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

[Al Brooks]

I'm fanatical about cryonics because my attention span
is defective and can only focus seriously on something
if fanaticism comes into play. My defects are what led
me to cryonics, otherwise would live for Now; drink
beer, play cards, crochet doilies-- all the rest of
the diversions.

Aint Spock the logical Vulcan.



> I don't mean that
> > any of us are fanatical about our positions. I
> think none of us are 
> > fanatical.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > 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 think what you're saying is, the disagreement is
> not so much about the
> probability that a cryonics revivee could pass some
> such objective test.
> The disagreement is more fundamental, and is about
> the very nature of
> the cryonics question - is it one which can be
> answered by an objective
> test even in principle?
> 
> With this kind of difference, you could imagine two
> people who would
> agree about every objective, third-party-measurable
> experiment that could
> be made regarding the issue; yet they would still
> have a disagreement
> about what was going on, a disagreement which would
> lead to their taking
> different actions.
> 
> If this is what you're getting at, I agree that
> these kinds of differences
> do exist among people.  It's not just questions of
> the philosophy of
> consciousness, as in this case, but we also see such
> disagreements
> on matters of religion and spirituality.  Damien has
> pointed to
> sophisticated versions of religion which don't
> require miracles in
> the sense of exceptions to the laws of physics, but
> which nevertheless
> recognize a role for a divine presence.  A believer
> in such a religion
> might agree with an atheist on every question of
> measurement in the
> physical world, yet they could have serious
> disagreements that would
> lead to very different actions.
> 
> One way to analyze this situation is in the context
> of decision theory.
> Decision theory says that we make decisions to
> maximize the expected
> utility of the resulting world.  Utility is a
> measure of how much we
> like the outcome, and expected utility is a
> probabilistic, weighted
> average over the possible outcomes of our actions
> and the utility of
> each such outcome.  We take the action which is most
> likely to lead
> to the outcome with the best utility, averaged over
> all the possible
> outcomes of our actions.
> 
> In this context, a disagreement of this type is one
> where the parties
> agree about the physical facts, they agree about the
> probabilities,
> but they have different utility functions.  They
> differ on how happy
> they are with various outcomes.  It is these
> differences of utility,
> rather than disagreements on facts, which lead to
> different actions.
> 
> The question then becomes, are these differences of
> utility estimates
> something to worry about, and to try to resolve?  Or
> are they purely
> matters of taste, aspects of our individuality where
> we should welcome
> differences?
> 
> Reason is a tool.  It is a means to an end, not an
> end in itself.  Reason
> helps you to estimate the probabilities and to
> improve understanding
> about the world.  It guides you to the truth.  But
> what you do with
> that truth is up to you.  Reason can help you
> achieve your goals, but it
> does not create your goals, any more than a
> mathematical system creates
> its own axioms.  Your utility function, your
> preferences, your tastes,
> exist outside of the framework of reason. 
> Differences in these matters
> are not factual disagreements, and should not lead
> to the same kinds of
> questions and concerns as when people apply reason
> differently.
> 
> Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail