My comment on Richard Loosemore's proposal: we should not be confident in our ability to produce a stable motivational system. We observe that motivational systems are highly stable in animals (including humans). This is only because if an animal can manipulate its motivations in any way, then it is quickly removed by natural selection. Examples of manipulation might be to turn off pain or hunger or reproductive drive, or to stimulate its pleasure center. Humans can do this to some extent by using drugs, but this leads to self destructive behavior. In experiments where a mouse can stimulate its pleasure center via an electrode in its brain by pressing a lever, it will press the lever, foregoing food and water until it dies.
So we should not take the existence of stable motivational systems in nature as evidence that we can get it right. These systems are complex, have evolved over a long time, and even then don't always work in the face of technology or a rapidly changing environment.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So we should not take the existence of stable motivational systems in nature as evidence that we can get it right. These systems are complex, have evolved over a long time, and even then don't always work in the face of technology or a rapidly changing environment.
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
