let's pretend that you had the choice between being some degree of happy all the time and having emotional states that a reasonable person of the present day would consider appropriate responses to your experiences. which would you choose?
what if the happy choice were extremely happy with no variance? would you pick the other option over it?
-
-
Either your brain discovers a "non-happiness" way to motivate itself toward new goals, which would end up a less effective proxy for happiness, or you lose your ability to have goals altogether, in which case I think you literally do nothing at all?
-
We already have lots of non-happiness ways of motivating ourselves. Fear, for example -- it currently affects our happiness level but that's not its mechanism for working. You act to avoid the thing you're afraid of, not the fear itself.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Probably. No variance would be seriously creepy to other people and, well, *I'd* be happy with it but the only other people who would be would be people who chose the same thing.
-
I have a character I play sometimes that's always extremely happy no matter what's going on and this is because he's a psychopathic vore demon. So I guess all the twitter folks who are into psychopathic vore demons would also appreciate it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
based on what I've gathered from reading pop neuroscience, having any single emotion be dominant will kill you / turn you into a vegetable because you can't make decisions and because they act as feedback from the world see for e.g. maybe v https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
this would basically be literal psychosis and probably shred your empathy and ability to read others to ribbons
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.