the analysis in scott's most recent post i think is completely wrong. should i write a post explaining why and what i think is going on instead
Conversation
this is the crux of what i think scott's missing: he takes it for granted that experiencing and acting on fear is fundamentally aversive. not true! that aversion is *learned* like any other. there's only one kind of learning and sometimes it gets applied to internal states
Replying to
you could easily imagine seeing a lion, successfully running away from it, and feeling *exhilarated.* wouldn't that feel great? i've almost died before and it felt great. i felt more alive than i had in years
his whole argument turns on this sentence!
5
32
Replying to
Looks like someone's made a comment to this effect and he just replied 'I think this is the wrong level on which to engage with the argument'.
Which seems like an incredibly weak answer.
1