X-Message-Number: 17018
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:24:47 -0700
From: Lee Corbin <>
Subject: Re: altruism and terminology

Robert Ettinger quotes my statement

>>You [Robert] understand what is really going on in people's
>>nervous systems as well as I, and I understand what is really
>>going on in peoples nervous systems as well as you.
>
>That flabbergasts me. I certainly don't have much understanding, and I don't 
>think anyone else does either. It's going to take an enormous amount of
work. 

First, the statement is literally true:  we both have some understanding
indeed (albeit at a very global level).  The statement does not comment
on the extent of the understanding, or in what way.

Second, the statement is taken out of context.  Here is the whole 
paragraph.

"Now, WE KNOW ALL THE FACTS HERE.  You understand what is really
going on in people's nervous systems as well as I, and I understand
what is really going on in peoples nervous systems as well as you.
So what are we debating?  We are debating terminology, and the
important semantic links that our terms have."

Evidently, I should have said something different.  It was only
a way of making the point that in the arena the we were discussing,
the facts were not the problem (which you agree with).  I'm sorry
that you were flabbergasted.

Do you agree with my main point?  Namely:

"You can go ahead and *call* great acts of philanthropy selfish if
you want to.  You can go ahead and claim that altruism doesn't
exist.  You can maintain that every single act done by every
single organism in the universe is done because it is obeying
the laws of physics and is selfish.  You are merely making it
very hard for people to understand you, and you are relegating
to the dust bin a lot of words and concepts (e.g. thoughtfulness,
generosity, kindness) that have been part of human languages for
one hundred thousand years."   and therefore we should grant
that people on occasion act altruistically.

Lee

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17018