![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2005, at 17:50:38
In reply to Re: Happiness, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 12:40:55
> Happiness isn't having the things you want.
>
> Happiness is wanting the things you have.What she said.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:47:27
In reply to Re: Happiness » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2005, at 17:50:38
We might desire stuff (family, children, money, a career) because we believe it would make us happy, but if we get the stuff we wanted there is still no guarantee that we will be happy.
I guess the question is whether we only desire stuff because we think it will lead to happiness - or whether we desire other things not just because they will lead to happiness but because there are other things we desire in themselves too.
I mean, it makes sense to ask 'why do you want a job, family, money' etc?
It doesn't make much sense to ask 'why do you want to be happy?'
Happiness is an end in itself whereas a job etc may only be a means to happiness (we hope).
Posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:54:50
In reply to Re: Happiness, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:47:27
This is a 'thought experiment' that is supposed to have us consider whether happiness is the only thing that is desirable in itself or whether there are other things aside from happiness that are equally (if not more) important to us:
Suppose that somehow or other superbeings have created some sort of computer program that can result in your brain being stimulated in such a way that they can feed you whatever experiences would make you happiest.
This is the 'greatest happiness machine'.
The superbeings may remove your brain from your body and keep it alive in a vat of nutrients (or they may be able to care for a body in a vat too if you would prefer) and they will feed you whatever experiences would make you happiest if you choose to enter the greatest happiness machine.
If you think you would be happiest believing that you were still living in reality that can be programmed in. If you think that a little bit of disappointment or satisfaction would result in your being happier later (because of the contrast) then that can be programmed in as well.
The point is that the greatest happiness machine will result in greater happiness for you than if you were to continue living in the real world.
If you had the choice of plugging in to the greatest happiness machine forever or continuing on with your life as usual what would you choose to do?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2005, at 22:41:04
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:54:50
> If you had the choice of plugging in to the greatest happiness machine forever or continuing on with your life as usual what would you choose to do?
That's easy. Life as usual. There are many other meaningful attributes to life, apart from happiness. It's not even the most important one for me.
Good night.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 23:03:22
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2005, at 22:41:04
Posted by Susan47 on March 17, 2005, at 23:34:04
In reply to Re: Happiness, posted by sunny10 on March 17, 2005, at 14:58:44
I'd agree with that too Sunny. I used to walk into things all the time and it didn't bother me. And strangely enough, I've been happy at times in my life when I really felt like I had nothing but love. So it's definitely not any "thing" that ever made me happy, not ever, I can't honestly think of one time that one thing made me happy. I was either happy or unhappy, regardless of the thing. The biggest thing in my life has been learning that my happiness all comes from inside, ALL of it. I generate it; and when it isn't there, nothing I have makes it come. There's a lot of power in knowing that.
Posted by Susan47 on March 17, 2005, at 23:57:10
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:54:50
I'd plug into the happiness machine only if everybody else did it too, and I can tell you that my wish would be that everybody WOULD plug into the happiness machine. Because I believe that happiness is heavenly, and everyone who HAS the ability to experience it, has also the birthright. And because if even one person was unhappy I couldn't take myself out of the equation in that person's existence. I would stay to "help" that person. So there might only be two people outside the bubble of happiness, me and the stubborn idiot who decides to tough it out, but I'd wish for everyone else to be in there.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:37:06
In reply to Re: Happiness, posted by Susan47 on March 17, 2005, at 23:34:04
> The biggest thing in my life has been learning that my happiness all comes from inside, ALL of it. I generate it; and when it isn't there, nothing I have makes it come. There's a lot of power in knowing that.
Thats what I thought too... Until one of my therapists (a good one) tried to show me otherwise. I still think happiness is an attitude that we adopt but I have come to agree that there can be environmental factors that impact on our ability to adopt such an attitude.
She asked me whether a starving leper in India would be able to feel happy.
I thought yes, it was possible.
She asked me whether it was likely that a starving leper in India was happy.
I thought no. Most probably not.
Some people seem to have a greater capacity to adopt that attitude than others...
And some people find themselves in an easier environment to be able to adopt that attitude in...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:45:44
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 17, 2005, at 23:57:10
> I'd plug into the happiness machine only if everybody else did it too, and I can tell you that my wish would be that everybody WOULD plug into the happiness machine.
Sounds like you might quite like hedonistic utilitarianism. That means that you think people should do that which results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
That has been proposed as a universal moral law...
Other people have the intuition that it wouldn't be acceptable to plug in for reasons such as these:
1) Autonomy. You can't make choices in the greatest happiness machine - you just have the illusion of choice.
2) Agency. You aren't acting as an agent. You aren't acting at all - you just have the illusion of agency.
2) Reality. You aren't living in reality at all. You are living in a massive illusion.The points are related really.
Another way to say it is:
Would you rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a satisfied fool?
The point being that Socrates searched for wisdom and knowledge (etc) and doing that brought him much dissatisfaction and unhappiness... The fool, on the other hand is happy in their illusion that they know it all and are wise (even though they are not).
I think it is nice to want everyone to be happy :-)
Hedonistic Utilitarianism captures that quite nicely. But maybe sometimes we prefer other things than happiness, and maybe this form of utilitarianism would be better:Preference Utilitarianism: We should do that act that results in the greatest preference satisfaction.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:54:25
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine » Susan47, posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:45:44
But there would only be a difference between the two if we think that other things are valuable in themselves aside from happiness.
I dunno...
Depends on what you mean by happiness I guess...If you define happiness as 'satisfaction of preference' then there is no difference between preference and hedonistic utilitarianism.
Language is a slippery slippery thing...
Posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 9:46:00
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2005, at 22:41:04
I agree. If we chose the Great Happiness Machine, we would be no better than Pavlov's dogs.
If all we were to receive were happiness, would we not become desensitized to it? And if so, how would we remain "happy"?
All of life should be experieced- otherwise we would all become robots.
My opinion, anyway...
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 9:54:40
In reply to Re: Happiness » Susan47, posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:37:06
Here, allow me to amend my thinking. Happiness is NOT a birthright, because we live on a planet that's physical, we live in a physical plane where disease, starvation and pestilence occur. So, now, happiness is a privilege and yes it's a goal in my opinion if we're lucky enough to have the ability to reach or strive for that goal, we should do everything in our power without hurting others to do that. Remember though that MY definition of happiness is having my physical and emotional needs MOSTLY (not always) met, and having the ability to meet my OWN physical and emotional needs for the most part. Of course, if I were a starving leper that would be impossible. SO yes, I'd want everyone in that happiness bubble being taken care of by an alien. M-hm. Now let's see if I need to amend my thinking some more... (of COURSE) ...
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:00:02
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine » Susan47, posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 4:45:44
Yes but everyone is an individual, Alexandra, and happiness allows me to learn better. See now, this really gets me. WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THE SICK THEORY THAT LEARNING AND GROWTH ALL MUST COME OUT OF MISERY AND STRUGGLE? what UTTER crap. Ah, so searching for wisdom and knowledge results in dissatisfaction and unhappiness? ANd FURTHERMORE, Autonomy LEADS TO Happiness, not away from it. Listen, babe, I've just MADE THE DECISION to plug into the happiness machine. IN THAT MACHINE, if you will recall, I am allowed to have the illusion of living a life. Right? Well, you didn't ask me what my idea of a life was, did you? Did I say that happiness precludes me from learning? No. Happiness ALLOWS learning. oy. This idea that happiness is equated to stupidity and non-growth is such human shite.
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:35:45
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:00:02
In my world, you see, the belief I hold, is that no matter whether there's a higher being, a greater intelligence that holds us somewhere in its conscious OR NOT, we have the opportunity and the ability, all who are born mentally whole, we have the ability together to make survival and the passing on of generations a Pleasure in spite of all the hardships of nature (and the joys of nature, too. Ever skinny-dipped at midnight, been nude in the sun on a gorgeous summer day in a meadow ...
Anyway, off track, way off here but the point is that my personal belief and isn't that what all behaviour and decision-making is based on? Personal belief? But my personal belief anyway is that happiness generates happiness, misery generates misery. I believe that's a law of nature, that's my belief, I have a high school education folks, and not a very good one at that, everything else is strictly very very very limited personal life experience ... just to make it all official ... hmmm anyway so everything is generative ... and because I make happiness a goal, that happiness spreads to my kids, my ex-husband, all the people I see every day, everyone who speaks to me, everyone who interacts with me in any way at all ... and if every fr*gging person in America were truly happy and understood where it truly originates and how to pass it along so it comes BACK AGAIN, then that would spread you see, to other people who need it so desperately, because all of a sudden, we would ALL understand that we don't NEED all these material goods we THINK we need, and we don't have to be anxious about anything because we're already happy, you see, we can let go of that second car and the bigger house because it doesn't make us happy, our PEOPLE make us happy, ad nauseum you see, and then suddenly there's more for everybody, and that spreads ... and the fricking planet has a chance for survival with the human race actually ON it, and DESTROYED BY ITSELF. So yeah, if human generativity is the goal, then happiness is the goal, and human generativity is happiness. So that means that happiness is survival. Hmm.
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:47:21
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:00:02
I just lost an earring, a sterling silver with garnet DARN it.
But I know I'll talk to someone about that today, and she'll tell me she lost something even more valuable at some point, and knowing about HER chagrin will make me feel better and I'll be happy AGAIN. DARN it. Where is that EARRING I hope it didn't end up going down the bathtub drain!
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 11:05:28
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:35:45
And of course it makes perfect Sense, don't you see how perfect that is, that it's programmed into our genes that way? We're the adaptors, aren't we? Isn't that what man is? Only we've outdone ourselves, haven't we, our brains have overcome our logic, our capacity to reason is being overwhelmed by our forgotten search for happiness, which is .. Survival. We've forgotten how to survive; we can't be happy and we WON'T survive as a species, because we're looking for HAPPINESS IN THE WRONG PLACES. Anybody listening? Of course not.
Posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 11:27:14
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 11:05:28
I agree with everything you said about how people need to WANT to be more happy and that more of us need to be spreading happiness instead of grief which should eventually result in a happier world (in a nutshell).
The only caveat I see is that if we remain in the "active search" stage for to long, our minds will be too busy working to fully experience the small joys along the way, the accumulations of which actually help to adjust our overall attitudes... Sometimes we just have to stop and smell the roses and just "be".
No, you aren't alone, you're not talking to yourself....
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 12:08:01
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 11:27:14
Well, actually, not in a nutshell. Because it wouldn't be a world, period, okay, PERIOD? no world with Man as we know it ... if we don't survive. So no, it's not a happier world we need, it's a WORLD with us IN IT, that's happiness too .. but if we're all miserable, happiness ends, and the only way for happiness to cmopletely end is for existence to end. Don't you see? There would be no question if there weren't a you, or an us, the question only has relevance to our existence ...
Posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 12:23:39
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine » sunny10, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 12:08:01
the world without humans would be just a planet, wouldn't it?
I was attempting to say that humans need to be a little kinder to each other- they should be more apt to spread happiness than the kind of "news" that we currently receive...
How many more news stories are there about fires, murders, and other atrocities being spread by mankind aginst mankind vs stories about the people who are actually spreading messages of joy, goodness, or giving?
I guess when I say "world",I am saying that there should theoretically be more appreciation for someone like you who would be willing to be outside of the Happiness Machine if it meant getting more people willing to consider being a part of a more joyful place instead of perpetuating the idea of doom.
I don't happen to find ultimate happiness to be my goal in life; ultimate happiness would lead to desensitization and it would cease to be happiness, in my opinion. My personal goal is to be able to accept the good with the bad (the happy and the sad)without falling apart because something bad happened and I lost sight of the happy which may be coming to me next...
I've made a mess out of your post, haven't I?
That really wasn't my intent.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 18, 2005, at 12:56:03
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by alexandra_k on March 17, 2005, at 21:54:50
Well, if the machine knew me it would know that I am at my happiest when my brain is taxed and I need to solve a problem, provide a solution or whatever.
So, I could not be happy if my brain were removed. Period. Thus no happiness machine for me.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 13:50:48
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 12:23:39
>If all we were to receive were happiness, would we not become desensitized to it? And if so, how would we remain "happy"?
Well… Possibly but maybe not necessarily.
With drugs for every high there is a low because we deplete our supply of neurotransmitters and it takes time for our brains to replenish the supply. Perhaps life is like that too... But scientists have discovered the ‘pleasure centre’ or the ‘reward centre’ in the brain.They put electrodes into that part of rats brains. If the rats pushed a lever then the electrode would stimulate their brain. Directly – so it didn’t rely on neurotransmitters. The rats stood in front of the levers and pushed them constantly. They died of starvation and dehydration because they lost interest in doing anything else.
I think there was a lady in hospital who had some fairly terrible injuries. They thought that it might be a form of pain relief so they put the electrode into her ‘pleasure / reward centre’. She could push a button to have the area stimulated. She pushed it constantly. Afterwards (after they had removed it) they asked her what it felt like and she reported having an intensely pleasurable experience – like an orgasm.
That seems to be a ‘high’ or ‘pure rush of hedonistic happiness’ that doesn’t require a low for contrast. Suppose they would care for your body adequately in hospital. Would you like to live in that ‘greatest happiness machine’ forever?
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 14:13:44
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness contradiction » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 18, 2005, at 12:56:03
> Well, if the machine knew me it would know that I am at my happiest when my brain is taxed and I need to solve a problem, provide a solution or whatever.
Okay. So it would stimulate your brain in such a way that you would have experiences of solving problems, providing solutions etc.
> So, I could not be happy if my brain were removed. Period. Thus no happiness machine for me.Ah, but if it would make you happier not to know you are in the greatest happiness machine then that can simply be written into the program. You wouldn't know / remember that your brain had been removed.
Think of it like this... There is your brain. Your brain has all these afferent (input connections) from your different sensory modalities. Vision, hearing, etc etc. Also tactile information. Then there are all these efferent (output) connections that are hooked up to muscles, limbs etc.
Neurons are either / or things. They either fire (send a signal) or they don't.
So these superbeings carefully sever all the afferent and efferent connections to remove your brain from your body. They provide a lovely nutrient bath for it so that it is kept alive and healthy. Most probably such a de-afferented brain would be comatose - but just in case there may be spontaneous waking the superbeings could give it something to put it to sleep...
All they have to do is provide the right pattern of 'fire / don't fire' to every (severed) afferent connection to produce the experiences of anything you like in the brain.
And hook up every (severed) efferent connection to the simulated world in such a way that your body seems to move in the way your brain has ordered through the virtual environment.
You would get a virtual body and all (if that makes you happy of course...)
Fairly simple in principle...
Most probably intractable in practice
(there are so very many neurons...)
Just like it is possible to build a stainless steel ladder to the moon in principle...
But it is not remotely possible as a matter of fact...So the idea is that it wouldn't be too much of a problem (in principle) for these superbeings...
I mean, it may turn out that they don't need to preserve EVERY afferent and efferent connection for high fidelity smello feelo VR. A courser grain may be indistinguishable in our daily 'lives'.
Somehow these superbeings have managed to understand the relationship between patterns of firing afferent neurons and the state of the world... So they know which patterns to 'feed in' to the afferent neurons to have you 'experience' anything you could / would experience in response to the real world - and a whole heap more besides...
So the point of the elaboration is supposed to be that the superbeings can stimulate your brain in such a way that you would have experiences that are indistinguishable from those you face in the real world. (Like how you can have some dreams that are indistinguishable from waking experiences). But not only that: they have figured out how to modify things so that you will experience all the things that would result in your being happy. Solving puzzles or whatever. lets say that you would be happier in the 'greatest happiness machine'. If so then would you hook up - or do you think that there are other things that are of value that the greatest happiness machine couldn't provide? If you don't want to hook up then it seems to indicate that there are other things that are more important to you than happiness...
And of course yet another question is: and how do we know that we aren't just brains in vats right now anyway???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 18, 2005, at 14:30:28
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 10:00:02
>WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THE SICK THEORY THAT LEARNING AND GROWTH ALL MUST COME OUT OF MISERY AND STRUGGLE?
Um. That is a theodicy...
A theodicy is a defence / response to the problem of evil.
The problem of evil is thought to be fatal to the existence of an all powerful all knowing all loving god. It is thought that if we cannot come up with a good reply to the problem of evil then such a god cannot exist.Here you go:
1) God is all powerful; all loving; all knowing.
2) Evil (or suffering if you prefer) exists. Both natural - natural disaster and moral - people doing things like killing 6 million Jews.
Either
3) God cannot prevent this evil / suffering. If this is true then he cannot be all powerful.
4) God does not want to prevent this evil / suffering. If this is true then he cannot be all loving.
5) God does not know about all this evil / suffering. If this is true then he cannot be all knowing.So If we accept that God is (by definition) all powerful; all loving; and all knowing (which is how the peoples of the Judeo - Christian tradition define their god)...
...and we accept the existence of evil / suffering...
...then something has to give. That kind of god is a logical contradiction. It is impossible for that kind of god to exist.
So. The theodicies are attempts at saving the Judeo-Christian god from the problem of evil...
Leibniz thought that this world had the best possible ratio of good to evil of all the logically possible worlds. Thus god created this one...
Another defence is to say that some evil / suffering is necessary for us to learn and grow.
But then my issue is why did god make it necessary to suffer in order to grow?
Why did he do that for?
All loving my *ss...
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 15:55:01
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness Machine, posted by sunny10 on March 18, 2005, at 12:23:39
No, I was being bossy and motormouth.
I like your ideas. But I disagree that ultimate happiness would lead to desensitization. If I were to give you my example we'd all be blushing, though.
Posted by Susan47 on March 18, 2005, at 15:55:51
In reply to Re: The Greatest Happiness contradiction » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 18, 2005, at 12:56:03
No, and I don't think anybody's brain being removed were part of the equation, ever. There it is again, that old spectre of happiness equated with a non-thinking condition.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.