[extropy-chat] Systems design - Improving on nature's way of telling you

[Lee Corbin]

Jef writes

> We recently approached the topic of a system of motivation based
> exclusively on a gradient of pleasurable feedback, rather than the
> bipolar pain/pleasure system endowed by nature.  Earlier I
> scare-quoted the term "positive" because it seems to me that with a
> unipolar feedback signal, the set-point would still move to some level
> and we would still be left with relative positive and relative
> negative.  [Ultimately can't avoid the negative, often expressed as
> "suffering".]

It sounds as though you are making an observation about
life in general---I dare not even say intelligent life.
Indeed, naturally evolved beings do seem to have feedback
circuits that once prompted a friend of mine (who'd been
studying rats' hypothalamuses) to postulate a "repetition
center". His point was, isn't that it's true function, to
get the organism to repeat whatever it was doing?

So you're focusing on one of the animal regulatory
features? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis

> A crucial point here is that we are trying to avoid the debilitating
> side-effects that often accompany nature's way of telling us
> something's wrong.  What is most interesting to me about this is not
> the avoidance of unpleasantness, but the increased efficiency of the
> system this implies.

Yes, it's especially irritating as a system that considers itself
highly intelligent to keep on being reminded by my toe that stubbing
it was a stupid thing to do. (On the other hand, if I'm so smart,
just why did I stub it?)

> To respond to another of your points, it seems to me that "good" is
> what works.

You know, I think that Ghengis Khan once made the same point. His
technique prevented rebellion in conquered territories. As for me,
like I said, I avoid the term "good" in careful discussion. 
Scientifically, in my opinion, most people are really just speaking
about things they approve of when they use that word; some of the
time it honestly seems like they're just trying to get more mileage
out of a term. It sounds so much more universal to call something
"good" rather than to stick to facts, and say that "I approve" or
"we usually as humans approve".

> And what works over increasing scope is necessarily better.
> Whether or not some activity produces feelings of pleasure is
> not a direct or reliable indication of "good" but is often
> correlated for reasons both obvious and profound and of an
> evolutionary nature.

Yes; what pleases us usually has an evolutionary explanation.

> Now, I had suggested I would like to compare this kind of systems
> thinking with the workings of politics.  Some people claim that
> politics is fundamentally about conflict over issues of scarcity.
> My question is whether we could effectively reframe this conception
> of politics in such a way that we avoid the debilitating conflict
> and instead deal with the same existing challenges in terms of
> positive-sum social decision-making?

Sounds ambitious! But speaking quite generally, it seems to me that
in the biological realm, so long as we have competing genes, we'll
have competition for resources. Even, I think, after life on Earth
has passed out of the biological phase, Darwinian competition will
just move onto a higher substrate. I don't see how you can get 
away from it.

To me it's interesting that we are motivated to make lip sounds
with our vocal apparatus towards supporting memes of "cooperation",
"non-violence", and "sharing". Why are those the approved-of memes?
Why not banditry and killing, as in Yanomamo culture?

> Inherent in this concept is that people would be taking a broader
> view rather than narrowly focusing on their competing interests.

Why, exactly, won't those taking the broader view be at a competitive
disadvantage?  Ghengis Khan was just as hard on pacifists as he was
on everyone else.

> Is this a valid comparison?  Does it appear that efficiency would be
> improved?

Of course, nature is full of examples of increased efficiency stemming
from cooperation (e.g. the bees). But as a species, bees struggle for
existence like all the others. It may be that humans are a sort of
doomsday competitor in that they'll eventually do away with DNA altogether.

> Would this increasingly be seen as good as it is increasingly
> understood?

I'm sure it would. Most people, especially the religious, praise
diminution of competition, and are prone to call any cooperation
and reduction of strife "good". And who can object to increased
efficiency?

Lee