6 ms·

>She told me she welcomed the diagnosis of a neurobiological disorder, which confirmed her problem was ‘real’ – brought on by a physiological force external to

>She told me she welcomed the diagnosis of a neurobiological disorder, which confirmed her problem was ‘real’ – brought on by a physiological force external to her volition – and that it showed she’s not ‘just a slacker’. That is such an arbitrary distinction. As if being "just a slacker" doesn't have a number of deeper reasons behind it as well. Brains are just machines at the end of the day, every behavior is a result of something material...

bladegash 6y ago
Dr. K (a Psychiatrist who is also a Twitch streamer) recently touched on this subject with a very popular streamer (write-up/video linked below). He explains some of what you're saying and I tend to agree with you. Dr. K suggests the brain is optimized for efficiency. If something is not seen by the brain as being unnecessary, then the brain is unlikely to trigger a response that motivates you to complete the task. The example used was going to the restroom - your bladder fills up and your brain tells you it's time to go. Motivation in areas of life was seen as being similar. In the case of laziness, the bladder filling up is analogous to, let's say, shame reaching a level to where you're prompted to finally clean your room. Obviously increasing shame would be less than ideal, but there are other means for motivating yourself (e.g., purpose in service to others, duty, dharma, etc). He also draws a distinction between apathy and detachment, which are also part of the problem. Anyways, I'm not sure I agree with everything he said/says, but it's worth checking out and an interesting perspective nonetheless! Source: https://www.healthygamer.gg/asmongold-talks-to-healthygamer-about-laziness/ https://www.healthygamer.gg/asmongold-talks-to-healthygamer-...
thomasahle 6y ago
Just shows that most people are not hard materialists.
- realharo 6y ago
  I think many are if you ask them, they just conveniently forget about it in their daily lives.
partyboat1586 6y ago
Brains are not machines like your phone is a machine or your car is a machine. They are complex systems and the result of an emergent process rather than designed systems with discrete components. The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Our knowledge of the brain is in fact very little. It's a false reassurance and reductionist view to see the brain as a machine simply because it is made of material parts that seem to act in a reliable way towards some end.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Why? We have complex machines and systems as well, where nobody would claim that there are only simple cause effect relationships and you only need a two-page owner's manual. Drugs work pretty reliably. While you can't predict what exactly is going to happen when you take LSD, you can be pretty sure that something is going to happen. Why, if not because the brain reacting to some chemical? This idea of "don't say it's a machine, you're oversimplifying it" is what's harmful in my eyes. It leads to anti-scientific positions, mysticism and fatalism. If there's nothing we can do to help, and nothing we can learn because it's so super hyper duper complex and "emergent", why bother. It's not, of course. While we don't know everything, we do know something. And we should extend our knowledge. Pretending that we can't know isn't useful.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    I'm not saying we can't know or that our understanding won't improve. I'm saying right now we pretend to know more than we do. LSD has a reliable effect in the short term, just like torching a plot of land in the Amazon has a reliable effect in the short term. It's the long term effects that are subject to the rules of complex systems and not machines.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      But the long term effects are observable as well, aren't they? I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not too excited when people pipe up with things like "the brain is just like X, so you just need to eat more Y to fix your Z", but we're learning plenty of things about how the brain works, and I believe that we do so because we consider it as a complex system that is not unlike a machine. Remove its fuel, and it will stop operating shortly, cut away parts of it and you'll see functionality change or being lost. I see no harm in reasoning about it as a very complex and very large machine with tons of inputs, outputs and modification systems. A long time ago, we'd consider the heart a mystery full of magic, and now we're regularly transplanting hearts and I believe we're "within reach" (though rather decades than months) of implanting completely artificial hearts. I see no reason why we shouldn't make progress towards a better understanding of the brain in the same way.
centimeter 6y ago
Consequentialists often point out that whether things like laziness are moral failings or are physiological problems with no moral bearing, it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around. There was an SSC article that had some good discussion on this at some point, but thanks to NYT I can no longer link it.
- realharo 6y ago
  >it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around When compared to doing nothing and tolerating them, I can definitely see that. But I still think there have to be more effective approaches than either (even if we don't know what some of them are yet).
- kqr 6y ago
  You might be able to go through archive.is which contains a large part of SSC. I find the argument weird because we tend not to handle moral failings very constructively.

bladegash 6y ago

Dr. K (a Psychiatrist who is also a Twitch streamer) recently touched on this subject with a very popular streamer (write-up/video linked below). He explains some of what you're saying and I tend to agree with you. Dr. K suggests the brain is optimized for efficiency. If something is not seen by the brain as being unnecessary, then the brain is unlikely to trigger a response that motivates you to complete the task. The example used was going to the restroom - your bladder fills up and your brain tells you it's time to go. Motivation in areas of life was seen as being similar. In the case of laziness, the bladder filling up is analogous to, let's say, shame reaching a level to where you're prompted to finally clean your room. Obviously increasing shame would be less than ideal, but there are other means for motivating yourself (e.g., purpose in service to others, duty, dharma, etc). He also draws a distinction between apathy and detachment, which are also part of the problem. Anyways, I'm not sure I agree with everything he said/says, but it's worth checking out and an interesting perspective nonetheless! Source: https://www.healthygamer.gg/asmongold-talks-to-healthygamer-about-laziness/ https://www.healthygamer.gg/asmongold-talks-to-healthygamer-...

thomasahle 6y ago

Just shows that most people are not hard materialists.

realharo 6y ago
I think many are if you ask them, they just conveniently forget about it in their daily lives.

partyboat1586 6y ago

Brains are not machines like your phone is a machine or your car is a machine. They are complex systems and the result of an emergent process rather than designed systems with discrete components. The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Our knowledge of the brain is in fact very little. It's a false reassurance and reductionist view to see the brain as a machine simply because it is made of material parts that seem to act in a reliable way towards some end.

luckylion 6y ago
> The analogy that brains are like machines is harmful because it makes it sound like there is some operating manual and simple cause effect relationships that are known. Why? We have complex machines and systems as well, where nobody would claim that there are only simple cause effect relationships and you only need a two-page owner's manual. Drugs work pretty reliably. While you can't predict what exactly is going to happen when you take LSD, you can be pretty sure that something is going to happen. Why, if not because the brain reacting to some chemical? This idea of "don't say it's a machine, you're oversimplifying it" is what's harmful in my eyes. It leads to anti-scientific positions, mysticism and fatalism. If there's nothing we can do to help, and nothing we can learn because it's so super hyper duper complex and "emergent", why bother. It's not, of course. While we don't know everything, we do know something. And we should extend our knowledge. Pretending that we can't know isn't useful.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  I'm not saying we can't know or that our understanding won't improve. I'm saying right now we pretend to know more than we do. LSD has a reliable effect in the short term, just like torching a plot of land in the Amazon has a reliable effect in the short term. It's the long term effects that are subject to the rules of complex systems and not machines.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    But the long term effects are observable as well, aren't they? I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not too excited when people pipe up with things like "the brain is just like X, so you just need to eat more Y to fix your Z", but we're learning plenty of things about how the brain works, and I believe that we do so because we consider it as a complex system that is not unlike a machine. Remove its fuel, and it will stop operating shortly, cut away parts of it and you'll see functionality change or being lost. I see no harm in reasoning about it as a very complex and very large machine with tons of inputs, outputs and modification systems. A long time ago, we'd consider the heart a mystery full of magic, and now we're regularly transplanting hearts and I believe we're "within reach" (though rather decades than months) of implanting completely artificial hearts. I see no reason why we shouldn't make progress towards a better understanding of the brain in the same way.

centimeter 6y ago

Consequentialists often point out that whether things like laziness are moral failings or are physiological problems with no moral bearing, it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around. There was an SSC article that had some good discussion on this at some point, but thanks to NYT I can no longer link it.

realharo 6y ago
>it still makes sense to treat them as a moral failing, because it’s usually more likely to result in incentives and social pressures that lead to the moral failing/physiological problem being fixed, mitigated, or worked around When compared to doing nothing and tolerating them, I can definitely see that. But I still think there have to be more effective approaches than either (even if we don't know what some of them are yet).
kqr 6y ago
You might be able to go through archive.is which contains a large part of SSC. I find the argument weird because we tend not to handle moral failings very constructively.