5 ms·

You're optimizing the wrong thing if you're looking outside of the human mind. Change the behavior surrounding our desires and happiness and you solve many of t

You're optimizing the wrong thing if you're looking outside of the human mind. Change the behavior surrounding our desires and happiness and you solve many of these problems. You might say changing the way our minds work is very difficult, but surely it's easier than attempting to create an impossible utopia.

pron 12y ago
But then we'd no longer be human...
- calinet6 12y ago
  An extremely common misconception. Human nature does not mean that our behavior is permanent, set in stone, fixed. Our biological bugs are not our humanity, nor are our biological advantages. We are quite greater than our biology, and we've proven again and again that we are capable of improving upon it. I'll just throw the whole institution of "education" out there as an example.
  - pron 12y ago
    Well, that's a deep philosophical question of whether there's an essence to humanity. But I think that if by some miracle we can turn humans into rational beings, then our entire set of motivations, aspirations and drives will change. Education does not do that. So far, over the course of history, we have not changed any of what people may call "our nature".
    - calinet6 12y ago
      We have turned humans, largely, into much more rational beings than they were in the past. Education and progress does do that, most clearly. There is always human nature, but in the most educated societies, you see a completely different behavioral state.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        We have trained people to behave in a mode that appears rational, when examined from the framework of their culture. But that's always been true - even prehistoric people survived according to how well adapted their myths and behaviors were to their environment.
      - pron 12y ago
        I think most historians would disagree with you. Actually, there's one quite famous study that touches on this topic, The Civilizing Process[1] by Norbert Elias. It is a fascinating work, but debated by most historians. One interesting subtopic there is the internalization of the feeling of disgust. Elias shows how disgust -- which we often experience physiologically -- is a social construct that evolved through the ages. Other than that, it is well accepted that some societies have built large, faceless institutions, and evolved from a face-to-face society to a society of strangers. It is a profound change, but no one claims that such a society is more rational than a face-to-face, let alone its members. The behavioral state you're referring to is largely accepted to be nothing more than social norms in a society of strangers. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Jolly good then, if "human" means "so psychologically rotten as to be incapable of enjoying what is actually a perfectly good situation."
  - pron 12y ago
    I didn't make up the rules :) That weird situation is what most art of the past few centuries is about (i.e. once we've pretty much nailed basic survival down), and it's really not that bad, just... peculiar. But if you think about it, it makes sense: you have this species that evolved through increasing brain function, rather than speed, strength or built-in weaponry, which then managed to reduce survival issues to a few hours a day. How does that brain behave when it's got so much free time and so little to actually worry about? Is there any reason to believe that "rationality" will be how it does it? Decades of psychological research have shown that the human brain had been tuned for survival in ways that are anything but rational.
aleh 12y ago
There are numerous drugs which make people feel subjectively happy by changing the way their mind works, however from the outsider perspective the outcome is hardly desirable. People are inherently irrational just like the nature itself. It is possible to predict the probable outcome using mathematical models here and there, but the solution is always local and temporary.

pron 12y ago

But then we'd no longer be human...

calinet6 12y ago
An extremely common misconception. Human nature does not mean that our behavior is permanent, set in stone, fixed. Our biological bugs are not our humanity, nor are our biological advantages. We are quite greater than our biology, and we've proven again and again that we are capable of improving upon it. I'll just throw the whole institution of "education" out there as an example.
- pron 12y ago
  Well, that's a deep philosophical question of whether there's an essence to humanity. But I think that if by some miracle we can turn humans into rational beings, then our entire set of motivations, aspirations and drives will change. Education does not do that. So far, over the course of history, we have not changed any of what people may call "our nature".
  - calinet6 12y ago
    We have turned humans, largely, into much more rational beings than they were in the past. Education and progress does do that, most clearly. There is always human nature, but in the most educated societies, you see a completely different behavioral state.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      We have trained people to behave in a mode that appears rational, when examined from the framework of their culture. But that's always been true - even prehistoric people survived according to how well adapted their myths and behaviors were to their environment.
    - pron 12y ago
      I think most historians would disagree with you. Actually, there's one quite famous study that touches on this topic, The Civilizing Process[1] by Norbert Elias. It is a fascinating work, but debated by most historians. One interesting subtopic there is the internalization of the feeling of disgust. Elias shows how disgust -- which we often experience physiologically -- is a social construct that evolved through the ages. Other than that, it is well accepted that some societies have built large, faceless institutions, and evolved from a face-to-face society to a society of strangers. It is a profound change, but no one claims that such a society is more rational than a face-to-face, let alone its members. The behavioral state you're referring to is largely accepted to be nothing more than social norms in a society of strangers. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Jolly good then, if "human" means "so psychologically rotten as to be incapable of enjoying what is actually a perfectly good situation."
- pron 12y ago
  I didn't make up the rules :) That weird situation is what most art of the past few centuries is about (i.e. once we've pretty much nailed basic survival down), and it's really not that bad, just... peculiar. But if you think about it, it makes sense: you have this species that evolved through increasing brain function, rather than speed, strength or built-in weaponry, which then managed to reduce survival issues to a few hours a day. How does that brain behave when it's got so much free time and so little to actually worry about? Is there any reason to believe that "rationality" will be how it does it? Decades of psychological research have shown that the human brain had been tuned for survival in ways that are anything but rational.

aleh 12y ago

There are numerous drugs which make people feel subjectively happy by changing the way their mind works, however from the outsider perspective the outcome is hardly desirable. People are inherently irrational just like the nature itself. It is possible to predict the probable outcome using mathematical models here and there, but the solution is always local and temporary.