sark comments on Suffering as attention-allocational conflict - Less Wrong

49 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 18 May 2011 03:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (61)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 June 2011 12:52:33PM 0 points [-]

Our ancestors didn't have the benefit of modern medicine, so some causes of chronic pain may have just killed them outright. On the other hand, not all of the things causing chronic pain today were an issue back then. The incidence for both back pains and depression was probably a lot lower, for example.

Fixing the problem requires removing chronic pain without blocking acute pain when it's useful. This problem isn't necessarily trivial. If chronic pain was rare enough, then trade-offs making both chronic and acute pain less likely may simply not have been worth it.

Comment author: sark 02 June 2011 02:10:08PM 0 points [-]

Our ancestors didn't have the benefit of modern medicine, so some causes of chronic pain may have just killed them outright. On the other hand, not all of the things causing chronic pain today were an issue back then.

I was actually using pain as an analogy for suffering. I know that chronic pain simply wasn't as much of an issue back then. Which was why I compared chronic pain to chronic suffering. If chronic suffering was as rare as chronic suffering back then (they both sure seem more common now), then there is no issue.

Are the current attention-allocational conflicts us modern people experience somehow more intractable? Do our built in heuristics which usually spring into action when noticing the suffering signal fail in such vexing attention-allocational conflicts?

Why do we need to have read your post, then employed this quite conscious and difficult process of trying to figure out the attention-allocational conflict? Why didn't the suffering just do its job without us needing to apply theory to figure out its purpose and only then manage to resolve the conflict?

Fixing the problem requires removing chronic pain without blocking acute pain when it's useful.

I guess you can look at it as a type I - type II error tradeoff. But you could also simply improve your cognitive algorithms which respond to a suffering signal.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 June 2011 08:33:20PM 0 points [-]

Why do we need to have read your post, then employed this quite conscious and difficult process of trying to figure out the attention-allocational conflict? Why didn't the suffering just do its job without us needing to apply theory to figure out its purpose and only then manage to resolve the conflict?

It's a good question. I don't have a good answer for it, other than "I guess suffering was more adaptive in the EEA".