X-Message-Number: 10191
From: 
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:52:07 EDT
Subject: last time for a while

Thanks to those who have commented on values, helping me see other viewpoints.

To keep this short, I'll mostly just capsulize others' comments, hopefully
accurately.

Several people have mentioned the many types of "happiness" and their changes
over time, sometime interdependence, and sometime inconsistency, as well as
the fact that many satisfactions are not crudely physical, and "happiness" is
not always the same as "pleasure." None of this affects anything I have said.
Subjectivity is complex, and its physical basis not yet known. But barring
possibilities such as telepathy, identity of duplicates, and a few others, it
is presumptively true that everything of direct importance to the individual
occurs in his own brain. Qualia--which *are* feelings and do not merely cause
feelings--will eventually be physically identified and understood. We will
then be able to sharpen our current necessarily vague statement that the most
basic value is to feel good, and devise better strategies to maximize feel-
good. That these strategies may sometimes need to be very elaborate is not an
excuse to turn away.

I suppose I have to reiterate that the possibility and necessity of attempting
to maximize future weighted satisfaction is not vitiated by the fact that we
are working in the face of many unknowns, including possibly radical future
changes. All I have really said is that we must make our best effort to
identify valid goals or values, then our best effort to reach or fulfill or
maximize these over time, adjusting as needed. (Here "common sense" and
"sophistication" coincide.)

Rand Simberg says there is no way to prove the rational approach is best,
unless you first accept rationality. This is just saying that, if you refuse
to listen to reason, reason will not persuade you. True, but irrelevant. (And
it's somewhat humorous, too, for someone to use "logical" argument to "prove"
that logical argument isn't necessarily valid.) And I'll get to the
Incompleteness Theorem(s) in due time; it's one of my favorite projects. 

Some quickies for Brian Delaney:  (1) Justification for my claim that feel-
good is a matter of biology (and ultimately physics)? My justification is the
totality of human experience--and especially the recent progress and countless
successes in learning and exploiting the facts of nature. What has dualism
done for us lately? (2) As noted above, qualia (as observed from outside, when
we succeed in this) are physical states or events in the brain. (3) The
"psychic" isn't a matter of physics? Those who say this, as best I can tell,
merely mean that systems can often be described most usefully in system-
oriented terms, not component-oriented terms, the "whole is greater than the
parts" and all that. The best way to describe a wheel is not to specify the
location of each atom. So what? The wheel is still made of atoms. You may not
always talk about psychology in physical terms, but the brain's activity is
physics none the less. (4) I take the position that "science" (or at least the
"scientific attitude") should relate primarily to honesty and resourcefulness,
and is therefore applicable to all areas of life. This has clear and obvious
benefits. (5) Can't use science to justify the use of science? That is
trapping oneself in words. Of course I can use experience as a guide to
conduct. (6) A value at a higher (more derivative) level is validated by its
tendency to further lower (more basic) goals or values. At the most basic
level we have feel-good. This statement is justified because for many
(including many eminent philosophers) it is self-evident; at a minimum it is
plausible; and there is no competitor. The final proof will come after we have
fully explored and understood our mental mechanisms. (And I hope no one will
tell me that the brain cannot comprehend itself.)

Long life and have fun--

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10191