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

[Hal Finney]

Brett Paatsch writes:
> 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. 

Do you agree that it would be more accurate to say that I, and perhaps
Robin, probably estimate the likelihood that cryonics can work to be
higher than you, and perhaps Damien?

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

I don't see it as necessarily all that important.  It's not something that
I give a great deal of thought to.  I do spend a few hundred dollars a
year on it, probably about the same amount I spend on Atkins diet shakes.
It's not like it's a major part of my life.  On the other hand, as I
said it does give me a sort of quasi-religious comfort and that is nice
to have.

> 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. 

What if I were to define "cryonics can work" as something like, a
person frozen with today's technology is successfully revived within,
say, 100 years, with substantially identical memories and personality.
I would give this odds of about 1 in 100.

I know, based on our earlier discussions, that you have particular views
about the nature of identity which might make you question whether this is
a useful definition of cryonics "working".  You might be concerned that
even if someone passed this kind of objective test on revival, that he
wasn't really the same person.  If you can come up with an alternative
objective formulation, I'd be interested in hearing it.  I'd also be
curious to know what you think the odds are of it "working" according
to my definition, even if you don't agree that it is a good definition.

(And maybe I'm way off here and your objections are of a different form.)

Hal