9 ms·

> [rationality] reframes [emotions] as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society."

> [rationality] reframes [emotions] as evolved game-theoretic adaptations that are part of the iterated game you are playing with your peers, called "society." Do the rationalists realize that this is fundamentally a metaphysical or even theological argument?

FeepingCreature 5y ago
I disagree; I think it is fundamentally an empirical argument. The source of our convictions should have no impact on their validity, which is the realm of morality. In doing so, rationality does not seek to disprove emotions, which would be nonsensical, but rather to justify and contextualize them by understanding the competitive pressures that gave rise to them. In other words, the idea is that in understanding the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing when we feel things - "get where it's coming from" - we can bring our emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs, and either support our unconscious brain in its emotional reaction or reign it in where the evolutionary context is no longer valid. (I'm not sure where you're coming from with "theological.")
- Nav_Panel 5y ago
  In order to say things like "my brain" one is necessarily creating a distinction between themselves as thinking subject and a "lower self" which consists of a biological substrate. Of course, this is common practice in folk epistemology, but in order to achieve this, one needs the support of an "objective" frame of reference, which can only be achieved through a theological justification (or in this case cosmological, through reference to evolutionary processes). This was an issue that Kant grappled with, in that the mind cannot distance itself from itself. When we "understand the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing", we are still implicated in other "game theoretic strategies", we've just made certain ones manifest and chosen to ignore others. That said, I still support the end-goal of "bringing emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs", but often that requires turning in the opposite direction: asking questions to the emotions themselves rather than to the world, which requires an entirely different conceptual toolkit (e.g. psychoanalysis, Buddhist thought, etc). I view evolutionary psychology as in the category of psychological divination techniques, in which a set of predetermined systematic constraints allow you to locate interesting patterns in your day to day life through a process of reorientation. In all sincerity, I suggest astrology as an alternative technique that avoids any normative connotations of "fitness" etc.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    > In order to say things like "my brain" one is necessarily creating a distinction between themselves as thinking subject and a "lower self" which consists of a biological substrate. Come on, that's a stretch. I think it's clear from context that this is referring to unconscious vs conscious awareness, in the like one case where I failed to specifically highlight this distinction (because I wanted to head off just this claim). Both of course happen in the same slab of meat. > This was an issue that Kant grappled with, in that the mind cannot distance itself from itself. When we "understand the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing", we are still implicated in other "game theoretic strategies", we've just made certain ones manifest and chosen to ignore others. Sure, but consider: [1] [2]. Of course conscious deliberation is just another strategy, but it's a strategy that benefits from clarity. There is no good reason why reason and deliberation should be unable to close over itself, let alone as "separate" a component as emotional state. Reason is a strategy that rose to some prominence in human evolutionary history because it is extraordinarily effective at making sense of the natural world. (Note: There's some claims that reason rose to prominence because it made humans good at making up sensible claims to deceive others - but this sort of evolutionary history would still produce a system that's good at inference, if only as a side effect. Compare GANs.) > that requires turning in the opposite direction: asking questions to the emotions themselves rather than to the world, which requires an entirely different conceptual toolkit Now who's doing dualism? The emotions are part of and arose from within the world. Without looking at the historical context in which they evolved, you may not be able to even understand what they're trying to tell you. And sure, a lot of evpsych is just-so trash. But especially around the game theory of emotions, I think the conclusions hold up. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/46qnWRSR7L2eyNbMA/the-lens-that-sees-its-flaws https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/46qnWRSR7L2eyNbMA/the-lens-t... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation-executers-not-fitness-maximizers https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation...
    - Nav_Panel 5y ago
      > There is no good reason why reason and deliberation should be unable to close over itself, let alone as "separate" a component as emotional state. It can be done, but most rationalists never achieve this, in that it requires understanding the cause of emotion as it relates to one's own subjectivity. This often involves admitting hard truths about oneself, and is the process that psychoanalysis is intended to support. Instead they "rationalize", and come up with explanations like that one that follows, which don't understand the emotion so much as "explain it away" through what amounts to, as I said earlier, a metaphysical argument about the causal origins of the species. > Reason is a strategy that rose to some prominence in human evolutionary history because it is extraordinarily effective at making sense of the natural world. This sort of causal argument is why I tend to cringe at rationalist theory, because not only is it not necessarily true, there's no way to even tell if it were true. > The emotions are part of and arose from within the world. Without looking at the historical context in which they evolved, you may not be able to even understand what they're trying to tell you. Ironically I fully agree with this statement, except what I would mean by "historical context" is "the events in your own specific life that influenced your current sentiments", rather than history viewed as a totality. Again, a reference to the totality and causal origin of life; do you see why I describe it as theological or metaphysical? This is very similar in structure to Christian theories on the topic of e.g. original sin.

FeepingCreature 5y ago

I disagree; I think it is fundamentally an empirical argument. The source of our convictions should have no impact on their validity, which is the realm of morality. In doing so, rationality does not seek to disprove emotions, which would be nonsensical, but rather to justify and contextualize them by understanding the competitive pressures that gave rise to them. In other words, the idea is that in understanding the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing when we feel things - "get where it's coming from" - we can bring our emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs, and either support our unconscious brain in its emotional reaction or reign it in where the evolutionary context is no longer valid. (I'm not sure where you're coming from with "theological.")

Nav_Panel 5y ago
In order to say things like "my brain" one is necessarily creating a distinction between themselves as thinking subject and a "lower self" which consists of a biological substrate. Of course, this is common practice in folk epistemology, but in order to achieve this, one needs the support of an "objective" frame of reference, which can only be achieved through a theological justification (or in this case cosmological, through reference to evolutionary processes). This was an issue that Kant grappled with, in that the mind cannot distance itself from itself. When we "understand the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing", we are still implicated in other "game theoretic strategies", we've just made certain ones manifest and chosen to ignore others. That said, I still support the end-goal of "bringing emotions into harmony with our conscious beliefs", but often that requires turning in the opposite direction: asking questions to the emotions themselves rather than to the world, which requires an entirely different conceptual toolkit (e.g. psychoanalysis, Buddhist thought, etc). I view evolutionary psychology as in the category of psychological divination techniques, in which a set of predetermined systematic constraints allow you to locate interesting patterns in your day to day life through a process of reorientation. In all sincerity, I suggest astrology as an alternative technique that avoids any normative connotations of "fitness" etc.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  > In order to say things like "my brain" one is necessarily creating a distinction between themselves as thinking subject and a "lower self" which consists of a biological substrate. Come on, that's a stretch. I think it's clear from context that this is referring to unconscious vs conscious awareness, in the like one case where I failed to specifically highlight this distinction (because I wanted to head off just this claim). Both of course happen in the same slab of meat. > This was an issue that Kant grappled with, in that the mind cannot distance itself from itself. When we "understand the game theoretic strategy that our brain is executing", we are still implicated in other "game theoretic strategies", we've just made certain ones manifest and chosen to ignore others. Sure, but consider: [1] [2]. Of course conscious deliberation is just another strategy, but it's a strategy that benefits from clarity. There is no good reason why reason and deliberation should be unable to close over itself, let alone as "separate" a component as emotional state. Reason is a strategy that rose to some prominence in human evolutionary history because it is extraordinarily effective at making sense of the natural world. (Note: There's some claims that reason rose to prominence because it made humans good at making up sensible claims to deceive others - but this sort of evolutionary history would still produce a system that's good at inference, if only as a side effect. Compare GANs.) > that requires turning in the opposite direction: asking questions to the emotions themselves rather than to the world, which requires an entirely different conceptual toolkit Now who's doing dualism? The emotions are part of and arose from within the world. Without looking at the historical context in which they evolved, you may not be able to even understand what they're trying to tell you. And sure, a lot of evpsych is just-so trash. But especially around the game theory of emotions, I think the conclusions hold up. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/46qnWRSR7L2eyNbMA/the-lens-that-sees-its-flaws https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/46qnWRSR7L2eyNbMA/the-lens-t... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation-executers-not-fitness-maximizers https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation...
  - Nav_Panel 5y ago
    > There is no good reason why reason and deliberation should be unable to close over itself, let alone as "separate" a component as emotional state. It can be done, but most rationalists never achieve this, in that it requires understanding the cause of emotion as it relates to one's own subjectivity. This often involves admitting hard truths about oneself, and is the process that psychoanalysis is intended to support. Instead they "rationalize", and come up with explanations like that one that follows, which don't understand the emotion so much as "explain it away" through what amounts to, as I said earlier, a metaphysical argument about the causal origins of the species. > Reason is a strategy that rose to some prominence in human evolutionary history because it is extraordinarily effective at making sense of the natural world. This sort of causal argument is why I tend to cringe at rationalist theory, because not only is it not necessarily true, there's no way to even tell if it were true. > The emotions are part of and arose from within the world. Without looking at the historical context in which they evolved, you may not be able to even understand what they're trying to tell you. Ironically I fully agree with this statement, except what I would mean by "historical context" is "the events in your own specific life that influenced your current sentiments", rather than history viewed as a totality. Again, a reference to the totality and causal origin of life; do you see why I describe it as theological or metaphysical? This is very similar in structure to Christian theories on the topic of e.g. original sin.