conscious of are much more complex >then a simple reproductive urge. I, for instance, am particularly responsive >to the styles of clothing that were current just as I entered puberty in the >mid 1960's [i.e. I like mini-skirts]. This is clearly a cognitive level >response, since it is based on prior experience, and requires recognition of >complex relationships (like what clothing is, and how it relates to sexual >identity, and so on). Would it not be more accurate to say the sex drive is a drive towards sex? Reproduction does not necessarily follow, and the conscious realization that sex is required for reproduction has not been universal in human societies. >This kind of interection between cognition and primary emotions is nearly >universal. [...] It also seems to me that this is the basis of >what we call personality. [...] >Thus to deny emotions, and emotional responses is to deny individuality. I agree that denial of emotional responses is in general a nonadaptive behavior. I believe human beings are incapable of true stoicism as we have many emotional responses are "wired-in". Whether or not mastery of one's emotions is a virtue or not depends on one's belief system. A lack of emotional response is still a response, and still allows for individuality, albeit in a very limited sense.
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct7.005440.23109@watcgl.waterloo.edu> jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) writes: > >Would it not be more accurate to say the sex drive is a drive towards sex? >Reproduction does not necessarily follow, and the conscious realization that >sex is required for reproduction has not been universal in human societies. True. I was rather thinking about it from a different perspective, that of an biologist. From an evolutionary point of view the purpose of sex is reproduction. As in many other behaviors, the immediate purpose for the being doing the action is different than the evoutionary purpose of the action. So, yes, within the human mind the sex drive is implemented as a simple response pattern that encourages sexual behavior. [This kind of 'disagreement' comes from having different perspectives on these matters, I always speak first as a biologist - in reality we really agree in most essentials (I think)]. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)