= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sniffnoy comments on Cryonics Wants To Be Big - 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 (160)
Others have already addressed this claim but I'd like to address it another way briefly. In particular, just because a specific technological goal has not yet been achieved does not mean there is no evidence for that goal. If one said in 1968 that there was no evidence that humans could go to the Moon that would be regarded as likely incorrect. Here's a brief list of technologies we don't have today. I'd be deeply surprised if you don't consider it likely that we'll have at least some of these at some point in the future: 1) practical fusion power, 2) A human mission to Mars 3) Substantial life extension 4) direct brain-computer interfaces.
All of these examples fit your model of being technologies which we don't have yet. The third example, life extension seems particularly relevant. Based on your comment above I'm pretty sure you would not be willing to say "There is a total lack of evidence in support of substantial life extension of humans because its never been done and as of now nobody knows if it is even possible."
This kind of rebuttal absolutely fails, because it simply doesn't address the point. You're taking the OP completely out of context. The OP is arguing against cryonics evidence in the context of having to dish out substantial money. The pro-cryonics LW community asserts that you must pay money if you believe in cryonics, since it's the only rational decision, or some such logic. In response, critics (such as the OP) contend that cryonics evidence isn't sufficient to justify paying money. This is totally different from asserting that you don't believe in cryonics or the possibility of cryonics out of context.
In your examples, you don't have to pay out of your wallet if you believe that 1) practical fusion power, 2) human mission to Mars, 3) substantial life extension exists. These examples are misleading.
M, but that doesn't seem to be what SamAdams said. He didn't just say the probability was low enough for it to not be worth it, he said "There is a total lack of evidence in support of resurrecting a frozen human because its never been done and as of now nobody knows if it is even possible." Admittedly, he did say immediately afterward, "So essentially cryonics is a way to spend money on a one in a million chance you might be revived in the future. " So that seems to be a little inconsistent? I would think that if things really were as he described before, one in a million would be quite an overestimate.