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
3
23
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
imo for what you’re saying to contradict his argument, it would have to be true that it’s possible to feel no aversion at all, to anything
but as long as you *do* feel aversion to some state, you’ll learn not to seek out information that would confirm that that state is the case
2
4
Replying to
i think it *is* possible. my point is generally that there's only one kind of learning but that it gets applied to internal states, and that this explains everything he's confused about in the post. worth writing out in more detail i guess
Replying to
hmm yeah i’d be interested to read about what you consider the one type of learning, i feel pretty convinced by the reinforcement/epistemic paradigm atm
2
2
suppose: for any given module of the brain, there are reinforcement signals coming from other parts
the lion recognizer module is hooked up to the local scene module
the LS mod is hooked up to the decision module; that goes to the action module; that goes to the feeling module
1
1
Show replies