“Why do you do this? In order to achieve some goal?” my best answer to this is “because I want to”, but I mostly think it’s the wrong question. you are assuming that people do things to achieve goals, and I’m saying that achieving goals is not the only reason to do things, that “what goal it is achieving” is the wring level of meta to ask.
why do you think that the right sort of answers are in the forms of goals and not in the form of impulses?
there is a pattern when i want something, i experience urge or desire or want to do something or have something. then i act on that impulse/urge/desire. then i satisfied it, and i feel sated of happy or fulfilled. this is good!
the way i model such things, this is important part of what my non-existent Utility Function is. that is the first level. sometimes, acting on a urge does not fulfill it, or even anti-fulfill it. sometimes i want things that are actually to abstract of complicated to be described as urges i can act upon without planning in thinking. but this is the exception, not the rule.
as i see it, something like CEV work like that—do what i want, because i want that. encounter problems, or things that need planning. plan to solve the problems or plan to achieve goals.
but all the part of goals and planing is kicking on only as reaction to problems or wanting something in the form of result and not urge. having urge → acting on urge → being satisfied is the basic loop, the default that does not need explanation or justification.
while it’s look to me that you see having goal and act to achieve it as the basic loop that does not need explanation or justification.
so to try again answer to the question: “Why do you do this?” because this is my Utility function. the urges are, to first approximation, my utility function. they are obviously not a function, but the way i will have some utility function, if humankind survive, if i will get to live long enough, is by weaving together the different things that i want. and part of it is goal-shaped, part of it is in the form of “i want the world be in that state”. but a lot of it is in the form “i want to do x”.
there is important difference, in my ontology, between wants in the form “i want the world be in x state”, as in—i want the dished to be washed, i want the food be prepare, i want my home be clean, and “i want do x”. i want to play the video game, to read the post, to read the book, to eat the tasty food, to listen to music, to go to a walk.
you can translate that to goal-framing by saying that my goal is the experience of walking or the pleasant sensation, but i think that translation lose something important, and that it’s the wrong framing.
Can you please elaborate on what important thing you think is lost?
imagine i try to explain some proof in geometry to my hypothetical friend that think in feeling. I’m trying to explain her congruent triangles. and she replay to me—“so if there are three things that same you feel like it’s the same triangle, but you need to have at least one side, because angles doesn’t feel real enough to you?”
and, like, this is not wrong description, per se. she will be able to recognize congruent triangles. but I still notice that it doesn’t look like she understand the concept of proof at all!
I can describe the different predictions that I can make when i say something is a urge or a goal—when it’s urge i can’t fail to get it, i do the thing i want to do, and feel satisfied. while in goal i want to change the world state, and i can try to achieve the goal, and fail, and be unsatisfied. but this only can explain why i think there are two clusters here, and it’s not what I’m trying to do.
but what I’m actually trying to do is to connect personal experience with words. didn’t you ever feel the impulse to do something, and then did that, and then turned out the result is not what you wanted and was disappointed? didn’t you ever have the impulse to do something, and did that, and was satisfied, despite the result wasn’t what you ostensibly want?
those are the words that i use to describe this two experiences of mine.
I can describe the different predictions that I can make when i say something is a urge or a goal—when it’s urge i can’t fail to get it, i do the thing i want to do, and feel satisfied.
This is not my experience. When I act on an urge, I do not necessarily feel satisfied. There is generally some pleasure associated with the act, but it can be extremely fleeting and short-lived.
This fleeting pleasure is better than nothing, and I will often act on an urge in order to get this feeling. But after the feeling has passed, I do not feel satisfied.
I only feel satisfied after I have accomplished something that feels valuable—a goal.
Interesting! I wonder to what extend we are different physiologically, to what extend we use different words to describe same experiences, and to what extend our opinions on things shapes our experiences. alas, we don’t have a way to communicate our feelings directly, yet. and I honestly have no idea how to check.
Well, I am somewhat anhedoniac by nature. There are a lot of positive experiences which many (most?) people report and which I do not recognize. For example, the sunset does nothing for me. Sex has its moments but is overall disappointing and a far cry from its reputation. Live concerts are described by some as borderline religious experiences; for me they are cool and fun but nothing really exceptional.
Fortunately, my Buddhist-inspired meditation practice is helping me discover more joy in life.
“Why do you do this? In order to achieve some goal?”
my best answer to this is “because I want to”, but I mostly think it’s the wrong question. you are assuming that people do things to achieve goals, and I’m saying that achieving goals is not the only reason to do things, that “what goal it is achieving” is the wring level of meta to ask.
why do you think that the right sort of answers are in the forms of goals and not in the form of impulses?
there is a pattern when i want something, i experience urge or desire or want to do something or have something. then i act on that impulse/urge/desire. then i satisfied it, and i feel sated of happy or fulfilled. this is good!
the way i model such things, this is important part of what my non-existent Utility Function is. that is the first level. sometimes, acting on a urge does not fulfill it, or even anti-fulfill it. sometimes i want things that are actually to abstract of complicated to be described as urges i can act upon without planning in thinking. but this is the exception, not the rule.
as i see it, something like CEV work like that—do what i want, because i want that. encounter problems, or things that need planning. plan to solve the problems or plan to achieve goals.
but all the part of goals and planing is kicking on only as reaction to problems or wanting something in the form of result and not urge. having urge → acting on urge → being satisfied is the basic loop, the default that does not need explanation or justification.
while it’s look to me that you see having goal and act to achieve it as the basic loop that does not need explanation or justification.
so to try again answer to the question: “Why do you do this?”
because this is my Utility function. the urges are, to first approximation, my utility function. they are obviously not a function, but the way i will have some utility function, if humankind survive, if i will get to live long enough, is by weaving together the different things that i want. and part of it is goal-shaped, part of it is in the form of “i want the world be in that state”. but a lot of it is in the form “i want to do x”.
there is important difference, in my ontology, between wants in the form “i want the world be in x state”, as in—i want the dished to be washed, i want the food be prepare, i want my home be clean, and “i want do x”. i want to play the video game, to read the post, to read the book, to eat the tasty food, to listen to music, to go to a walk.
you can translate that to goal-framing by saying that my goal is the experience of walking or the pleasant sensation, but i think that translation lose something important, and that it’s the wrong framing.
What is CEV?
That is how I would explain it.
Can you please elaborate on what important thing you think is lost?
Coherent Extrapolated Volition
this look to me like failure in Noticing Frame Differences
imagine i try to explain some proof in geometry to my hypothetical friend that think in feeling. I’m trying to explain her congruent triangles. and she replay to me—“so if there are three things that same you feel like it’s the same triangle, but you need to have at least one side, because angles doesn’t feel real enough to you?”
and, like, this is not wrong description, per se. she will be able to recognize congruent triangles. but I still notice that it doesn’t look like she understand the concept of proof at all!
I can describe the different predictions that I can make when i say something is a urge or a goal—when it’s urge i can’t fail to get it, i do the thing i want to do, and feel satisfied. while in goal i want to change the world state, and i can try to achieve the goal, and fail, and be unsatisfied. but this only can explain why i think there are two clusters here, and it’s not what I’m trying to do.
but what I’m actually trying to do is to connect personal experience with words. didn’t you ever feel the impulse to do something, and then did that, and then turned out the result is not what you wanted and was disappointed? didn’t you ever have the impulse to do something, and did that, and was satisfied, despite the result wasn’t what you ostensibly want?
those are the words that i use to describe this two experiences of mine.
This is not my experience. When I act on an urge, I do not necessarily feel satisfied. There is generally some pleasure associated with the act, but it can be extremely fleeting and short-lived.
This fleeting pleasure is better than nothing, and I will often act on an urge in order to get this feeling. But after the feeling has passed, I do not feel satisfied.
I only feel satisfied after I have accomplished something that feels valuable—a goal.
Interesting! I wonder to what extend we are different physiologically, to what extend we use different words to describe same experiences, and to what extend our opinions on things shapes our experiences. alas, we don’t have a way to communicate our feelings directly, yet. and I honestly have no idea how to check.
Well, I am somewhat anhedoniac by nature. There are a lot of positive experiences which many (most?) people report and which I do not recognize. For example, the sunset does nothing for me. Sex has its moments but is overall disappointing and a far cry from its reputation. Live concerts are described by some as borderline religious experiences; for me they are cool and fun but nothing really exceptional.
Fortunately, my Buddhist-inspired meditation practice is helping me discover more joy in life.