X-Message-Number: 25447
From: 
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:47:18 EST
Subject: more on objectivity

RBR writes in part:
 

>I am  not going to pretend 
>that I can somehow 'rise above' my humanity, as  if such a thing 
>could make sense. There is no 'rising above' anything,  there is 
>only modification according to a subjective value system, a  value 
>system shaped by evolutionary forces.
 
Again, language problems.
 
On a common-sense and everyday usage basis, of course it makes sense to  rise 
above humanity. It just means that we change ourselves in appropriate ways,  
some of which are simple and obvious. It's better (usually) to be smarter in  
various ways, and stronger, and less vulnerable to damage and disease, and 
more  stable emotionally, for example.
 
And if you want to play around a little, if we had gills as well as lungs  we 
could rise above by going below. Other things equal, surely an amphibian is a 
 higher form of life than a simple air breather.
 
For an example of temperamental superiority, consider cold courage vs. hot  

courage. A berserker or a drunk might have hot courage, but that can  backfire.
A few people display cold courage, the ability  in emergencies to set aside 
emotion and just function efficiently.  Soldiers sometimes have it, and 

surgeons need it. It is without question a  worthy objective, and to some extent
it 
can be acquired just by  practice. There are good habits as well as bad.
 
As to our current values having been (in part) shaped by  evolution, that is 
almost entirely irrelevant. The effects of evolution can  sometimes be 

interesting or even useful (for example in understanding how the  martyrdom 
syndrome 
arose), but beyond that it is not a practical  issue.
 
"Objectivity" in our context means we understand the anatomy and physiology  
of pleasure/pain or satisfaction/dissatisfaction. We're not close to that, but 
 will get there. We may find, for example, that higher order satisfactions 

are  variations or developments of original simple drives such as attraction to
food  or escape from threats. Or instead of a hierarchy of values, there may 
have  developed independent branches. 
 
We will also need to learn the mechanisms that sometimes prevent  values from 
having appropriate effect. We are not always governed by what  we actually 
want, but sometimes merely by habits that are  counterproductive.
 
In any case, the main trouble with what RBR wrote above is that it seems to  
turn attention from what is feasible to what is allegedly hopeless. 

Hopelessness  is occasionally useful as a time and energy saver, avoiding wild 
goose  
chases, but it can also be suicidal.
 
Robert Ettinger 






 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25447