Search ideas

Working on it. My preliminary answer is that it’s case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.

I’ll leave this marked as a criticism until I flesh these thoughts out more.

This doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.

Entrenchment

Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.

When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.

The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.

The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.

Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):

Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.

And:

[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]

And:

There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]

And:

[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

And:

[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].

And:

A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.

Prevailing explanations are immoral (#739) and false (#742). My theory does not have those flaws from the linked criticisms.

Prevailing explanations do not mention entrenchment. They do not refer to any epistemological concepts. My theory does.

Superseded by #746. This comment was generated automatically.

Prevailing explanations (#734) attribute addiction to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.

Prevailing explanations of addiction (#734) attribute it to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.

My conjecture

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.

Superseded by #742. This comment was generated automatically.

Any explanation of human behavior involving brains and their chemistry can at best be parochial. Since our computers are universal, we know that they could run any algorithm the brain runs. A computer can, in principle – although we don’t yet know how to program it to – run whatever algorithms make a person, including an addict. A computer made of metal and silicon has neither a brain nor hormones nor any other allegedly relevant chemistry, yet it could still simulate an addict. (Here, ‘simulate’ does not mean ‘fake’ or ‘mimic’ – it basically means ‘give rise to’, ‘instantiate’. A computer running such a program would literally contain a person.)

So the prevailing explanation violates computational universality, and with it, the laws of physics.

Any explanation of human behavior involving brains and their chemistry can at best be parochial. Since our computers are universal, we know that they could run any algorithm the brain runs. A computer can, in principle – although we don’t yet know how to program it to – run whatever algorithms make a person, including an addict. A computer made of metal and silicon has neither a brain nor hormones nor any other allegedly relevant chemistry, yet it could still simulate an addict. (Here, ‘simulate’ does not mean ‘fake’ or ‘mimic’ – it basically means ‘give rise to’, ‘instantiate’. A computer running such a program would literally contain a person.)

So the prevailing explanation violates computational universality.

Superseded by #739. This comment was generated automatically.

I think the prevailing explanation is immoral and false. People are not mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry. Nor is their behavior a result of a biological urge to seek rewards and avoid punishment. That is true for animals, but not people.

True and moral (ie, non-dehumanizing) explanations of humans refer to things like minds (not brains), preferences, ideas, and problems. They accurately reflect that a person is a moral agent, meaning he has free will and is responsible for his actions. They do not violate computational universality, nor are they limited to explaining behavior.

Superseded by #737. This comment was generated automatically.

The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry or reward and punishment. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

My conjecture

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He becomes a chain smoker.

Prevailing theories

The prevailing theories around addiction (physical and mental) are phrased in terms of physical things. Consider these quotes from a medically reviewed article by the Cleveland Clinic:

[A]ddiction is a disease — it’s a chronic condition. The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) defines addiction as a chronic brain disorder. Addiction doesn’t happen from having a lack of willpower or as a result of making bad decisions. Your brain chemistry changes with addiction.

And:

Behavioral addictions can occur with any activity that’s capable of stimulating your brain’s reward system.

And:

A significant part of how addiction develops is through changes in your brain chemistry.

Substances and certain activities affect your brain, especially the reward center of your brain.

Humans are biologically motivated to seek rewards. […] When you spend time with a loved one or eat a delicious meal, your body releases a chemical called dopamine, which makes you feel pleasure. It becomes a cycle: You seek out these experiences because they reward you with good feelings.

And:

Over time, the substances or activities change your brain chemistry, and you become desensitized to their effects. You then need more to produce the same effect.

In other words, the core of this ‘explanation’ is desensitization: your brain gets used to certain chemicals that feel good, so then you do more of whatever gets your brain those chemicals. A higher dose is required for the same effect.

How is this theory new?

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He becomes a chain smoker.

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

Picture a chain smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.

If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely.

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

I see. It’s the hyphen being followed by a space that threw me off. Did you get that from Dutch? I know German has it, too, but I don’t think English does. ‘Zu series’ might work.

Providing the source doesn’t fix the (potential) copyright violation, if that’s what you’re suggesting.