About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I still disagree, Mr. Stolyarov; but in any case, you only addressed the less important part of my post. I would like to hear your comments on my first two paragraphs.

PS: Point taken about volition-based safety. Wasn't sure about that aspect's relevance here anyway.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 7/21, 2:25pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That all values ultimately stem from the need to survive through the on-going application of volitional consciousness is one of Rand's better ideas.  Definitely a brilliant hypothesis.   So I definitely like the idea of a philosophy based on the affirmation of life.

 

I'm surprised that Objectivists don't seem to have fully worked out the logical consequences of the idea though.  If the affirmation of life is so important then shouldn't we be trying to use science to conquer the aging process?  This is no longer in the realm of science fiction.  There has been tremendous progress in understanding the mechanisms underlying aging in recent years, and some real hope that we can greatly extend the human lifespan.  But Objectivists don't seem that keen on the idea, which kind of puzzles me.  Why settle for only three score years and ten?  Isn't the scientific dream of eradicating aging and disease the very essence of the pioneering heroic spirit? 

 

I recently used the Randian affirmation of life idea as the basis for a paper on life-extension (which has not yet been published).  I argued that a kind of immortality is possible, and is in fact the ultimate moral imperative.  I agree that guaranteed immortality is impossible.  O.K, so the possibility of death is what gives life meaning (as per Rand).  But why should the possibility ever be realized?  ;)  I argued in my paper that a continuous application of scientific and rational ingenuity (i.e. volitional consciousness) can enable as to evade death indefinitely.  As long as we continue to apply the effort, each new scientific advance could be used to reduce the risk of death a little bit more each year. 

 

Now it turns out that adding up an infinite series of numbers which are getting smaller and smaller actually equals a finite number.  So as long as we apply a bit more ingenuity each year we could in theory live forever (the total risk of death would never exceed some finite percentage no matter how long you lived).  This kind of immortality would not contradict Rand, because we could never be sure that we were immortal, and would have to make continuous efforts to stay alive.  Anyway, I argued that we should aim to do it, and that eventually humans would have to head out into the cosmos and start to transform the entire universe in order to stay alive.  So my argument ended by suggesting that the quest for immortality is kind of the ultimate end 'telos' (or purpose) of the universe.

 

You may be interested in another brief article on immortality I published a while back.  Here's the link:

 

 'Towards A Philosophy of Immortality'

 

So what do you guys think?  Is the quest for immortality the ultimate logical consequence of Rand's ideas?

 

Now remember, before you can reasonably pooh-pooh me, you have to be able to explain why you think aging and death after only three score years and ten is a good thing.  How is meekly accepting aging and death in keeping with the heroic pioneering spirit of Objectivism?  Or perhaps you would try to pooh-pooh me on the basis that eradicating aging is impossible, and dismiss it as absurd science-fiction.  But again, could you explain how this sort of pessimism would be in keeping with Objectivism, which always emphasized the unlimited potential of the human mind to overcome any obstacle? 

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 7/21, 9:00pm)


Post 22

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How does this alter the nature of morality if reason was required to devise all these protections?

Because, according to Ayn Rand, life (and its nature) is the standard of morality, not reason. Life takes precedence over reason in her philosophical hierarchy. Reason is merely a means towards an end. It makes our temporary and vulnerable lives better. Remove the temporary and vulnerable nature of our lives and we have no use for reason. We’re no longer confronted with the problem of survival.

 

As I said previously, reason is not a substitute for God. We don’t value it for its own sake. It’s man’s tool for surviving and flourishing. While we’re talking mad hypotheticals, imagine if you radically altered the life of a tiger. Say you transplanted a human brain and it could suddenly abstract and conceptualize. Would it still continue to cling on to its previous tools of survival: claws and instincts? Or would it adapt to its new nature?

Please note that it is impossible to consistently embrace a state of being while rejecting those attributes that brought it about.

Not true. If an indestructible creature has an ongoing dependence on some kind of technology for its indestructibility, it is not indestructible. (Just remove the technology.) Once it becomes permanently and irrevocably indestructible, it can freely reject whatever brought about that condition. But we’re playing with words here.

Now, why would George be a strawman, if he is closer to a human being than this imagined creature you put forth, yet he possesses the very qualities that Mr. Perigo condemns (i.e. immortality, which is as far as Mr. Perigo goes to describe it)?

George is a strawman because Linz’s article really had nothing to do with “immortality,” yet your contribution was to pick out a single word, re-define what had already been clearly defined (i.e. “denied the alternative of life or death (& their barometers, pleasure & pain)”) and attack your own re-definition. You’re not clear if George’s life is still subject to risk (a creature denied the alternative of life of death is not) and you state that George feels pleasure, but not pain. Although, I’m not sure why “George” places any significance on pleasure. (What does the sensation tell him? That he’s alive? Well, duh.)

Mr. Lamont, tell me, how would having a Leonardo painting on the wall of your house protect you against death? It would not. But it is a value, nevertheless. If George were immune from death or harm, he would still have no reason to view Leonardo’s art as being of less value to him than had he been mortal. And, in order to display Leonardo’s art, he would need a building to put in it! The same goes for any other esthetic element of his existence.

Art is a tool to bring meaning to abstract concept. An indestructible creature has no need to conceptualize or determine meaning in anything. Nor does it have a need for status symbols to represent productive effort. As I’ve stated, it does not need to be rational or productive. Man does. Why would it? To be “grateful” to the principles that brought it to its current state? “Thank you, Reason, for your blessing! I will be true to you forever more. (Even though I have absolutely no need for you.)” Why does it need to embrace any virtue?

 

Life is the standard of any value. That means asking, “What is the long-term effect of this action/entity on my life?” For an imaginary indestructible human, there is no long-term. There’s just existence. And any actions (e.g. acquiring paintings, top hats or canes) it might undertake have no bearing on its life. It’s indestructible.

 

 


Post 23

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This whole thread is kinda wack. Obviously, any endeavor to increase the natural lifespan of humans is heroic. But humans will never reach the point where they’re truly “immortal.” i.e. where nothing is a threat to their existence.

 

Religion and mythology speak of immortal gods – beings of consciousness. But humans will always maintain some degree of matter, so will always face the risk of destruction. I think Rodney pointed that out. Being caught in the center of a nuclear blast will do the trick, no matter what technology you’re packing.

 

So maybe we should stop the sci-fi fantasizing, huh?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So maybe we should stop the sci-fi fantasizing, huh?
I agree with you that garanteed immortality is impossible, but great extensions in human lifespan should definitely be possible, and I'm puzzled as to why Objectivists don't seem to be very enthusiastic about this.  After all, isn't an affirmation of life supposed to be the ultimate moral imperative?  I've noticed a tendancy on the part of Objectivists to be suspious of cutting-edge science and dismiss real prospects for radical advances as 'sci-fi fantasizing'.  This is kind of disappointing.

The prospect of radical advances in human life-span in the not too distant future is most definitely not 'sci-fi fantasizing'.  You might be interested to read this fascinating article by one of the world's leading researchers.  This is a well respected academic here, not a crack-pot.  And he's being deliberately conservative and careful.  Here's the link:

Closing in on the Cure for Death  


Post 25

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 3:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Humphreys: Wouldn't it also be more enjoyable to fly to another country if there was no risk of death in a plane crash? Or go for a drive if you knew there was no possibility of a car crash? Or cross the road if there was no risk of being run over?

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Of course!


Would you say this fact alone is an argument for not undertaking those activities? To say that any given activity would be more enjoyable were it not so risky is obvious. I don't think this is intrinsically an argument not to do something.

Mr. Stolyarov: What is small? The risk of death by skydiving is far greater than the risk of death by walking along a city street and having a loose brick fall on your head. We mortals have to weigh benefits against risks, to see whether it is worthwhile to undertake a given activity. We need to have a internal hierarchical understanding of risks, not necessarily with any precise quantities or measurements, but rather a relative hierarchy, which will help us decide what risks we are willing to take. There is still the possibility of great error here, but it is the best system we have so far! I hope technology will be able to render benefit-risk calculation more objective and less prone to error. Yet, in every case, the burden remains an individual one.


 

In a roundabout way I agree with what you seem to be saying here...some individuals will be willing to undertake skydiving (or any other extreme sport) and others will not. Neither choice is per se irrational. You may be interested in this interview with Objectivist-influenced adventurer and extreme sports enthusiast Dr Jack Wheeler, who is also a political analyst. As for the risk of death, I'm not sure of the source for this but apparently there is a greater risk of dying while driving to an airport than dying in a skydiving accident. The worst actual statistic I've seen is 1 in every 100,000 jumps results in death (apparently the 2001 figure for the US), though the development of automatic activation devices for parachutes is said to significantly reduce any risk.


 

Mr. Humphreys: In general I would have no hesitation in preferring a well-lived and thoroughly enjoyed life to a longer but less fulfilled existence.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Here is where we differ greatly! If X+Y>X, then longer à more fulfilled.


 

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you trying to say that a longer life is intrinsically more fulfilled than a shorter one? The way I look at it, 50 years as Hank Reardon is better than 250 years as a production line worker.

 

MH

PS Just a pedantic self-correction: this has no bearing on the debate but in the interests of accuracy, I just realised my earlier statement regarding the Highlander fantasy tv show is slightly off the mark. An Immortal in the show only genuinely dies when decapitated. Usually this is done by another Immortal (hence my earlier remark) but there was at least one occasion when a group of mortal humans killed one after figuring it out.


 




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 3:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marc,
I agree that lifespan *will* continue to be extended, and I'm very enthusiastic about the prospect of living 2 centuries or more. However, life extension actually has nothing to do with this thread. Life extension is not immortality.

The problem here is that the type of immortality mentioned in the article bears no resemblance to the science-fiction, extropian/transhumanist "immortality" that you are advocating. If you lived for ten times or a hundred times, or a thousand times the current average life expectancy, you'd be pretty old. But you wouldn't be any closer to true immortality. Maybe you'd upload all your memories, so even if your brain was physically destroyed you could be regenerated. But even so, the computer storage for the memories could be destroyed. Or maybe you find some way to avoid accidental death altogether - but how could you survive the eventual death of the universe?

Immortality like in Linz's article is *not possible*. That doesn't make it irrelevant as an example, though. Morality is a guide for your choices; if your choices have no effect on your life, then you can do whatever you want. You don't need morality.

Phil

PS: Mr. Stolyarov, the risk of dying while skydiving is approximately 0.00175%, based on 35 deaths and 2 million jumps per year, worldwide. This is significantly less than the risk of being killed by a falling coconut, or struck by lightning. I won't even go into the risks of motor transport - well, I could point out that 42,815 people were killed in 2002 on US roads alone.

Post 27

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The prospect of radical advances in human lifespan in the not-too-distant future is most definitely not "sci-fi fantasizing."
I agree with this, though I have not (yet) clicked on Marc's link.


Post 28

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Greetings.


Once again, a vast amount of comments has been posted in an extension of this discussion. I especially would like to praise Mr. Geddes for having written an excellent and eloquent article, which, with his permission, has been published on The Rational Argumentator.

 

Towards a Philosophy of Immortality:
July 22, 2004:
Three primary mentalities prevent most people in our time from pursuing a radical and even indefinite extension of the human lifespan. Marc Geddes explains and eloquently refutes all of these paradigms.

http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/immortality.html

 

Now, I will respond to all comments in chronological order, as is my typical practice.

 

Mr. Rawlings: What I meant was that life is a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action—its inherent goal and that of any of its sub-processes is to perpetuate the entire process (as you doubtless know). Anything that threatens to interfere with the “machinery” is attacked and dealt with by the process. Thus, in the case of germs, antibodies are produced; in the case of dictatorships, philosophical ideas are produced.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: I am with you thus far.

 

Mr. Rawlings: It is a metaphysical given, therefore, that death is always a possibility—that living beings are mortal. It is this fact that gives rise to the whole phenomenon of values.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: This is where we begin to differ: I see this as rather of a non sequitur. Life is equipped to respond in a certain sense to those fenomena which endanger it. This in no manner guarantees the constant presence of such endangering fenomena. For example, I am vaccinated against smallpox; my body will respond in a certain manner to effectively combat any smallpox epidemic that should ever arise. This does not mean that a smallpox epidemic must constantly be present in my vicinity in order for the nature of the smallpox vaccine to be fulfilled!

 

Mr. Rawlings: It is in this sense, the metaphysical sense, that immortality would be incompatible with the pursuit of values. This is the concept of immortality that I was saying is a fantasy.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Like your fellow argumentators of this viewpoint, you make the mistake of thinking that a “pursuit of values” is limited to a “deflection of harms.” In fact, there is so much more. There is a striving for positive gain, especially in the field of esthetics, which affects survival per se very little, if at all.

 

Mr. Rawlings: Point taken about volition-based safety. Wasn't sure about that aspect's relevance here anyway.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: It seemed to me that you had put forth examples of volition-based harms as reasons why immortality would be metafysically impossible. I demonstrated why volition can escape these harms, and we now seem to agree on this. Even if you continue to maintain immortality to be metafysically impossible, it is not because some people can irrationally ruin themselves of their own will.

 

Mr. Geddes: I'm surprised that Objectivists don't seem to have fully worked out the logical consequences of the idea though.  If the affirmation of life is so important then shouldn't we be trying to use science to conquer the aging process?

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Very well put. I definitely think that affirming life, in the true sense, means extending it for as long as the human mind is capable of.  

Mr. Geddes: But Objectivists don't seem that keen on the idea, which kind of puzzles me.  Why settle for only three score years and ten?  Isn't the scientific dream of eradicating aging and disease the very essence of the pioneering heroic spirit?

 

Mr. Stolyarov: This puzzles me as well, though I have noticed that many Objectivists do support extending the human lifespan, but are wary of immortality. There is a minority that wants neither, to be found among the most orthodox Objectivists, who believe that if Rand did not write about it, it is heresy. Once, I read a remark by Leonard Peikoff that he would be content not to spend the extra money that a rich man would spend to prolong his life via modern medicine, and would be perfectly comfortable with dying earlier, long as he enjoyed a “fuller life.” How dying earlier and living fuller correspond baffles me.

 

Mr. Geddes: So what do you guys think?  Is the quest for immortality the ultimate logical consequence of Rand's ideas?

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Yes. I had recognized this as soon as I had a rudimentary grasp on Objectivist ideas. I even agree with you that the quest of immortality is one of the ultimate goals man can pursue. If anyone here has suspected me of having a certain “agenda” for the future development of Objectivism, this is its most crucial component.

 

This is why interaction and cooperation with Transhumanists is a great asset to Objectivism. I do not personally embrace altruism or Bayesian epistemology (because of its denial of contextual certainty), but I think Transhumanism’s stances in politics and science are right on target. Though logically consistent with Objectivism, these stances have been taken by Transhumanism in a different direction than mainstream Objectivists follow, and it is quite a worthy direction to explore.

 

Mr. Lamont: Because, according to Ayn Rand, life (and its nature) is the standard of morality, not reason.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: If you hold life as the standard of morality, then, the more life, the better—is that not so? So, then, why do you so firmly oppose indefinite life? You are one of the people who not only claim that it is impossible, but undesirable. This is evidenced in some of your following statements.

 

Mr. Lamont: Reason is merely a means towards an end. It makes our temporary and vulnerable lives better. Remove the temporary and vulnerable nature of our lives and we have no use for reason. We’re no longer confronted with the problem of survival.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: First, you have admitted that it is desirable to lead temporary and vulnerable lives! This means that you would in principle oppose not only invincibility, but indefinite existence itself! So much for “Affirming Life.”

 

You have likely encountered Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which I consider quite a useful psychological model. Abraham Maslow stated that, before man can go on to even pursue higher values, such as self-actualization and esthetic virtues, his survival at the most basic level must be firmly assured. He must have food, shelter, and all other basic resources that man needs for consumption. Then, he begins to esteem himself and forge mutually affirming relationships with others. Only then can he be originally productive and devote his time to the arts. This, rather than rote survival, entails a far more intricate and detailed application of reason. It does not take much reason to haul crates to earn enough for a piece of bread. It does take immense mathematical and logical powers to create a musical composition, a poem, or a painting. I would not have been a composer or a poet had I been poor and lacked the leisure to do so.

 

Maslow’s theory indicates that the higher needs can only be pursued, once the more rudimentary needs of survival are reasonably guaranteed. The more of a guarantee there is of these needs, the more man’s psyche can focus on higher, esthetic and creative needs, which are distinct from survival and whose effects on mere avoidance of death are quite neutral, as I have already extensively discussed. If the survival guarantee is absolute, then man can at last enter a golden age of the arts and of scientific progress, devoting his entire time to these endeavors rather than to rote sustenance, which, being more fundamental, must for the time being occupy a large portion of even a prosperous man’s attentions.

 

Mr. Lamont: As I said previously, reason is not a substitute for God. We don’t value it for its own sake.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: This does not prevent us from paying symbolic tributes to it in works of art and mathematics. My radial method for the derivation of all Fundamental Pythagorean Triples, for example, does not yet have any known practical application. I have formulated it because I had fortuitously obtained a hint of a regular mathematical pattern, and have tried to fathom this pattern for its own sake, as an exercise in mathematical reasoning and discovery. Mathematicians do not, when they explore a concept, think of all the myriad ways it can be applied. Usually, they discover a theorem or formula first, and then consider its implications. Why do they do this? Because mathematics not only has great esthetic value in itself, it is the foundation of all other rational esthetic disciplines, including poetry, music, and painting.

 

And yes, I would love to live in a world where I can spend all my days as a leisurely gentleman, contemplating esthetics in its manifold incarnations. This has no effect on survival, and would be far better pursued if survival were guaranteed, simply because, while it is not, survival must take precedence over esthetic pursuits.

 

Mr. Lamont: While we’re talking mad hypotheticals, imagine if you radically altered the life of a tiger. Say you transplanted a human brain and it could suddenly abstract and conceptualize. Would it still continue to cling on to its previous tools of survival: claws and instincts? Or would it adapt to its new nature?

 

Mr. Stolyarov: You asked for sci-fi fantasizing here! How about hiring such a sentient tiger into a SWAT team or a police force, where it would be able to intimidate criminals with its claws? No criminal would like to be torn apart by them, a fate more gruesome to contemplate than a bullet in the chest! Thus, the tiger can pursue some of the advantages of being rational and sentient, while retaining some of its old nature as a clawed creature. Some of its old instincts would not be useless, either. For example, it would likely not be romantically attracted to humans, for good reason. Thus, if it wishes to find a life partner, it would need to search for other sentient tigers.

 

There are new possibilities that arise from immortality: I grant this, and my example of George explains some of these possibilities: a layman becoming fabulously wealthy and talented over a span far greater than the life of today’s average human. Yet, I refuse to admit that there is anything horrific or immoral about these possibilities.

 

 Mr. Lamont: If an indestructible creature has an ongoing dependence on some kind of technology for its indestructibility, it is not indestructible. (Just remove the technology.)

 

Mr. Stolyarov: What about technology programmed to automatically manufacture more of itself, or to repair itself without outside intervention, or even to attempt to protect itself against outside attempts to destroy it (see Asimov’s Third Law of Robotics)? If you think this is metafysically impossible, you have a mound of justifications to offer.

 

Mr. Lamont: Once it becomes permanently and irrevocably indestructible, it can freely reject whatever brought about that condition.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: Objectivist epistemology teaches us that man is dependent on Reason for his cognition of the external world. Thus, even if he were guaranteed perpetual existence, he would still need to reason in order to truly live, i.e., to be anything more than a rotting vegetable. He would need Reason to analyze sensory data. He would need it to decide where to transport himself and how. He would need it to spend his days in doing anything at all! Reason is man’s sole means of fathoming existence. It is so critical a component of his life, that, without some degree of using it, he cannot be said to genuinely exist as man! Vegetable ≠ Man. Not-Man ≠ Immortal Man.

 

An indestructible man will still have the same rational capacity built into his human psyche, which alone can account for his cognition of the external world. Remember, there are two parts to the term, “indestructible man”: indestructible and man. It is conceivable that a vegetable can also be indestructible. But it is the man part of the term that Reason must constantly be present to guarantee, for cognition and integration are not once-and-for-all processes. They are continuous and must be such for man to remain man. It is from this insight that I can advocate a dynamic perfection, which implies continued and ceaseless striving for the indestructible man.

 

More is to be said, and I shall attend to it shortly.

 

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917 
Eden against the Colossus
The Prologue: http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/eac_prologue.html

Chapter I: Protector's Summons: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac_chapter1.html

Order Eden against the Colossus at http://www.lulu.com/content/63699.


Post 29

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I'm not going to go into everybody's points here (there are far too many), while I follow the ethics to maintain the quality of my life, my personal survival never factors into it.  Even an immortal person can go bankrupt, and spend an eternity of nothing fulfilling.

On the flip side, a short life can be more fulfilling than a long life.  Consider two people, one of which, instead of running towards more rewarding activities, pursues whatever diversions that the culture can offer.  The other pursues his interests and works towards his rational values.  Even if the latter person lived for a shorter period of time, I would certainly exptect that he found his life to be more fulfilling than the other person who seemed to do nothing more than wait for his death.

However, for any person who isn't merely waiting for death, I can see how a longer life span could be more fulfilling, provided that the amount of time taken to extend his life did not take more than the amount of time that he gained.  Or, in other words, if X - (time taken) < X + (time granted), then, yes, I see greater fulfillment, all else being equal.


Post 30

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
PS: Mr. Stolyarov, the risk of dying while skydiving is approximately 0.00175%, based on 35 deaths and 2 million jumps per year, worldwide. This is significantly less than the risk of being killed by a falling coconut, or struck by lightning.

Phil,

Thanks very much for that :-) I wasn't aware of the worldwide statistics before.

MH


Post 31

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

I am in the process of reading one of Dr. de Grey's articles on gerontology and life extension. Thank you for referring me to this source, Mr. Geddes. Now, for more responses...

Mr. Lamont: You’re not clear if George’s life is still subject to risk ...
 
Mr. Stolyarov: George cannot die, but Mr. Trusnik is right: he can still go bankrupt, waste away his property, or ruin his relations with others. He needs to actively work to ensure this does not happen.
 
Mr. Lamont: Although, I’m not sure why “George” places any significance on pleasure. (What does the sensation tell him? That he’s alive? Well, duh.)

Mr. Stolyarov: The sensation tells him that there are values that can be rewarding beyond mere survival matters. Esthetic values, for example, have accompanying pleasures with them, which indicate that they are values, though are not the values in themselves.
 
Mr. Lamont: Art is a tool to bring meaning to abstract concept. An indestructible creature has no need to conceptualize or determine meaning in anything.
 
Mr. Stolyarov: Please see my post as to Reason being man's sole tool of cognition. Without using reason or conceptualization, an indestructible man is not a man.
 
Mr. Lamont: Why would it? To be “grateful” to the principles that brought it to its current state? “Thank you, Reason, for your blessing! I will be true to you forever more. (Even though I have absolutely no need for you.)”
 
Mr. Stolyarov: But George does have need of it! If he wishes to remain a man, that is...
 
Mr. Lamont: Being caught in the center of a nuclear blast will do the trick, no matter what technology you’re packing.

Mr. Stolyarov: Oh, very well:
 
7) Nuclear blasts: If nanoscopic robots maintaining an individual organism can ensure immortality, what precisely would be so impossible about packing those robots into an interceptor missile, having it crash into a nuclear device, and release the robots to dismember the missile/dirty bomb?
 
ABM-shield technology already exists in a rudimentary form in the form of interceptor missiles. If President Bush's missile defense shield ever becomes realized, the age of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear calamity might well end altogether.
 
Any more takers?
 
Mr. Lamont: So maybe we should stop the sci-fi fantasizing, huh?
 
Mr. Stolyarov: You seem to be extremely contemptuous of science fiction. Keep in mind that submarine travel, powered flight, space flight, and robotics were all once mere "sci-fi fantasizing"!
 
Concrete-boundedness, to the reality of the present moment and it only, is the mark of him who disdains extrapolating progress into the future.
 
Now, on to the straw-man issue: Mr. Perigo wrote: "A creature endowed with immortality, denied the alternative of life or death (& their barometers, pleasure & pain)..." This seems to me like a listing, not a definition. The structure of this sentence does not imply that immortality is defined as the denial of the alternative of life or death and their barometers. It seems that Mr. Perigo was describing a creature who was immortal and also was denied the alternative, etc. In which case, given my presentation of the hypothetical George, I showed that immortality does not imply what Mr. Perigo said it implies, i.e., the un-necessity of morality.
 
If Mr. Perigo had written, "A creature endowed with immortality, which is defined as the denial of the alternative, etc." we would have a different argument. I would then take issue with his definition, not his seemingly blanket condemnation of immortality.
 
Would that Mr. Perigo learned from my love of precision, rather than ridicule it!
 
Mr. Humphreys: Would you say this fact alone is an argument for not undertaking those activities? To say that any given activity would be more enjoyable were it not so risky is obvious. I don't think this is intrinsically an argument not to do something.

Mr. Stolyarov: This may be true, but also may not. For example, if I need to drive to work, the loss I will incur if I refuse to undertake the risk of driving is greater than the mere probability of getting into an accident. (It is a question of guaranteed loss versus a slim possibility of one). If I refuse to drive to work, I lose the income I need to survive, for a time, at least. Not skydiving, however, gives one no loss of what already exists. One merely does not gain whatever is to be gained by skydiving. Currently, weighing gains against losses, I say the risk of loss is greater than the potential benefits (note that we have two potentials here, rather than a potential and a certainty!). I do not know whether skydiving will bring me happiness: I do not like "extreme thrills," and my organism already feels uncomfortable on roller coasters, which are supposedly much safer.
 
Mr. Humphreys: ...some individuals will be willing to undertake skydiving (or any other extreme sport) and others will not. Neither choice is per se irrational. 
 
Mr. Stolyarov: Yes, I agree with you in terms of extreme sports. Context, skills, preparation, and the individual's hierarchy of values must all be taken into account, and no blanket judgment can be made. Hopefully, I will get to the Wheeler interview later today: I am interested in reading it and will post my impressions here when I do.
 
Mr. Humphreys: Are you trying to say that a longer life is intrinsically more fulfilled than a shorter one? The way I look at it, 50 years as Hank Reardon is better than 250 years as a production line worker.

Mr. Stolyarov: I am not comparing different lives here. I am saying a longer life for any particular individual is better than a shorter one. This presumes that all other factors are kept constant, including the individual's motivation, productivity, and integrity. The mark of a true adult is a constancy of personality. Thus, let us say a true adult obtains a very drawn-out terminal illness, which greatly impedes his pursuit of values. He should still try to prolong his own life, because, in addition to the X values he gained before the illness, he will gain Y values during it, and X+Y>X.
 
The scientists always examines each factor's effects in isolation. This is why empirical experiments only have one variable, with all other factors being kept as controls. I think filosofical deliberations ought to bring about control environments in the hypotheticals they bring about. This helps answer questions like "Does length of life increase fullness of life?"
 
Mr. Howison: Or maybe you find some way to avoid accidental death altogether - but how could you survive the eventual death of the universe?
 
Mr. Stolyarov: "The death of the universe" is a faulty use of words. There is no such entity as "universe," and a non-entity does not have a beginning or end. I view all modern doomsday propaganda about the eventual death of the universe (or about the universe ever being "created") as just that: modern doomsday propaganda.
 
Very shortly, I will post here the article, "Mistakes Concerning Infinity," which explores this point in greater detail. If you wish, Mr. Howison, I invite you to further address this question on such a thread. For now, suffice it to say that I do not grant your premise.
 
Thank you for the statistics. I will not question them, but I maintain that there is a difference between a situation where definite loss vs. possible loss and a situation where lack of possible gain vs. possible loss are the alternatives. These are entirely different dilemmas, and should be examined irrespective of each other.
 
Mr. Trusnik: However, for any person who isn't merely waiting for death, I can see how a longer life span could be more fulfilling, provided that the amount of time taken to extend his life did not take more than the amount of time that he gained.  Or, in other words, if X - (time taken) < X + (time granted), then, yes, I see greater fulfillment, all else being equal.
 
Mr. Stolyarov: I do not see this as necessarily the case. A healthy man who pursues the elongation of his life (say, through exercise) can find values in the very act of exercising (see my earlier example of the esthetic value of running). Thus, the time spent to elongate one's existence is not necessarily a waste. It can be one of the most productively and exhilarantingly spent in all of human existence.
 
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917 
Eden against the Colossus
The Prologue: http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/eac_prologue.html

Chapter I: Protector's Summons: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac_chapter1.html

Order Eden against the Colossus at http://www.lulu.com/content/63699.

 
 
 
 
 
 


Post 32

Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Stolyarov, you say:

Life is equipped to respond in a certain sense to those fenomena which endanger it. This in no manner guarantees the constant presence of such endangering fenomena. For example, I am vaccinated against smallpox; my body will respond in a certain manner to effectively combat any smallpox epidemic that should ever arise. This does not mean that a smallpox epidemic must constantly be present in my vicinity in order for the nature of the smallpox vaccine to be fulfilled!

No, but it does mean that the real possibility of smallpox, and the existence of the smallpox/no smallpox alternative, is the raison d’être of the vaccine and alone gives value to it.

Like your fellow argumentators of this viewpoint, you make the mistake of thinking that a “pursuit of values” is limited to a “deflection of harms.” In fact, there is so much more. There is a striving for positive gain, especially in the field of esthetics, which affects survival per se very little, if at all.

I hope you realize that among those fellow argumentators is Ayn Rand herself. At the fundamental level, values are “deflecting” the ultimate “harm” of death. In Atlas Shrugged she made the point, which I agree with, that the good is that which is pro-life. At the basic, metaphysical level, all values are pursued in the service of life. For man this means more than physical survival, and even more than his own personal physical survival, because he conceives of and pursues abstract values. And there is attendant pleasure to this process.


Post 33

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 6:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First, I'm going to re-write a sentence of my original post, as I see a problem in how I stated it:

"...while I follow the ethics to maintain the quality of my life, my personal survival never consciously factors into it.  Even an immortal person can go bankrupt, and spend an eternity of nothing fulfilling."

By this, of course, I mean that I don't consider it a matter of life and death every time I make a value judgment and act upon it, even if the ethics are ultimately grounded in personal survival.  I don't see my life ending if, for example, I don't pursue those actions that are necessary to keep my wife, even though the quality of my life would deteriorate without her.

Secondly, to Mr. Stolyarov, I grant that you can find values taken in the pursuit of the things that extend your life.  However, when an action is done for the purpose of extending your life, the tradeoff in terms of time has to be worth it.

One example:  suppose it takes 1 second to do a sit-up.  Suppose that each sit-up done prolongs your life by 1.1 seconds.  If you do 100 sit-ups a day for one year you've taken away 36,500 of your life, and added 40,150 seconds, for a net gain of 3,650 seconds (if I did my math right).  That's a little more than 1 hour added to your life.

Suppose, instead, it was the reverse:  if it takes 1.1 seconds to do a sit-up, but added only 1 second to your life, and you did 100/day, you'd lose about 1 hour of your life.

This is oversimplified, of course.  But it demonstrates my point.  If, on the other hand, you found sit-ups to have other values outside of life-extension, then an hour lost or gained is irrelevant because of the greater quality of life attained.


Post 34

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 7:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

Mr. Rawlings: No, but it does mean that the real possibility of smallpox, and the existence of the smallpox/no smallpox alternative, is the raison d’être of the vaccine and alone gives value to it.

Mr. Stolyarov: What about a vaccine that, when one has been inoculated with it, totally wards off smallpox? After centuries of almost universal vaccination, the vast majority of smallpox viruses will have vanished altogether, not having hosts in which to undergo their lytic cycles. There is no guarantee, however, that, once the vaccination process is stopped, some surviving viruses in some chunk of ice will not infect those who are no longer immune to them. Is it wise to continue the vaccination?

 

I would claim the same w.r.t. immortality and reason in this situation. If Reason is not used, some of the economic structures necessary for the maintenance and production of immortality-conveying technologies will eventually atrofy, until immortality itself would not be sustainable any longer. But, so long as Reason is used, the men benefiting from the technology are indestructible. This is how immortality and Reason are mutually reinforcing and inextricably bound.

 

Mr. Rawlings: At the fundamental level, values are “deflecting” the ultimate “harm” of death. In Atlas Shrugged she made the point, which I agree with, that the good is that which is pro-life.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: In Atlas Shrugged, Rand also made the point that a benefit is more than the absence of a harm: pleasure is more than the absence of pain, morality is more than the absence of evil, and life is more than the absence of death.

 

Once again, I suggest a controlled “filosofical experiment.” There is another man, named Ben. Ben eats healthy food, exercises regularly, and receives an income sufficient to survive. He possesses several hours of leisure to himself every day and has full discretion as to how to spend it. If Ben spends his leisure time sitting on a Spartan couch in an empty room with white walls, his health will not be harmed. As a matter of fact, if this is the manner in which he furnishes his home, he will have saved quite a bit of money. On the other hand, Ben can decorate his home with realist paintings, a library of books and music, and a computer with Internet access, using which he can partake in intellectual discussions such as this one. What should Ben do? If mere avoidance of fysical death defined the nature of life, then either choice would be equivalent.


There are two schools of Objectivist thought on this issue. One is the “survivalist” school, which you seem to agree with (correct me if I am mistaken). It contends that not dying is per se man’s sole ultimate aim. Opposing it is the “flourishing” school, which agrees that, though survival is a necessary and perhaps foremost objective, there exist values beyond it, and an indefinite amount of them. The further goal of man should be to amass these values and render each day more filled with them than the last.

 

Mr. Rawlings: For man this means more than physical survival, and even more than his own personal physical survival, because he conceives of and pursues abstract values.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: This seems to contradict what you previously said, that is, that avoiding fysical death is the ultimate goal to which all rational activity should be traceable. Yet these abstract values do not directly avoid death, and can still be pursued by an indestructible man.

 

That is, unless you believe that there is a “death” other than a fysical death, which entails the obliteration of morality, conceptual capacity, and love of life within an individual. Ayn Rand would agree with this, as she had written of mentalities that exhibit “living death,” by explicitly denying the value and possibilities of life in this world. In this case, of course, the absence of a possibility of fysical death does not preclude moral death. An immortal individual who hates life will be just as devoid of the human spirit required to live, as a mortal man who commits suicide because of his hatred for life.

 

I do think that such a moral death is possible, for I have met individuals who are clear examples of being “dead” without knowing it. This is why Reason must be constantly pursued and its products accumulated even by immortal man. As I have already stated, he must take great care to remain man. (Immortal vegetables are nice, too: one will last you an entire eternity! They can save you a fortune! But I do not think even the living dead would appreciate being cannibalized repeatedly. J)

 

Mr. Trusnik: If, on the other hand, you found sit-ups to have other values outside of life-extension, then an hour lost or gained is irrelevant because of the greater quality of life attained.

 

Mr. Stolyarov: This is my point exactly: that there is such a quality-enhancing value to be found in almost any life-prolonging activity. In the very pursuit of life extension, man experiences with his entire consciousness the very thrill of being alive and actively working toward a rational goal. The particular manifestations of individual life-extending activities, such as running (where, say, observing the scenery might be a value), can also prevent them from wasting any time at all!

 

You are right that most of the common and even important choices rational men make are not consciously seen as life or death issues. A lot of them are not, as, even if they are detrimental in some way, their harms are reversible by future choices. This does not justify the making of “mildly” wrong decisions, but, on the contrary, emfasizes that there is another scale on which human existence occurs: the scale of minor harms. These can be a temporary loss of income, failure to air-condition a house on a hot day, or obtaining a minor infection. Technology can be found to combat all of these, but such minor harms are far more prevalent and manifold than the possible causes of death. There is no way to avoid them for a man mired in unreason, and thus the immortal man will always need to work actively to avert them and pursue positive values that further secure him against these minor harms.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917 
Eden against the Colossus
The Prologue: http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/eac_prologue.html

Chapter I: Protector's Summons: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/eac_chapter1.html

Order Eden against the Colossus at http://www.lulu.com/content/63699.

 


Post 35

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov, you are dropping the context. Mr. Perigo and Rand's point is not that technology-based life extension and protection would negate values (it would not), but that the fact that life requires specific action gives rise to the entire phenomenon of values.

You say: "[A]bstract values do not directly avoid death, and can still be pursued by an indestructible man." Agreed--not directly, as Rand is at pains to clarify. And it depends on what you mean by "indestructible man." If you mean a being not subject to the life/death alternative by his very nature (which is the sense Perigo and Rand are invoking!), you are counting on a metaphysical impossibility.

If you mean a man whom science has somehow rendered indestructible, I agree, but this is a side issue and not my main disagreement with you. Please note that I regard such a thing as equally metaphysically impossible, however.


Post 36

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.
 
Mr. Rawlings: If you mean a man whom science has somehow rendered indestructible, I agree...

Mr. Stolyarov: That is exactly what I mean. No creature is indestructible from random accidents of nature (which is really what evolution is, except, over time, the better adapted accidents outcompete the less adapted ones).

I do however take issue with the way Mr. Perigo frased his statement in this regard, which I explain above. His formulation is ambiguous, and may be taken by the clever opponents of scientific immortality as a moral argument against it.

Mr. Rawlings: Please note that I regard such a thing as equally metaphysically impossible, however.

Mr. Stolyarov: Please also note that I am still waiting for examples of involuntary causes of death that technology is metafysically incapable of solving.

By the way, Mr. Humphreys, I have finished reading the interview with Dr. Wheeler. He is certainly an accomplished man with a colorful personality, though I would never undertake the immense risks that he took to jeopardize his life. (He swam the Hellespont and nearly drowned. He had also lived among various tribes of Amazonian headhunters.) I tend to be averse to the majority of risks that are not absolutely necessary. Sometimes, when I ride my bike for exercise, I will refrain from crossing a street if I deem traffic to be too heavy. Since I can ride for hours at a time, this often requires many kilometers of adjustment to my planned route, which I usually find no problem with.  

Still, there is nothing anti-Objectivist about what he does, if he intends to survive and do his best to guarantee that no harm comes to him. Since Objectivism is an individualistic filosofy, we must accomodate for the possibility of different individuals making different, but still fully rational choices, based on the particular contexts of their lives, which, in the realm of decisions like this, is so complex that it can only be grasped by the individual who experienced it.

There are, of course, choices where there can be no rational expectation of harmlessness, such as drug use, smoking, intercourse before marriage (due to moral harms, as well as a high likelihood of fysical ones), and any initiation of force against others, including forcing others to take a risk they would not have undertaken on their own. Some of these choices should be legal, but are still gravely immoral. Others must remain both illegal and immoral.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917 



Post 37

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have successfully made my main point. As for the side issue, I don't care to go into it with you. I am much too busy.

Post 38

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Rawlings,

There may have been some ambiguity to one of my sentences. I wrote: "No creature is indestructible from random accidents of nature (which is really what evolution is, except, over time, the better adapted accidents outcompete the less adapted ones)."

I did not mean to say that no creature can be guaranteed escape from these accidents. I meant to say that no entity which is not technologically modified, and is affected only by the randomness of evolution, can be indestructible. This why the original (i.e. pre-technological) nature of man was that of a being facing the life/death alternative. The alternative remains part of the nature of man to this day, but this is no guarantee that it will always be the case.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917 



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am with Marc and Mr. Stolyarov on this one. I agree with everyone that a shorter but more fulfilled life is better than a longer, but less fulfilled life, but I  do not see it as an either-or situation. It is far better to have a longer, more fulfilled life or, better yet, an infinite longer and infinitely more fulfilled life. It was clear to me from the get-go that Mr. Stolyarov was discussing the reasonable possibility that scientists may develop technologies that could prevent all forms of death, not some hypothetical being who is immortal by nature. Nobody has adequately addressed Mr. Stolyarov's challenge to name one cause of death that is inherently impossible to prevent. Is it not the logical progression of every development in the field of medicine? Furthermore, isn't being free from the possibility of death from any cause a logical progression of being free from death due to the initiation of physical force by another man? Does it not, in a way, free up a man's possibilities in life? As part of my job, I do things most people would find too dangerous for their taste, but I find exhilirating to do. I can imagine myself enjoying them even more if I did not have to worry so much about the risks of death or injury. I honestly cannot see how I could refuse or disapprove of any technological development that can lead to immortality.

Granted, of course, that immortaility through such means was not what the article was addressing, but I think I should lend support to an ideal that Mr. Stolyarov supports and that I am surprised more Objectivists do not support.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 7/23, 11:23pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.