X-Message-Number: 2763 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: CRYONICS: re #2733-#2736 Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 07:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Hi again! Re: ought to want versus want. Yes, I have read Ettinger's thoughts on this subject, and he may have the core of an idea. However I still feel that his explanation (in his most recent message) is far too abstract for real use in a real situation. Usually what we want is much more complex, and so are the alternatives --- so that working out what we should want on the basis of elementary drives is hardly an obvious thing to do (both satisfy these drives, all of them, to some extent). Here is something a little more specific. Regarding wants we have three possible situations. Imagine everyone as having a list of wants sorted according to their priorities. To be even more specific, we say that "cryonic suspension" is one of these wants. Something may or may not be on the list; alternatively, it IS on the list but its POSITION may differ from what it "ought" to be. Getting cryonic suspension on someone's list at all when they don't have it there at all is hard; getting them to give it higher priority is not so hard, but can still be difficult. "Ought" cryonics suspension to be on their list? We think so; but what if they feel suicidal (for ideological or personal reasons). Unfortunately, people can have CONSISTENT value systems which contradict one another. That is, what we would have on our list isn't on theirs at all. Yes, we can sometimes change their list (though a discussion of basic human desires rarely if ever succeeds!!!). And sometimes that change comes not from any ARGUMENT but from confrontation with reality in some form -- someone young enough not to have experienced the death of a relative may have all kinds of thoughts about cryonics which they later change when death comes closer to them. Yet this would not be because of INCONSISTENCY but be a real change from one set of wants to another, both consistent. So if we were to provide grounds for such a change, what would they be? They could not be LOGICAL grounds. Getting someone to increase the priority of a want they may have is another issue entirely. For instance, an Indian beggar may in some sense want cryonic suspension -- but given that they first want food and shelter for the coming night, suspension is far down the list. "Should" it be? The thing to focus on here is that in both cases, the person has all their immediate wants satisfied. They don't suffer any direct pain or direct threat to their basic human wants. Cryonic suspension deals with one of their FUTURE wants (or not-wants) and any simple argument from basic human wants is broken by the fact that the future is not now. Long long life Thomas PS: I don't really consider what I've said to be complete. But I "want" to go now. To be continued ... Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2763