X-Message-Number: 7252
From: 
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:43:18 -0500
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS honesty, values

Thomas Donaldson (Cryonet #7251) refers to my characterization of the
scientific attitude or method as based on honesty and resourcefulness, and
then says that (a) most people will ignore any discussion of
scientifically-based value systems; (b) it is difficult to define "honesty;"
and (c) our values control us, and we are likely to ignore contrary evidence.

I agree with all that; but I do not agree with Thomas' implied conclusion,
that the project (deriving a scientific value system) is more or less
hopeless. 

First, just on the basis of the sweep of history--assuming continued
civilization--it will inevitably become increasingly clear that EVERY aspect
of life and thought is based on the laws of nature and existing conditions,
and that this implies the possibility of understanding and (to some extent)
even control. In VERY recent times only TINY numbers of scientists admitted
that consciousness is appropriate and amenable to scientific investigation.
Same is true of interventive gerontology. In cryonics, the numbers are still
tiny, but the people on this list presumbly take it seriously. 

It should be seen as a mere truism that our values (needs and wants) arise
from our biology, as modified by environment, habit, training, accident,
etc.; and that our goals and strategies are therefore, in priniciple, capable
of rational analysis and modification. The basic task of "philosophy" should
be to inspire and help guide this program. 

Defining "honesty" is not terribly difficult--even though, admittedly, large
numbers of people will resist the definition whenever it gores their own
oxen. (Nothing new about that, and nothing especially relevant either.)

So how do we define honesty? Dictionaries say an honest person is one who
does not lie, cheat, or steal, and who displays fairness and sincerity. So
how do we decide who is truthful, fair, and sincere? Obviously, no criterion
is going to change the minds of those with fixed agendas or those who have
too much to lose, psychologically, by abandoning positions. We have all
encountered intelligent--even brilliant--people who use any sophistry,
conscious or unconscious, to defend entrenched notions, however obviously
wrong-headed. But that is NOT the same as saying that the project is
hopeless, any more than other prospective advances were hopeless just because
they were initially extremely unpopular. 

A starting point for assessment of "honesty" might be just to ask, "Do you
(do I) admit the possibility of error?" Anyone who claims he CANNOT be
wrong--about anything!--is not honest, or at least is not both honest and
well informed, because there are too many instances of people being proven
wrong even in the most deep-seated and most popular opinions. (There is even
an extremely slim chance that I am dreaming all this, and arguing with
figments of my subconscious; or that I am part of a super-computer simulation
of the real world; or that the laws of physics change drastically from time
to time, so inferences about the past and future are meaningless; etc. etc.) 

>From this starting point we immediately come to the next level, the
requirement that opinion be based on probability theory applied to
experience. Someone unwilling to take this step is again either not entirely
honest or not very well informed, and certainly not resourceful.

The salability of the project--while certainly very difficult--is perhaps not
as difficult as Thomas makes out. It does, after all, offer rewards as well
as the obvious possible psychological penalties. The main potential reward is
just the chance to improve your future over-all satisfaction, by making
better choices. But there can also be immediate psychological rewards.

"The truth will make you free." While there may be comfort in submitting
oneself to an ideology or dogma, there can also be a degree of satisfaction
in honesty--in admitting the limits of our knowledge and facing the unknown
like adults. We live in a big, dark, scary place, with largely unknown rules;
but the best response for some of us is not to pull the covers over our heads
and suck our thumbs, but admit the problems, face the facts, and try our best
to learn and cope.

I see the main psychological attributes of maturity as including ultimate
reliance on oneself, on one's own judgment; acceptance of personal
responsibility; and willingness, when necessary, to accept the lesser evil.
Clearly, there are not many adults by these criteria, and cannot be in the
near future; but we can hope and work for gradual improvement, in ourselves
and others.

Obviously the foregoing discussion was rambling and enormously abridged, but
still possibly of some slight use. Obviously also there can be negative
reflex responses; e.g. some will say that self-reliance = arrogance or
vanity. But enough for now.

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7252