Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Normal Cryonics - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 07:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (930)
Tags: cryonics contrarianism

Comments (930)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 19 January 2010 10:55:36PM *  14 points [-]

Would you say in retrospect that you'd been a bad parent, or would you plead that, in retrospect, you made the best possible decision given the information that you had?

I reject your framing. I would say that I had made a bad mistake. Errors do not a bad parent make. Or, to put it another way, suppose you woke up in the Christian Hell; would you plead that you had made the best decision on the available information? Scary what-ifs are no argument. You cannot make me reconsider a probability assignment by pointing out the bad consequences if my assessment is wrong; you can only do so by adding information. I understand that you believe you're trying to save my life, but please be aware that turning to the Dark Side to do so is not likely to impress me; if you need the power of the Dark Side, how good can your argument be, anyway?

What probabilities do you assign?

The brain's functioning depends on electric and chemical potentials internal to the cells as well as connections between the cells. I believe that cryonics can maintain the network, but not the internal state of the nodes; consequently I assign "too low to meaningfully consider" to the probability of restoring my personality from my frozen brain. If the technology improves, I will reconsider.

Edit: I should specify that right now I have no children, lest I be misunderstood. It seems quite possible I will have some in the near future, though.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 11:10:29PM 12 points [-]

Errors do not a bad parent make.

Predictable errors do.

Or, to put it another way, suppose you woke up in the Christian Hell; would you plead that you had made the best decision on the available information?

Hell yes.

You cannot make me reconsider a probability assignment by pointing out the bad consequences if my assessment is wrong; you can only do so by adding information.

One way of assessing probabilities is to ask how indignant we have a right to be if reality contradicts us. I would be really indignant if contradicted by reality about Christianity being correct. How indignant would you be if Reality comes back and says, "Sorry, cryonics worked"? My understanding is that dogs have been cooled to the point of cessation of brain activity and revived with no detected loss of memory, though I'd have to look up the reference... if that will actually convince you to sign up for cryonics; otherwise, please state your true rejection.

Comment author: loqi 19 January 2010 11:59:15PM *  9 points [-]

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ZNOvlaxp0p8J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

Conclusions: In a systematic series of studies in dogs, the rapid induction of profound cerebral hypothermia (tympanic temperature 10°C) by aortic flush of cold saline immediately after the start of exsanguination cardiac arrest-which rarely can be resuscitated effectively with current methods-can achieve survival without functional or histologic brain damage, after cardiac arrest no-flow of 60 or 90 mins and possibly 120 mins. The use of additional preservation strategies should be pursued in the 120-min arrest model.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 21 January 2010 07:17:03AM 3 points [-]

If even a percent or two of parents didn't make predictable errors we would have probably reached a Friendly Singularity ages ago. That's a very high standard. If only parents who met it reproduced the species would rapidly have gone extinct.

Comment author: mattnewport 19 January 2010 11:21:21PM 1 point [-]

How indignant would you be if Reality comes back and says, "Sorry, cryonics worked"?

I don't think this is really the issue. If I make a bet in poker believing (correctly given the available information) that the odds are in my favour but I go on to lose the hand I am not indignant - I was perfectly aware I was taking a calculated risk. In retrospect I should have folded but I still made the right decision at the time. Making the best decision given the available information doesn't mean making the retrospectively correct decision.

I haven't yet reached the point where cryonics crosses my risk/reward threshold. It is on my list of 'things to keep an eye on and potentially change my position in light of new information' however.

Comment author: JGWeissman 19 January 2010 11:40:44PM 2 points [-]

If you make a bet in poker believing that you have .6 chance of winning, and you lose, I believe your claim that you will not be indignant. In this case you have a weak belief that you will win. But, if you lose bets with the same probability 10 times in row, would you feed indignant? Would you question your assumptions and calculations that led to the .6 probability?

If it turns out the cryonics works, would you be surprised? Would you have to question any beliefs that influence your current view of it?

Comment author: mattnewport 19 January 2010 11:49:24PM 1 point [-]

Yes, at some point if I kept seeing unexpected outcomes in poker I would begin to wonder if the game was fixed somehow. I'm open to changing my view of whether cryonics is worthwhile in light of new evidence as well.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised if at some point in the next 50 years someone is revived after dying and being frozen. My doubts are less related to the theoretical possibilities of reviving someone and more to the practical realities and cost/benefit vs. other uses of my available resources.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit