Posts by Don

Quote from Dewitt

Another catchword of Epicurus is "fullness." It was part of his teaching that a limit to the desires had been set by Nature; thus a normal appetite could easily be satisfied to the full. The consequence was that fullness of pleasure was attainable. In the aggregate it meant that the fullness of all wholesome pleasures was feasible within the limits of mortal life.

It seems like we're talking about two different things here in relation to this ill-conceived video. I agree that the bread and water visuals and commentary are way overdone. But Epicurus did say that, if it was necessary, he could get pleasure from a simple meal of bread and water. I do not think that he meant he lived on that alone at all times. But he was saying his hunger could be satisfied and he could find pleasure in that meal. Would he attend a banquet and drink wine? Of course! If the opportunity presented itself! But I believe he would still listen to his body's natural limit and not eat to the point of pain. A life's "fullness of pleasure" is related to this but not the exact same thing. As in Dewitt's quote above, There's both the natural limit of appetites before pain sets in and, "in the aggregate" a pleasurable life could contain the limit of pleasures.

I get the impression that the video uses the "incorrect portrait" of Epicurus from Raphael's The School of Athens at the beginning precisely because it portrays him as pudgy and indulgent, knowing full well that this is an incorrect view. They're talking there about the incorrect view of his philosophy, and so use that picture.

Quote from Cassius

It ought to be obvious (and would be if someone were aware of the Philebus argument) that the point of the limit is a LIFETIME limit, and not an "of the moment" limit. I dare say that "for the moment" anyone could be satisfied with greed or power or fame or any other of the clearly "unnecessary" pleasures, just like they can be satisfied with one hamburger "for the moment." But what about tomorrow, and the next day? More hamburgers! Same with water, or air, or bread!

OMG, people who wrote this video, don't you think Epicurus could see that too? The "satisfied for the moment" argument has no part in what Epicurus was teaching. The limit that is relevant and important is not "of the moment" but a "lifetime" limit, and the reason it is important is that it answers Plato's argument that pleasure has no limit, not that it drives us to a life of asceticism!

I think the video overemphasizes some things and misrepresents other things, but I'm not sure I completely disagree with the "in the moment" argument you're having such a visceral reaction to. The natural limit of hunger is when one is satiated. The natural limit of thirst is when you're hydrated. Indulging after those natural limits are reached will lead to pain: indigestion, nausea, etc.

On the other hand, there is no natural limit to "greed or power or fame." They are made-up concepts that have no natural limit. There is no level of satisfaction connected with those, therefore one can never find a natural limit. There is no such thing. That's why those desires are κενός "empty, vain, fruitless." By definition, they cannot be satisfied.

I fully agree that one's lifetime of pleasure needs to be taken into account, and that this involves making decisions to achieve living the most pleasurable life. However, there's something to also recognizing the natural limits in relation to pleasures in which you indulge. There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating caviar (if you like it!) and drinking champagne if the opportunity arises! Epicurus teaches this. But again if you overindulge - if you don't listen to your body and its natural limit - you're going to experience pain.

I admit I need to read Philebus but right now I'm not experiencing the degree of pain you're obviously experiencing from this video.

Which would seem to poke a hole in the Platonic or Stoic balloon...

Quote from Godfrey

gues that rationality is somewhat of an illusion since so much of the process occurs subconsciously through predictions, simulations, affect, etc.

Quote from Godfrey

I was going to make exactly that point. "Pre-rational concepts" are what I would consider to be the faculty as well as the "etchings."

Exactly! Thanks for that! That's what I was trying to get across.

A quick clarification that may have led to some confusion:

When I say Anticipations are similar to "mental concepts" in modern neuroscience, I'm not talking about rational reasoning. Godfrey may be able to help me with this.

A "concept" in this sense is a technical term that denotes a mental model against which your brain compares sensations coming in and uses to make predictions on the course of action to keep your body budget in equilibrium. Its all pre-rational, we don't "know" it's going on. The model or concept can get refined but it works below the surface.

I'm not explaining this very well, but I wanted to be clear I'm not referring to a "conceptualizing" or "reasoning."

Godfrey ? Help .

@Nate , the three-part brain **may** be an analogy/metaphor to simplify an explanation of human nature but it shouldn't be taken to describe the anatomy of the brain. You bring up an interesting point about the ubiquity of 3s and 4s. Maybe something about completion or the satisfying arrangement you can get from 3 (triangle) or 4 (square) objects.

Excellent summary, Cassius !! Thanks! It's got me thinking, so I'll take a step back and respond asap.

To go back to your original question:
Is There A Relationship Between "Anticipations" and "Instinct"?

I don't think so. Instinct has to do with behavior. The Anticipations have to do with perception.

To use your favorite castorine example, beavers build dams over flowing water it appears as a result of stimuli compelling that behavior. There appears to be some sort of necessity involved. There is a visible measurable behavioral result.

From my perspective, Anticipations (I'm going to say similar to "mental concepts" in the strict scientific sense of Barrett's and her peers' research) are used by the mind to assess, identify, and categorize sensory stimuli. Previous sensations build, fine-tune, and strengthen "Anticipations" but they don't lead to a compulsive behavior.

Or maybe I'm conflating instinct and instinctual behavior. Still thinking...

Quote from Cassius

Here's an example that might appeal to some. If (hopefully when) we are one day able to reconstruct Jurassic-Park style a new generation of ancient dinosaurs, would we not expect to see them exhibit behaviorisms that were typical of their ancestors eons ago, even though by the terms of their resurrection none of them ever met their parents?

I'm really torn on this one. First, I firmly agree any representative of a resurrected species is going to display instinctive behavior. And it would be cool to actually see a dinosaur or even a mammoth or mastodon.

On the other hand, you'd have to start with one. How sad would it be to doom an animal to be the only member of its species to be alive, to deny it the pleasure of "friendship" or of having a recipient to return its mating call or see its dance.

Quote from Don

"Plato wrote that the human psyche consists of three parts: rational thoughts, passions (which today we call emotions), and appetites like the drive for hunger and sex. Rational thought was in charge, controlling the passions and appetites, an arrangement that Plato described as a charioteer wrangling two winged horses."

This quote from the paper I referenced got me to think that it may be tempting to see the three Platonic parts of the psyche as comparable somehow to the three legs of the Epicurean Canon somehow. However, that temptation or any permutation of it should be resisted at all costs. That - or the idea of the triune brain analogy - sets up a false hierarchy.

I think we've discussed elsewhere that the "parts" of the Canon work in concert, each influencing the other. That's, personally, what I find so elegant about seeing Epicurean parallels in Dr. Barrett's work and that of her colleagues. Sensations influence affect which influences concepts which influence how sensations are processed which... And translated into Epicurean terms: sensations influence the two pathē (pleasure and pain) which influence prolepses which influence how sensations are processed... It's not a 1:1 correspondence but I think it has promise and it aligns with the most current brain research.

Where does this leave us in the instinct question? I don't know if you can separate "nature vs nurture." One influences the other. They're inextricably linked. It's even been found that the environment has an effect on the expression of some genes. Cues in the environment can activate certain genes and these can be inherited by offspring. That's, as I understand, a recent finding. See, for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-018-0113-y

Quote from Cassius

And now we add to the list of fact issues: "is the brain triune like the godhead?".

Developing a method for dealing with fact disputes apparently is something we'll need to figure out!

Doing some additional reading, I found that the triune brain myth is more akin to Plato's analogy of the mind as the charioteer and the two horses. It's more of an analogy. However, it is also misleading in portraying how the brain is actually structured and how it evolved.

See also:

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medi…ill-compelling/

"The triune brain is a combination of Plato’s tripartite psyche and Aristotle’s and Darwin’s phylogenetic scale, tattooed onto the human brain. Plato wrote that the human psyche consists of three parts: rational thoughts, passions (which today we call emotions), and appetites like the drive for hunger and sex. Rational thought was in charge, controlling the passions and appetites, an arrangement that Plato described as a charioteer wrangling two winged horses." https://web.northeastern.edu/affectiveandbr…euroletters.pdf

The triune brain in antiquity: Plato, Aristotle, Erasistratus. "This paper investigates its origins and suggests that it is perhaps now time to move on." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20391097/

and, finally, probably the best scientific paper title I've ever seen: "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside"

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420917687

Quote from elli

Don does Dr. Barett mean that all the neurologists (including the founding member in Athens Garden mr. Christos Yapijakis) are based till our days on a wrong theory? Oh gee!

If they're using a triune brain model, yep, they're using outdated information.

Just FYI: Modern brain research has debunked the 3-part human brain. All mammalian brains (and possibly others, sorry, can't recall off the top of my head .... pun not necessarily intended) contain all those parts to varying degrees. See the work of Dr. Barrett and others.

https://how-emotions-are-made.com/notes/Triune_brain_myth

https://drsarahmckay.com/rethinking-the-reptilian-brain/

https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/11/you…a-lizard-brain/

Quote from Cassius

I believe those Beaver dams are going to prove critical to this question!

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/67662/…vers-mood-build

Quote from Cassius

Who does Epicurus look like? For some reason I am thinking of Gerard Butler -the star of "300" -

THIS...IS... PLEASURE!!!

Quote from JJElbert

I don't know if this is an example of the "uncanny valley" or not, but when I look at this picture it's just–it's just odd somehow...

This is LOT better than some and AI has come a LONG way (no more dead-eyed Polar Express), but yeah there's definitely still some side trips down there uncanny valley. I would have liked to see his hair a little more gray but overall seeing him in his prime was cool I'll admit.

FYI

Operant conditioning: Innate vs learned behaviors (video)

Khan Academy · khanacademymedicine

Oct 26, 2015

Quote from Godfrey

It both precedes and reacts to sensations, forming concepts and affecting behaviors from such an early age that it is commonly and mistakenly thought that there are ideas and behaviors that are innate.

I think that's an important statement right there! (Emphasis added)

"Epicurus taught that all our perceptions, thoughts, sensations, concepts, etc. have their genesis in material, physical processes. There's nothing supernatural - nothing beyond our physical reality - that exists that could have an impact on us."

How's that for the elevator pitch?