[extropy-chat] Re: Agreement on technical matters

[Brett Paatsch]

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> I notice your entire posts doesn't contain a single pointer to a single
> paper. Basically, you're just reiterating your opinions.

I was answering Keith's question. I was explaining why, at present,
I am not citing "evidence" for my opinions on cryonics.  

If we could get a idea futures market up and make cryonics the subject
of an appropriately worded bet on it, then there would be a motivating 
reason for people to bring in evidence to try to move the market price
in the direction of their opinion and so profit by doing so.  

Do you see that?   

> > ... 
> > 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.  

> There is no identity problem. Most people can't follow the argument line,
> though.

If you are right then perhaps it would be a relatively trivial matter to get a
third-party judging organisation to judge the validity of the lines of 
reasoning in logical arguments presented. 

Keith notes that "simply reviewing what has already been said about
the topic just since it started being discussed on the net would take 
much more than a normal human life span." 

Only what is logically essential matters for the purposes of judgement.
Given a market, the best arguments pro and con might be distilled 
from the noise by those wishing to influence the price. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050319/17a847d8/attachment.html>