= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Abnormal 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 (365)
Really? Even if you buy into Will's estimate, there are at least three arguments that are not weak:
1) The expected utility argument (I presented above arguments for why this fails, but it isn't completely clear that those rebuttals are valid)
2) One might think that buying into cryonics helps force people (including oneself) to think about the future in a way that produces positive utility.
3) One gets a positive utility from the hope that one might survive using cryonics.
Note that all three of these are fairly standard pro-cryonics arguments that all are valid even with the low probability estimate made by Will.
That really depends a lot on the expected utility. Moreover, argument 2 above (getting people to think about long-term prospects) has little connection to the value of p.
Even a small chance that you will be there helps put people in the mind-set to think long-term.