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

[Brett Paatsch]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: ""Hal Finney"" <hal at finney.org>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools)


> Damien writes:
>> 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.
>
> I think Brett's point was whether this kind of question can be addressed
> via some of the mechanisms we have discussed, such as Idea Futures.

Yes. Indeed.

> How could you make a bet which would test whether cryonics would
>"work"?

For Damien such a test would be superfluous.

> Or more specifically, how could you make a bet about whether a copy
> of a mind is, in some sense, the original?

This problem (our disagreement) doesn't reside in the domain of science.
It resides in the domain of language and logic.

>  And if we can't make bets about
> these kinds of things, is that then an example of a limitation on what
> knowledge we can rationally obtain about the world?

We can make bets I think. But to judge bets where the relevant domains
are logic and language we'd need judges with experts in those domains.

I think its a mistake to see cryonics as essentially a scientific 
disagreement.
I think its is essentially a logical disagreement.

> These are interesting issues and I don't have a firm opinion about them.

> It's possible that the nature of identity is a meaningless question,
> that such a concept of identity is a philosophical error.

But that is a problem for you isn't it Hal? I mean if you or anyone that
signed up for cryonics holds that identity is a a meaningless question
how could you be confident that an organisation that tries to revive you
would have even a similar notion to you as to what constitutes you?

Your identity is crucial to the nature of the service you are trying to
buy. How could you be confident of getting even the service providers
best efforts at service provision if there is no agreement possible about
your identity because the concept of identity is a philosophical error?

I think those who are choosing cryonics are making a logical error
about the nature of identity.

I think if we set up a bet on whether cryonics can work and found
experts that you, Robin, Damien and I, all thought were extremely
competent in dealing with logical matters (as well as able to bring
in any scientific experts that they wish) that some of those judges
might feel that they would be able to rule on the question almost
immediately.

Even if only 5% or 1% of the population are capable of dealing
very well with logical arguments, I would certainly think that any
one of you and Robin and either of Damien or I could together
agree on some way to select candidate judges from that 5% or
1%.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch