Pleasure And Pain Modeled With Math

Quote from waterholic

Someone as pompous and unappealing as Cicero going to such lengths to criticise seamingly sensible ideas? It was worth a read.

Thank you for the time putting all that together!

Quote from waterholic

Once again, this is just a model of the way I understand Epicurus for the moment. Any thoughts on whether I am missing something?

I am going to have to take some time to absorb it all.

Perhaps labeling (at least on the main chart) the directions of greater pleasure / lesser pleasure and greater pain / lesser pain?

It probably should be obvious but not on first glance, at least to a non-mathematician like me.

Also, why does the numbering jump from 5.50 to 1000, and from 1.10 to 1000?

Also: Is there a narrative explanation of what the "arctan" function does? Why are the charts not simple arithmetic?

And last, on the "over time" chart, where do the input values come from per day. Presuming that you are just taking random numbers, could that be stated so as to make the chart more clear?

Just for the sake of thought, not to disagree with your points:

1. the state of no pain is the absolute pleasure (or is it "the highest" pleasure? and should we add for completeness that the state of no pleasure is the highest pain?)
2. pain and pleasure cannot be mixed (I see no issues there, unless it helps to say that they can "coexist in separate parts of the experience, but not mix")
3. even at rest and without intense stimuli we can feel pleasure (given that pleasure is not defined as requiring stimuli at all, but as "agreeable feeling")
4. weak pain can be endured, intense pain is not permanent (there is limit to absolute pain). (to "the highest" pain?)

As one more aside, I see that in some of our recent Cicero reading that the wording is "life accompanied by pleasure" and "life accompanied by pain" as the way the issue is being described. While the "life" part is probably something to be clearly presumed, I wonder if in our current state of world corruption that the "life" part needs to be added back in to take account of the fact that pleasure and pain do not occur except for the living. And would that also not make clear why we would sometime choose death rather than "life accompanied by total pain."

I am not at all sure of that but one of the recent sections in Book 1 or 2 did seem to use (at least Reid translated it as) "life accompanied by" --- and that *might* be significant.

EDIT:

Book 2 ==

XII. Again, the truth that pleasure is the supreme good can be most easily apprehended from the following consideration. Let us imagine an individual in the enjoyment of pleasures great, numerous and constant, both mental and bodily, with no pain to thwart or threaten them; I ask what circumstances can we describe as more excellent than these or more desirable? A man whose circumstances are such must needs possess, as well as other things, a robust mind subject to no fear of death or pain, because death is apart from sensation, and pain when lasting is usually slight, when oppressive is of short duration, so that its temporariness reconciles us to its intensity, and its slightness to its continuance. When in addition we suppose that such a man is in no awe of the influence of the gods, and does not allow his past pleasures to slip away, but takes delight in constantly recalling them, what circumstance is it possible to add to these, to make his condition better? Imagine on the other hand a man worn by the greatest mental and bodily pains which can befall a human being, with no hope before him that his lot will ever be lighter, and moreover destitute of pleasure either actual or probable; what more pitiable object can be mentioned or imagined? But if a life replete with pains is above all things to be shunned, then assuredly the supreme evil is life accompanied by pain; and from this view it is a consistent inference that the climax of things good is life accompanied by pleasure.

Quote from waterholic

The middle white area is our daily life. When pain is brought down to the minimum (close to 0) we experience maximum pleasure, no matter how much pleasure stimuli we actually receive at that moment

Also: Don especially:

I wonder if the "stimuli we receive" phrasing (which is inherent in a lot of common discussion, and not just in this thread) is part of the problem. Is not Epicurus saying that the normal condition pleasures are not "stimuli" that are "received" at all, but self-generated through the minds appreciation of the true facts of life? The "received" part is especially a problem if that word implies that they just fall in your lap without effort, which I gather is pretty clear they do not (or at least they are not always seen to be pleasure without proper philosophy).

Quote from waterholic

To be clear, I don't believe such mathematics in practical life would be of any value or use - we are far better equipped to do the mental "maths" between pleasure and pain by default.

Yes I agree, but I DO think that plotting out some kind of graphical picture DOES help with a high-level understanding of the relationships between plain and pleasure, and so I think this is very worthwhile. There's simply too much muddy thinking out there to take anything for granted.

Quote from waterholic

I have to think about this. The stimuli here refers to any stimulation of our brain.

And I gather that Cicero's discussion is focusing on "stimulation of the senses." Does all awareness come through the senses? I'd say probably not, and maybe the precise issue they were debating is whether pleasure must be confined to actions of "the senses" or whether pleasure can be experienced (mentally) without the *present* stimulation of the senses. The relationship between "experience" and "sense" is pretty tricky and I am not sure how to best express it.

Aside - Waterholic is the thread name change ok?

"Τhis very thing is the good: Escaping from the bad -- because It is not possible for the good to be placed anywhere when neither what is painful nor what is distressing is any longer making way for it" (Plutarchi Non posse) 1091 A-B

If I were to chart my pleasure, it would most usually be at total pleasure with only occasional dips down due to uncommon circumstances (sickness, unexpected occurrences, etc).

The removal of pain, and the painlessness that results when pain is removed, is exactly what pleasure is.

I achieve full physical pleasure frequently and naturally by the internal process in my body when I have the necessary accommodations of food and shelter.

I achieve full mental pleasure just as naturally and frequently, by realizing the ease of obtaining physical contentment and fostering gratitude for my success in doing so.

In failing to appreciate this fact, the public (even when they are in a painless bodily state) tries to add to their pleasure by engaging in further activities (the things that produce pleasure of degenerates, τὰ Ποιητικὰ τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν, KD10), which usually leads them to further pains and worries!

KD3 "The limit in the amount of pleasures is the removal of all pain."

KD4 "Pain does not last continuously in the body..."

The questions involved in this thread came up tonight in our "First Monday / New Member" meeting. To some extent the question comes down to:

Is it useful at all -- is it possible at all - to think in terms of a "total experience" or "net experience" and then break down that experience into discrete pleasures and pains that fall one one side of the balance vs. the other side?

I think most of us agree that it is impossible "mathematically" or "in precise quantity" to "measure" individual pleasures and pains.

On the other hand, I think most of us would also admit that there is a sense in which we are continually doing exactly that: we are looking at situations and deciding what to choose and what to avoid based on what we expect to happen in terms of more pains or more pleasures.

So I post this to suggest that we have more work to do so that people on both sides of these issues can bridge the gap between what we do in real life (where we do weigh pleasures against pains) vs the limitations of a mathematical model.

How do we sufficiently explain the limits of such a model while also getting the benefits that should come in visualizing the practical choices we have to make in life?

For those who don't remember past discussions, here is one of my infamous worksheets:

A prior effort at an equation:

Post

RE: The Hedonistic Calculus - explained through an equation

Charles --Very interesting! This is similar to a discussion we had in regard to coming up with a " pleasure maximization spreadsheet." A Draft Epicurean Pleasure Maximization Worksheet

One of the first problems that makes this hard is in regard to "intensity." What does "intensity" really mean, and how do we judge it in comparison with duration / time and the other factors as well?

Given this statement in the letter to Menoeceus it seems clear that Epicurus would not say that "time" can alone…

Cassius

November 4, 2019 at 10:43 AM

I probably obscured the topics with my several posts there. Maybe the ultimate question is:

"Is it useful at all -- is it possible at all - to think in terms of a "total experience" or "net experience" and then break down that experience into discrete pleasures and pains that fall one one side of the balance vs. the other side?"

Is a "total experience" or a "net experience" just an intellectual abstraction and not something "real?"

Even if not "real," is it "useful?" Is it more misleading than useful? If so, is there a way to reduce the hazards so that it becomes useful? Or is it possible that there is just something so inherently inappropriate in the analysis that it can never be made useful?

Does anybody recall where the phrase "hedonic calculus" was first used? It seems to me that a later Epicurean (Philodemus?) used it, but I can't put my finger on it. I'm curious as to what the original Greek (?) words were and what exactly they might infer. IDK whether or not that would be pertinent here, but I just want to add it to the mix.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/algeb…dney%20stones.:

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz are both credited with the invention of modern calculus in the 17th century.

In Latin, calculus means “pebble.” Because the Romans used pebbles to do addition and subtraction on a counting board, the word became associated with computation. Calculus has also been borrowed into English as a medical term that refers to masses of hard matter in the body, such as kidney stones.

Judging by this, "calculus" wasn't even a word in Greek. So "hedonic calculus" would be a later overlay onto choices and rejections, which probably doesn't add any clarity to this thread. 🤔