= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
LucasSloan comments on Normal Cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (930)
If he and I are confused, you are seriously failing to describe your situation. You are a human brain. Brains work by physical laws. Bayesian super-intelligences can figure out how to fix the issues you have, even with the handicap of making sure their intervention is acceptable to you.
I understand your antipathy for the word stupid. I shall try to avoid it in the future.
Yes, this is very likely. I don't think I ever claimed that the problem wasn't in how I was explaining myself; but a fact about my explanation isn't a fact about the (poorly) explained phenomenon.
I can figure out how to fix the issues I have too: I'm in the process of befriending some more cryonics-friendly people. Why do people think this isn't going to work? Or does it just seem like a bad way to approach the problem for some reason? Or do people think I won't follow through on signing up should I acquire a suitable friend, even though I've offered to bet money on my being signed up within two years barring immense financial disaster?
Your second paragraph clears up my lingering misunderstandings; that was the missing piece of information for me. We were (or at least I was) arguing about a hypothetical situation instead of the actual situation. What you're doing sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
If you are willing to take the 1 in 500 chance, my best wishes.
Where did that number come from and what does it refer to?
Actuarial tables, odds of death for a two year period for someone in their twenties (unless I misread the table, which is not at all impossible).
It's really that likely? Can I see the tables? The number sounds too pessimistic to me.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
Looks like it should be 1/1000 for two years to me.
It should be around 1 in 400 for males in their 20s and 1 in 1000 for females in their 20s.