= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on That Magical Click - 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 (400)
At the risk of revealing my stupidity...
In my experience, people who don't compartmentalize tend to be cranks.
Because the world appears to contradict itself, most people act as if it does. Evolution has created many, many algorithms and hacks to help us navigate the physical and social worlds, to survive, and to reproduce. Even if we know the world doesn't really contradict itself, most of us don't have good enough meta-judgement about how to resolve the apparent inconsistencies (and don't care).
Most people who try to make all their beliefs fit with all their other beliefs, end up forcing some of the puzzle pieces into wrong-shaped holes. Their favorite part of their mental map of the world is locally consistent, but the farther-out parts are now WAY off, thus the crank-ism.
And that's just the physical world. When we get to human values, some of them REALLY ARE in conflict with others, so not only is it impossible to try to force them all to agree, but we shouldn't try (too hard). Value systems are not axiomatic. Violence to important parts of our value system can have repercussions even worse than violence to parts of our world view.
FWIW, I'm not interested in cryonics. I think it's not possible, but even if it were, I think I would not bother. Introspecting now, I'm not sure I can explain why. But it seems that natural death seems like a good point to say "enough is enough." In other words, letting what's been given be enough. And I am guessing that something similar will keep most of us uninterested in cryonics forever.
Now that I think of it, I see interest in cryonics as a kind of crankish pastime. It takes the mostly correct idea "life is good, death is bad" to such an extreme that it does violence to other valuable parts of our humanity (sorry, but I can't be more specific).
To try to head off some objections:
I offer this comment, not in an attempt to change anyone's mind, but to go a little way to answer the question "Why are some people not interested in cryonics?"
Thanks!
It seems to me that you can't be more specific because there is not anything there to be more specific about.
What the hell, I'll play devil's advocate.
Right now, we're all going to die eventually, so we can make tradeoffs between life and other values that we still consider to be essential. But when you take away that hard stop, your own life's value suddenly skyrockets - given that you can almost certainly, eventually, erase any negative feelings you have about actions done today, it becomes hard to justify not doing horrible things to save one's own life if one was forced to.
Imagine Omega came to you and said, "Cryonics will work; you will be resurrected and have the choice between a fleshbody and simulation, and I can guarantee you live for 10,000 years after that. However, for reasons I won't divulge, this is contingent upon you killing the next 3 people you see."
Well, shit. Let the death calculus begin.
You make a valid theoretical point, but as a matter of contingent fact, the only consequence I see is that people signed up will strongly avoid risks of having their brains splattered. Less motorcycle riding, less joining the army, etc.
Making people more risk-averse might indeed give them pause at throwing themselves in front of cars to save a kid, but:
Snap judgments are made on instinct at a level that doesn't respond to certain factors; you wouldn't be any less likely to react that way if you previously had the conscious knowledge that the kid had leukemia and wouldn't be cryopreserved.
In this day and age, risking your life for someone or something else with conscious premeditation does indeed happen even to transhumanists, but extremely rarely. The fringe effect of risk aversion among people signed up for cryonics isn't worth consigning all of their lives to oblivion.
I don't worry about this for the same reason that Eliezer doesn't worry about waking up with a blue tentacle for his arm.
Thanks for that generous spirit. But fine: You see a woman being dragged into an alley by a man with a gun.
Scenario A) You have terminal brain cancer and you have 3 months to live. You read that morning that scientists have learned several new complications arising from freezing a brain.
Scenario B) Your cryonics arrangements papers went through last night. You read that morning that scientists have successfully simulated a dog's brain in hardware after the dog has been cryogenically frozen for a year.
Now what?
Obviously, you dial 911 on your cell phone. (Or whatever the appropriate emergency number is in your area.)
The generous spirit overfloweth. You don't have a cell phone. Or it's broken.
Well, it's not like I have much of a chance of saving the woman. He has a gun, and I don't. Whether the woman gets shot is entirely up to the man with the gun. If I try to interfere (and I haven't contacted the police yet), I think that I'm as likely to make things worse than I am to help. For example, the man with the gun might panic if it seems like he's losing control of the situation. I'm also physically weaker than most men, so the chances of my managing to overpower him with my bare hands are pretty small.
So, either way, I probably won't try to be Batman.
This strikes me as purposefully obtuse. Does cryonics increase the present value of future expected life? I think it does. Does that increase affect decisions where we risk our life? I think it does; do you agree?
Yes, I basically agree; I was mostly nitpicking the specific scenario instead of addressing the issue.
If I modify the scenario a bit and say that the assailant has a knife instead of a gun (and my phone's batteries are dead), then things are different. If he has a knife, intervening is still dangerous, but it's much easier to save the woman - all I need to do is put some distance between the two so that the woman can run away. I might very well be seriously injured or killed in the process, but I can at least count on saving the woman from whatever the assailant had in store for her. (This is probably the least convenient possible world that you wanted.)
So, yes, I'd be much more likely to play hero against a knife-wielding assailant if I had brain cancer than if I were healthy and had heard about a major cryonics breakthrough.
He was just responding to the specific scenario you posited. The fact that you had the broader issue of the effect of cryonics on the value of life at the forefront of your mind does not mean that his failure to comment on it is evidence of purposeful obtuseness.
if you live in the sorts of neighborhoods where women get dragged into alleys not having a gun seems pretty negligent.