= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - 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 (770)
There isn't no way to estimate it. We can make reasonable estimations of probability based on the data we have (what we know about nanotech, what we know about brain function, what we know about chemical activity at very low temperatures, etc.).
Moreover, it is always possible to estimate something's likelyhood, and one cannot simply say "oh, this is difficult to estimate accurately, so I'll assign it a low probability." For any statement A that is difficult to estimate, I could just as easily make the same argument for ~A. Obviously, both A and ~A can't both have low probabilities.
That's true; uncertainty about A doesn't make A less likely. It does, however, make me less likely to spend money on A, because I'm risk-averse.
Have you decided on a specific sum that you would spend based on your subjective impression of the chances of cryonics working?
Maybe $50. That's around the most I'd be willing to accept losing completely.
Nice. I believe that would buy you indefinite cooling as a neuro patient, if about a billion other individuals (perhaps as few as 100 million) are also willing to spend the same amount.
Would you pay that much for a straight-freeze, or would that need to be an ideal perfusion with maximum currently-available chances of success?