[extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools)

[Brett Paatsch]

Damien wrote:

> At 11:37 AM 3/17/2005 +1100, Brett wrote:
>
>>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.
>>...
>>
>>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.

> For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've 
> discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in
> THE SPIKE. If  you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way
> to copy the Mona Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the
> Mona Lisa? Well, no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is
> the painting that's hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication 
> that
> closely resembles it.
>
> It's too tedious, however, to rehearse this argument when it's been 
> presented before quite exhaustively.

Would it be accurate to characterise your position then Damien as being
that you could derive no further confidence in the rightness of your 
position
on this issue from any third-party judging process so it would be pointless
to explore the composition of such a judging process?  Perhaps the nature
of continuous identity is so obvious and fundamental to you that you cannot
imagine further insight possibly being shed on the matter for you?  (I 
almost
got that impression from rereading relevant sections of The Spike, 1997
edition).

I am not trying to misrepresent you, just to understand. I could for 
instance
hold the above positions on something that I was as certain of as say that
1 and 1 make 2. Such things are too fundamental for me to feel that any
other corroboration would increase my certainty in the case of agreement
and in the case of disagreement (on 1 + 1 = 2) I'd simply assume all
others were wrong.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch

PS: Congrats on the Award.