X-Message-Number: 3347
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Subject: CRYONICS: Re: Stodolsky's "science"
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 20:06:13 +0100 (MET)

In Message: #3336 - Stodolsky's "science"  writes:
> Internal states (or the brain states that give rise to them) are not
> "unobservable"--just (so far) unobserved, or in some cases perhaps just
> unrecognized for what they are. It is a high-order PRESUMPTION that one day
> we will be able to categorize and measure internal states. Anyone who denies

We agree on this.


> 
> Is my "entire argument... based upon unobservable internal states"?  WHAT
> argument? I have merely made essentially one basic statement, which seems to
> me virtually self-evident (and scarcely original, even though neglected):  
> 
> ***The most important conditions/events in the brain are those pertaining to
> feeling and consciousness--the subjective condition, qualia, etc.--because
> these constitute our ground of being.***  (Any system that does not have
> subjective experiences is not a person, regardless of intelligence and
> capabilities.)

The terms "feeling", "consciousness", and "ground of being" may not prove 
meaningful, regardless of how good measurement becomes. In a well known study,
subjects were injected with epinephrine, which causes CNS arousal
and then told to "wait" for the next stage in the experiment. In the
"waiting" room a confederate of the experimenter either loudly complained
about having to wait or happily tossed balls of wadded up paper in
the trash (i. e., made "baskets"). Subjects were then tested to determine
what feelings they had as a "result" of the injection. In the first
condition they reported "irritation" and the second "joy". The conclusion
was that the same physiological state could be labelled as different
"feelings" according to environmental influences. Other studies have
suggested that "feelings" have little to do with internal states,
but much to do with the language and culture in which they are labelled.
That is, you find out about peoples' feelings, not by analyzing their
internal states, but by analyzing their language.

In the immediate preceding message, "#3335 - reconstruction", you
specify a behavioral test of success. The only mention of the terms
discussed in this message is:

>As a crude introduction, recall that many people can often "read" facial
>expressions and body language to infer certain feelings and attitudes and
>incipient actions in the person observed. Most of us learn such skills, to

While you earlier rejected a Turing type test, in #3335 - reconstruction,
that is the only measure of success.


So, is your statement falsifiable?:

>***The most important conditions/events in the brain are those pertaining to
> feeling and consciousness--the subjective condition, qualia, etc.--because
> these constitute our ground of being.*** 

That is, is it a scientific hypothesis?
If so, does it have any practical significance in cryonics?


> 
> From this it naturally follows (without any "argument" being necessary) that
> neuroscientists should, as and when feasible, try to focus on subjectivity as
> the key to the central self and criteria of survival. 

Not obvious.

In some Eastern philosophies the "self" is considered to be an illusion
that causes a great deal of unhappiness, suffering, and death, 
and is to be escaped by long years of study and meditation. 

Your "virtually self-evident" statements would be considered, by adherents

of such philosophies, to be narrow religious ideas and a dangerous ones at that.
See:
Blackmore, S. (1993). Dying to live. London: Gafton. 
(ISBN: 0 586 09212 9)

So, if you want to convince a third of the world's population to
actively oppose cryonics, then continue this line.


dss



David S. Stodolsky, PhD               Internet: 
Peder Lykkes Vej 8, 4. tv.      (C)         Tel.: + 45 32 97 66 74
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark                Fax: + 45 32 84 08 28

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3347