[extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters

[Brett Paatsch]

Keith Henson wrote:

>>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?
> 
> I think you have in mind some rapid process to come to a present
> day agreement about "cryonics can work."
> 
> You obviously hold a strong opinion about the subject so you feel
> "cryonics can't work."
> 
> I must state that I had a similar opinion at one time, liking a frozen 
> person to a frozen tomato, looks great, but turns to mush when
> thawed out.
> 
> Eric Drexler had the same opinion prior to thinking about what 
>could be done with molecular scale machines.  I wasn't an easy sell,
> it took 5 or 6 years from starting to hear about nanotechnology
> before my family signed up.  I was eventually backed into an 
> intellectual corner where I could find no reason for cryonics not 
> to work at the technical level.  Of course I had a fairly deep science
> background of how molecular biology had developed over the
> previous 30 years.
> 
> I am increasingly confident over the last 20 years that the technical
> level of cryonics is sound.
> 
> I wonder what evidence you cite to support your opinion?

At present I don't try to cite evidence to support my opinion on
cryonics I just collect it when I come across it. My reason for this
is that I think that what originally draws people to explore cryonics
(myself included) is not truth-seeking but hope. 

When people use their reasoning skills to fortify their hopes rather 
than to try and find out what is true "evidence" tends to be looked
at as an obstacle to be gotten around not something to be weighted. 

Its possible that most cryonics supporters may not be able to
dispassionately weight "evidence" in the absence of an emotionally
favourable alternative solution. I don't know that. 

Until there is a framework into which evidence and arguments for
and against can be evenly weighted I don't want to feed a
rationalisation process. It takes too much time to do that and I don't
get any return on time invested.  I'm mortal, I value my time. 

Damien doesn't seem to be around at present but what I was hoping
to explore was whether it would be possible for people on opposite
sides of the "can cryonics work?" issue to advance-agree on any sort
of third-party judging process.  

Robin has put an enormous amount of time and effort into finding
ways of enhancing our truth seeking orientation and through his
notion of idea futures I think he may be onto something very
powerful.   I'm still probing for weaknesses and limits in idea 
futures and its mainly out of interest in that that I am looking at the
cryonics question. 

If people whose views on cryonics are as different as Hal's and 
Robin's from mine and Damien's (as I perceive them) could agree
on a judging process that would yield more truth than we each
currently have then that would be an important vindication of 
some key ideas. And if we can't then that might be informative
too. 

I see the stakes as much higher (potentially) than the single issue
of cryonics.

"Can cryonics work?" might not be the easiest thing to set up
a bet on. 

In his paper _Could Gambling Save Science?_  Robin states:

"Presumably we want as much progress as possible per effort
invested, at least in situations where the following notion of 
"progress" makes sense. Consider a well-posed question, such
as "Is the Earth basically spherical?", with a handful of possible
answers (such as "No, it's flat"). Experience indicates that, with
enough study and evidence, one of the answers will eventually
stand out as best to most anyone who considers the question
carefully. At least this seems to happen for most questions that
have been traditionally labelled "scientific"; questions about the
morality of abortion or the nature of God may not fare as well."
 
Now I can readily see that the question "Can cryonics work?"
could legitimately contain subquestions such as whether revival
from update would constitute "working" and might necessarily
involve a judgement on what constitutes identity. 

I don't see that the existence of valid subquestions makes the
main question unjudgeable however. 

I don't know if "what is identity?" is outside judgement 
informed by the best scientific evidence and the most careful
consideration of logical argument though.  

Brett Paatsch