= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BenAlbahari comments on Debate tools: an experience report - 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 (72)
The functionality is already there... Bryan's position on cryonics is at least partly based on his doubts regarding conscious computers. How do we represent this idea?
Add the following logical implication to the TakeOnIt database (done):
"If ~p -> possibly ~q" where p="Could a computer ever be conscious?" and q="Is cryonics worthwhile?"
Er... this actually has almost no implications for cryonics. You'd just repair the old brain in situ.
Its not important - my point was I just didn't see how to break down the argument to focus on that flaw, but apparently you can.
But to explain it Bryan's article was a response to a discussion he had with Robin. Apparently Robin focused on neuros and uploading in the discussion - I doubt if Bryan has a full understanding of all the options available for cryo and the possible revival technologies.
Point taken. I removed the implication to question "p" per your suggestion and added implications from question q (q="Is cryonics worthwhile?") to the questions:
a) "Is information-theoretic death the most real interpretation of death?"
b) "Is cryonic restoration technically feasible in the future?"
c) "Is there life after death?"
where the implications are:
a -> possibly q
~b -> necessarily q
c -> necessarily ~q
( See the result here: http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx )
Don't you mean ~b -> necessarily ~q?
Also, for c, you must specify, "Is there pleasant life after death?"
Yes, it should have been ~b -> necessarily ~q.
LOL. The idea that someone might actually expect an unpleasant life after death reminds me of some sort of twisted comic plot: the protagonist who's confident that they're going to hell so tries to postpone eternal suffering with cryonics.
Seriously however, you're right. Here's another possible qualification: are we talking about a finite or infinite life after death? In light of these possibilities, I changed "c -> necessarily ~q" to "c -> possibly ~q". I can't change the wording of the question "Is there life after death" because that question in its simple general form is already used in many other contexts on TakeOnIt. At one point I'd considered allowing annotating an implication (e.g. to express qualifications, exceptions, etc.), but the complexity of the feature didn't seem worth it.
I'm not sure, but I think I heard at least one story about someone who actually did this.
Wasn't that Paris Hilton? ;)
false alarm, she's not signed up