This is why I finished my essay with a request for comments based on an
understanding of what I wrote.
This is not a comment on my proposal, only a series of unsupported
assertions that don't seem to hang together into any kind of argument.
Richard Loosemore.
Matt Mahoney wrote:
My comment on Richard Loosemore's proposal: we should not be confident
in our ability to produce a stable motivational system. We observe that
motivational systems are highly stable in animals (including humans).
This is only because if an animal can manipulate its motivations in any
way, then it is quickly removed by natural selection. Examples of
manipulation might be to turn off pain or hunger or reproductive drive,
or to stimulate its pleasure center. Humans can do this to some extent
by using drugs, but this leads to self destructive behavior. In
experiments where a mouse can stimulate its pleasure center via an
electrode in its brain by pressing a lever, it will press the lever,
foregoing food and water until it dies.
So we should not take the existence of stable motivational systems in
nature as evidence that we can get it right. These systems are complex,
have evolved over a long time, and even then don't always work in the
face of technology or a rapidly changing environment.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To
unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
