The Hedonistic Imperative: thoughts?

[javagamer]

Hi,

I've come across "The Hedonistic Imperative" (hedweb.com) and reading some of the stuff it certainly sounds interesting. It's a site about paradise engineering created by David Pearce, a British philosopher and abolitionist (believing in the abolition of suffering). I'm not too sure what to think of it at the moment, at first the idea sounds rather revolting, but the more I read and think about it the better it sounds. My mind's not totally made up yet, I'll probably be reading this for a while.

 

So, what do all of you think?

[dr.syntax]

Any belief in the abolition of suffering sounds good to me. As far as pleasure goes, enjoy it while you can. You`ll get old soon enough and whatever sexual pleasures you may find will not be anywhere near as good as when you are young. Sooner or later the sight of yourself is a big turnoff. Things like that. ...dr.syntax

[Mr Skeptic]

It won't work. Among other things, continuous pleasure will lead to insensitivity to pleasure, and also since pleasurable things are not always useful, such society will be weaker.

[dr.syntax]

Sadly,Mr.Skeptic brings up one good point:pleasurable things are not always useful. That is why all the successful war orientated cultures have dominated human existance. Each in thier time, the : Persions,Greeks,Romans,Germanians,English,Americans,etc.. Does anyone see a way out of this ? ...ds

[Mokele]

He's a raving moron. See here.

 

Yes, that's the same guy, and he really is stupid and deluded enough to have such a Disney view of nature.

[javagamer]

It won't work. Among other things, continuous pleasure will lead to insensitivity to pleasure, and also since pleasurable things are not always useful, such society will be weaker.

He seems to debunk that here citing the rat experiments where rats would constantly hit a switch which sent a shock to their brain, they never got bored of it. He also mentions that people who are depressed don't become insensitive to sadness. If you scroll down a bit he seems to tackle your other point about society becoming weaker.

He's a raving moron. See here.

 

Yes, that's the same guy, and he really is stupid and deluded enough to have such a Disney view of nature.

Can't really argue with that. Even if some of his ideas are pretty stupid though, what he proposes in The Hedonistic Imperative sounds reasonable and well researched to me. Though I certainly will be even more skeptical b/c of that article.

[Mr Skeptic]

He seems to debunk that here citing the rat experiments where rats would constantly hit a switch which sent a shock to their brain, they never got bored of it. He also mentions that people who are depressed don't become insensitive to sadness. If you scroll down a bit he seems to tackle your other point about society becoming weaker.

 

You do realize that the rats proceeded to press the lever as often as possible, ignoring a female in heat, their own pups, food, and water... they had to be unhooked to prevent them from starving themselves. I think this falls under the second category I mentioned, that things that are pleasurable are not always useful.

[javagamer]

You do realize that the rats proceeded to press the lever as often as possible, ignoring a female in heat, their own pups, food, and water... they had to be unhooked to prevent them from starving themselves. I think this falls under the second category I mentioned, that things that are pleasurable are not always useful.

What I believe he's trying to say is first, that pleasure itself isn't something people can get bored of/become used to, and he ackowledges that society becoming weaker is a problem that needs to be worked out, but it is possible to have different shades of pleasure and keep people motivated rather than being "blissed-out" as he puts it. It's possible I'm not understanding this properly though.

[iNow]

What I believe he's trying to say is first, that pleasure itself isn't something people can get bored of/become used to

FWIW, that's not really true anyway. We CAN get bored/become used to pleasure.

 

Pleasure results from neural cells firing (usually, the transmission of dopamine). The cells fire due to neurotransmitter activity. Sooner or later, with that continued firing, the cell will not fire as robustly, and it will also take more neurotransmitter to cause it to fire in the first place. The body builds up a tolerance, and is always seeking to achieve equilibrium. If a stimulus is causing a shift and more pleasure is coming in, the body will take steps to decrease the effects of that pleasure to re-establish equilibrium.

 

Our neurophysiology will adapt to the stimulus, and we will desensitize to the effects of that stimulus... and we will require much much more of the stimulus to achieve the same "high" as time passes... until, ultimately, the stimulus becomes ineffective.

 

A pretty accessible article on this topic is offered here: http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/dopamine.html

[javagamer]

I was under the impression that the rat experiment proved that that doesn't happen, but now I realize that it mostly likely didn't happen because the impulse was being sent by an electrode rather than the brain itself. Thanks for clarifying, so I guess that makes everything else implausible?

[iNow]

I apologize, as I'm a bit tired right now, and I'm not sure I follow your question, Javagamer. The electrode will result in the same desensitization. Any impulse will cause the body to seek to re-establish equilibrium, regardless of source... The source could be a drug... It could be an impulse from some external connection... It could be a natural response to a natural encounter. The body will still acclimate, and desensitization (increase of tolerance) will still occur.

[javagamer]

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought the desensitization occured by reducing the signal sent as opposed to reducing the sensitivity of the receptors. How come the rats never got tired of pressing the lever then? Did they just not have enough time to get desensitized to it?

[iNow]

How come the rats never got tired of pressing the lever then?

This is the part where you are mistaken. The desensitization begins almost immediately on the first lever press... The rats DO eventually get tired... they burn themselves out... they get less reward for the same lever press as time goes on... and ultimately they'll just stroke out or have a heart attack.

 

That's the piece to remember... They DON'T just keep pressing the lever indefinitely.

[javagamer]

Oh, well that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up