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

[Brett Paatsch]

Hal wrote:

> 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 your re-statement above is accurate. I don't know if its *more*
accurate.  Perhaps it is.

[BTW I don't want to characterise you, or Robin or Damien as having
views that you don't have.]

I do think that you and Robin would estimate the probability that cryonics
can work (for yourselves) as higher than I, and perhaps Damien would for
ourselves). I don't think either you or Robin would place the probability
as very high either.

>> 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.

If any means of avoiding death were feasible I think that would be enough
to *interest* each of us. (Whether it would interest us *today* or at any
*particular* time or not might be a different question, one that might
depend on what else is clamouring for our attentions at the time).

I guess I'm saying, I think that we'd each acknowledge we have an
*interest* in avoiding dying and in finding out if that is possible via some
particular way or other. And I think that we'd each have an interest in
making the truth on such questions as "can cryonics work?" better
*known* (if such is possible) than they currently are. I don't mean that
any of us are fanatical about our positions. I think none of us are 
fanatical.

>> 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.

Sure, that would be a line we could explore. I mean the way you are
operationaling the bet is a way that I imagine you, Robin, Damien or
I would each start to do with *some* skill if any of us were challenged
to put our money where our mouths are.

But perhaps before we even go down that path it is worth asking could
each of us accept the judgement of  *any* third party judging organisation
however ideally configured with relevant expertise, (scientific, logical,
linguistic etc) as being better than our own present judgement, and better
than our own then, our future judgement (biased judgement) when such
judgement is rendered?

In practice, both now and then, there is only two practical choices in
relation to cryonics for each of us: either we choose to sign up or we
don't.

> 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.)

You're not way off.  But you are getting into trying to answer the question.

I'm wondering if you can see that there is no point to trying to answer the
question unless at least two of us, one from either side of the proposition
would be willing to accept the decision of a judging organisation.

My purpose here is somewhat "meta".  I'm interested in using cryonics
as an example, and some slightly known to me different positions on it
(yours, Robins, Damien's) as a sort of test to see if people whom I think
respect each other yet hold different views can even in principle come
up with a judgeable betting procedure on something like this.

I'm interested in whether some matters ultimately cannot become matters
for third party judging even in principle when two sides start out on the
opposite sides of a question.

We know judging can be imposed and begrudgingly accepted (without
the need for us to agree with it) on some matters. I don't know if the likes
of us can advance-accept the sort of judgement that would be made on
 "can cryonics work?" though.  And if we can't advance-accept it, then
we can't get to agree.

Does that make sense?

Brett Paatsch