In the naive model of the self, where “you” make a decision, and then your body executes that decision, and it’s the same “you” every time. And it’s true that this is a very simple model, and if we didn’t have any other evidence, that’s what we would probably go with.
But that model that doesn’t explain the Peak-end rule very well—how is it that a certain experience is worse while experienced, but better when remembered? Similarly, it’s hard to explain hyperbolic discounting in terms of a continuous self. And how would self-talk be effective (and it is) if the self were indivisible—whom would you be trying to convince? Finally, how can we make a decision before becoming conscious of it?.
A better mode of the self would say that there’s not one thing that you can call your “self”—instead, your mind is basically bodged together from a bunch of random parts. So when we say that there are different experiencing vs remembering selves, what we’re really saying is that reasoning about your preferences as though you only had one set of preferences, doesn’t work. At the time, you really prefer to avoid the additional bit of small pain at the end. But when you remember the experience, you really do remember it as being better than you otherwise would. So what do “you” prefer? There’s no single sensible answer to that.
“But that model that doesn’t explain the Peak-end rule very well—how is it that a certain experience is worse while experienced, but better when remembered?”
Anchoring bias. Forgetting. Contemplation of past events in a broader context. Rewriting memories. All these things happen.
“And how would self-talk be effective (and it is) if the self were indivisible—whom would you be trying to convince?”
That’s a good point. Although, I already think that the brain is modular, and it could be very possible for different parts of your brain to be experiencing different things, the biggest problem is the point at which one self ends and another begins. You explain this a little bit in the next paragraph, which makes it seem like you basically agree with me, although it seems very vaguely defined. Even if they’re like a baseball team, trading modules ocassionally, there’s a lot of vagueness that seems not to form many expectations given specifics, so experimentation would be very hard.
How many selves are there? Do they vary with time? Is there really any reason to suspect there’s only two? Is the peak end rule the best evidence for how they’re divided? What are the expectations based of of this? What experiments are being done?
I agree there isn’t a sensible utility function for individual humans. I think as far as that goes, they must be on the right track. I just wish there was more evidence, and more expectations we could derive from the model.
In the naive model of the self, where “you” make a decision, and then your body executes that decision, and it’s the same “you” every time. And it’s true that this is a very simple model, and if we didn’t have any other evidence, that’s what we would probably go with.
But that model that doesn’t explain the Peak-end rule very well—how is it that a certain experience is worse while experienced, but better when remembered? Similarly, it’s hard to explain hyperbolic discounting in terms of a continuous self. And how would self-talk be effective (and it is) if the self were indivisible—whom would you be trying to convince? Finally, how can we make a decision before becoming conscious of it?.
A better mode of the self would say that there’s not one thing that you can call your “self”—instead, your mind is basically bodged together from a bunch of random parts. So when we say that there are different experiencing vs remembering selves, what we’re really saying is that reasoning about your preferences as though you only had one set of preferences, doesn’t work. At the time, you really prefer to avoid the additional bit of small pain at the end. But when you remember the experience, you really do remember it as being better than you otherwise would. So what do “you” prefer? There’s no single sensible answer to that.
Anchoring bias. Forgetting. Contemplation of past events in a broader context. Rewriting memories. All these things happen.
That’s a good point. Although, I already think that the brain is modular, and it could be very possible for different parts of your brain to be experiencing different things, the biggest problem is the point at which one self ends and another begins. You explain this a little bit in the next paragraph, which makes it seem like you basically agree with me, although it seems very vaguely defined. Even if they’re like a baseball team, trading modules ocassionally, there’s a lot of vagueness that seems not to form many expectations given specifics, so experimentation would be very hard.
How many selves are there? Do they vary with time? Is there really any reason to suspect there’s only two? Is the peak end rule the best evidence for how they’re divided? What are the expectations based of of this? What experiments are being done?
I agree there isn’t a sensible utility function for individual humans. I think as far as that goes, they must be on the right track. I just wish there was more evidence, and more expectations we could derive from the model.