But even if so, we (along with many other non-human animals) seem to enjoy and receive significant fulfillment from many activities that are extremely unlikely to lead to external rewards (e.g. play, reading etc).
I see play serving some vital functions:
exploring new existential modes. Trying out new ways of being without having to take a leap of faith.
connecting with people, and building trust. I include things like flirting, banter, and make-believe here.
As for reading, I think of it as a version of exploring.
Note that there are certain behaviours that I’m sure aren’t very adaptive, but I have a hunch that many of them can be traced back to some manner of fitness improvement. My current hunch (pinch of salt please) is that most seemingly unnecessary action-categories either serve a hidden purpose , or are “side effects”. By “side effects”, I mean that the actions & habits spring from a root shared with other (more adaptive) behaviour patterns. This “root” can be a shard residing at a high abstraction level, or some instinct, depending on your view.
Also, as I’m writing this, I realize that this is very hard to falsify and that my claims aren’t super rigorous. Hope it can be of some use to someone anyway.
Thanks for the reply Jonathan. Indeed I’m also a bit skeptical that our innate drives (whether the ones from SDT theory or others) are really non-utility maximizing. But in some cases they do appear so.
One possibility is that they were driven to evolve for utility maximization but have now broken off completely and serve some difficult-to-understand purpose. I think there are similar theories of how consciousness developed—i.e. that it evolved as a by-effect/side-effect of some inter-organism communication—and now plays many other roles.
I see play serving some vital functions:
exploring new existential modes. Trying out new ways of being without having to take a leap of faith.
connecting with people, and building trust. I include things like flirting, banter, and make-believe here.
As for reading, I think of it as a version of exploring.
Note that there are certain behaviours that I’m sure aren’t very adaptive, but I have a hunch that many of them can be traced back to some manner of fitness improvement. My current hunch (pinch of salt please) is that most seemingly unnecessary action-categories either serve a hidden purpose , or are “side effects”. By “side effects”, I mean that the actions & habits spring from a root shared with other (more adaptive) behaviour patterns. This “root” can be a shard residing at a high abstraction level, or some instinct, depending on your view.
Also, as I’m writing this, I realize that this is very hard to falsify and that my claims aren’t super rigorous. Hope it can be of some use to someone anyway.
Thanks for the reply Jonathan. Indeed I’m also a bit skeptical that our innate drives (whether the ones from SDT theory or others) are really non-utility maximizing. But in some cases they do appear so.
One possibility is that they were driven to evolve for utility maximization but have now broken off completely and serve some difficult-to-understand purpose. I think there are similar theories of how consciousness developed—i.e. that it evolved as a by-effect/side-effect of some inter-organism communication—and now plays many other roles.