[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Brett Paatsch]

Robin Hanson wrote:

>>>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.
>>
>>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?
>
> I really don't think the judging organization is the problem.  Dead vs.
> alive is usually a pretty wide gulf without that many borderline cases.
> I'd want to be clear if uploading counts as revival, but otherwise, sure
> I'd accept many third party judgements.

But what if you couldn't be clear. What if whether uploading counts or not
is a question that must be left in the hands of the judges. The judges are
allowed to have regard to arguments for and against whether uploading
counts.  Anybody that wants to can make their best case for uploading.
And the case that uploading should count if the judges think it does, but
the judges get to decide what is and isn't germane to the question "can
cryonics work?"

> Harder problems are making bets
> that pay interest over such a long time, and trusting the judges and folks
> holding the money to still be there when time comes to judge.

Quite so. Yet you, Hal, Damien and I each have to decide for ourselves
"can cryonics work? " while we are still here to decide. In other words
in a time period of decades or perhaps even years but certainly not
centuries. If we think markets can inform us, we are likely to want to be
informed in time for us to use the information. And if we want a payoff
for being right in our lifetimes we might want to assemble the arguments
and facts for the negative case (for judgement) so as to move the market
in favour of our views whilst we are alive and so can profit while alive.

Perhaps I, and/or Damien do have different ideas about what constitutes
identity to yourself and Hal. And perhaps that is part of what has us in
disagreement about "can cryonics work?" And perhaps we are wrong.
But arguments about identity if they are germane to the question "can
cryonics work?" may still be able to be considered by a judging
organisation allowed to consider them. (It seems doubtful that personal
identity can really be just a matter of taste). And they may be able to be
considered before Damien and I are dead.

I don't know if Damien would be willing to have the question of identity
(including *his* identity, amongst other things) decided by a judging
organisation even if he could have as much input as he wished into the
expertise and composition of that judging organisation.

Perhaps people who disagree want to control the terms of reference
for any third-party judgement to much and not be willing to accept
only that they get to configure the judging mechanism beforehand.
I don't know this for a fact  - I just wonder.

Would you accept judgement without the uploading being explicitly
included in the terms of reference? Would Damien accept judgement
on questions that might include the issue of identity if that judgement
presumes to apply to his notion of identity too?  In both cases a
higher degree of confidence seems required in the judges.

Yet if the bet was broken down into separate ones stipulating stuff
about uploading and identity it might make the question "can cryonics
work?", which might have had appeal to the wider community, to
esoteric and of to little interest.

Brett Paatsch