This is getting more complex, and I’m running out of time. So I’ll be really brief here and ask for clarification:
I don’t understand why you think suffering is primary outside of particular brain/mind wiring. I hope I’m misunderstanding you. That seems wildly unlikely to me, and like a very negative view of the world.
So, clarify that?
Your intuition that no amount of pleasure might make up for suffering is the view of negative utilitarians. I’ve spent some time engaging with that worldview and the people who hold it. I think it’s deeply, fundamentally mistaken. It appears to be held by people who have suffered much more than they’ve enjoyed life. Their logic doesn’t hold up to me. If you think an entity disliking its experience (life) is worth avoiding, it seems like the simple inverse (enjoying life, pleasure) is logically worth seeking. The two cancel in decision-making terms.
So yes, I do think suffering seems primary to you based on your own intuitions and your own (very common) human anxiety, and the cold logic doesn’t follow that inution.
Yes, I’m definitely saying that your brain can be modified so that you experience more pleasure than suffering. To me it seems that thinking otherwise is to believe that your brain isn’t the whole of your experience. It is substance dualism, which has very little support in terms of either good arguments or good proponents. We are our brains, or rather the pattern within them. Change that pattern and we change our experience. This has been demonstrated a million times with brain injuries, drugs, and other brain changes. If dualism is true, the world is a massive conspiracy to make us think otherwise. If that’s the case, none of this matters, so we should assume and act as though materialism is true and we are our brains. If that’s the case, we can modify our experience as we like, given sufficient technology. AGI will very likely supply sufficient technology.
I don’t understand why you think suffering is primary outside of particular brain/mind wiring. I hope I’m misunderstanding you. That seems wildly unlikely to me, and like a very negative view of the world.
Basically I think within the space of all possible varieties and extents of conscious experience, suffering starts to become less and less Commensurable with positive experience the further you go towards the extremes.
If option (A) is to experience the worst possible suffering for 100 years, prior to experiencing the greatest possible pleasure for N number of years, and option (B) is non existence, I would choose option (B), regardless of the value of N.
It appears to be held by people who have suffered much more than they’ve enjoyed life.
Should this count as evidence against their views? It seems clear to me that if you’re trying to understand the nature of qualitative states, first hand experience with extreme states is an asset.
I have personally experienced prolonged states of consciousness which were far worse than non-existence. Should that not play a part in informing my views? Currently I’m very happy, I fear death, I’ve experienced extraordinary prolonged pleasure states. Would you suggest I’m just not acquainted with levels of wellbeing which would cause me to meaningfully revaluate my view?
I think there’s also a sort of meta issue where people with influence are systematically less acquainted with direct experience of the extremes of suffering. Meaning that discourse and decision making will tend to systematically underweight experiences of suffering as a direct data source.
I’d also choose to not exist over the worst suffering for a hundred years—IF I was in my current brain-state. I’d be so insane as to be not-me after just a few minutes or hours if my synapses worked normally and my brain tried to adapt to that state. If I were forced to retain sanity and my character, it would be a harder choice if N got to be more than a hundred times longer.
Regardless, this intuition is just that. It doesn’t show that there’s something fundamentally more important about suffering than pleasure. Just that we’re better at imagining strong suffering than strong pleasure. Which is natural given the evolutionary incentives to focus us on pain.
I definitely didn’t mean to dismiss negative utilitarianism because some of the individuals who believe it seem damaged. I’m skeptical of it because it makes no sense to me, and discussions with NU people don’t help. The most rational among them slide back to negatively-balanced utilitarianism when they’re pressed on details—the FAQ I was pointed to actually does this, written by one of the pillars of the movement. (Negatively balanced means that pleasure does balance pain, but in a very unequal ratio. I think this is right, given our current brain states of representing pleasure much less vividly than pain).
Yes, I’m suggesting that neither you nor I can really imagine prolonged elevated pleasure states. Our current brain setup just doesn’t allow for them, again for evolutionary reasons.
So in sum, I still think pleasure and pain balance out when it comes to decision-making, and it’s just our current evolutionary wiring that makes suffering seem so much bigger than joy.
Thanks. I am indeed taking the ideas seriously.
This is getting more complex, and I’m running out of time. So I’ll be really brief here and ask for clarification:
I don’t understand why you think suffering is primary outside of particular brain/mind wiring. I hope I’m misunderstanding you. That seems wildly unlikely to me, and like a very negative view of the world.
So, clarify that?
Your intuition that no amount of pleasure might make up for suffering is the view of negative utilitarians. I’ve spent some time engaging with that worldview and the people who hold it. I think it’s deeply, fundamentally mistaken. It appears to be held by people who have suffered much more than they’ve enjoyed life. Their logic doesn’t hold up to me. If you think an entity disliking its experience (life) is worth avoiding, it seems like the simple inverse (enjoying life, pleasure) is logically worth seeking. The two cancel in decision-making terms.
So yes, I do think suffering seems primary to you based on your own intuitions and your own (very common) human anxiety, and the cold logic doesn’t follow that inution.
Yes, I’m definitely saying that your brain can be modified so that you experience more pleasure than suffering. To me it seems that thinking otherwise is to believe that your brain isn’t the whole of your experience. It is substance dualism, which has very little support in terms of either good arguments or good proponents. We are our brains, or rather the pattern within them. Change that pattern and we change our experience. This has been demonstrated a million times with brain injuries, drugs, and other brain changes. If dualism is true, the world is a massive conspiracy to make us think otherwise. If that’s the case, none of this matters, so we should assume and act as though materialism is true and we are our brains. If that’s the case, we can modify our experience as we like, given sufficient technology. AGI will very likely supply sufficient technology.
Thanks! No pressure to respond
Basically I think within the space of all possible varieties and extents of conscious experience, suffering starts to become less and less Commensurable with positive experience the further you go towards the extremes.
If option (A) is to experience the worst possible suffering for 100 years, prior to experiencing the greatest possible pleasure for N number of years, and option (B) is non existence, I would choose option (B), regardless of the value of N.
Should this count as evidence against their views? It seems clear to me that if you’re trying to understand the nature of qualitative states, first hand experience with extreme states is an asset.
I have personally experienced prolonged states of consciousness which were far worse than non-existence. Should that not play a part in informing my views? Currently I’m very happy, I fear death, I’ve experienced extraordinary prolonged pleasure states. Would you suggest I’m just not acquainted with levels of wellbeing which would cause me to meaningfully revaluate my view?
I think there’s also a sort of meta issue where people with influence are systematically less acquainted with direct experience of the extremes of suffering. Meaning that discourse and decision making will tend to systematically underweight experiences of suffering as a direct data source.
I agree with your last paragraph.
I’d also choose to not exist over the worst suffering for a hundred years—IF I was in my current brain-state. I’d be so insane as to be not-me after just a few minutes or hours if my synapses worked normally and my brain tried to adapt to that state. If I were forced to retain sanity and my character, it would be a harder choice if N got to be more than a hundred times longer.
Regardless, this intuition is just that. It doesn’t show that there’s something fundamentally more important about suffering than pleasure. Just that we’re better at imagining strong suffering than strong pleasure. Which is natural given the evolutionary incentives to focus us on pain.
I definitely didn’t mean to dismiss negative utilitarianism because some of the individuals who believe it seem damaged. I’m skeptical of it because it makes no sense to me, and discussions with NU people don’t help. The most rational among them slide back to negatively-balanced utilitarianism when they’re pressed on details—the FAQ I was pointed to actually does this, written by one of the pillars of the movement. (Negatively balanced means that pleasure does balance pain, but in a very unequal ratio. I think this is right, given our current brain states of representing pleasure much less vividly than pain).
Yes, I’m suggesting that neither you nor I can really imagine prolonged elevated pleasure states. Our current brain setup just doesn’t allow for them, again for evolutionary reasons.
So in sum, I still think pleasure and pain balance out when it comes to decision-making, and it’s just our current evolutionary wiring that makes suffering seem so much bigger than joy.