X-Message-Number: 2710
From: 
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 15:15:35 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS clarify philosophy

It was probably stupid of me to put anything about philosophy on the net,
because the topic is so complex and slippery that any fragments are almost
certain to be  puzzling, or even misleading, especially to new people.  But
having done so, I'll try to clarify a couple of things, if this can be done
in a short space. ("Fools rush in...")

1. Instead of talking about "identity" it might be better to talk about
criteria of SURVIVAL. The difference is subtle, but I think this change in
language can help. After all, although we would like to know who and what we
are, our main initial concern is to save it, whatever it is. It might also be
possible to know how to save something without knowing what it is. 

2. In recent hurried postings, I think I forgot to mention my suggested view
of consciousness, namely  (and roughly) the integration of feeling and
computing. When the computational/observational part of the brain connects
with the self circuit, so that the thing perceived or calculated acquires
some subjectivity, we have (some degree of) consciousness.

3. Reality  and usefulness of the Self Circuit:  Its existence is  not open
to question, since it is just a name I have given to that
aspect/portion/subset of the brain that allows feeling or subjectivity. Since
we know we have these, the Self Circuit certainly exists.  And it obviously
must involve feedback and some degree of homeostasis. 

Its possible usefulness (as a concept) arises in several ways. First, it
focuses attention on the fact that feeling or subjectivity is the central
question of science. It shows, for example, how people like Dennett have gone
off on (partly) the wrong track and ignored the main issues.

Second--although this is not easy to see offhand--it totally transforms the
possibilities in personal philosophy, moral and ethical philosophy,
political philosophy, etc.  This is because, for the first time, it opens the
clear possibility of applying objective science to what has mostly been
regarded as outside the purview of science. We can now look for absolute
values--not handed down on stone tablets, but handed up from our basic
biology. ("Absolute," however, does not necessarily mean unchangeable; it
means non-arbitrary.)

Third, since we are looking for a physical system with some degree of closure
and homeostasis, it offers another wedge in the attempt to pry apart the
various levels of value and the possible basic kinds of wants. It may help us
decide whether Lorentz' "Parliament of Instincts" is hopeless or not--whether
our built in drives are in BASIC conflict, or whether we can excise unwanted
(!) wants. It may also help in learning how to put derivative values and mere
habits (functioning as values) in proper perspective. 

Fourth,  if we can find  chronons of subjective time, and relate them to
quanta of spacetime, some light may be shed on ultimate reality, including
criteria of survival.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2710