Sex, coccaine, and money all affect the same centre of the brain: the pleasure centre. This is primarily mediated by the dopamine system (see e.g., Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997). If a choice is made to restrain one pleasure-inducing action, the shift is to another pleasure-inducing framework/perspective (e.g., moral purity). Until we recognize this in our models, our predictions regarding subjectively rational behaviour will collapse in bubbles of irrationality.
The brain is involved, irrespective of the "freely-taken" choice. Naturally-occuring drugs, such as dopamine, are thus also involved. Understanding both will lead to a greater understanding of "real world" behaviour. Yet -- counter to the interests of behavioural science researchers -- such an understanding will also increase individual freedom, especially since we will be able to take the contrarian perspective and act counter to the "rational" predictions of whatever neuro-predicated model is developed to predict our behaviour. But, to do this, one must learn the model (explicitly is more robust, but implicitly is good too).
There is no freedom to choose without either complete ignorance or complate awareness of the context framing the situation (and thereby imposing a system of meaning and value). These two paths branch, leading to diverging qualities of life: in experiments examining the former, monkeys learn helplessness and suffer what looks like depression; under the latter, however, you can often choose which future contexts you will occupy, leading to "flow" experiences as the dopamine system is activated as the world constantly realigns itself to your perspective (cf. Csikzentmihalyi). You can thus choose to become free, but -- until you do -- you are blind. Without attempts at freedom, therefore, actions can be considered "mad" (cf. Foucault).
There are lecture slides about this on my website, along with some interesting additional readings from various journals. Enjoy!
(Note: The opinions expressed are mine, and may or may not reflect those of the Department.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sex, coccaine, and money all affect the same centre of the brain: the pleasure centre. This is primarily mediated by the dopamine system (see e.g., Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997). If a choice is made to restrain one pleasure-inducing action, the shift is to another pleasure-inducing framework/perspective (e.g., moral purity). Until we recognize this in our models, our predictions regarding subjectively rational behaviour will collapse in bubbles of irrationality.
The brain is involved, irrespective of the "freely-taken" choice. Naturally-occuring drugs, such as dopamine, are thus also involved. Understanding both will lead to a greater understanding of "real world" behaviour. Yet -- counter to the interests of behavioural science researchers -- such an understanding will also increase individual freedom, especially since we will be able to take the contrarian perspective and act counter to the "rational" predictions of whatever neuro-predicated model is developed to predict our behaviour. But, to do this, one must learn the model (explicitly is more robust, but implicitly is good too).
There is no freedom to choose without either complete ignorance or complate awareness of the context framing the situation (and thereby imposing a system of meaning and value). These two paths branch, leading to diverging qualities of life: in experiments examining the former, monkeys learn helplessness and suffer what looks like depression; under the latter, however, you can often choose which future contexts you will occupy, leading to "flow" experiences as the dopamine system is activated as the world constantly realigns itself to your perspective (cf. Csikzentmihalyi). You can thus choose to become free, but -- until you do -- you are blind. Without attempts at freedom, therefore, actions can be considered "mad" (cf. Foucault).
There are lecture slides about this on my website, along with some interesting additional readings from various journals. Enjoy!
(Note: The opinions expressed are mine, and may or may not reflect those of the Department.)