Nick_Tarleton comments on Demands for Particular Proof: Appendices - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 February 2010 07:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (60)
Tags: cryonics bayesian logical_rudeness particular_proof absence_of_evidence

Comments (60)

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

Comment author: ciphergoth 16 February 2010 08:26:51AM *  1 point [-]

We don't know whether Alzheimer's is information-theoretically reversible or not, AFAIK.

EDIT: I'm wrong, for some reason I thought we knew less than we do.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 17 February 2010 07:19:32PM *  0 points [-]

EDIT: I'm wrong, for some reason I thought we knew less than we do.

What of relevance do we know? Links? (Or is this in response to CronoDAS's link? The article says multi-infarct dementia isn't Alzheimer's.)

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 February 2010 09:01:06PM *  1 point [-]

I don't know any more than is at the end of that link; someone who knew the subject could doubtless say much more. There's a remark about cryonics and Alzheimer's in this Ralph Merkle article:

Most people suffer legal death because of a heart attack or cancer. Deterioration of the brain prior to legal death from neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease), accidental damage to the brain (e.g., as in the case of Phineas Gage) or other causes would adversely influence this risk.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit