Thanks! I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at, here are some possible comparisons:
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “plan to eat the prinsesstårta on my plate right now” → latter is preferred
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “idle musing about snuggling under a weighted blanket sometime in the future” → either might be preferred, depending on which has higher valence, which in turn depends on whether I’m hungry or tired etc.
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “plan to snuggle under a weighted blanket right now” → again, either might be preferable, but compared to the previous bullet point, the latter is likelier to win, because it’s extra-appealing from its immediacy.
I think this is consistent with experience, right?
But maybe you’re instead talking about this comparison:
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “thinking about the fact that I am right now under a cozy weighted blanket” …
I think the latter thought here doesn’t have much positive valence. I think, when we say we “enjoy” being under a weighted blanket, the pleasure signal is more like “transient pleasure upon starting to be under the blanket, and transient displeasure upon stopping, but not really continuous pleasure during the process, or at least not so much pleasure that we just dwell on that feeling; instead, our mind starts wandering elsewhere (partly due to boredom).” Not many experiences are so pleasurable that we’re really meditating on it for an extended period, at least not without deliberate effort towards mindfulness. Right?
Or if I’m still misunderstanding, can you try again?
I think I get it now. I was confused on how, under your model, we would continue to generate sequence of thoughts with thematic consistency i.e. [thinking about cake → planning to buy a cake-> buying a cake-> eating a cake] as opposed to ones which aren’t thematically consistent i.e. [think about cake → take a nap → call your friend → scratch an itch].
Two things are apparent to me now:
Valence is conditional on current needs
Latent states of the thought generator are themselves inputs to the next thoughts being generated
I expect I’m still confused about valence, but may ask follow up questions on another thread in a more relevant post. Thanks for the reply!
Thanks! I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at, here are some possible comparisons:
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “plan to eat the prinsesstårta on my plate right now” → latter is preferred
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “idle musing about snuggling under a weighted blanket sometime in the future” → either might be preferred, depending on which has higher valence, which in turn depends on whether I’m hungry or tired etc.
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “plan to snuggle under a weighted blanket right now” → again, either might be preferable, but compared to the previous bullet point, the latter is likelier to win, because it’s extra-appealing from its immediacy.
I think this is consistent with experience, right?
But maybe you’re instead talking about this comparison:
“idle musing about eating prinsesstårta sometime in the future” VERSUS “thinking about the fact that I am right now under a cozy weighted blanket” …
I think the latter thought here doesn’t have much positive valence. I think, when we say we “enjoy” being under a weighted blanket, the pleasure signal is more like “transient pleasure upon starting to be under the blanket, and transient displeasure upon stopping, but not really continuous pleasure during the process, or at least not so much pleasure that we just dwell on that feeling; instead, our mind starts wandering elsewhere (partly due to boredom).” Not many experiences are so pleasurable that we’re really meditating on it for an extended period, at least not without deliberate effort towards mindfulness. Right?
Or if I’m still misunderstanding, can you try again?
I think I get it now. I was confused on how, under your model, we would continue to generate sequence of thoughts with thematic consistency i.e. [thinking about cake → planning to buy a cake-> buying a cake-> eating a cake] as opposed to ones which aren’t thematically consistent i.e. [think about cake → take a nap → call your friend → scratch an itch].
Two things are apparent to me now:
Valence is conditional on current needs
Latent states of the thought generator are themselves inputs to the next thoughts being generated
I expect I’m still confused about valence, but may ask follow up questions on another thread in a more relevant post. Thanks for the reply!