Gregg,

I understand that Skinner discovered the natural selection of behavior,
that basically reward selects for and reproduces behaviors, and punishment
eliminates behaviors.

The psychological term for well-being and suffering is valence. The
pressing question is what are the physical determinants of valence?

Even the smallest single-celled organisms respond to reward and punishment,
so how can we say that nervous systems are required for behavioral
selection? I suppose the behavior of single-celled organisms can't
diversity or vary that much, but they do have aversive and attractive
responses to stimuli.

I can't imagine a more pressing concern for ethics than to solve the
mystery of valence.

The theory that I most agree with is that suffering is a form of
attentional capture. One might ask, does the feeling of nausea cause more
attentional capture than a warm shower? I don't think so.

Behavioral investment theory talks about how suffering inhibits behavior
and pleasure leads to behavioral investment.

The problem of valence also boils down to the mystery of consciousness. I'm
inclined to believe that Jesse Prinz's AIR theory is very close to a theory
of consciousness, but I'm not sure if it encompasses all of subjective
experience. Prinz argues that qualia is based on attention, and his book
The Conscious Brain provides a theory of consciousness based on a theory of
attention:

‘AIR’ (‘Attended Intermediate-level Representation’) theory of
consciousness. According to this theory, consciousness arises when
intermediate-level perceptual representations (representations of the world
at a certain stage in the brain’s processing) undergo changes that allow
them to become available to working memory.

Here is a summary of his book The Conscious Brain
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__philosophynow.org_issues_104_The-5FConscious-5FBrain-5Fby-5FJesse-5FJ-5FPrinz&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=jhRNOUW91nRKJ_UC-cdIpp_TR7xhasRUtKegjK3j2Dk&s=jlsmOFAkDZ1v07vPrJSW9Dneot6RNoV_jRW9lCdGLVo&e=

So, I believe that suffering is attentional capture, and this at least
relates to the idea of a sort of "behavioral capture" as punishment. The
question is, what is the relationship between attention and behavior?
Clearly we have unconscious behavior, but I don't agree that we have
unconscious suffering. Suffering, in my understanding, doesn't occur unless
it occurs in awareness (which is a broad form of attention; and attention
is concentrated awareness)

Suffering is used by evolution to inhibit behavior and it does this by
capuring attention.

A problem here is what do I mean by "capture" of attention? I do mean
something like a mosquito buzzing in your ear, and I think a screaming
broken leg is just an increased version of that.

I'm confident that attentional capture at least has a strong relationship
to suffering. There's a reason Buddhist call the cessation of suffering
"liberation". But I can't explain why it should feel the way it does, and
this is perhaps the most important question to solve for ethics.

Jamie

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1