X-Message-Number: 10159
From: 
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 12:30:40 EDT
Subject: values

Brook Norton (#10155) has presented very clearly (insofar as this can be done
briefly) the case for an objective validation of values. That presentation,
nevertheless, will leave many or most unconvinced--and it IS desirable that
this viewpoint be propagated, for cryonics and for quality of life generally. 

For evolutionary and historical (social) reasons, acceptance of this
scientific viewpoint (that my most basic personal value should  be
maximization of my future satisfaction) is extremely difficult for most. But
the potential rewards are significant. For one thing, as Brook noted, it
requires and promotes honesty, both in the individual and between individuals.
For another, honesty in general makes honesty in particular easier, because
facing sometimes unpalatable truths at least provides the comfort of dignity
and pride. Acknowledging that it is dark out there may feel better than
seeking comfort in myths and delusions. And those who share the viewpoint can
offer each other at least the comfort of fellowship--which anyway is often the
main component of the comfort in shared institutional delusion.

Brook did overlook one thing in saying that, if guaranteed no end and no
danger, one should choose, if available, the option of a permanent drug high.
What that recommendation overlooks is that there are other kinds of
satisfaction, some not yet known, that might take higher priority. There are
many unanswered questions in biology and physics that bear on this.
Irrevocable choices are usually unwise. Any judgment must be to some degree
tentative, since the things we don't know (about ourselves and the world)
could prove relevant.

Again, all this needs explication (for most people) at much greater length;
yet some will understand quickly, at least the basics. 
-------
Steele or Drew Skyfyre (cute) (#10156) mentions the "uploading" option. Just a
reminder to newcomers:  It has NOT been proven, even in principle, that "you"
could be duplicated on an inorganic substrate; or that a duplicate of any kind
would "really" be you. It is plausible, yes, but far from proven, and there
are plenty of thought experiments tending to show it wouldn't work. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10159