8 ms·

His analogies are apt. His point is that in all those cases the signal itself is meaningless and inconsequential to the end. The victim, in his examples, is th

His analogies are apt. His point is that in all those cases the signal itself is meaningless and inconsequential to the end. The victim, in his examples, is the achievement of the end goal, which becomes a casualty of focusing only on the signal. It probably applies to stimulant drugs more than it does to drugs like LSD. But like the original essay suggests, there's probably an evolutionary reason why we don't constantly experience life like we do on LSD, because we'd be excited and fascinated by everything. If the goal of life is to increase our experiences... then the only way to maximize that in the long term is to survive. If you tweak the algorithm to give experience/pleasure without any work (drugs), then you'll no longer have an incentive to work to increase survivability. If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). So the most optimal solution, as nature has converged at, is somewhere in the middle, where we get experience and pleasure but only when we work for it by prolonging survivability. Introducing drugs into this method will shifts the balance to the less optimal side of the reward-effort continuum. The potential victim is yourself and your progeny, and you're actually shooting yourself in the foot in terms of maximizing experiences/happiness as a species by introducing drugs.

vehementi 13y ago
Evolutionary reasons keep us surviving at any cost - in this discussion the cost is the sacrifice of appreciation of the beauty of everything, etc. Indeed you might die to predators more if you were distracted by how pretty that tree trunk is, but that reasoning no longer applies since we are not part of the food chain. You seem to be using what evolution "settled on" as support for your argument - that is a very wrong thing to do.
- chrischen 13y ago
  No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an incentive to survive. The fact is our happiness and willingness to keep going is as much a factor of evolution as our physical survivability... so it's NOT wrong to base it on what evolution "settled on." Perhaps we may not die from predators, but there are other things. Here's a thought experiment: Consider an impending asteroid heading for Earth. Which nations or peoples do you think will have the highest chance of surviving? The technologically backwards but harmonious communists, the technologically advanced capitalists, the crack addicts, or the non-crack addicts? You'll probably conclude that technology matters, not spending every waking moment appreciating the beauty in trees matter, and not feeling high all the time for no reason also matters. We need proper reward-response pathways in order to maximize our survival. Introducing artificially stimulating drugs disrupts it. It sends a false signal, which, according to Paul Graham, can be one of the most crippling things if we don't think it's bad. http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html "The most dangerous way to lose time is not to spend it having fun, but to spend it doing fake work." Getting the dopamine reward from a stimulant drug is like doing fake work, because you're being rewarded like if you actually did the work. Keep in mind, I'm talking about simulants, so LSD doesn't apply here, but there is probably a reason we weren't born fascinated with trees and every little thing.
  - lmm 13y ago
    Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What evolution wants is not aligned with what we want. E.g. anyone using birth control is deliberately shifting the "happiness/survival balance" away from the one that evolution decided was optimal. But very few would argue that birth control is detrimental to our civilization.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Productivity is a function of happiness. If our lives were really a "regimented dullness," we'd have little motivation to achieve more and greater things. So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. If you disrupt that, then the function is disrupted. Happiness (aka, dope), can be obtained without working. Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off.
      - lmm 13y ago
        >So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. You're begging the question. Why do you think survival is what we should optimize for? If you were a genetically engineered assassin species who gained happiness only from killing, would you say killing is what we should optimize for? If not, why treat evolution any differently from our hypothetical genetic engineer? >Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off. Again - why should we care about being "relevant"?
emiliobumachar 13y ago
From a purely natural perspective, the "goal" of life is to reproduce as much as possible.
- chrischen 13y ago
  If you define that as the goal, my argument still stands and it's still advantageous to not introduce artificial stimulants into the procedure.
  - CalmDownNerd 13y ago
    I guarantee that you, in particular, will do a lot more reproducing if you acquire a bag of cocaine, Poindexter.
Amadou 13y ago
> Introducing drugs into this method will shifts the balance to the less optimal side of the reward-effort continuum. There is absolutely no basis of support for that in your argument. I think you can reasonably make the argument that using drugs shifts the balance in one direction, but to say that it ends up over-the-line rather than to a potentially more optimal location on that continuum is begging the question.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Go ahead and try the experiment. Lock two people in two rooms and give one a choice of food or cocaine every day and the other just food. What do you think will happen? It's pretty clear the one with cocaine will be slightly less nourished than the one without cocaine. The cocaine doesn't offer any benefit except a surge of dopamine. Maybe you could argue the guy has ADHD, and the cocaine helps him function normally, but given two normal people my hypothesis is probably correct.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I'm sorry but locking two people in a room really has nothing to do with the way the vast majority of people live their lives. You are again assuming the initial point and working backwards from that belief. It seems pretty clear this is a matter of faith for you, so not much point in continuing to debate it.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      My initial point was reasoned. You've yet to counter any of the reasoning I've made. You have, however, resorted to what is basically name calling ("matter of faith for me"). Please leave my motivations off the table and focus on my reasoning. If you want to stop debating, go ahead, but that doesn't mean that no conversation is possible. If it stops, it's because you don't want to continue discussing it.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        You keep assuming the initial point as a given, that is pretty much the definition of faith - belief that can't be or isn't proven.
ignostic 13y ago
Your victims really aren't victims in the sense the original examples had victims. I hope you can see the difference between a human victim and some vague concept. Or between another person and yourself, for that matter. The rest of your argument is that "drugs" - which you lump together as one, despite having just read an essay about that very thing - decrease incentive to work. You say this as if your hasty logic is a good substitute for fact. There are drugs that do short-term or long-term harm to one's self, drugs that decrease motivation to work, and drugs that do nothing of the sort. Without data to back your position up on any drug, though, we're relying solely on our subjective perceptions. It sounds like you've already formed an opinion, but I'd urge you to do so on the foundation of fact going forward.

vehementi 13y ago

Evolutionary reasons keep us surviving at any cost - in this discussion the cost is the sacrifice of appreciation of the beauty of everything, etc. Indeed you might die to predators more if you were distracted by how pretty that tree trunk is, but that reasoning no longer applies since we are not part of the food chain. You seem to be using what evolution "settled on" as support for your argument - that is a very wrong thing to do.

chrischen 13y ago
No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an incentive to survive. The fact is our happiness and willingness to keep going is as much a factor of evolution as our physical survivability... so it's NOT wrong to base it on what evolution "settled on." Perhaps we may not die from predators, but there are other things. Here's a thought experiment: Consider an impending asteroid heading for Earth. Which nations or peoples do you think will have the highest chance of surviving? The technologically backwards but harmonious communists, the technologically advanced capitalists, the crack addicts, or the non-crack addicts? You'll probably conclude that technology matters, not spending every waking moment appreciating the beauty in trees matter, and not feeling high all the time for no reason also matters. We need proper reward-response pathways in order to maximize our survival. Introducing artificially stimulating drugs disrupts it. It sends a false signal, which, according to Paul Graham, can be one of the most crippling things if we don't think it's bad. http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html http://www.paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html "The most dangerous way to lose time is not to spend it having fun, but to spend it doing fake work." Getting the dopamine reward from a stimulant drug is like doing fake work, because you're being rewarded like if you actually did the work. Keep in mind, I'm talking about simulants, so LSD doesn't apply here, but there is probably a reason we weren't born fascinated with trees and every little thing.
- lmm 13y ago
  Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What evolution wants is not aligned with what we want. E.g. anyone using birth control is deliberately shifting the "happiness/survival balance" away from the one that evolution decided was optimal. But very few would argue that birth control is detrimental to our civilization.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Productivity is a function of happiness. If our lives were really a "regimented dullness," we'd have little motivation to achieve more and greater things. So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. If you disrupt that, then the function is disrupted. Happiness (aka, dope), can be obtained without working. Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off.
    - lmm 13y ago
      >So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is. You're begging the question. Why do you think survival is what we should optimize for? If you were a genetically engineered assassin species who gained happiness only from killing, would you say killing is what we should optimize for? If not, why treat evolution any differently from our hypothetical genetic engineer? >Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off. Again - why should we care about being "relevant"?

emiliobumachar 13y ago

From a purely natural perspective, the "goal" of life is to reproduce as much as possible.

chrischen 13y ago
If you define that as the goal, my argument still stands and it's still advantageous to not introduce artificial stimulants into the procedure.
- CalmDownNerd 13y ago
  I guarantee that you, in particular, will do a lot more reproducing if you acquire a bag of cocaine, Poindexter.

Amadou 13y ago

> Introducing drugs into this method will shifts the balance to the less optimal side of the reward-effort continuum. There is absolutely no basis of support for that in your argument. I think you can reasonably make the argument that using drugs shifts the balance in one direction, but to say that it ends up over-the-line rather than to a potentially more optimal location on that continuum is begging the question.

chrischen 13y ago
Go ahead and try the experiment. Lock two people in two rooms and give one a choice of food or cocaine every day and the other just food. What do you think will happen? It's pretty clear the one with cocaine will be slightly less nourished than the one without cocaine. The cocaine doesn't offer any benefit except a surge of dopamine. Maybe you could argue the guy has ADHD, and the cocaine helps him function normally, but given two normal people my hypothesis is probably correct.
- Amadou 13y ago
  I'm sorry but locking two people in a room really has nothing to do with the way the vast majority of people live their lives. You are again assuming the initial point and working backwards from that belief. It seems pretty clear this is a matter of faith for you, so not much point in continuing to debate it.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    My initial point was reasoned. You've yet to counter any of the reasoning I've made. You have, however, resorted to what is basically name calling ("matter of faith for me"). Please leave my motivations off the table and focus on my reasoning. If you want to stop debating, go ahead, but that doesn't mean that no conversation is possible. If it stops, it's because you don't want to continue discussing it.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      You keep assuming the initial point as a given, that is pretty much the definition of faith - belief that can't be or isn't proven.

ignostic 13y ago

Your victims really aren't victims in the sense the original examples had victims. I hope you can see the difference between a human victim and some vague concept. Or between another person and yourself, for that matter. The rest of your argument is that "drugs" - which you lump together as one, despite having just read an essay about that very thing - decrease incentive to work. You say this as if your hasty logic is a good substitute for fact. There are drugs that do short-term or long-term harm to one's self, drugs that decrease motivation to work, and drugs that do nothing of the sort. Without data to back your position up on any drug, though, we're relying solely on our subjective perceptions. It sounds like you've already formed an opinion, but I'd urge you to do so on the foundation of fact going forward.