I was thinking about exchange rates between happiness and suffering and came up with the following:

The neural mechanisms that create happiness and the ones that create suffering may be quite different, so equating them is always going to be based on some arbitrary exchange rate. Even if they were the same mechanism it's still arbitrary. Some people have argued this before.

Why do we value happiness but not feelings of happy-excitement, love, peacefulness, etc. Also we need to have an exchange rate between things like physical and mental suffering (unless they use exactly the same neural pathways).

People may use "happiness" and "suffering" to encompass several feelings squished together. But where does this leave us in terms of utilitorinium shockwaves? Well they're still almost certainly the best possible outcome we can hope for, but perhaps not the best possible outcome imaginable.

Anyway, while our understanding of what creates happiness and suffering is limited I'm pretty happy to let sentients choose their own mix of good emotions according to their preference (supposing all sentients could simply program the emotions they would like for the day). I still wouldn't allow bad emotions And with a better understand of neuroscience I might become stricter in some way.

Is there a word for this? Preference hedonistic utilitarianism?

To me, there is no problem with the exchange rates, because I am a negative utilitarian. In my opnion, the creation of happiness can never outweigh the creation of suffering. Reducing suffering as absolute priority.

Anyway, while our understanding of what creates happiness and suffering is limited I'm pretty happy to let sentients choose their own mix of good emotions according to their preference (supposing all sentients could simply program the emotions they would like for the day). I still wouldn't allow bad emotions And with a better understand of neuroscience I might become stricter in some way.

Today it is not possible, to allow good emotions without allowing bad ones. To be able to feel anything you just need to be vulneralbe in some way if not, the emotions (good or bad) can't reach you.
The abolition project might change this, but until then: No pain, no gain!

Ruairi wrote:The neural mechanisms that create happiness and the ones that create suffering may be quite different, so equating them is always going to be based on some arbitrary exchange rate. Even if they were the same mechanism it's still arbitrary. Some people have argued this before.

Yes.

Ruairi wrote:Why do we value happiness but not feelings of happy-excitement, love, peacefulness, etc.

I believe hedonistic utilitarians do value these things. In particular, I see hedonistic utilitarianism as valuing any emotion that feels good. "Happiness" is our attempt at shorthand, but there are many meanings of happiness, and the word can get confusing.

Ruairi wrote:Is there a word for this? Preference hedonistic utilitarianism?

I think it's plain old hedonistic utilitarianism, at least until the part about letting sentients choose which ones they like best. Doing so might be a good heuristic, but that's only because doing so tends to increase happiness, not because you intrinsically value letting them choose.

Brian Tomasik wrote:Doing so might be a good heuristic, but that's only because doing so tends to increase happiness, not because you intrinsically value letting them choose.

I still can't wrap my head on the idea of forcing someone to be happy against their will. Consider, for example, forced wireheading.

~

Brian Tomasik wrote:I believe hedonistic utilitarians do value these things. In particular, I see hedonistic utilitarianism as valuing any emotion that feels good. "Happiness" is our attempt at shorthand, but there are many meanings of happiness, and the word can get confusing.

Modern psychology distinguishes hedonic happiness from eudaimonic happiness.

peterhurford wrote:Consider, for example, forced wireheading.

image.

If you're imagining it feeling bad to be force-wireheaded, then that's bad because it feels bad. If it doesn't feel bad, I don't know what your problem is.

Brian Tomasik wrote:.

QFT

The "yes... and..." graphic is surprisingly dismissive for you two.

Forced wireheading, I think, comes from a view of happiness as solely hedonism. If you really wanted to maximize pleasure, there'd be little reason not to forcibly wirehead people, except for second-order concerns like not wanting to damage the movement / reputation, etc.

I'm imagining that "wireheading" means "simulating the best possible experiences," which may be pleasure or may be other forms of happiness -- contentment, awe, accomplishment, love, etc. Personally, I think I would select romantic and altruistic love as my emotions of choice from among the things I've experienced. (Probably there are better experiences than anything I've felt so far.)

Utilitronium shockwave is arguably more extreme than forced wireheading, and many of us would support it.

peterhurford wrote:The "yes... and..." graphic is surprisingly dismissive for you two.

I think we were both being facetious. It follows your instruction to 'imagine forced wireheading' quite literally - even if doing so turned us off the idea intuitively, we're both accustomed to ignoring our intuitions where they're inconsistent with reasoning we accept. So without some subsequent discussion, 'imagine forced wireheading' feels like an incomplete instruction..