X-Message-Number: 2767 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 11:14:39 -0400 From: "James B. Wetterau Jr." <> Subject: CRYONICS Re: cryonics: #2765 Hello. My name is probably unkown to almost everyone on this list, with the exception of Perry Metzger. To lay my cards on the table right away, I've had an interest in cryonics for two years and for the past eight months or so I've received the Cryonics list mailings. I've not yet subscribed to any suspension care provider. I am, however, extremely sympathetic to the point of view of cryonicists, and have become fairly well convinced that it is not only a rational, but probably the most rational choice for oneself after clinical death. Having said all that, I want to respond to "The Natural History of Values," by R.C.W. Ettinger. Mr. Ettinger sketches out his natural history in a way which makes sense to me (in fact, certain of his points are, as he claims, truisms) but I must take issue with the following paragraph: >THE GOAL OF LIFE (from the standpoint of the individual organism) can only >be one thing (it seems to me) and that is to FEEL GOOD. But since there are >many kinds of feel-good (or seem to be at the conscious level in humans), >and since apparently our present actions can only affect the future and not >the past or present, we must try to calculate present decisions and actions >so as to maximize our individual feel-good over future time. This is certainly an important paragraph in the article. I contend that Mr. Ettinger did not support it sufficiently, and that he made an error. My contention is that while evolution has produced humanity by a process that selects for survival and reproductive success, humanity also has unique characteristics that have enabled it to choose its goals and direct its future evolution. Therefore, the "self-circuit" is a useful notion for understanding what the goal of human existence is, since that goal must be sui generis in each individual. Therefore, to generalize in any meaningful way, one must ask: What does each self have in common with all selves at the most fundamental level? While "the desire to feel good" is certainly a good try at answering that question, I don't think it is the most fundamental answer. I believe that the most fundamental answer is "the desire to satisfy one's own desires." Please do not mistake this distinction for mere sophistry. Allow me to explain the consequences of this way of looking at things. But first I must dispatch a few possible problems with this proposal. Does not a desire imply the desire to satisfy it? I am here speaking of what one might call the meta-desire, which is the desire to go on satisfying desires, as they arise, one after another. What about avoidance of hurtful or negative feelings? I take care of the (subjectively) negative portion of experience by describing the relevant desire as the desire to avoid such sensations. Are not the feelings themselves more fundamental to human beings than the desire for them? My difference with Mr. Ettinger arises because of precisely this notion. I answer "no," because I believe that _the sensation of feeling good is a small enough thing not to involve the total person in a meaningful way_. It does not account for the cogitation that is involved in the self-circuit. Beyond the phenomena of pleasure or absence of pain in all the many and sometimes opposing or simultaneous specific experiences through which we feel them, _we are aware of ourselves_, and therefore have incorporated the experience of obtaining good feelings into our basic set of goals. In fact, I contend, most of us _actually rank the experience of pursuing and attaining our desires higher than the good feelings the satisfaction of those desires provides us with._ This is a clear result of the incorporation of our cogitative facility into the self-circuit. Let me now provide an example which will, I hope, render this point in complete clarity. If our goal be to maximize good-feeling over future time, the rational person might accept the option of some life-sustaining cocoon that causes uninterrupted beatific bliss. Would anyone reading this be prepared to accept a guarantee of eternal and total beatific bliss in a dream state inside a cocoon floating in space (or even inside a universe of one's own creation)? I hope not. I think the goal of most human beings is to maximize good-feeling in accordance with their values. Therefore, the goal of feeling good does not explain values, and the "Natural History" must fail. Values are a meta-phenomenon of the self-circuit. Let's use the circuit analogy to explore this further. In my opinion, and with no offense to Mr. Ettinger intended, to describe the goal of human existence as maximizing good-feeling, or utility perhaps, is like saying that the purpose of an electrical circuit is to be a device through which to pass current successfully. If that were the case, the purpose of a computer and the purpose of a lightbulb would be one and the same. Of course, in some sense this is true, but it fails to be true at an interesting level because clearly the computer has greater potential. Of course, I can use my Sun workstation as a lightbulb by hooking up the monitor and making it shine. What distinguishes the extraordinarily complex nature of the workstation from the lightbulb is the complexity of the circuit through which the current passes. The computer passes the current through a circuit determined by: 1. Its hardware 2. Its software 3. Its current state Similarly, human beings have bodies, minds, and a current state, including their values. They are more than computers: they are constantly experiencing changes in state, and changes in their minds (analogous to the software). We reprogram ourselves. What I believe we want to maximize is the number and the quality of experiences that give us an opportunity to pursue good feelings in a way that challenges the limits of our capabilities. We wish to give our hardware and software a work-out and even modify them when necessary. We desire the continuing satisfaction of our desires. Any less sophisticated explanation fails to consider the complexity of the circuit, in my opinion. Regards, James Wetterau Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2767