Re: virus: Re:What's your law?
« Reply #45 on: 2004-01-30 09:27:49 »
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:32 PM
> The universe is actually a powerful computer running a massive simulation, > using a genetic algorithm designed to answer the question, "What is the > purpose of the universe?"
If the universe has a purpose, this candidate would get my vote. When I first thought about the question my answer was that it has no purpose because the universe was (probably) not designed. It occurs to me now that origins can precede ascribed purposes. Not only is this possible, it is a fundamental property of evolutionary theory. Mutations are never designed for a purpose, they are random. The purpose (adaptation), if any, is discovered and exploited after the fact. Moreover, the purpose as a purpose is not formulated until an evolutionary biologist studies the problem and proposes a theory. So when and how does something acquire a purpose? It is not an simple question.
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #46 on: 2004-01-30 14:30:40 »
Simul,
I certainly don't want to give the impression that I had any scientific evidence to back up my hypothesis (that happiness has a genetic component). It was simply a guess and a story I made up to explain it if the guess is right; basically just talking out my ass. I do however seem to recall something I read which I believed credible at the time indicating that chronic depression has a genetic component, and so it doesn't seem like a fantastic leap to consider whether habitual happiness has a genetic component as well. Whatever the causes of such things, I don't think genetic fitness would have a lot of use for people who are happy/satisfied all the time. I would, of course, prefer to be "unfit" in such a way myself. If you have any cite or URL for your position that happiness isn't genetic, I'd be happy to see it. If not, that's okay, because I certainly don't have any for my own.
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 01/29/2004 10:13:56 AM > Subject: Re: virus: What's your law? > > I'm pretty sure it's meme's, not genes, that indicate happiness. > > Identical twin studies find that creativity and satisfaction are not strongly correlated with geneology. > > Sports ability and certain intelligence tests, however, are. > > Again, I reccomend the book, “The Art of Happiness” > > It is an art, not a hard-wired ability. > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens --- every1hz@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
Re: virus: Re:What's your law?
« Reply #47 on: 2004-01-30 14:24:39 »
--- David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:32 PM > > > The universe is actually a powerful computer > running a massive simulation, > > using a genetic algorithm designed to answer the > question, "What is the > > purpose of the universe?" > > If the universe has a purpose, this candidate would > get my vote. When I first > thought about the question my answer was that it has > no purpose because the > universe was (probably) not designed. It occurs to > me now that origins can > precede ascribed purposes. Not only is this > possible, it is a fundamental > property of evolutionary theory. Mutations are never > designed for a purpose, > they are random. The purpose (adaptation), if any, > is discovered and exploited > after the fact. Moreover, the purpose as a purpose > is not formulated until > an evolutionary biologist studies the problem and > proposes a theory. So when > and how does something acquire a purpose? It is not > an simple question. > > Lucifer
In the case of sentient somethings such as myself, we select a purpose based on what we find joy and satisfaction in.
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #48 on: 2004-01-30 17:42:59 »
> I certainly don't want to give the impression that I had any scientific > evidence to back up my hypothesis (that happiness has a genetic component). > It was simply a guess and a story I made up to explain it if the guess is > right; basically just talking out my ass. I do however seem to recall
I was just reading in Csikszentmihalyi's Flow that happiness does have a genetic component. Some people suffer from a condition called anhedonia, the inability to gain pleasure from normally pleasurable experiences. It has been linked to schizophrenia and other mental disorders with a genetic component. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> > I certainly don't want to give the impression that I had any scientific > > evidence to back up my hypothesis (that happiness has a genetic component). > > It was simply a guess and a story I made up to explain it if the guess is > > right; basically just talking out my ass. I do however seem to recall > > I was just reading in Csikszentmihalyi's Flow that happiness does have > a genetic component. Some people suffer from a condition called > anhedonia, the inability to gain pleasure from normally pleasurable > experiences. It has been linked to schizophrenia and other mental > disorders with a genetic component.
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #51 on: 2004-02-01 01:04:49 »
I read a new scientist article on happiness.
I admit that there may be a genetic component to being inclined to happiness.
I know from my experience that profoundly and chronically unhappy people can become happy... and sustainably so...in one instant of personal decision and without any major life changes.
All you need to be happy is to reverse the have-do-be life philosophy...
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #52 on: 2004-02-01 01:46:33 »
...i have always felt that unhappiness is acheived, and happiness is more or less the result of failing to acheive unhappiness. this sounds like a joke but it is not. 'happiness' seems to arise from a state of empowerment and accountability. two words that each frame very complex ideas. i shall put them in sebby terms:
empowerment: the real capacity to make adjustments to ones life...not just saying that it IS possible, but the resolve to actually do it. this usually requires a certain degree of courage and a lessening of covetous notions in my opinion...things we should work hard towards every day.
accountability: once we accept our role in the results life offers us, we can no longer blame others...without blame, we become hopeful and optimistic(a human instinct) due to the realization that we have much more control over our lives than we are typically led to believe. once we cannot blame, we have only ourselves to deal with; the one person we CAN actually control.
...it always seems that unhappiness nearly always comes from getting oneself stuck between two necessities that conflict with each other. things that we "must" do to feel that we are good or approved of, or righteous...and things that we "need" to satisfy our ambitions, goals and desires in life. if we can hold others as accountable as we hold ourselves, things simplify to a great extent, and the typical self-sacrifice that ruins our hopes and dreams may be avoided. the only catch in this is that to properly manage it without being a scoundrel, we cannot mislead others with regards to our intents.
I admit that there may be a genetic component to being inclined to happiness.
I know from my experience that profoundly and chronically unhappy people can become happy... and sustainably so...in one instant of personal decision and without any major life changes.
All you need to be happy is to reverse the have-do-be life philosophy...
RE: virus: Re:What's your law?
« Reply #53 on: 2004-02-01 03:31:19 »
[Blunderov]
Hi everybody. Just got back from a road trip and have been trying to catch up with Virus.
Of course this particular thread has gripped my attention more than somewhat and it put me in mind of a George Santayana remark to something like the effect that the pleasure of chess is deeply connected to a primal desire to overcome opposition.
So I began rooting about to see if I could find the actual quote - it fits in with my project "life is struggle"* quite nicely - and instead found:
My atheism is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests. George Santayana (1863-1952) </major digression>
I find myself in a bit of a quandary w/r to Lucifer's First Law. I would agree with it but only in the sense that 'playing it like a game' means using strategies learned from games in living.
'Game' it seems to me, has as a central component of its meaning the understanding that the outcome of the game is trivial. Stated another way, if the outcome of the game has an importance which extends beyond the game itself, then it is no longer a game (Of course if the game is considered to be a superset of life then all outcomes are trivial, but this smacks suspiciously of begging the question.)
So, I suppose, a lot depends upon the value that is assigned to the outcome of life.
Is it a brief strut and fret upon a fleeting stage? (Trivial) Is it that solemn ceremony, the Passing-on-of-Light? (Non-trivial)
In either event I am remain convinced that The law of struggle (Blunderov's law)* is unfalsifiable.
I was just reading in Csikszentmihalyi's Flow that happiness does have a genetic component. Some people suffer from a condition called anhedonia, the inability to gain pleasure from normally pleasurable experiences. It has been linked to schizophrenia and other mental disorders with a genetic component.
[Mermaid] I got the book and started reading it last night. I like it so far. Maybe we can discuss it later?
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #56 on: 2004-02-01 13:16:02 »
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 1:04 AM
> I read a new scientist article on happiness. > > I admit that there may be a genetic component to being inclined to happiness.
I should have mentioned that Csikszenymihalyi was careful not to equate pleasure and enjoyment. He was saying that since there is apparently a genetic component to being able to experience pleasure, it is not far fetched to think there may also be a genetic component to experience enjoyment. His main idea is that enjoyment (flow) is the key to happiness, and it is independent of pleasure.
> I know from my experience that profoundly and chronically unhappy people can become happy... and sustainably so...in one instant of personal decision and without any major life changes. > > All you need to be happy is to reverse the have-do-be life philosophy...
Re: virus: What's your law?
« Reply #57 on: 2004-02-01 13:47:01 »
I know from my experience that profoundly and chronically unhappy people can become happy... and sustainably so...in one instant >of personal decision and without any major life changes. > > > > All you need to be happy is to reverse the have-do-be life philosophy...
I couldn't agree more on that one. I don't really know what you mean by the have-to-be life philosophy either, but I think what you are talking about is no longer living your life for other people, constantly trying to make other people happy. /me gives a look of scorn to people who equate this light hearted look on life with Apathy. Although I don't agree that there are no major life changes, because as you change in yourself, you will want to change your life, rather than changing it because you think you have to.
Happiness is a decision you make, not the things you have or do.
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com> >Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com >To: virus@lucifer.com >Subject: Re: virus: What's your law? >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:16:02 -0500 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> >Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 1:04 AM > > > > I read a new scientist article on happiness. > > > > I admit that there may be a genetic component to being inclined to >happiness. > >I should have mentioned that Csikszenymihalyi was careful not to equate >pleasure >and enjoyment. He was saying that since there is apparently a genetic >component >to being able to experience pleasure, it is not far fetched to think there >may >also be a genetic component to experience enjoyment. His main idea is that >enjoyment (flow) is the key to happiness, and it is independent of >pleasure. > > > I know from my experience that profoundly and chronically unhappy people >can become happy... and sustainably so...in one instant >of personal decision and without any major life changes. > > > > All you need to be happy is to reverse the have-do-be life philosophy... > >What is the have-do-be life philosophy? > >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
