X-Message-Number: 17094
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:37:54 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: altruism and all that

HI Everyone!

I note Scott Badger's "psychological" discussion of identity and do not
really know where to begin in discussing it. 

The first point is that we have several different kinds of memories, 
which can operate well or poorly. Some of them only last a short time;
others rather swiftly change what is remembered to fit our preconceptions
and ideas. All are very closely bound up with who we are and what we
want to be.

This tells me that we're very unlikely to want to share ALL our memories
with others. At a minimum, we quite possibly could NOT do such sharing
because some of our memories will have been rewritten repeatedly and
bear no relation to those of anyone else ... including especially anyone
who "experienced the same thing". This is separate but also related to
the simple point that we aren't just memories but attitudes to them
and attitudes to the attitudes. (In practice these go together, so that
we can't just get new memories and then form attitudes to them ... except
if we're getting quite new experiences).

All theoretical issues aside, it's clear that we do not work like any
presently existing computer, nor like any which will be built soon. It's
far from obvious how we could transfer valueless memories between one
another ... by which I mean that our memories always carry with them
feelings and values, not that our memories have no value. Not only 
can't we, but we would probably object if someone came along with
a (highly theoretical!!!) machine which was supposed to do that...
supposing that such machines could exist.

George Smith also brings up a related issue... not the same but related.
While it's useful to understand just how much our own sense of value
and self are involved in what we say, that does not mean that they
should not be involved or that we should not have values. Yes, we
do have wants, and what we do tries to achieve them. Yes, we don't
always succeed when we do that. Yes, sometimes our wants turn out to
contradict one another ... not in a logical sense but in the sense
that we cannot get one without giving up the other. Life is hard.

But by assuming that we should NOT have those individual wants we
make a big mistake, one which doesn't really help anything. We would
either try to suppress our individual wants (and ultimately fail)
or accept them as ours, not those of the Universe at large, and
continue trying to see what we can do to bring them about.

Finally, I note a quite prolonged discussion of altruism. I will make
one point which affects what some have said: when we consider altruism
in biology and natural selection, we must keep in mind that the aim
of a creature is not just to insure its own continual survival. Mothers
may sacrifice so that their children can survive. Brothers can sacrifice
themselves so that one of them survives. This happens every day even if
it usually doesn't involve actually dying on the part of the one who
sacrifices. In the case of someone who throws himself on a grenade
to benefit his soldier-brothers, we have altruism, yes, but like all
such altruism can be explained by the operation of personal modes
by which we generally promote our genes. And like all such biological
altruism, I'd say that 1. it leaves unknown exactly how we individually
choose to behave and 2. in the sense that it is not REALLY altruistic
in the sense of religious or ethical teachings, it simply shows the
many varieties of "selfishness" that biology has made possible.

		Best wishes and long long life for all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17094