DRFseven

In older models, aversion behavior was stressed (behaving in a way to avoid the unpleasantness) in pain behaviors, but more recently, reward-seeking behaviors that pay off in dopamine have been recognized and documented. Dopaminergic neurons transmit dopamine in response to anticipation of realizing a goal. The strongest concentration of dopamine occurs when a perceived 50/50 chance of attaining the goal occurs (more dopamine production occurs at 50% than at 25% or 75%). Imagine thinking about how best to remove a splinter, maybe setting up a light and attempting to grasp the splinter with tweezers; that's going to be highly anticipatory, I think, of reaching the goal, especially if the outcome is unsure or precarious. I think the reward/avoidance circuits work together; we can approach one thing and avoid another at the same time. In a different kind of anticipatory dopaminergic response, I am also reminded of people in a highly agitated state watching a race, going, "Come on, come on, come on", unable to even keep quiet. The excitement reaches its peak just when the horse or car starts to look as if it has a shot at winning, and unless the race is very close, it ebbs to an extent by the time the finish line is crossed, though the feelings may still be euphoric.

DRFseven

When self-reproducing molecules evolved to become multicellular organisms, they had to develop endogenous, autoregulator mechanisms in order to survive. One of these mechanisms is the reward (approach) system and another is the aversion (avoid) system. Maybe you're avoiding something instead of approaching something. In any case, we're often not aware of the reward, except indirectly; we decide to do something, then we feel the matter is resolved. This is a positive (rewarding) experience, though we wouldn't really say we felt pleasure.

excreationist

DRFseven:
In older models, aversion behavior was stressed (behaving in a way to avoid the unpleasantness) in pain behaviors, but more recently, reward-seeking behaviors that pay off in dopamine have been recognized and documented.
You talk about dopamine as being a reward a lot. I was wondering... let's say a person felt like vomiting when they saw a fat hairy man in tight pink leotards. I think early in life kids learn to apply the "disgust" response to non-food things. So somehow they associate the disgust response (and feelings of avoidance) with certain situations and things. Does the feeling of avoidance involve any brain chemical? There are also other types - like mild physical discomfort, that we feel we should avoid. Are c-fibers or something involved? What if people are getting really frustrated and annoyed... I was wondering if you could explain how that works if possible.

I think the reward/avoidance circuits work together; we can approach one thing and avoid another at the same time.
Or even approach *many* things and avoid *many* things at the same time - to *attempt* to receive optimal emotional outcomes. e.g. there could be a choice of many cars and we choose one based on many things that we do and don't want. Or we could be working out what to do in an unfamiliar moral dilemma where many factors are involved.

excreationist

If you're being unselfish you would be empathizing with the feelings of others (I think). This initially would have started by you seeing happy faces and instinctly feeling some pleasure - or fearful or terrified faces and instinctually feeling some fear or terror (which we want to avoid in ourselves to some degree).
You could be trying to make others more happy (due to empathy) - or trying to make them avoid being upset (and due to your empathy, their imagined emotional state would affect yours). Sometimes (or most of the time) emotions aren't very strong at all. It depends if things are a matter of life or death or not. (Or rather, if we think it is "a matter of life or death" or not)

yguy

This is all baloney. Sometimes, to do the right thing, you have to make an enemy of someone whom you consider a friend, and who may abandon you forever. Where's the reward in that?

yguy

I think not.

If someone is sinking in quicksand, do you jump in with them?

That's all emotional manipulation. To the extent that anyone depends on you for happiness, you become their god.

excreationist

yguy:
"If you're being unselfish you would be empathizing with the feelings of others (I think)."
-------------------------------
I think not.
So when you do something unselfish for someone else, do you care about that other person? Do you feel a little bad if they are suffering or feel a bit better if things are going well for them?

"This initially would have started by you seeing happy faces and instinctly feeling some pleasure - or fearful or terrified faces and instinctually feeling some fear or terror (which we want to avoid in ourselves to some degree)."
--------------------
If someone is sinking in quicksand, do you jump in with them?
Would you agree that seeing nice happy (familiar) faces often cheers up babies and seeing fear and terror in others causes them to feel terrified?

"You could be trying to make others more happy (due to empathy) - or trying to make them avoid being upset (and due to your empathy, their imagined emotional state would affect yours)."
----------------
That's all emotional manipulation. To the extent that anyone depends on you for happiness, you become their god.
Well other factors are usually involved too... e.g. even if other people are happy, physical pain and hunger, etc, can make you sad. Or if other people are sad you could try and convince yourself that their emotions shouldn't drag you down.

Alonzo Fyfe

We do all things to fulfill desires (not to satisfy them). One of those desires is a desire for pleasure. A second, an aversion to pain (a desire not to be in pain). The dispute between us is whether there is a third, fourth, and so on. In which regard, I ask you if, given that there are at least two desires, can there not be a third?

The distinction between the fulfillment and the satisfaction of a desire is intentional.

An agent has a desire that P (for some proposition P, such as the proposition "I feel pleasure", or the proposition "I am not in pain."). A desire is fulfilled if P is true. A desire is satisfied if P is true and Agent also has a belief that P is true.

Sufficient evidence exists that the fulfillment of the desire is sufficient to motivate action, though the satisfaction of a desire provides an additional "bonus" that makes it somewhat more attractive to the agent than fulfillment.


To the best of my recollection, it was not I who invented the English language, and not I who determined the meaning that the words like "should", "appropriate", and "morals" would have in common discourse.

I am not inclined at this time to go back and count the number of times that I wrote that the merits of competing moral theories is to be weighed according to their ability to account for the way that people use terms such as these.

That the person who proposes a theory that fails in this account is inventing a new language, and talking about something other than what English speakers talk about (and understand each other to be talking about) when they use these types of terms.

Before you can say that you have an accurate description of what "people actually do to acquire the morals they have," do you not agree that it is of prior importance to determine what "morals" means before you set out describing it, so that you know that what you are describing is "morals" and not something else?

And is it not possible that the thing you are describing is something that you think is "morals", but is in fact something, perhaps related, but nonetheless different?

yguy

Obviously.

Caring has nothing to do with feeling anyone's pain. Awhile back I verbally slapped a lady around because she needed it. A few days later she thanked me, realizing that she had needed it. If I'd sympathized with her, I couldn't have done it.

Sure, but to cheer up a baby so as to get them to smile back and make you feel good is manipulative.

That's why you never do anyone any good by sympathizing with their fear.

Why in hell would I need convincing on that? How does my being dragged down with them help them?

excreationist

Perhaps you were thinking about her *long-term* well-being though.

So do you think that it is wrong to feel pleasure when you are cheering up others?

It makes horror movies more exciting though. Anyway, I was saying that humans instinctually sympathize with the fear of others, but they can later learn to ignore that instinct.

It probably doesn't. My point was that you can get *some* happiness from others and feel *some* fear about things going bad in their lives (motivating you to prevent it) - without those feelings completely ruling your life.