[ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 03/05/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis writes
>
> On 02/05/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stathis to Damien:
> > > > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than
> blowing it
> > > > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that
> tomorrow-self isn't
> > > > just some guy who happens to have all your memories?  If someone
> claimed
> > > > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that
> criterion X
> > > > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even
> without
> > > > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap
> because you
> > > > know you *don't* die every night?
>
> (Actually, I agree with Stathis, but see below for why.)
>
> > > It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then
> tailor your
> > > definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit
> that
> > > assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out
> what death
> > > is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?"
> >
> > That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death?
> > Given that we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred,
> > how do we then move on to decide whether or not X is a good
> > criterion for death?
>
> To me, this is a lot of math-envy.  Following Euclid, we must define all
> our terms and prove all our propositions.  Rubbish.  So-called
> "definitions"
> in philosophy (which are not neologisms) need to be extensionsal, not
> intensional.  (Go look those words up for their philosophical usage.)
> In other words, we *must* start with what death ordinarily means to
> everyone in the world, and work backwards for any attempts at
> refinement.
>
> Consider a historical analogy:  What is temperature?  Well, originally
> people knew that there is hot and cold, warm and cool, etc., and knew
> that it was a linear matter. They later, with scientific instruments,
> attempted to elucidate more of the meaning of "hot", "cold", etc.
> It would have been folly to have reached into their nether regions
> and *defined* temperature as this or that.  Can you hear sensible
> people at the time refusing to go ahead, challenging each other
> with "What do you *mean* by temperature?  How do you *define*
> it?"
>
> Now we *all* know what we mean by death in daily life!  It's absurd!
> Suppose that there is a really evil organization that you know of that
> does kill people. (Pardon me for being circular, but this really is
> elementary!)  If you get a call tonight just before retiring, and they
> say "By the way, we are killing *you* tonight.  It will happen while
> you are fast asleep?''  Would any of these crazy philosophers reply
> "Oh, that's all right.  I die every day anyway".
>
> OF COURSE NOT.
>
> Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die
> whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful
> for understanding.  Let's get serious!  You can't get out of paradoxes
> by making up definitions!


Well, I thought I was making the same point you are making, and I'm sorry
that my attempt at rigor has fallen flat. It seems to me that Heartland is
claiming that there is some objective criterion for death which trumps what
an ordinary person would understand by the term. That would mean that you
could have a test and be informed that, even though you don't realise it,
you died in the last hour (with the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns
that that would entail). But all that would mean is that the test is not a
valid test for what is commonly understood by the word "death"; or
alternatively, that the newly-defined "death" is not the same as the thing
that people have always worried about when they were worrying about dying,
and perhaps we need a new word in its place (although it would be more
sensible to keep the traditional meaning and come up with another word for
what the test shows).

To push your temperature analogy further, it would be like science
discovering the melting point of tungsten, and then declaring that boiling
water should no longer be called "hot". Even if everyone agreed that this
was an appropriate linguistic change, no scientific discovery will have any
bearing on the hot-like sensation you get when you put your hand into
boiling water.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070503/bd3a2420/attachment.html>