X-Message-Number: 22228
From: "mike99" <>
Subject: RE: #22217 - Denial of Life
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0600

David Stodolsky <> wrote:
> I have to point out here that evolutionary psychology has become
> something of fad, and many of the claims have no backing, in terms of
> evidence. The term 'meme' is not used by professional psychologists.
> However, Becker's theory does assume that social learning is a crucial
> and determines how the fear of death will be buffered.<ike:

Mike LaTorra:
Ev-psych is still fairly young, especially when compared to hoary old
Freudianism (and its variant descendants). As such, ev-psych has not yet
accumulated a large body of experimental verifications. Almost certainly
some ev-psych claims will be found to be wrong, either in part or in their
entirety. But I think it premature to dismiss the field as a "fad." The fact
that only a few scientists, such as cognitive psych./philosopher Daniel
Dennett and psychologist Susan Blackmore, have yet to fully embrace the
"meme" concept may, or may not, prove significant in the long run. New
theories are rarely embraced immediately by one and all experts in any
field.



Mike L.
> > We can be fairly certain, though, that most people lack a constant,
> > pessimistic, terrorized fear of death because such a state of being
> > would be
> > contrary to the survival program of the genes.

David S.
> There is no support for this that I am aware of.
>
> Most people lack a constant fear of death, because no culture could
> function if its people were sitting in corners shivering with terror
> while contemplating their eventual demise, so every successful culture
> must provide a worldview that buffers this fear.

Mike L.
I'm sorry, but your cultural explanation has no more support than my
evolutionary psychology explanation. If either were true, the result would
be the same. Do you know of (or can you envision) an experiment that could
decisively distinguish between these two as the source of repressed
mortality awareness?



Mike L.
> > Becker seems to be saying
> > that we must accept our mortality, embrace it, and move on. No
> > cryonicist
> > wants to do that!

David S.
> Becker's theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us how death
> anxiety shapes culture and human behavior. Many different responses
> (cultures) have been developed to buffer death anxiety. He said that
> anyone who wants to understand human behavior must accept mortality
> avoidance as an implicit motive, that is, theorists must accept it, not
> 'users'. In fact, he would say that it is only in cases of cultural
> breakdown that the user accepts mortality. It has been shown in the lab
> that there is a reflexive withdrawal from mortality salient stimuli, so
> the user can never accept death face-to-face, so to speak. "Death, like
> the Sun, does not tolerate the direct gaze" (from memory), George
> Santayana, Spanish Philosopher/Writer, 1863-1952.

Mike L.
For those interested only in descriptions, Becker may be a fine guide. For
those interested in fundamental mechanisms at the lowest levels of
biological and cognitive functioning, descriptions are insufficient. I tend
to be dubious about descriptive approaches that try to infer causation
without being able to demonstrate it rigorously. Perhaps this is simply my
own psychological peculiarity? ;)
  Well, at any rate, I find ev-psych to be a more interesting approach
because it promises at least the possibility of reaching the deep level of
explanation that I am looking for. Whether ev-psych will deliver on these
promises is yet to be seen. So give it time. My guess is that we are still
decades away from resolving the issue. Stay tuned.

Regards,
Michael LaTorra




Member:
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
World Transhumanist Association: www.transhumanism.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22228