I'm skeptical that you unconditionally want your future self to eat a burger. At least, I've never desired food in such a non-instrumental way. Rather, I might anticipate enjoying a burger for lunch, and want to get that *enjoyment*. But if I imagine later forcing down a burger even though I'd then rather have pizza, that is *not* within the scope of what I currently want for my future.
By contrast, I can definitely imagine having an unconditional, non-instrumental desire that my book project be published, even if my future self is embarrassed by it or whatever. I don't care what that future guy's attitudes are towards the work. (I mean, I'd rather he be happy with it, but I don't think the value of publishing the work is contingent on his approval.) So I see it as very different from the burger case.
Yeah the book publishing case is cleaner. The burger/pizza is more vivid. I do think I have unconditional culinary desires, maybe not burger/pizza, but definitely when it comes to some fancy dish some fancy chef prepares that I hear about, especially if it involves and unfamiliar ingredient I might be grossed out by when I sit down.
But in that case it seems like you have a reason to follow through (to get the novel experience), right? We (at least, I) don't think the future preference automatically trumps in cases where we've anticipated that we might chicken out of a plan, and previously tried to resolve not to.
(So, I'm trying to push back against your claim that "No one thinks what I wanted in the past for my current self matters anymore. It matters what I want now.")
Are you assuming in your discussion of burger vs. pizza example that whatever explanation may be appropriate, it needs to be consciously accessible? There's a sense in which I'm inclined to think sometimes peoples desire *just* change, without there being a further explanation; indeed, I think this probably happens quite a bit, more than people are willing to admit. But surely there's *some* explanation available when that happens, e.g., perhaps it is different populations of neurons firing -- naturally, I might add -- at different levels of intensity at different time, such that when it is lunch time the pizza neurons win.
The whole idea of appealing to anything like a natural law is to claim that there is no further explanation available or possible when it comes to certain things. To think that there is always SOME explanation no matter what we're claiming is a natural law, is to deny that there are natural laws at all. Motion is like this; a lot of people accept the law of inertia and then simultaneously think (yeah but for every that is in motion, there is some explanation for why it is). That's precisely what the postulation of the natural law of inertia denies. Its not that you can't say "yeah but God is the first mover" as your explanation, or demand some other explanation....its just that if you do, you're actually denying that inertia is a fundamental natural law. So I do think sometimes you can say something like "there's a pizza-neuron something something...." but that's already claiming that there is a natural law of desire-persistence....you need SOME explanation for the change in desire. What I am saying is that there need be no such explanation and the desire still changed.
This sounds like an interesting book project; I look forward to hearing more about it. In case you didn’t already know, there’s extensive bioethics literature on the issue of advance directives in dementia. Maybe some of that discussion overlaps with your issues too.
As for inertia and the demands for explanation, I would have described the situation using different concepts. Just one concept, I guess: probability (or credence). How likely is it that you changed your mind? If you have changed your mind about these things many / few times in the past, then a third party is less / more wrong for ignoring your past wishes. And because you have introspective awareness of your own mental states, you can simply override your past preference when you (know that you) have changed your mind.
On this model, there is no need to figure out whether changes require explanations, or whether staying the same is more basic. You just need to know how likely it is that the subject has changed her mind.
"Why is it considered such a serious wrong that we do something contrary to the wishes of a past person, so much so that we have state enforcement of it, but it is no wrong to my past self that I decide to throw away the novel I wrote?"
I think there might be a typo here with "but it is no wrong to my past self"
Fascinating project! One small note:
I'm skeptical that you unconditionally want your future self to eat a burger. At least, I've never desired food in such a non-instrumental way. Rather, I might anticipate enjoying a burger for lunch, and want to get that *enjoyment*. But if I imagine later forcing down a burger even though I'd then rather have pizza, that is *not* within the scope of what I currently want for my future.
By contrast, I can definitely imagine having an unconditional, non-instrumental desire that my book project be published, even if my future self is embarrassed by it or whatever. I don't care what that future guy's attitudes are towards the work. (I mean, I'd rather he be happy with it, but I don't think the value of publishing the work is contingent on his approval.) So I see it as very different from the burger case.
Yeah the book publishing case is cleaner. The burger/pizza is more vivid. I do think I have unconditional culinary desires, maybe not burger/pizza, but definitely when it comes to some fancy dish some fancy chef prepares that I hear about, especially if it involves and unfamiliar ingredient I might be grossed out by when I sit down.
But in that case it seems like you have a reason to follow through (to get the novel experience), right? We (at least, I) don't think the future preference automatically trumps in cases where we've anticipated that we might chicken out of a plan, and previously tried to resolve not to.
(So, I'm trying to push back against your claim that "No one thinks what I wanted in the past for my current self matters anymore. It matters what I want now.")
Are you assuming in your discussion of burger vs. pizza example that whatever explanation may be appropriate, it needs to be consciously accessible? There's a sense in which I'm inclined to think sometimes peoples desire *just* change, without there being a further explanation; indeed, I think this probably happens quite a bit, more than people are willing to admit. But surely there's *some* explanation available when that happens, e.g., perhaps it is different populations of neurons firing -- naturally, I might add -- at different levels of intensity at different time, such that when it is lunch time the pizza neurons win.
The whole idea of appealing to anything like a natural law is to claim that there is no further explanation available or possible when it comes to certain things. To think that there is always SOME explanation no matter what we're claiming is a natural law, is to deny that there are natural laws at all. Motion is like this; a lot of people accept the law of inertia and then simultaneously think (yeah but for every that is in motion, there is some explanation for why it is). That's precisely what the postulation of the natural law of inertia denies. Its not that you can't say "yeah but God is the first mover" as your explanation, or demand some other explanation....its just that if you do, you're actually denying that inertia is a fundamental natural law. So I do think sometimes you can say something like "there's a pizza-neuron something something...." but that's already claiming that there is a natural law of desire-persistence....you need SOME explanation for the change in desire. What I am saying is that there need be no such explanation and the desire still changed.
This sounds like an interesting book project; I look forward to hearing more about it. In case you didn’t already know, there’s extensive bioethics literature on the issue of advance directives in dementia. Maybe some of that discussion overlaps with your issues too.
As for inertia and the demands for explanation, I would have described the situation using different concepts. Just one concept, I guess: probability (or credence). How likely is it that you changed your mind? If you have changed your mind about these things many / few times in the past, then a third party is less / more wrong for ignoring your past wishes. And because you have introspective awareness of your own mental states, you can simply override your past preference when you (know that you) have changed your mind.
On this model, there is no need to figure out whether changes require explanations, or whether staying the same is more basic. You just need to know how likely it is that the subject has changed her mind.
Yes, it will make up quite a bit of the book.
"Why is it considered such a serious wrong that we do something contrary to the wishes of a past person, so much so that we have state enforcement of it, but it is no wrong to my past self that I decide to throw away the novel I wrote?"
I think there might be a typo here with "but it is no wrong to my past self"