That's interesting. Hadn't seen that. So you are suggesting that addiction as we know it for drugs etc. is going through the 'wanting' circuit, but wireheading would go through the 'liking' circuit, and so wouldn't resemble the former?

Well, no, maybe you just believe remote stimulation of the pleasure centers of one's brain to be inherently addicting, whereas I just assumed that a superintelligent being hitting my brain with remote stimulation could avoid causing addiction if it was motivated to do so.

Well, I figure wireheading is either intrinsically addicting, by definition (what else could addiction be motivated by but pleasure?) or so close to it as to make little practical difference; there are a number of rat/mice studies which entail sticking electrodes into the pleasure center and gaining complete control and the researchers don't mention any mice/rat ever heroically defying the stimulus through sheer force of will, which suggests very bad things for any humans so situated.

Alright, I'll put it another way. You seem very cavalier about having your utility-function/preferences without your volition. You defend a new mother's utility-function/preferences being modified by oxytocin, and in this comment you would allow a third party to tasp you and get you addicted to wireheading. When exactly are such involuntary manipulations permitted?

So that use of oxytocin (and any other fun little biases and sticks and carrots built into us) is a 'noble lie', justified by its results?

In keeping with the Niven theme, so, then you would not object to being tasped by a third party solicitous of your happiness?

So, then, you would wirehead? It seems to me to be the same position.

My point is that I'm not sure how much we should trust our own reflections on our happiness.

I would mischievously point out things like the oxytocin released after childbirth ought to make us especially wary of bias when it comes to kids. After all, there is no area of our life that evolution could be more concerned about than the kids. (Even your life is worth less than a kid or two, arguably, from its POV.)

Then let me just say, welcome!

As a parent I can report that most days my day-wise maximum moment-to-moment happiness is due to some interaction with my child.

I'm inclined to believe you, but note that what you said doesn't quite contradict the hypothesis, which is that if you were not a parent, your day-wise maximum (from any source) would probably be higher.

Also, beware of attributing more power to introspection than it deserves, especially when the waters are already muddied by the normativity of parents' love for their children. You say your happiest moments are with your child, but a graph of dopamine vs. time might (uninspiringly) show bigger spikes whenever you ate sugar. Or it might not. My point is that I'm not sure how much we should trust our own reflections on our happiness.

The basic idea about parents and hedonic psychology, as I understand it, is that your moment-to-moment happiness is not typically very high when you have kids, but your "tell me a story" medium/long term reflective happiness may be quite high.

Neither of those is privileged. Have you ever spent a day doing nothing but indulging yourself (watching movies, eating your favourite foods, relaxing)? If you're anything like me you find that even thought most moments during the day were pleasant, the overall experience of the day was nasty and depressing.

Basically, happiness is not an integral of moment-to-moment pleasure, so while it's naive to say parenting is an unqualified joy, it's not so bleak as to be only a good thing after the memories are distorted by time.