Episode Fifty-Five - Reason Is Dependent On The Senses (Part 2)

Quote from Cassius

the picture involves the bliss pill issues - in the end we are concerned about living happily, not necessarily having the ability to give the most "accurate" recitation of the details.

Your comment here hints at something I've been planning on writing a longer post about so I'll *try* to be brief here.

When we all use catchphrases like "The goal is pleasure" it can easily be misinterpreted that we mean "the goal is to walk around all day with warm, fuzzy feelings" or "the goal is to exist in a blissful haze." That's not the goal of Epicurus's philosophy. At least not the way I understand it. The goal or telos is to live the most pleasurable life. That's not the same as warm fuzzy blissed out feelings every minute of the day. That's why we endure pains for pleasure that will result from those painful choices. That's why we remember past pleasures when things aren't necessarily going well. Using the catchy motto "pleasure is the goal" was used to caricature Epicurus's philosophy in his own lifetime. The idea that "the goal is to walk around all day with warm, fuzzy feelings" approach is Cyrenaic not Epicurean, and Epicurus fought hard against those stereotypes. When we use "pleasure is the goal" it can easily be misinterpreted as well as "Capital-P Pleasure is the goal" like there's some Platonic ideal form of Pleasure that we're aiming for. I wouldn't want people to think that if they're not experiencing Pleasure that they're doing it wrong. This may also be why people redefine pleasure - to try to attain that mistaken Platonic ideal. That's not the Garden path either.

I'm also concerned Cassius by your "not necessarily having the ability to give the most "accurate" recitation of the details." This seems to me to open the door to some problems and I'd like to hear or read more about what you actually mean here before I go off on a tangent.

Don a good book with a summary of research on the sensation of knowing is Burton's "On Being Certain." There has been more research since then, but it's a good intro to the neurobiology.

We would be wise to always remember that our sense data is obtained subjectively, through the perspective of a particular subject, and although it is real it is never experienced as an absolute, objective point of view, there being no such thing. I think people who worry about including emotion and feeling do not understand that our brains function as a whole, and these aspects of experience are not really separable. But if we remember our senses are also subjective-- not opinions, but particular to subjects-- maybe that will place things in context.

Although I've just said we can't really fully separate our brain functions in everyday life, I'm going to break things down a little to show you what I mean by the difference between sense perception and abstract thought.

Seeing a table right now, in this moment, is a sense perception. Recognizing it as an object separate from the background is due to innate, rudimentary physics expectations-- a sort of pattern recognition present even in newborns, which I would term as a prolepsis rather than as a formal concept. The "object permanence" of the table, the expectation that it will still be there in the next minute, is a similar phenomenon which emerges on a tight developmental schedule, across cultures, which is not seen with purely learned cognitions. These innate physics expectations are strengthened by experience but are not solely empirical.

But too quickly for us to perceive, we immediately connect what we see with the word "table", the function of being able to put things on top of it, how it relates to similarly shaped objects, ideas about where the material came from such as the type of wood-- conceptual thinking. If I were to say "I know that is a table", I'm going beyond the Canon just a tiny hair, into concepts, but I'm still going to have a strong sensation of certainty. It would be hard to talk me out of it. If it started moving and growling, showing itself to be some strange animal camouflaged as a table, like in movies where characters step on what they think is a stone but which turns out to be a creature, I would change my mind, and this would also involve some conceptual thinking.

Even the words "I know I am really seeing what I'm seeing" are conceptual-- the whole idea that "there is a reality" is conceptual. But the experience of perceiving reality is non-conceptual. The idea of "truth" is conceptual, but encountering the phenomena we label as true is not conceptual. That actual perception is what we are talking about with the Canon.

Almost all our thinking involves some slight level of concepts of this type. However, in addition to concepts about knowing, we also have an inner sensation that goes with it, which isn't always accurate but is often more pleasurable to people than uncertainty. Moving from uncertainty to certainty is a dopamine, seeking driven process. We can want it without liking it, but usually that moment of discovery of a conclusion feels pleasurable and reinforces our wanting more.

Although the distinction between emotion and feeling is interesting, for most of us in real life we have strong associations between certain emotions and pain or pleasure. Epicurus was correct in assigning anxiety to the pain column. Some people do get an endorphin rush from fear-- that's why we have horror movies and roller coasters-- but the endorphin pleasure is a second event while the initial fear is not a pleasure. It's more of a pain that can lead to pleasure. For almost all of us, emotions like contentment, gratitude, or affection for others-- are pleasurable, and those words wouldn't be accurate communication with the feeling of pleasure removed. Try to imagine feeling gratitude that had no pleasure but pain instead -- it wouldn't make sense! Instead you'd choose a word like indebted or obligated or guilty. The emotion of guilt is painful-- if it were pleasurable we'd say satisfaction or pride in our actions.

Again, this sensation of knowing isn't always going to correlate with the level of certainty science can demonstrate-- a high degree of statistical probability regarding the causal chain. Even so, we can't extricate it from our experience of living, so it's useful, IMO, to know about it, to be conscious of it. Is it unsafe to enjoy it? I think Epicurus would object to that idea. He was very focused on relieving anxiety and substituting certainty. The wisest thing is to decide on some level of certainty such that you won't be highly upset if you are wrong, and it inevitably involves a subjective experience. You can't remove that from the process of a person deciding how much accuracy they want. If your level of accuracy is low, you'll possibly wind up with more pain than pleasure, so that's the main factor-- how much accuracy do you need for a pleasurable life? There can't possibly be an absolute answer to that question.

Quote from Cassius

As for your final paragraph, what I mean here refers t...

LOL! Well, I'm glad I didn't go off on that tangent I was going to. Turns out I actually agree with your clarification there. Thanks!

I don't want to leave out that the seeking process itself can feel pleasurable, as well as enjoying that there remain mysteries about reality to be solved. Like an adventure. If we ever did figure out a theory of everything, I wonder if there would be something like a post-adventure let-down. This pleasurable seeking is part of why I don't mind leaving so many questions about reality open!

The other reasons that sort of uncertainty feels fine to me include that it isn't threatening/scary. Uncertainty about whether there's a burglar hidden in the house is unpleasant. Uncertainty about cosmology details is not dangerous and so can feel pleasurable. We know enough physics that I think anxiety over remaining uncertainties can usually be solved with more physics education. None of the many physicists I know seem to be anxious about cosmology and most are atheists.

The 3rd reason IMO to keep our superficial physics up to date is that more advanced concepts gradually get incorporated into popular knowledge. So not updating it ensures the philosophy will deviate more and more even for a minimally educated person, and it will gradually seem less relevant.

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus is saying is not the feelings you list but "this is an affirmation that the goal is NOT set by gods or virtue or idealism or rationalism but by Nature herself through the faculty of feeling."

Agreed. I would even be more specific on saying "... through the faculty of feeling pleasure or pain." The Canon itself is not about emotions, the colloquial connotation of "feeling," but the initial reaction of pleasure or pain (attraction or repulsion) - before you have the chance to "think" about something. The names we give to the emotions are built on that foundation of pain or pleasure "at the speed of thought." I'll address this in response to Elayne's post asap.

I still think Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's research has some intriguing applications in this area: e.g., https://michaelrucker.com/thought-leader…emotion-affect/ Elayne may have touched on some of this.

Quote from Cassius

As a philosophy I don't see this as a vacation guide or a cookbook or a relaxation therapy. Instead, it's much more a blueprint for philosophical and moral revolution against the powers of religion and conventional academia.

It has to be both. I agree with your second statement, but I don't think that precludes the first. The "revolution" has to have everyday applications on the beach, in the kitchen, or at the spa (to try and line up your examples )

Quote from Elayne

a good book with a summary of research on the sensation of knowing is Burton's "On Being Certain." There has been more research since then, but it's a good intro to the neurobiology.

Picked up the book at the library today. Thanks for the recommendation!

Quote from Elayne

We would be wise to always remember that our sense data is obtained subjectively, through the perspective of a particular subject, and although it is real it is never experienced as an absolute, objective point of view, there being no such thing.

I thought the reason for the senses (the αἰσθήσεις) being a criterion of the Canon was that they were a direct connection with reality without any intermediary. Our opinions and beliefs are then constructed on that "real" authentic reflection of objective reality "out there." While each perceiver - the one who senses - will have a subjective and culturally influenced reaction to the senses , I don't think it's accurate to say "our senses are also subjective." That sounds like a Skeptical position as if our senses can't be trusted and nobody could agree on what their senses are telling them. We sense a real reality, we react to that sensation with pleasure or pain, and our prolepses then compare it to previous sensations. We then form concepts, beliefs, and opinions in keeping with the choice that will provide the path to the most sustained pleasurable life to the best of our ability.

Quote from Elayne

For almost all of us, emotions like contentment, gratitude, or affection for others-- are pleasurable, and those words wouldn't be accurate communication with the feeling of pleasure removed.

To be clear, I'm not implying that pleasure or pain can be removed from the emotions. But the initial reaction - pain or pleasure - is what gives rise to the emotions. You can't construct the emotion without the initial reaction. Pleasure and pain are part of affect (as I understand that concept in Dr. Barrett's work) and the emotions are constructed based on that interoception. I believe what Epicurus felt intuitively was this separation of affect and emotion which was why he placed pleasure/pain in the Canon (the pathē are two). One of the most important criterion in our Canonical decision-making process in choice and avoidance is the initial interoception of pain and pleasure. I believe you touched on this when you talked about sensing unease about someone. Don't stick around. The interoception of unpleasantness/pain gives rise to unease, fear, anxiety.

I'm intentionally leaving out a discussion of the "feeling of knowing" since I just got that book and don't feel I've studied that enough to have an opinion on that.

We may be talking/writing past each other again on the first point, so I'll try and respond in more detail to that later.

The second point is that emotions are built on pleasure/pain but have a lot more going on. That's why it's important to "feel" pleasure/pain and know why you're feeling pleasure/pain and not just label it with an emotional description. Take anger as discussed here in this conference abstract. According to this (and I've seen similar more detailed expositions in Tsouna's book), anger can stem from pain but be sustained by "the pleasure of revenge." One is acceptable and understandable, the other is "empty." Anger and most if not all of the emotional designations have culturally influenced definitions and connotations (as in Barrett). I think that's why Epicurus put so much emphasis on pleasure and pain. Strip things down to the bare essentials free of all indoctrination. Nature provides pleasure and pain. Period. That's why he can say that ataraxia, aponia, khara, and euphrosyne are different expressions of pleasure: they have the reaction of pleasure as their foundation.

To make choices about leading the pleasurable life, we have to really know what's motivating us, what's driving our choices. What are we really feeling? We need to be honest with ourselves and not overthink what we're feeling. Are we angry from real pain caused to us, or are we feeling pleasure at self-righteous indignation and thoughts of getting even? If the latter, choosing a path based on that could lead to more pain and could be a pleasure we should not choose. Humans are good at fooling ourselves. That's where reason gets the better of us. What are we *really* feeling? And is it pleasure or pain that motivates our decisions? And as I mentioned, I still think Dr. Barrett's work (of which I'm continuing to look into) has some interesting and potentially important light to shed on this topic.

For me, I am a connoisseur of emotions and find the incredible variety and particularity marvelous. I never experience pain or pleasure without a full context of experience, so trying to isolate feelings seems almost Platonic in idealism. In contrast to real life. Epicurus made the point that pleasures are not interchangeable-- there is variety!

Nor do I ever have any delay in knowing whether I'm having pleasure or pain-- that is a foreign concept to me. Of course, others could be differently wired and will need to figure themselves out. I see the primary challenge as gaining experience and accuracy in knowing which decisions will work out for pleasures, and age helps a lot with this, if a person pays good attention to results of their actions.

Don the sense are subjective in that they involve both the real, external object being sense _plus_ that person's specific locus and specific sense organs. We are not idealists-- our sense are material functions, biological, and of course they have differences between people. That does not make the sense inaccurate-- if I have cataracts in my eyes, the color I am seeing is an accurate perception of the object's color plus the yellowing of my lenses.

People who have bought into the popular notion of "objective" fact often feel very uncomfortable at the material reality that there is no absolute perspective and that every perception is _by_ a subject and includes that subject's materiality.

You could think of it as similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In the act of measuring very small particles, we have to change what that particle is doing and so we can't separate the act of observing from what the particle does.

Quote from Elayne

Don the sense are subjective in that they involve both the real, external object being sense _plus_ that person's specific locus and specific sense organs. We a...

Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with this X-plus-Y characterisation you state here. The previous post sounded to me like there was no objective reality to be sensed. As long as we're "subjectively" sensing a real physical reality, I'm fine with acknowledging we all have different abilities to sense that reality.

Quote from Elayne

there is no absolute perspective and that every perception is _by_ a subject and includes that subject's materiality.

Isn't that even the basis of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? That there's no absolute vantage point?

Quote from Elayne

I never experience pain or pleasure without a full context of experience, so trying to isolate feelings seems almost Platonic in idealism.

LOL. Ouch. No need to accuse me of Platonism! I'm going to defer to the work of Dr. Linda Feldman Barrett's work on constructed emotions on this. Her empirical research isn't Platonic.

Quote from Elayne

Epicurus made the point that pleasures are not interchangeable-- there is variety!

There are different things that we experience as pleasurable, but the common characteristic is the reaction of pleasure. Are you referring to Principal Doctrine 9 here or another text? Just want to make sure so I don't respond further off the cuff.

Another consideration-- because we experience

continual stimulation of our pain/pleasure system, it's not just the initial experience which triggers pleasure then emotion, but the emotion itself continues to trigger pleasure or pain-- and this should be included in our understanding of how different decisions affect us. The emotions involved in affectionate friendship create strong pleasure. If we weren't having pleasure from our emotional responses, we would use different words to describe the relationship in question.

So feeling is not just a brief blip followed by emotion-- feeling continues to be evoked.

Don yes, PD9

Good point on defining our terms. The word Epicurus most often uses is κενός kenos where were see "empty" in translations: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=keno/s