<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.quotation, li.quotation, div.quotation
{mso-style-name:quotation;
mso-style-link:"quotation Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.quotationChar
{mso-style-name:"quotation Char";
mso-style-link:quotation;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Great. That is indeed the weakest point in my argument. It is the central argument of Sober and Wilson’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilson+and+sober+unto+others&qid=1631822440&sr=8-1https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon+com&form=IENTNB&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22amazon+com%22+sid%3A%22ce00286a-e903-ff2c-7dac-b49bd707399c%22&qs=MB&pq=ama&sc=8-3&cvid=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6">UNTO OTHERS</a>. I hate (and have done so repeatedly in print) confusing tautologies with statements of fact. So this is indeed my petard your are threatening to hoist me on. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First, let me stipulate that there are pain motives, and that pain is not the cessation of pleasure, nor pleasure the cessation of pain. I assume that that stipulation will not change your question, right? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hearing me try to wiggle out of the tautology problem will require a lot of patience of you. It will lead us into the dreadful confusion of “the hard problem” and “effing the ineffable”. Only for the strong of heart. I predict that you will say, at some point, “Nick, you are confusing what a feeling does with what a feeling is, and only I can know what my feelings are.” And I will say, “No. No. That is nonsense, Marcus, and even you know it. Anybody who has ever been married or even owned a dog knows that others can often gauge feelings better than the feeling-owner.” And you will reply, “No, no, Nicholas, you idiot. Yours will be a INFERENCE of my feelings; I know my own feelings directly, without inference.” And I will say, “No. No, Marcus. A thousand experiments in psychology will demonstrate that the feeling owner is often wrong about his own feelings.” And notice that I am at that point edging you up to the tautology line because one way to define feelings that ends the argument is to say that my feelings just are those experiences that I and I alone can know uniquely. Frank and Bruce Simon and I have been over this ground a gazillion times. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It’s possible we can avoid it, but I don’t think so. To test the proposition, ask yourself: if we stripped the notion of pleasure of all association with how a pleasure feels uniquely and momentarily to you, would you still raise the question you do. Would you still ask,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <span class=quotationChar>“Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure motive? This seems to be Nick’s claim. I expect the way this argument plays out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”. It is tautological.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So. Where are we an the socalled Hard Problem. I know you have probably said, but, to be honest, I don’t remember.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Daniels<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure motive? This seems to be Nick’s claim. I expect the way this argument plays out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”. It is tautological.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=quotation>some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Pfffft! All of us are and all of us aren’t.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others. That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory is evident in my writing which is both stable and evolving and usually does involve others. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I stipulate that you all may be being forced to serve in a cause you may not have signed up for. I guess this is the point where a glen would say, “Live with it!”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>n<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:06 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 9/16/21 10:35 AM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Just so’s you know, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And remember. Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another. You (we) are writing to 300 other people.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p>And according to Glen a few threads in the weft-weave back, some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap? I think that (his characterization or my characterization of his characterization or both) might be hyperbolic.<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>archives:<br>5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>