Motivation outside pain/pleasure principle

[Only_Humean]

The thing is, gentlemen, that you have here an unfalsifiable theory. Vague “emotional pain” is a catch-all explanation for any decision, and ensures that you always find that every difficult decision is motivated by avoiding it. Yet it’s immeasurable, unpredictable, a purely post facto explanation of why a decision was reached.

“Vince chose to allow his loved one to suffer moderately rather than suffer far more profoundly himself.”
“Of course,” says Freud, “his discomfort at the slight suffering didn’t outweigh his expectation of severe pain. Pleasure/pain principle.”
“… but Brent chose to suffer terribly rather than to see his loved one suffer moderately!” comes the counterargument.
“Ah,” smiles Freud, “so it’s obvious that the emotional pain of his loved one’s suffering outweighed his own terrible suffering. Therefore we only see more evidence that the pleasure/pain principle is true!”

It’s a textbook case of begging the question.

I see where you’re coming from, but it’s not a slippery slope between pain/pleasure and “what you want.”

You’ve literally just defined them to be the same, for any test you can think of. It’s like the unreflective believer claiming that everything that happens is for the best because it’s God’s will, and when asked to prove why something terrible could possibly be the best they justify it by saying it’s God’s will so it must be. It’s exactly why Popper railed against unfalsifiability - “a theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”

Such theories provide comfort and succour to the unreflective believer; they don’t say anything useful about the world, though.

[James_S_Saint]

@Gamer

At the root of all human motivation is the pleasure principle, I think originally coined by freud.
It follows something like this: our pleasure/pain begins with our id, as a child we seek instant gratification.
Later our ego and superego develop more realistic approaches that will both work longterm and be socially acceptable. But the pleasure/pain principle still sits behind our motivation at this stage.

My question – and I’m looking for answers at the academic and professional level for this one – is whether an argument can be cogently advanced for having motivations that stand outside the pain/pleasure principle.

My initial feeling is the concept of motivation is intrinsically linked with pleasure/pain, and that you can’t, by definition, have a motivation, without it being linked to some sort of pleasure and/or pain.

Even a moral value, such as wanting to do the “right” thing, or wanting to extend your life, would still regress eventually to pleasure or pain. Or perhaps it takes a different guise, that of favorable or unfavorable.
If someone would like to rephrase this question in a clearer way please do so. Scientific, psychological and medical perspectives are welcome in this thread, i.e. scholarly observations outside the perview of philosophy proper.

You are conflating some basic issues.

It is true that all motivation can be “reduced” to pain or pleasure. But what that doesn’t tell you is which came first - the pain or pleasure leading the choice or the choice being met leading the pain or pleasure. The only real truth involved is that pain and pleasure are associated with all motivation (somewhat required by ontological definition).

A more precise “academic” fact is that ALL conscious behavior is guided (and often completely controlled) by the Perception of Hope and/or Threat, PHT. Hopes and threats are not always sensed as pain or pleasure. But once accepted as priority, they instigate pain or pleasure by the perception of proximity. You get happy because perhaps you finally accomplished the goal that you have been struggling for … even though when you started, you didn’t really like having to do it and thought of it as a pain in the ass. The accomplishment is a perceived hope and thus inspires celebratory delight … even though there was nothing physically pleasurable involved the whole time.

So, no. People are not simple pleasure/pain machines. It is their PERCEPTION of Hope and/or Threat (the foundation of The Matrix film). And such perceptions are often cognitively generated, not instinctive or emotionally.

[Only_Humean]

Hi James,

Earlier I gave a few examples:

Honour motivates some to endure great and needless suffering at a torturer’s hands in place of a quick and comparatively merciful death… A desire for knowledge can prompt someone to go looking for unpleasant information that they could have remained blissfully ignorant on.

I see a couple of clear examples of hope/threat, but the two above examples I’m not sure on. Could you perhaps give a couple of explanations of how PHT applies there? Is it a more falsifiable model than the pain/pleasure principle?

[Zoot_Allures]

The thing is, gentlemen, that you have here an unfalsifiable theory. Vague “emotional pain” is a catch-all explanation for any decision, and ensures that you always find that every difficult decision is motivated by avoiding it. Yet it’s immeasurable, unpredictable, a purely post facto explanation of why a decision was reached.

I knew you had the Popper of Spades and the Skinner of clubs the whole time man. Well I’m out.

throws in cards

[James_S_Saint]

@Only_Humean

Hi James,

Earlier I gave a few examples:

Honour motivates some to endure great and needless suffering at a torturer’s hands in place of a quick and comparatively merciful death… A desire for knowledge can prompt someone to go looking for unpleasant information that they could have remained blissfully ignorant on.

I see a couple of clear examples of hope/threat, but the two above examples I’m not sure on. Could you perhaps give a couple of explanations of how PHT applies there? Is it a more falsifiable model than the pain/pleasure principle?

PHT is falsifiable to a philosopher/logician (falsifiable = lack of alternative). Science has the problem of not understanding ontological construct and thus can’t verify many things. But even in the philosophy world, many conflate connotation with definition and thus run around in circles freely presuming arbitrary definitions of fundamental ontological constructs.

Hope and threat are ontologically defined as whatever guides decision (discounting physiological/mechanical aberrations). Pain and pleasure are more vague, requiring definitional adjustments involving why a goal was chosen (as you have pointed out). Hope is not necessarily an emotional or pain/pleasure issue at all. Hope is the path toward the preference. Hope is independent of why a preference, prospect, or goal was chosen (the pain/pleasure argument) while still providing decision making guidance. The perception of hope and/or threat is necessarily what is guiding decisions … by definition. Thus a logician can immediately “falsify” the theory because there is no alternative. Physics has similar issues with definitions in their language, not understanding that truth is entirely an issue of ontological language construct (and the tools and toys of social manipulators).

Honor (or even “Honour”) is defined as a virtue and/or state of grace. Most would immediately presume it to be a good and preferred state to acquire. That assessment might be inspired by prior experience with prospects of pain or pleasure. But such a thought could also be inspired by hard wire programming, hypnosis, or emotional conditioning/programming. Pain and pleasure are used in subtly programming people from outside and from a distance, unobserved. Thus the pain/pleasure principle is of special interest to social engineers and other psychological/sociological manipulators. But goals can be instilled by other means. The ultimate fact is that whatever is inspiring the decisions, perception of hope and threat, PHT, are the value assessments involved on whatever level the decision is being made.

For whatever reason honor is chosen as a preference, because it was chosen, the perception of hope toward it and/or threat away from it, becomes the decision making guide. Honor became the goal to achieve. After that, everything is a matter of perception of paths toward it despite any pain or pleasure associated. And when perception of hope is lost, despite pain/pleasure incentives, decisions can no longer be made (depression). This is true by definition and regardless of attempts to observe anything (just like the other RM:AO issues - PHT is the “positive-negative charge” propelling “particles of” incentive).

The cause of the initial preference is a deeper subject, mostly about physiological issues from the mechanics side as well as the mental/programming side. Hard-wired instinct reactions trigger pain/pleasure perception in order to urge the larger beast, but they are not derived by pain/pleasure issues. DNA instincts create pain/pleasure issues. And even trauma or catharsis based preferences often outlast any continued perception of pain or pleasure. They can become independent “charged particles” (habitual) initiating action and preference regardless of the prior cause of them being instilled.

From a prior thread:

Well, the words that people use to describe an emotional state vary considerably so as to imply degree, nuance, and context. What I call simple “Hope and Threat”, others might call “Love and Hate”, “Lust and Fear”, “Catharsis and Trauma”, “Good and Evil”, but analytically, they are simply degrees of Hope and Threat applied to different contexts. And most importantly, they are Perceived Hope and Threat, whether actual or not. Perception plays a huge role in controlling people because their mind is entirely dependent upon it.

The word “Joy” also is merely one of many words that analytically implies the same fundamental concept of “bliss”, “happiness”, “thrill”, and so on… merely variations in degree, nuance, and context. They are all formed automatically when the mind perceives progress toward what it has deemed “something good”, or alternatively perceives progress away from something deemed “the bad”.

In physics the universe has positive and negative electric potential responsible for literally all physical reality. The human mind and spirit has the exact analogy of hope and threat as its “potential” (ability to cause action) creating the mental and spiritual reality in which it thrives. And that is why you see so very much metaphor in all scriptures. The mental world and the physical world are exactly analogous merely with different forms of potential; “positive and negative electric charge” vs “perception of hope and threat”.

I could go on forever explaining the psychological analogy and mathematics involved, but…

So call it all what you will, make it as complicated as you like, but the bottom line will aways be the simple situation of positive and negative potential creating action or PHT creating motivation; “en-urgy”, “e-motion”.

[Gamer]

Guys. I get it, you’re smart. That’s why I brought this question to you. I’m not conflating anything or creating a circular argument. I’m asking a question. It’s not an intentionally loaded question. I’m not asking in passive aggressive way of advancing some world view. I am simply asking.

“the initial preference is a deeper subject, mostly about physiological issues from the mechanics side as well as the mental/programming side.”

Now you’re getting somewhere. From whence does the PHT process originate. Whatever that thing is, that thing was removed from my protagonist. So how does he make decisions? Can he be said to have any motivations anymore?

“Hard-wired instinct reactions trigger pain/pleasure perception in order to urge the larger beast, but they are not derived by pain/pleasure issues. DNA instincts create pain/pleasure issues.”

Pls explain. You’re saying our motivations come from DNA issues? I’m not sure this useful. His DNA wasn’t removed. Only his ability to feel any kind of pain. His emotional state is “all one note” so to speak. What happens around him doesn’t change this note. Thus, what is his MO, other than sitting under a bodhisattva and buzzing off this one euphoric note? I’m really asking.

Because I’m told a character needs motivation in order for a story to exist. I love this character. I sometimes identify with him. But I feel I’ve created a paradox, painted myself into a corner. I’m looking for ways out so I can give this guy some motivational juice.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

How about “climbing the ladder of higher consciousness” … knowingly or unknowingly

[Wizard]

Starvation is painful, satiation is pleasurable, but between them both is contentment.

There is your motivation.

[James_S_Saint]

@Gamer

“the initial preference is a deeper subject, mostly about physiological issues from the mechanics side as well as the mental/programming side.”

Now you’re getting somewhere. From whence does the PHT process originate. Whatever that thing is, that thing was removed from my protagonist. So how does he make decisions? Can he be said to have any motivations anymore?

“Hard-wired instinct reactions trigger pain/pleasure perception in order to urge the larger beast, but they are not derived by pain/pleasure issues. DNA instincts create pain/pleasure issues.”

Pls explain. You’re saying our motivations come from DNA issues? I’m not sure this useful. His DNA wasn’t removed. Only his ability to feel any kind of pain. His emotional state is “all one note” so to speak. What happens around him doesn’t change this note. Thus, what is his MO, other than sitting under a bodhisattva and buzzing off this one euphoric note? I’m really asking.

Because I’m told a character needs motivation in order for a story to exist. I love this character. I sometimes identify with him. But I feel I’ve created a paradox, painted myself into a corner. I’m looking for ways out so I can give this guy some motivational juice.

You appear to be defining yourself out of a solution, yet not realizing it.

“I have this guy stuck on the mountain of bliss with no reason to do anything. I want to know what his reason for doing anything is.”

Without PHT nothing can make decisions on its own accord. Life IS making decisions. If decisions are not being made, the entity is not alive: “Why can’t you kill Buddha? Because he is already dead.” If you have defined your problem as being void of PHT, then you have removed decision making completely and there is no life.

Void of having any PHT, decisions are only made from outside the person. If a man is stuck at the peak of Mount Bliss and you want to wake him up, appealing to his wants, desires, or pleasures will do nothing … you must move the mountain (personally been through this already).

The pain/pleasure principle is a very deeply rooted and pervasive issue. What O_H and I have been talking about is the fact that it isn’t the ONLY issue involved in making decisions. The only thing that is required for decision making is a goal and the perception of a path. If you choose to call every decision making endeavor a pain/pleasure issue because of the fact that a person will perceive pain or pleasure as his incentive, then you have chosen to disqualify any alternative via your chosen definition.

Are you concerned with having to cause your character to be motivated? Are you concerned with the science of physiological motivation? Are you asking of the philosophy concern making decisions? Are you asking for an ontological discussion concerning decision making? Or … what? If you are asking if the pain/pleasure principle is all encompassing, we have already answered … “no”. And given explanations as to why.

If the first is your inquiry, I would say that he needs to have a discussion concerning the purpose of any life because it directly involves motivation and decision making. If he is just high on drugs, discussion wouldn’t help much until you took away his drugs or physically alter him in some way. If his belief system is keeping him there, demonstrate the fallacy in his beliefs (aka “move the mountain”). If you are proposing that he can only be motivated by pain or pleasure, then you have proposed that nothing will change him but pain or pleasure … end of discussion.

Sorry Gamer, I just see too many issues being spoken of as if they were all predefined as the same thing (ie “conflated”). I was responding to O_H. I don’t think that I could ever give you a satisfactory response.

[surreptitious57]

@Magnus Anderson

Gamer has no moral sense at all

No one who is sane or at least capable of a certain degree of logical or emotional thinking is entirely devoid of any morals
Psychopaths for example may be incapable of empathy but that does not preclude them from having a moral code as such
Morality is fundamentally subjective and so what is morally acceptable to one might not be morally acceptable to another

But so long as one is actually capable of making moral decisions then that is all that is required
And so whether those moral decisions are ones that one agrees with or not is entirely academic

[Gamer]

James,

I appreciate the time you’re taking on this. I feel from the get-go you’ve both been adversarial and missed the spirit of the post.
I don’t need to be told that I’m making assumptions in my statements, since I haven’t made any statements. I’m asking a question. At best you can say my question is meaningless, but that isn’t very nice. There’s always a reason why someone asks a question. Maybe I’m asking the wrong question, and I’m asking you to help me re-articulate it so it can possibly start leading toward some answer, maybe not a perfect answer. You said:

“The only thing that is required for decision making is a goal and the perception of a path.”

Agreed, with the caveat that probably there would have to be the perception of more than one possible path for it to be a genuine decision process. Either/or.

If you choose to call every decision making endeavor a pain/pleasure issue.

Aha! I have chosen to do no such thing. That is NOT a demand I’m making. I’m rather ASKING if there are any possible places motivation can stem from besides pain/pleasure. And by that I mean, where does the concept of “goal” come from without motivation, without the promise of an improved mental state, or even an awareness of improved well-being as the result of one path over another? Let’s pls not get caught up in the word pleasure/pain, I’m not talking about something as base as endorphins here.

Let’s say he could be loyal to an idea he used to have about right and wrong, or about the intrinsic value of empathy – but because of his accident (and it’s not a drug thing, it’s brain damage) he grabs for those things and they slip away, no longer grounded by any mental payoff for embracing them. He no longer needs the normal things that lead to “well-being” in order to feel “well-being.”

I’m open to any and all answers. I WANT there to be SIMPLE answer, so that I can have my character want to do one thing over another thing, without going into anomalous monism or a lesson in neurobiology. I want the audience to learn from his source of motivation, but I agree, what I’m proposing makes no sense. Welcome to my character’s world. He’s really in the shit and knows it, but also knows he can’t possibly care. It’s by definition not HIS problem anymore. But as the writer of the story, it’s my problem. (This reminds me of the time I fell into a solipsistic depersonalized trap and couldn’t get out, like being sucked into a loop of circular meaninglessness. The only way out was to kind of forget I was there. Nobody could “logic” me out of the situation.)

There’s a line of monologue in there where he observes the conundrum, the good news is he can sit and do nothing and be perfectly content. The bad news is he can sit and do nothing and be perfectly content. He himself is wondering what will become of himself, since the root cause of motivation has been hijacked by a perpertually agreeable mental state, irrespective of what he chooses to do.

because of the fact that a person will perceive pain or pleasure as his incentive, then you have chosen to disqualify any alternative via your chosen definition."

I have chosen no definitions or made no disqualifications. I’m unable to consider other possible reason why someone would do something. For me, intuitively, it feels like most things I’m conscious of doing are tied to an inner compass that tabulates value as experienced by my consciousness, and this value, even the overriding value the transcends mere momentary pleasure, still, for me anyone, is tied to mental states of well-being and non-well-being. So I’m stymied as to what I would do if I always felt well-being. But I believe there is an answer I’m just not quite smart enough to articulate. I thought maybe it would be morals, but that ties back to well-being. Everything I can think of ties back to well-being, and the pleasure or ease we feel when we feel we are doing things that contribute to our well-being.

I’m baffled that you continue to answer this by framing it as me being “wrong” about something. Alls I’m trying to do is figure out how to make this character tic. I am open to any and all suggestions. It’s possible the answer is "you can’t, given the premise. If he always feels an equal, maxed-out sense of well-being, his grid for decisions has been utterly shattered. He’d be essentially comatose or at best, inertial. Maybe inertia is the answer.

Or maybe it’s like Buridan’s ass. All things being equal, he wouldn’t know which apple to choose from, he’d starve.

Aha, but all things, in real life, are never equal…maybe that’s the key right there. How can my character avoid dying like buridan’s ass?

How does anything?

I need a kobayashi maru solution. So far you’ve failed at giving me one.

[liquidangel]

@Gamer

He could do something moral or immoral and feel just as wonderful with the cosmos. In this light, what would impel him to do anything? By what principle would he make decisions?

It’s a big question that asks if there is an innate motivating force once stripped of external cravings and aversions. There must be a principle - that is everything that is true must follow a principle but to what extent is any individual tuned into that principle? Your character’s beliefs about the world would have to play a part in his decision making.

[Gamer]

That’s a brilliant answer. He’s journey will circle around that question. Since he doesn’t know what he believes about the world. Some of us think we do, but until we’re stripped of our passions, nobody really knows for sure. That’s when the question demands an answer. But this don’t solve why he’d even care to answer it since he’s equally happy not answering it. He’s also equally happy doing the opposite of whatever it is he may “believe about the world.” Haven’t seen you in a minute ma’am. Nice.

[Ecmandu]

I’ll actually answer your question… You cannot have an argument without pleasure or pain, at least if you’re aware if yourself…

The pleasure pain scenario informs your word choice.

Absent this, you cannot make an argument, the pleasure and pain may be minuscule but argument, word choice, conceptualization and response dictate small levels of elation or dissapointment … I’m disappointed by my misspelling of disappointment, but happy that it conveys my point.

The question you should ask is whether it is even possible to make your character absent pleasure or pain by you… Whether your question contradicts itself???

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Behind every human motivation there is either selfishness or pleasure. There is nothing else.