The way I’m (operationally) defining Preferences and words like happy/utility, Preferences are by definition what provides us what the most happiness/utility. Consider this thought experiment:
You start off as a blank slate and your memory is wiped. You then are experience some emotion, and you experience this emotion to a certain magnitude. Let’s call this “emotion-magnitude A”.
You then experience a second emotion-magnitude—emotion-magnitude B. Now that you have experienced two emotion-magnitudes, you could compare them and say which one was more preferable.
You then experience a third emotion magnitude, and insert it into the list [A, B] according to how preferable it was. And you do this for a fourth emotion-magnitude. And a fifth. Until eventually you do it for every possible emotion-magnitude (aka conscious state aka mind-state). You then end up with a list of every possible emotion-magnitude ranked according to desirability. [1...n]. These, are your Preferences.
So the way I’m defining Preferences, it refers to how desirable a certain mind-state is relative to other possible mind-states.
Now think about consequentialism and how stuff leads to certain consequences. Part of the consequences is the mind-state it produces for you.
Say that:
Action 1 → mind-state A
Aciton 2 → mind-state B
Now remember mind-states could be ranked according to how preferable they are, like in the thought experiment. Suppose that mind-state A is preferable to mind-state B.
From this, it seems to me that the following conclusion is unavoidable:
Action 1 is preferable to action 2.
In other words, Action 1 leads you to a state of mind that you prefer over the state of mind that Action 2 leads you to. I don’t see any ways around saying that.
To make it more concrete, let’s say that Action 1 is “going on vacation” and Action 2 is “giving to charity”.
IF going on vacation produces mind-state A.
IF giving to charity produces mind-state B.
IF mind-state A is preferable to mind-state B.
THEN going on vacation leads you to a mind-state that is preferable to the one that giving to charity leads you to.
I call this “preferable”, but in this case words and semantics might just be distracting. As long as you agree that “going on vacation leads you to a mind-state that is preferable to the one that giving to charity leads you to” when the first three bullet points are true, I don’t think we disagree about anything real, and that we might just be using different words for stuff.
Thoughts?
Don’t you wonder why a rational human being would choose terminal goals that aren’t?.
I do, but mainly from a standpoint in being interested in human psychology. I also wonder from a standpoint of hoping that terminal goals aren’t arbitrary and that they have an actual reason for choosing what they choose, but I’ve never found their reasoning to be convincing, and I’ve never found their informational social influence to be strong enough evidence for me to think that terminal goals aren’t arbitrary.
So based on biology and evolution, it seems like a fair assumption that humans naturally put ourselves first, all the time. But is it at all possible for humans to have evolved some small, pure, genuine concern for others (call it altruism/morality/love) that coexists with our innate selfishness? Like one human was born with an “altruism mutation” and other humans realized he was nice to have around, so he survived, and the gene is still working its way through society, shifting our preference ratios? It’s a pleasant thought, anyway.
:))) [big smile] (Because I hope what I’m about to tell you might address a lot of your concerns and make you really happy.)
I’m pleased to tell you that we all have “that altruism mutation”. Because of the way evolution works, we evolve to maximize the spread of our genes.
So imagine that there’s two Mom’s. They each have 5 kids, and they each enter an unfortunate situation where they have to choose between themselves an their kids.
Mom 1 is selfish and chooses to save herself. Her kids then die. She goes on to not have any more kids. Therefore, her genes don’t get spread at all.
Mom 2 is unselfish and chooses to save her kids. She dies, but her genes live on through her kids.
The outcome of this situation is that there are 0 organisms with selfish genes, and 5 with unselfish genes.
And so humans (and all other animals, from what I know) have evolved a very strong instinct to protect their kin. But as we know, preference ratios diminish rapidly from there. we might care about our friends and extended family, and a little less about our extended social group, and not so much about the rest of people (which is why we go out to eat instead of paying for meals for 100s of starving kids).
As far as evolution goes, this also makes sense. A mom that acts altruistically towards her social circle would gain respect, and the tribes respect may lead to them protecting that mom’s children, thus increasing the chances they survive and produces offspring themselves. Of course, that altruistic act by the mom may decrease her chances of surviving to produce more offspring and to take her of her current offspring, but it’s a trade-off.* On the other hand, acting altruistically towards a random tribe across the world is unlikely to improve her children’s chances of surviving and producing offspring, so the mom’s that did this have historically been less successful at spreading genes than the mom’s that didn’t.
*Note: using mathematical models to simulate and test these trade-offs is the hard part of studying evolution. The basic ideas are actually quite simple.
But honestly, I literally didn’t even know what evolution was until several weeks ago though
I’m really sorry to hear that. I hope my being sorry isn’t offensive in any way.
so I don’t really belong bringing up any science at all yet;
Not so! Science is all about using what you do know to make hypothesis about the world and to look for observable evidence to test them. And that seems to be exactly what you were doing :)
Your hypotheses and thought experiments are really impressive. I’m beginning to suspect that you do indeed have training and are denying this in order to make a status play. [joking]
Like one human was born with an “altruism mutation” and other humans realized he was nice to have around, so he survived, and the gene is still working its way through society, shifting our preference ratios?
I’d just like to offer a correction here for your knowledge. Mutations spread almost entirely because they a) increase the chances that you produce offspring or b) increase the chances that the offspring survive (and presumably produce offspring themselves).
You seem to be saying that the mutation would spread because the organism remains alive. Think about it—if an organism has a mutation that increases the chances that it remain alive but that doesn’t increase the chances of having viable offspring, then that mutation would only remain in the gene pool until he died. And so of all the bajillions of our ancestors, only the ones still alive are candidates for the type of evolution you describe (mutations that only increase your chance of survival).
Note: I’ve since realized that you may know this already, but figured I’d keep it anyway.
The way I’m (operationally) defining Preferences and words like happy/utility, Preferences are by definition what provides us what the most happiness/utility. Consider this thought experiment:
So the way I’m defining Preferences, it refers to how desirable a certain mind-state is relative to other possible mind-states.
Now think about consequentialism and how stuff leads to certain consequences. Part of the consequences is the mind-state it produces for you.
Say that:
Action 1 → mind-state A
Aciton 2 → mind-state B
Now remember mind-states could be ranked according to how preferable they are, like in the thought experiment. Suppose that mind-state A is preferable to mind-state B.
From this, it seems to me that the following conclusion is unavoidable:
In other words, Action 1 leads you to a state of mind that you prefer over the state of mind that Action 2 leads you to. I don’t see any ways around saying that.
To make it more concrete, let’s say that Action 1 is “going on vacation” and Action 2 is “giving to charity”.
IF going on vacation produces mind-state A.
IF giving to charity produces mind-state B.
IF mind-state A is preferable to mind-state B.
THEN going on vacation leads you to a mind-state that is preferable to the one that giving to charity leads you to.
I call this “preferable”, but in this case words and semantics might just be distracting. As long as you agree that “going on vacation leads you to a mind-state that is preferable to the one that giving to charity leads you to” when the first three bullet points are true, I don’t think we disagree about anything real, and that we might just be using different words for stuff.
Thoughts?
I do, but mainly from a standpoint in being interested in human psychology. I also wonder from a standpoint of hoping that terminal goals aren’t arbitrary and that they have an actual reason for choosing what they choose, but I’ve never found their reasoning to be convincing, and I’ve never found their informational social influence to be strong enough evidence for me to think that terminal goals aren’t arbitrary.
:))) [big smile] (Because I hope what I’m about to tell you might address a lot of your concerns and make you really happy.)
I’m pleased to tell you that we all have “that altruism mutation”. Because of the way evolution works, we evolve to maximize the spread of our genes.
So imagine that there’s two Mom’s. They each have 5 kids, and they each enter an unfortunate situation where they have to choose between themselves an their kids.
Mom 1 is selfish and chooses to save herself. Her kids then die. She goes on to not have any more kids. Therefore, her genes don’t get spread at all.
Mom 2 is unselfish and chooses to save her kids. She dies, but her genes live on through her kids.
The outcome of this situation is that there are 0 organisms with selfish genes, and 5 with unselfish genes.
And so humans (and all other animals, from what I know) have evolved a very strong instinct to protect their kin. But as we know, preference ratios diminish rapidly from there. we might care about our friends and extended family, and a little less about our extended social group, and not so much about the rest of people (which is why we go out to eat instead of paying for meals for 100s of starving kids).
As far as evolution goes, this also makes sense. A mom that acts altruistically towards her social circle would gain respect, and the tribes respect may lead to them protecting that mom’s children, thus increasing the chances they survive and produces offspring themselves. Of course, that altruistic act by the mom may decrease her chances of surviving to produce more offspring and to take her of her current offspring, but it’s a trade-off.* On the other hand, acting altruistically towards a random tribe across the world is unlikely to improve her children’s chances of surviving and producing offspring, so the mom’s that did this have historically been less successful at spreading genes than the mom’s that didn’t.
*Note: using mathematical models to simulate and test these trade-offs is the hard part of studying evolution. The basic ideas are actually quite simple.
I’m really sorry to hear that. I hope my being sorry isn’t offensive in any way.
Not so! Science is all about using what you do know to make hypothesis about the world and to look for observable evidence to test them. And that seems to be exactly what you were doing :)
Your hypotheses and thought experiments are really impressive. I’m beginning to suspect that you do indeed have training and are denying this in order to make a status play. [joking]
I’d just like to offer a correction here for your knowledge. Mutations spread almost entirely because they a) increase the chances that you produce offspring or b) increase the chances that the offspring survive (and presumably produce offspring themselves).
You seem to be saying that the mutation would spread because the organism remains alive. Think about it—if an organism has a mutation that increases the chances that it remain alive but that doesn’t increase the chances of having viable offspring, then that mutation would only remain in the gene pool until he died. And so of all the bajillions of our ancestors, only the ones still alive are candidates for the type of evolution you describe (mutations that only increase your chance of survival).
Note: I’ve since realized that you may know this already, but figured I’d keep it anyway.
I got a “comment too long error” haha