Nirvana part deux.

[RandFan]

Ok, first off, the word I'm searching for is not necessarily Nirvana. I was disabused of that the last time around. Though, I think Nirvana could fit. However, let's go with some kind of hedonic state. Permanent bliss. Or permanent well being. I don't really care. The point is that humans have evolved to lack the ability to be in a long term state of Ecstasy or even well being. Now, the last time I suggested that proposition, it was, IIRC, roundly dismissed. And I have to admit I was rather surprised by that but to be fair I'm not sure how well I made my case.

I think the best evidence in support of the proposition is that humans don't go on a two week honeymoon and copulate every waking moment. No, I don't care what you say it doesn't happen. That's just bravado.

" 'After nine hours of sex, we took a shower and did it again'...NO YOU DIDN'T!!" --Paul Reiser.

In any event, the second proposition that I posit is that there is an evolutionary advantage for humans not to be able to be in a long term or permanent state of... oh I don't care, happiness, Nirvana, bliss, hedonic, ecstacy... you pick the term. I'm really not interested in semantic arguments. There are built in limits to what we consider as positive states of mind. There are states of mind we seek out and states of mind we avoid. It is those states of mind that are conducive to quality of life that I'm talking about.

So, why do I bring this up now?

I think I found support for my position in the Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark lecture series (http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark).

George Koob Human Flourishing/Eudaimonics (http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/george-koob)

Koob argues that there is negative, anti-hedonic, effect following any hedonic event.

Please see the video.

[Angus McPresley]

I've read science fiction, such as Larry Niven's "Ringworld" series, where people have the ability to plug their brains directly into a wall socket, and feed a current directly into the pleasure center of their brain. I mean, of course there's no evolutionary reason as to why this wiring should occur naturally -- a being so wired would have no interest in sex, and hence would not procreate. Many drugs would have similar effects, I would imagine, though maybe wouldn't be as permanent.

Confession: I didn't watch the video, or see the original thread. But are you arguing that this nirvana of permanent bliss would be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Dancing David]

Ok, first off, the word I'm searching for is not necessarily Nirvana. I was disabused of that the last time around. Though, I think Nirvana could fit.

Not if you mean buddhist nirvana. There is a common usage of it however.

However, let's go with some kind of hedonic state. Permanent bliss. Or permanent well being. I don't really care. The point is that humans have evolved to lack the ability to be in a long term state of Ecstasy or even well being.

Sorry I have to disagree with that, there are other reasons. So while that is an interesting statement in a philosophical sense. it has very little meaning in biology.
If you look at states that are commonly associated with 'happy' or 'ecstatic' represent an area of the bell curve that is different from the mean. In that usual stress levels are lower, levels of excitation or arousal are higher, or the cognitive framing says "I am happy". So if we look at homeostasis in a biological system, you are going to return to a base state due to just the process.

Now to say that biological systems are evolved for some sort of homeostasis would be something I could agree to.



Now, the last time I suggested that proposition, it was, IIRC, roundly dismissed. And I have to admit I was rather surprised by that but to be fair I'm not sure how well I made my case.

I think the best evidence in support of the proposition is that humans don't go on a two week honeymoon and copulate every waking moment. No, I don't care what you say it doesn't happen. That's just bravado.

" 'After nine hours of sex, we took a shower and did it again'...NO YOU DIDN'T!!" --Paul Reiser.

Again there can be simpler reasons that have been selected for in evolution.

If a system is in state 'x' all the time then it looses the ability to make judgments about that state.

mania is a good example of the consequences of over arousal. So extremes can be selected against.



In any event, the second proposition that I posit is that there is an evolutionary advantage for humans not to be able to be in a long term or permanent state of... oh I don't care, happiness, Nirvana, bliss, hedonic, ecstacy... you pick the term. I'm really not interested in semantic arguments. There are built in limits to what we consider as positive states of mind. There are states of mind we seek out and states of mind we avoid. It is those states of mind that are conducive to quality of life that I'm talking about.

I will sound argumentative, but I am not trying to be. Quality of life, i.e. contentment, would be poorly based if it were solely upon hedonistic peak experiences. there are other bases to the measure that are more sound. I believe very firmly, people can arrange their life to be content. Some people less so, but most people can.

"Feeling Good" by Burns is a great place to start. It is a great model of cognitive behavioral therapy. then is you add some basic life skills and 'meaning' you have contentment a lot of the time.

But any system will seek homeostasis in evolutionary terms.

So, why do I bring this up now?

I think I found support for my position in the Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark lecture series (http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark).

George Koob Human Flourishing/Eudaimonics (http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/george-koob)

Koob argues that there is negative, anti-hedonic, effect following any hedonic event.

Please see the video.

Well, not necessarily, there can be a refractory phase and a return to baseline.

[quarky]

there are rumors of people obtaining permanent bliss states.

[RandFan]

Confession: I didn't watch the video, or see the original thread. But are you arguing that this nirvana of permanent bliss would be a good thing or a bad thing?Thank you for your response.

That's a great question. I have no idea. To quote the poet, "I have only come here seeking knowledge". I think most of us would like to improve our quality of life. Happiness and other hedonic states are fleeting things. To what extent can we expand periods of hedonic states without significant detrimental effects?

I guess my point is that we have evolved technology and our understanding of science to a point of being on the cusp of radically changing our very nature. To what extent can we overcome our genetic predisposition to anti-hedonic states and would that ultimately be a good thing?

[RandFan]

Not if you mean buddhist nirvana. There is a common usage of it however.

Sorry I have to disagree with that, there are other reasons. So while that is an interesting statement in a philosophical sense. it has very little meaning in biology.
If you look at states that are commonly associated with 'happy' or 'ecstatic' represent an area of the bell curve that is different from the mean. In that usual stress levels are lower, levels of excitation or arousal are higher, or the cognitive framing says "I am happy". So if we look at homeostasis in a biological system, you are going to return to a base state due to just the process.

Now to say that biological systems are evolved for some sort of homeostasis would be something I could agree to.

Again there can be simpler reasons that have been selected for in evolution.

If a system is in state 'x' all the time then it looses the ability to make judgments about that state.

mania is a good example of the consequences of over arousal. So extremes can be selected against.

I will sound argumentative, but I am not trying to be. Quality of life, i.e. contentment, would be poorly based if it were solely upon hedonistic peak experiences. there are other bases to the measure that are more sound. I believe very firmly, people can arrange their life to be content. Some people less so, but most people can.

"Feeling Good" by Burns is a great place to start. It is a great model of cognitive behavioral therapy. then is you add some basic life skills and 'meaning' you have contentment a lot of the time.

But any system will seek homeostasis in evolutionary terms.


Well, not necessarily, there can be a refractory phase and a return to baseline.Thanks. Before I respond, did you watch the video?

[I Ratant]

Satisfaction can be achieved in many endeavors.
I've yet to encounter any that I would wish to be -the- source/end.
There's many where the feeling of "I wish this would never end" occurs, but that is a transient feeling, something comes along to point at other things to do.
I think at achieving -the- nirvana would be quite similar to a total disconnect from the senses, with no way out or back, and totally self-centered.
And ultimately pointless.
No different than death.

[RandFan]

Satisfaction can be achieved in many endeavors.
I've yet to encounter any that I would wish to be -the- source/end.
There's many where the feeling of "I wish this would never end" occurs, but that is a transient feeling, something comes along to point at other things to do.
I think at achieving -the- nirvana would be quite similar to a total disconnect from the senses, with no way out or back, and totally self-centered.
And ultimately pointless.
No different than death.Thanks. Shadows of Vanilla Sky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/)? It's an interesting idea. I don't know if I agree with you intellectually but I certainly do intuitively. I've said many times I think the religious concept of heaven isn't any different than hell for what I suspect is the same line of thought as you are telling us. I think there is something in us that believes that our current nature is best for us and our sentiment might just be a bit post hoc.

That aside for the moment, what about extended periods of well being? What if you could experience bliss for a week and well being for a month and then go back to your current state with no negative or detrimental effects?

[I Ratant]

Bliss comes in moments.
On the 10-speed, a flat road, no traffic, just moving along at a goodly pace, tires singing on the pavement, it's a good feeling.
I know it can't last. The road ends up ahead. :) But it's quite blissful and satisfying while it lasts.
Holding onto Sweet Thang, her breasts nicely pushed against my chest, tongues working on tongues, just enjoying the total surrender of each other's bodies to each other, also can't last, but it sure is fun while it does.
Watching an ICBM test in the early evening, with the missile exhaust glowing as the smoke trail pushes it up into the sky to the west.. surely one of the more beautiful and impressive works of man, and the way the missile trail smears out over the whole sky as the evening progresses.
It's beyond art.
Just something to appreciate as part of life.
There's just too many fine things in living to say any one of them is THE thing to strive mightily towards.
Different strokes, etc, but so many people can't stop and lie naked in the dandelions when that's what's really needed.
They just keep working themselves in a lather and getting all upset when things turn out differently.
I see all of life as an adventure. If this didn't go 'right', was what occurred instead as good as or better?
Sometimes it is.

[RandFan]

Bliss comes in moments.
On the 10-speed, a flat road, no traffic, just moving along at a goodly pace, tires singing on the pavement, it's a good feeling.
I know it can't last. The road ends up ahead.But bliss is a state of mind and mind states do not require the kind of limited stimulus you speak of. Why can't we take a two week vacation, take a drug or plug our minds into some computer and enjoy two weeks of a prolonged orgasm? I think there is an evolution based answer for that but given that hedonic states are chemical can we futz with the mechanics or are we doomed to fleeting moments of pleasure? Why should we presume that there is nothing more possible than what is already there? Is that really a scientific view of our brain chemistry and psychology?

[Moochie]

There's an interesting discussion along these lines at http://www.bltc.com/ -- which looks at it from the drugs angle.


M.

[RandFan]

There's an interesting discussion along these lines at http://www.bltc.com/ -- which looks at it from the drugs angle.


M.:)

Thank you.

[The Atheist]

Ok, first off, the word I'm searching for is not necessarily Nirvana. I was disabused of that the last time around.

Didn't work for Kurt Cobain either.

The point is that humans have evolved to lack the ability to be in a long term state of Ecstasy or even well being. Now, the last time I suggested that proposition, it was, IIRC, roundly dismissed. And I have to admit I was rather surprised by that but to be fair I'm not sure how well I made my case.

Wish I'd seen that one, because I think that every single human being who's ever lived is evidence that your proposition is 100% correct.

The way I see it is pretty simple; first off, I'll rate a few cases of ecstasy (for me):

Sex
Catching gamefish
Huge financial win
Blue fillet steak
Winning championship game
Watching my kid doing something amazing

Now, of those things, only sex and fillet steak are available on a daily basis, so I should probably be spending all of my time concentrating on those two things. Over the years, I've spent several of them chasing those hedonistic dreams and the trouble is, that even those pleasures become mundane if done all the time. Yes, amazing though it may seem, even sex with unlimited multiple partners loses its shine eventually - and even Mick Jagger these days is more likely to be watching cricket than boffing 18-year olds.

It's a symptom of our selfish genes that each time we achieve something, we seek to have more/better of it. If I catch that 1000 lb mako, it's a certainty that I'll be looking for a bigger one as soon as I've extracted his teeth. If I have sex with a woman 20 times a week for three months, I'll sure as hell be looking for a different chick at the end of it.

I'd venture a guess that anyone disagreeing with the proposition, pointing to people who are genuinely in rapture every waking moment has probably found Jesus and is living in ecstasy via self-delusion.

How can you grade the good time sif you don't have any bad ones?

I think the best evidence in support of the proposition is that humans don't go on a two week honeymoon and copulate every waking moment. No, I don't care what you say it doesn't happen. That's just bravado.

With serious effort, you can get damn close.

In any event, the second proposition that I posit is that there is an evolutionary advantage for humans not to be able to be in a long term or permanent state of... oh I don't care, happiness, Nirvana, bliss, hedonic, ecstacy... you pick the term.

Has to be.

Isn't competition the first bit of evolutionary strategy? Because conditions allow competing organisms to gain an advantage over others and flourish, no competition means no evolution.

[RandFan]

Didn't work for Kurt Cobain either.:)

It's a symptom of our selfish genes that each time we achieve something, we seek to have more/better of it. If I catch that 1000 lb mako, it's a certainty that I'll be looking for a bigger one as soon as I've extracted his teeth. If I have sex with a woman 20 times a week for three months, I'll sure as hell be looking for a different chick at the end of it.

I'd venture a guess that anyone disagreeing with the proposition, pointing to people who are genuinely in rapture every waking moment has probably found Jesus and is living in ecstasy via self-delusion.

How can you grade the good time sif you don't have any bad ones?

Isn't competition the first bit of evolutionary strategy? Because conditions allow competing organisms to gain an advantage over others and flourish, no competition means no evolution.Good post. I'll come back to it later. Where the hell have you been? I've not seen you 'round.

[quarky]

budism seeks to circumvent this problem by honing in on a grounded state of regular-ness.
that's the big trick, if it works. Bliss through not seeking it. No big deal.

[The Atheist]

:)

Good post. I'll come back to it later. Where the hell have you been? I've not seen you 'round.

Cheers, mate.

I'd got bored by it all and gave it a break. Good to see you still hangin' in there.