THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO LIKE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING MORE PRACTICAL, MAYBE SKIP ON TO ANOTHER ARTICLE, AND HAVE A NICE DAY!
An individual person has different experiences resulting from the same stimulus over time.
This remains the case when other factors remain the same.
It is reasonable to assume (until a more successful explanatory abstraction presents itself) that stimulus plus processing produces experience.
Liken the experience-generating mechanism to the software installed on a computer. Consider the stimulus to be an input into the software, namely the configuration of the physical brain, and the experience to be the output of the software.
How can experience change?
It is clear that different stimuli produce different experiences. We need not demonstrate this.
It is clear from the above that differing software will produce different experiences.
It is clear that software can be changed by external stimuli: a bad experience can clearly induce fear of its recurrence, and negative reactions to harbingers of that recurrence.
But can we change that software as an act of the will?
It is clear that some people report this to be the case.
But is this a universally available?
Maybe some people’s software is susceptible to change both in response to external stimuli (events) and in response to internal stimuli (mental acts), whereas others’ is susceptible to change in response only to external stimuli (events).
This distinction is artificial, however. To demonstrate this, let us disregard events where the physical body is directly affected, e.g. physical injury, and examine an event whose only physical correlate is visual, for instance black shapes on a screen that form letters, for instance an email in which profound criticism is expressed, which profoundly alters the individual’s future response to the critic. We can take this to be an externally originating alteration of the software. It is clear in this case that the effect is produced not by an external physical agent but by the individual’s mental representation of an external state of affairs.
Many external events, to act on the software, must be converted into mental representations. The stimulus that effects change in the software is therefore a mental act. There is no reason to suppose that mental acts inherently act differently on the software depending on their origin.
Conversely, the individual’s own mental acts can convert into actions, which then become external stimuli. Even if there were an impediment to software change effected by mental acts originating from inside, this could be circumvented by converting internally originating mental acts into external actions, which in turn are converted into mental acts originating externally, thus capable of altering the software. But this is an unnecessary complication:
More parsimoniously, it is more reasonable to assume that the software is susceptible to change effected by external acts converting into mental acts or by mental acts that originate internally as such (leaving aside the question of how physical stimuli, such as injury or hunger, might affect the software).
Thus, software is altered through mental acts originating both externally and internally. In principle, therefore, it should be possible to effect a change in the software through mental acts.
This means I can take responsibility for my experience by changing my software.
But why should I take responsibility? For my experience to change, either the stimuli must change or the processing must change. Why should I not change the stimuli?
This is clearly legitimate. If I am cold and the window is open, I can close the window. But not all stimuli are under my control. Moreover, stimuli under my control are sometimes associated with a cost of change. For instance, constantly setting boundaries with others can occasion hostility on their part, creating more stimuli capable of generating negative experience.
The belt and braces approach must be adopted: Change those stimuli I can and should, where the benefit outweighs the cost, but change the processing regardless, and universally.
In other words, adjust my circumstances to be as agreeable as possible, subject to certain constraints, but adjust my processing so that, whatever the stimulus, I am unaffected.
With others:
Let us recognise that people are at different stages of their development. Some currently have bad software, unaware of their capacity for change or lacking the resources to change. There is a spectrum all the way through to those with good software that provides full insulation against all stimuli potentially producing bad experience.
The courtesy is to treat everyone as though they have bad software: this produces consistent behaviour on my part and minimises risk of harm.
This does not relieve others of their responsibility to insulate themselves by adjusting their software but does minimise negative experience until this process is complete.
This courtesy is constrained, however, because the avoidance of all stimuli capable of generating bad experiences is impossible. This is firstly because certain actions or events may promote the greater good of the individual as a whole or over time or the greater good of all, at a point in time or over time. In ordinary language, the good of the individual requires short-term pain to achieve long-term gain, and the good of all requires give and take. Not all impulses or ambitions can be satisfied, either within an individual or between individuals. Impulses and ambitions must be sifted and weighted, which means that certain impulses and ambitions will have to be supressed and set aside, respectively. Such setting aside is a stimulus capable of generating a bad experience.
Such stimuli are therefore inevitable, even in the best of all possible worlds. My response within myself is therefore to adjust my software to produce a layer of insulation against such stimuli. Outwardly, my obligation is to help others do the same where possible and to minimise generating such stimuli with all.
But why should I take responsibility? For my experience to change, either the stimuli must change or the processing must change. Why should I not change the stimuli?
This is clearly legitimate. If I am cold and the window is open, I can close the window. But not all stimuli are under my control. Moreover, stimuli under my control are sometimes associated with a cost of change. For instance, constantly setting boundaries with others can occasion hostility on their part, creating more stimuli capable of generating negative experience.
The belt and braces approach must be adopted: Change those stimuli I can and should, where the benefit outweighs the cost, but change the processing regardless, and universally.
In other words, adjust my circumstances to be as agreeable as possible, subject to certain constraints, but adjust my processing so that, whatever the stimulus, I am unaffected.
With others:
Let us recognise that people are at different stages of their development. Some currently have bad software, unaware of their capacity for change or lacking the resources to change. There is a spectrum all the way through to those with good software that provides full insulation against all stimuli potentially producing bad experience.
The courtesy is to treat everyone as though they have bad software: this produces consistent behaviour on my part and minimises risk of harm.
This does not relieve others of their responsibility to insulate themselves by adjusting their software but does minimise negative experience until this process is complete.
This courtesy is constrained, however, because the avoidance of all stimuli capable of generating bad experiences is impossible. This is firstly because certain actions or events may promote the greater good of the individual as a whole or over time or the greater good of all, at a point in time or over time. In ordinary language, the good of the individual requires short-term pain to achieve long-term gain, and the good of all requires give and take. Not all impulses or ambitions can be satisfied, either within an individual or between individuals. Impulses and ambitions must be sifted and weighted, which means that certain impulses and ambitions will have to be supressed and set aside, respectively. Such setting aside is a stimulus capable of generating a bad experience.
Such stimuli are therefore inevitable, even in the best of all possible worlds. My response within myself is therefore to adjust my software to produce a layer of insulation against such stimuli. Outwardly, my obligation is to help others do the same where possible and to minimise generating such stimuli with all.