I’ve been thinking about something I wrote in my blog post yesterday. I had thrown out the thought, in passing, about how it seemed as though all the things in my life that I still do are not things I necessarily do for joy or out of desire to achieve some goal, but rather they are things which are more painful not to do than to do, and so I do them.
There isn’t really a positive motivation—not the pursuit of happiness or improvement or fulfillment or enrichment. It’s just that the feeling of stress and tension and anxiety (or whatever) regarding the prospect of, for instance, not going to work rapidly becomes worse than the equivalent feelings about going to work.
That’s not a great state of affairs. Don’t get me wrong; it’s entirely natural. I’ve written about this many times, this recognition of the fact that the negative experiences—fear, pain, revulsion, disgust, and so on—are the biologically most important ones. Creatures that don’t run from danger, that don’t avoid injury, that don’t shy away from potential infection and poison, are far less likely to survive to reproduce than creatures that do those things.
We see clinical examples of people lacking some of these faculties—such as those with congenital insensitivity to pain—and while we might envy them a life without agony, it tends to be quite a short life. Also, they tend to become immobile and deformed due to damage they do to their joints by not shifting position to improve blood flow.
In case you didn’t know, that’s one of the reasons you can’t stand completely still for very long; it’s not good for you.
But many of us, especially in the modern world, have some things that we do for positive experience. Some of them are dubious, but food, sex, companionship/conversation, singing, dancing, all that stuff, are positive things. Unfortunately, positive experience cannot be allowed—by biology—to last too long.
As Yuval Harari noted, a squirrel that got truly lasting satisfaction from eating a nut would be a squirrel that lived a very short—albeit fairly happy—life, and would be unlikely to leave too many offspring.
Maybe this is what happens to some drug addicts. Maybe they really do get satisfaction or at least pleasure from drugs—and maybe that is what ends up destroying them. At some level, that’s not truly in question, is it? People who are addicted to drugs forego other pleasures and other positive things, but perhaps more importantly, they fail to avoid many sources of pain and fear and injury.
The reality is probably a bit of an amalgam, I suppose. I would not say it’s a quantum superposition, though, except in the sense that everything is a quantum superposition (or, rather, a whole bunch of them).
This is one situation in which I think I’m right and Roger Penrose is wrong—a bold claim, but I think a fair one—in that I see no reason to suspect that the nature of consciousness either requires or even allows quantum processes, other than in the trivial sense that everything* involves quantum processes. But there’s no reason seriously to think that (for instance) neurotubules can even sustain a quantum superposition internally, let alone that such a process can somehow affect the other processes of the neuron, many of which are well understood and show no sign of input from weird states of neurotubules, which act mainly structurally in neurons.
If deep learning systems—LLMs and the like—have demonstrated anything, it’s that intuitive thought** does not require anything magical, but rather can be a product of carefully curated, pruned, and adjusted networks of individual data processing units, feeding backward and forward and sideways in specific (but not necessarily preplanned or even well understood) ways. No quantum magic or neurological voodoo need be involved.
I think too many people, even really smart people like Penrose, really want human intelligence to be something “special”, to be something that cannot be achieved except within human heads, and maybe in the heads of similar creatures. Surely (they seem to believe) the human mind must have some pseudo-divine spark. Otherwise, we oh-so-clever humans are just…just creatures in the world, evolved organisms, mortal and evanescent like everyone and everything else.
Which, of course, all the evidence and reasoning seems to suggest is the case.
Maybe, deep down, there isn’t much more to life than trying to choose the path from moment to moment that steers you toward the least “painful” thing you can find.
Please note, I’m not speaking here about some metaphorical continuum, some number line that points toward pleasure in one direction and pain in the other. That’s at best a toy model. In the actual body, in the actual nervous system, pain and fear and pleasure and motivation are literally separate systems, though clearly they interact. Pleasure is not merely the absence of pain, nor is pain merely the absence of pleasure. Even peripherally, the nerves that carry painful sensations (which include itching, as I noted yesterday!) use different paths and different neurotransmitters than the ones that deal in pleasure and positive sensation.
Within the brain, the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens (for instances) are separate structures—and more importantly, they perform different functions. There’s nothing magical about their locations in the brain or the particular neurotransmitters they use. Those things are accidents of evolutionary past.
There’s nothing inherently stimulating about epinephrine, and there’s nothing inherently soothing about endorphins or oxytocin, and there’s nothing inherently motivating or joyful about dopamine and serotonin. They are all just molecular keys that have been forged to open specific “locks” or activate (or inactivate) specific processes in parts of other nerve cells (and some other types of cells). It’s the process that does the work, Neo, not the neurotransmitter.
This brings up a slight pet peeve I have about people discussing “dopamine seeking” (often when talking about ADHD). I know, the professionals probably use this as a mere shorthand, but that can be misleading to the relatively numerous nonprofessionals in the world. The brain is not just a chemical vat. Depression and the like are not just “chemical imbalances” in some ongoing multi-level redux reaction or something, they are malfunctions of complicated processes. Improving them should be at least as involved as training an AI to recognize cat faces, wouldn’t you think?
But one can do the latter without really knowing the specifics of what is going on in the system. It’s just sometimes difficult, and the things you think you need to train toward or with often end up giving you what you didn’t really want, or at least what you didn’t expect.
Maybe this is part of why mindfulness is useful (it’s not the only part). With mindfulness, one actually engages in internal monitoring, not so much of the mechanical processes happening—no amount of mere meditation can reveal the structure of a neuron—but of the higher-scale, “emergent” processes happening, and one can learn from them and be better aware. This can be an end in and of itself, of course. But it can also at least sometimes help people decrease the amount of suffering they experience in their lives.
Speaking of that, I hope that reading this post has been at least slightly less painful for you than not reading it would have been. Writing it has been less painful than I imagine not writing it would have been. That doesn’t help my other chronic pain, of course, which continues to act up.
*With the possible exception of gravity.
**I.e., nonlinear processing and pattern recognition, the kind many people including Penrose think cannot be explained by ordinary computation, a la Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.

