[extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust)

[Brett Paatsch]

Hal Finney wrote:
 
> Cryonics is a hard case for me.  I have been signed up for 15 years now,
> my whole family, my wife and two kids.  At this point, though, I am
> much more doubtful about its chances of working.  It seems clear that
> the consensus of experts on freezing tissue is that it is a terribly
> damaging procedure.  And the consensus of experts on nanotech is that
> the Drexlerian vision is not the most plausible course for the future.
> Putting these together it seems doubtful that people being frozen today
> will ever be revived with their memories and personalities intact.
> 
> On the other hand, I've gotten so used to the knowledge that this is
> what will happen when I die, it is a real source of comfort to me.  Just
> knowing that there is a possibility, even a remote one, of resurrection
> and immortality is highly reassuring.  Cryonics plays the role, for me,
> of religion, in terms of the emotional comfort and security it provides.
> That makes it worthwhile even if it is objectively a long shot.  The idea
> of being without that protection is disturbing and frightening.
> 
> Now, there might be alternatives.  I could become a Christian, accept
> Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and hope for the same thing,
> resurrection and immortality.  It would probably cost about the same,
> maybe a little more if I got serious about it.  The question is, which is
> more likely to lead to immortality: signing up for cryonics, or becoming
> a Christian?
> 
> Obviously, most people would say that being Christian was more likely
> to succeed.  But the general public is not necessarily expert on
> the question.  I'm not sure who the best experts would be.  It would
> be interesting to ask the community of non-religious cryobiologists
> that question.  I honestly don't know what they would say.

I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Robin, Damien and I
to agree on a the structure of a bet (like in idea futures) that would
judge the question "can cryonics work?" in such a way that we did
not disagree after it had been judged.  

Its seems that you and Robin hold that it might be feasible and Damien
(if I am not mistaken [1]) and I hold that it is not feasible. 

I think all of us would agree that the question is important. 

I wonder if it is the sort of question that we could formute into a bet.

All of us respect science. All of us respect logic. All of us speak 
English. All of us, I think would accept that science, logic and
language are the relevant domains and that there are English
speaking, scientifically literate and logical people that can judge
things in these domains under some circumstances. 

I wonder if we could formulate a bet and agree in advance on what
sort of third-party judging process would be involved in determining
"the truth". 

And if we could not, I wonder why not. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

[1] http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-March/014237.html

" Or doubts about continuous identity throughout the transfer--
`That's not Kenny, it's just a copy... and the bastards have *killed* 
Kenny!' (I'd go along with that one, usually.) "