For a citation, go open any neuroscience textbook. We are made of associative memories, but we are not one giant associative look-up table. These are vastly different architectures, and the proof is simply that neurons are locally acting. For humans to be a giant lookup table would require neural networking that we objectively do not have.
For the claim about being singular goal systems, I could point to many things but maybe Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (hierarchy of separate, factorable goals!) is sufficient:
It’s interesting because Maslow’s Hierarchy actually seems to point to the exact opposite idea to me. It seems to point to the idea that everything we do, even eating food, is in service of eventual self-actualization.
This is of course ignoring the fact that Maslow seems to basically be false experimentally.
Prioritization of goals is not the same as goal unification.
It can be if the basic structure is “I need to get my basic needs taken care of so that I can work on my ultimate goal”.
I think Kaj has a good link on experimental proof for Maslow’s Hierarchy.
I also think that it wouldn’t be a stretch to call Self-determination theory a “single goal” framework, that goal being “self-determination”, which is a single goal made up of 3 seperate subgoals, which crucially, must be obtained together to create meaning (if they could be obtained seperately to create meaning, and people were OK with that, than I don’t think it would be fair to categorize it as a single goal theory.
It can be if the basic structure is “I need to get my basic needs taken care of so that I can work on my ultimate goal”.
That’s a fully generic response though. Any combination of goals/drives could have a (possibly non-linear) mapping which turns them into a single unified goal in that sense, or vice versa.
Let me put it more simply: can achieving “self-determination” alleviate your need to eat, sleep, and relieve yourself? If not, then there are some basic biological needs (maintenance of which is a goal) that have to be met separately from any “ultimate” goal of self-determination. That’s the sense in which I considered it obvious we don’t have singular goal systems.
Any combination of goals/drives could have a (possibly non-linear) mapping which turns them into a single unified goal in that sense, or vice versa. .
Yeah, I think that if the brain in fact is mapped that way it would be meaningful to say you have a single goal.
Let me put it more simply: can achieving “self-determination” alleviate your need to eat, sleep, and relieve yourself? If not, then there are some basic biological needs (maintenance of which is a goal) that have to be met separately
Maybe, it depends on how the brain is mapped. I know of at least a few psychology theories which would say things like avoiding pain and getting food are in the service of higher psychological needs. If you came to believe for instance that eating wouldn’t actually lead to those higher goals, you would stop.
I think this is pretty unlikely. But again, I’m not sure.
There is a further problem with Maslow’s work. Margie Lachman, a psychologist who works in the same office as Maslow at his old university, Brandeis in Massachusetts, admits that her predecessor offered no empirical evidence for his theory. “He wanted to have the grand theory, the grand ideas—and he wanted someone else to put it to the hardcore scientific test,” she says. “It never quite materialised.”
However, after Maslow’s death in 1970, researchers did undertake a more detailed investigation, with attitude-based surveys and field studies testing out the Hierarchy of Needs.
”When you analyse them, the five needs just don’t drop out,” says Hodgkinson. “The actual structure of motivation doesn’t fit the theory. And that led to a lot of discussion and debate, and new theories evolved as a consequence.”
In 1972, Clayton Alderfer whittled Maslow’s five groups of needs down to three, labelled Existence, Relatedness and Growth. Although elements of a hierarchy remain, “ERG theory” held that human beings need to be satisfied in all three areas—if that’s not possible then their energies are redoubled in a lower category. So for example, if it is impossible to get a promotion, an employee might talk more to colleagues and get more out of the social side of work.
More sophisticated theories followed. Maslow’s triangle was chopped up, flipped on its head and pulled apart into flow diagrams.
Of course, this doesn’t really contradict your point of there being separable, factorable goals. AFAIK, the current mainstream model of human motivation and basic needs is self-determination theory, which explicitly holds that there exist three separate basic needs:
Autonomy: people have a need to feel that they are the masters of their own destiny and that they have at least some control over their lives; most importantly, people have a need to feel that they are in control of their own behavior.
Competence: another need concerns our achievements, knowledge, and skills; people have a need to build their competence and develop mastery over tasks that are important to them.
Relatedness (also called Connection): people need to have a sense of belonging and connectedness with others; each of us needs other people to some degree
Although for the purposes of this discussion it seems that Maslow’s specific factorization of goals is questionable, but not the general idea of a hierarchy of needs. Does that sound reasonable?
For a citation, go open any neuroscience textbook. We are made of associative memories, but we are not one giant associative look-up table. These are vastly different architectures, and the proof is simply that neurons are locally acting. For humans to be a giant lookup table would require neural networking that we objectively do not have.
For the claim about being singular goal systems, I could point to many things but maybe Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (hierarchy of separate, factorable goals!) is sufficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs
It’s interesting because Maslow’s Hierarchy actually seems to point to the exact opposite idea to me. It seems to point to the idea that everything we do, even eating food, is in service of eventual self-actualization.
This is of course ignoring the fact that Maslow seems to basically be false experimentally.
Prioritization of goals is not the same as goal unification.
Citation?
It can be if the basic structure is “I need to get my basic needs taken care of so that I can work on my ultimate goal”.
I think Kaj has a good link on experimental proof for Maslow’s Hierarchy.
I also think that it wouldn’t be a stretch to call Self-determination theory a “single goal” framework, that goal being “self-determination”, which is a single goal made up of 3 seperate subgoals, which crucially, must be obtained together to create meaning (if they could be obtained seperately to create meaning, and people were OK with that, than I don’t think it would be fair to categorize it as a single goal theory.
That’s a fully generic response though. Any combination of goals/drives could have a (possibly non-linear) mapping which turns them into a single unified goal in that sense, or vice versa.
Let me put it more simply: can achieving “self-determination” alleviate your need to eat, sleep, and relieve yourself? If not, then there are some basic biological needs (maintenance of which is a goal) that have to be met separately from any “ultimate” goal of self-determination. That’s the sense in which I considered it obvious we don’t have singular goal systems.
Yeah, I think that if the brain in fact is mapped that way it would be meaningful to say you have a single goal.
Maybe, it depends on how the brain is mapped. I know of at least a few psychology theories which would say things like avoiding pain and getting food are in the service of higher psychological needs. If you came to believe for instance that eating wouldn’t actually lead to those higher goals, you would stop.
I think this is pretty unlikely. But again, I’m not sure.
This BBC article discusses it a bit:
Of course, this doesn’t really contradict your point of there being separable, factorable goals. AFAIK, the current mainstream model of human motivation and basic needs is self-determination theory, which explicitly holds that there exist three separate basic needs:
Thanks, I learned something.
Although for the purposes of this discussion it seems that Maslow’s specific factorization of goals is questionable, but not the general idea of a hierarchy of needs. Does that sound reasonable?
Well, it sounds to me like it’s more of a heterarchy than a hierarchy, but yeah.