X-Message-Number: 10177
From: 
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:05:11 EDT
Subject: validation of values

Brian Manning Delaney (cryonet #10174) had many thoughtful comments on values.
Here I will just selectively try to make a few points that may have some
slight chance of being persuasive--or at least offering glimmerings of
insight--in a short statement. In no particular order:

1. Demanding a definition of "happiness" really misses the point. Happiness
(satisfaction, feel-good) is not to be defined, but studied. It is not a
matter of language, but of biology. We talk about it initially in necessarily
vague terms, to be sharpened as we learn more.

2. Nevertheless, the essence of feel-good is intuitively obvious, if we don't
let our sophistication get in the way. We are talking about subjective
conditions (qualia), caused by (rather, equivalent to) objective states or
events in the brain. We all know there are "good" qualia and "bad" qualia. The
most basic value or goal is to create or increase a preponderance of good
qualia or feel-good or satisfaction. (If anyone can suggest a different
fundamental value, please do so, and attempt to defend it.)

3. Philosophers often claim it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an
"is." (I think Brian agrees with that.) I can't quickly prove my claim that we
can always derive "ought" from "is," but I can quickly disprove the
philosophers' claim that we never can--because I only need one counterexample.

Consider an ordinary person in ordinary circumstances. He wants to maintain
good health for an extended period. To do so he needs to eat a reasonably well
balanced diet. Hence he "ought" to do so, and want to do so. This higher level
or derivative value or goal--to eat a reasonably well balanced diet--is
objectively validated because it tends to further a more fundamental value, to
maintain good health.

At the base of the pyramid (or inverted pyramid), the most basic values must
stand on their own. I have already said the most fundamental value(s) can be
found in feel-good. It is irrelevant that we do not yet know anything about
the anatomy/physiology of qualia; we have every reason to presume we will
learn. And once again, if anyone questions this position, his challenge is to
offer something different. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested an
alternative that makes the slightest sense. 

(To my knowledge, no one has ever offered a genuine alternative to determinism
either, but that is another long story.)

4. Part of Brian's problem seems to be the concept of maximization in the
context of a limitless future etc. Again, this is just a matter of common-
sense manipulation of probability calculations. We weight more heavily the
consequences that are closer in time and space and more amenable to
estimation. The best you can do is the best you can do. It makes no sense to
fail to try, just because you know your competence is limited. Everyone, every
day, acts on this principle, whether or not the calculations are conscious or
explicit.

5. Brian says the definition of happiness is not a scientific question, and
mentions mind vs. brain. My position (and in this, for a change, I am far from
alone) is that mind is just an aspect of the brain or its functions, and that
ALL questions are scientific questions, if we define "science" in an
appropriately broad way.  

6. Brian says it needs to be shown that maximizing personal happiness is the
most rational approach (to deciding what one ought to do or want). Well,
surely it is obvious that the ONLY rational approach is that which best tends
to further your most basic goals or values. If there is any other, I would
like to see it.

7. Brian even says it needs to be shown that a rational approach is better
than a non-rational approach. Well, the only way a non-rational approach could
be "better" (more effective in furthering your most basic values) is by
accident. If I am missing something here, I await instruction.

What do you know--I have provided cosmic enlightenment in less than two pages!

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10177