RE: platinum-eaters and alien abductees
Perhaps what you are in part getting at is the difference between statements of opinion or value, on the one hand, and statements of fact (either empirical or logical truths) on the other. The distinction seems to have come late in the history of Western philosophy (the British Empiricists, particularly David Hume), and it still isnt appreciated by most non-philosophers. There is a sense in which the former type of statement can be turned into the latter, if we accept some axiom against which statements of value can be tested; however, the axiom is commonly either unrecognized or falsely accorded the status of an empirical or logical truth. Stathis Papaioannou Jef Albright writes: Finally, the very notion of continuity of personal identity, which is necessary if survival is to have any meaning, is just as much a product of evolutionary expedience. That is, it is no more logically necessary that an organism is the same individual from one moment to the next than it is logically necessary that an organism will strive to survive from one moment to the next. Those organisms which run away when a predator approaches because they believe they will be the same individual in the next moment will thrive, while those which believe that the organism with their approximate shape, memories, position etc. in the next moment is a completely different individual, and don't care if that other individual gets eaten, will die out. Such considerations do not apply to most of the devices that humans produce, which replicate on the basis of usefulness rather than a desire to survive and have progeny. A car does not care if it is wrecked for spare parts for use in another car, or a modern sculpture, or whatever, while even a non-sentient organism such as a bacterium is essentially a machine with no purpose other than maintaining its structural integrity from moment to moment and producing exact copies of itself. I want to add that while I agree with Stathis' remarks, we can abstract this further and thereby resolve some of the popularly conceived paradoxes of personal identity and of morality if we consider that what we really want is to promote our *values* into the future. This explains how one can rationally sacrifice one's life for one's family or the good of the greater group on the principle that this is consistent with promoting the kind of world one (and by extension, most others) would like to live in. It also resolves the paradox of taking actions today for the benefit of a self in the future, without the unrealistic requirement of static personal identity. Of course, we tend to think of these actions as good because we are enmeshed in and a product of the very process of evolution that tends to promote what works into the future. - Jef --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: platinum-eaters and alien abductees
On 5/24/06, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, the very notion of continuity of personal identity, which is necessary if survival is to have any meaning, is just as much a product of evolutionary expedience. That is, it is no more logically necessary that an organism is the same individual from one moment to the next than it is logically necessary that an organism will strive to survive from one moment to the next. Those organisms which run away when a predator approaches because they believe they will be the same individual in the next moment will thrive, while those which believe that the organism with their approximate shape, memories, position etc. in the next moment is a completely different individual, and don't care if that other individual gets eaten, will die out. Such considerations do not apply to most of the devices that humans produce, which replicate on the basis of usefulness rather than a desire to survive and have progeny. A car does not care if it is wrecked for spare parts for use in another car, or a modern sculpture, or whatever, while even a non-sentient organism such as a bacterium is essentially a machine with no purpose other than maintaining its structural integrity from moment to moment and producing exact copies of itself. I want to add that while I agree with Stathis' remarks, we can abstract this further and thereby resolve some of the popularly conceived paradoxes of personal identity and of morality if we consider that what we really want is to promote our *values* into the future. This explains how one can rationally sacrifice one's life for one's family or the good of the greater group on the principle that this is consistent with promoting the kind of world one (and by extension, most others) would like to live in. It also resolves the paradox of taking actions today for the benefit of a self in the future, without the unrealistic requirement of static personal identity. Of course, we tend to think of these actions as good because we are enmeshed in and a product of the very process of evolution that tends to promote what works into the future. - Jef --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
platinum-eaters and alien abductees
Some thoughts on the idea of longevity, which has come up in the recent Smullyan Shmullyan thread: Firstly, although at present I think I would like to live forever, I don't actually need to live forever to be happy with my lifespan. Rather, I only need to live until such time as I no longer mind dying. I could refine this last statement further if I want: I only need to live until such time as (a) I no longer mind dying; (b) I either don't expect that or don't care if in future I will mind dying; (c) I have reached this conclusion in the absence of depression or despair; and (d) whatever other state of mind I care to name that has a non-zero probability of occurring. I figure the requisite state of mind for a happy death might occur in as little as a few hundred years, and almost certainly within a few hundred thousand years of continuous cognition. Secondly, although a wish to die or indifference to one's survival is usually seen as evidence of mental illness, it need not logically occur in the setting of other symptoms of mental illness, such as depression, delusions and hallucinations (even though in practice it usually does). A person who wishes to die might be going against the prime directive of every naturally evolved organism, but he is not as a result of his death wish committing an error of logic or of empirical fact, in the way a person who is paranoid is. Evolution throws up organisms which want to live and reproduce, organisms which want to live and reproduce but whose metabolism is dependent on some very rare element, and organisms which don't want to live and reproduce. The first of these thrives, while the other two die out. If we are interested in who is being rational, the suicide has more in common with the platinum-eaters than with people who think they have been abducted by aliens. Finally, the very notion of continuity of personal identity, which is necessary if survival is to have any meaning, is just as much a product of evolutionary expedience. That is, it is no more logically necessary that an organism is the same individual from one moment to the next than it is logically necessary that an organism will strive to survive from one moment to the next. Those organisms which run away when a predator approaches because they believe they will be the same individual in the next moment will thrive, while those which believe that the organism with their approximate shape, memories, position etc. in the next moment is a completely different individual, and don't care if that other individual gets eaten, will die out. Such considerations do not apply to most of the devices that humans produce, which replicate on the basis of usefulness rather than a desire to survive and have progeny. A car does not care if it is wrecked for spare parts for use in another car, or a modern sculpture, or whatever, while even a non-sentient organism such as a bacterium is essentially a machine with no purpose other than maintaining its structural integrity from moment to moment and producing exact copies of itself. Stathis Papaioannou _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
