X-Message-Number: 2769
From: 
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 14:28:43 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS wetterau

I'm glad to hear from Mr. Wetterau, both as a potential cryonicist and for
feedback on philosophy.

I don't  recall having sent him the Cryonics Institute/Immortalist Society
information package. If he (or anyone else) cares to supply a mailing
address, we'll be glad to send that without charge.

Now about the Natural History of Values:

There seem to be two main reasons why it is so hard to make myself clear. One
is that natural/traditional language is ill suited to the task. The other is
that one must compromise between succinctness and clarity--the latter
demanding frequent, tiresome reminders of the many caveats, qualifications,
and limitations of the current discussion.

Mostly, Mr. Wetterau's points are well taken; but they do not refute my
thesis. Instead, they partly anticipate some of the complications and
problems. Some of these are resolved in the approach itself, while others
await experimental clarification. For the most part, my viewpoint includes
his, or in some cases corrects or improves it. Let me try again, within the
constraints of reasonable brevity.

Consider his reductio-ad-absurdum, that maximization of personal future
feel-good would aim for perpetual orgasm or some such. Not so, for several
reasons.

One obvious reason is that we seek to maximize the PROBABILITY of achieving
the goal, and opium eaters are defenseless; thus eating opium cannot maximize
the probability of survival, let alone satisfaction.

A second reason is that achieving a fixed STATE can hardly be appropriate,
since any sense of passage of time seems to require CHANGE. Wants are not
fixed or static; we want to eat, but not always, and not always to the same
degree; it depends on context and previous history.

Even more important, we have not yet solved the problem of understanding and
comparing different types of satisfaction or pleasure or utility,
ascertaining whether they are fundamental or derivative, whether they can
safely or usefully be edited or modified, which are "real" and which delusory
or accidental, etc.

Clearly, the self circuit was formed and modified under external and internal
influences, evolution in the usual sense and also through exchanges with
other parts/aspects of the brain. It is crucial to understand exactly how
this works.  As one type of problem, consider the soldier.

>From an evolutionary standpoint, the soldier psyche developed because
communities (before that, families) were more likely to survive/prevail (at
least under some circumstances) if people were willing to risk their lives
for others or for a "principle."  From a short-term training  or conditioning
standpoint, soldiers can (more or less) be made to respond quickly and
unquestioningly to orders just by repetitive drills, along with propaganda.
To what extent do these types of training involve modifications of the Self
Circuit? To what extent does conditioning (habit) bypass the Self Circuit and
exert a separate type of influence and constitute a separate type of
 (spurious?) "value?"

There seem to be two possible extreme outcomes to the investigation of these
matters. At one extreme, the Self Circuit contains/defines the only valid
criterion or criteria of basic value, and all derivative values must conform
or be seen as bogus.  At the other extreme, all values are arbitrary or
accidental, and at a particular moment  you can do no more than accept what
you are, because if you try to change your values you change yourself and
"you" no longer exist. I suspect the first is closer to reality--although,
again, there is no guarantee that any answer satisfactory to us even exists;
the universe may not be user-friendly.

Mr. Wetterau seems to conclude by saying that our most general and basic goal
is self-actualization (Maslow-like), and this is certainly built into us at
least to some extent. Runners like to run, jumpers like to jump, painters
like to paint, etc.  But this avoids the basic issue--how to tell if
particular activities are VALID either as ends or as means. I believe I have
developed at least partial, tentative answers--not final or conclusive, but
much more scientific than anything preceding. I think my viewpoint  can
advance both immediate, practical life strategies and the research that will
reveal more.

Reminder to new readers--to make much sense of this, one must read the
previous postings, at a minimum.

Again in haste--R.C.W. Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2769