= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tetronian comments on The Irrationality Game - 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 (910)
Doesn't everyone sign up based on the idea of "being frozen being conditional on being successfully revived"? That's where all of the positive utility comes in. The process of signing up, etc. is a means to that end, or instrumental values. That seems like it should clear up most discrepancies within the reference class.
The reference class problem could be avoided by saying "Signing up for cryonics does not maximize your (the reader's) expected utility." The reference class then emerges naturally.
Yes, that would seem to solve the problem. Fixed.
Also: that also means that I should change the probability I assigned, but not significantly. I'd have to think about some of your arguments from your Abnormal Cryonics post a bit more.
If I, as a 22-year old in very good health, were to be frozen right now, I would be sacrificing a large portion of my initial life. If I were 77 in good health, I might be looking into methods to get myself frozen so as to avoid having my body fall apart.
That is, the expected utility of freezing and revival varies widely, distinctly from the wide variation of expectations about the possibility of success or the financial impact.
So my agreement or disagreement would hinge on the demographics of the reference class. (In addition to my beliefs about cryonics AND my beliefs about medicine vs. charity)
Oh, I understand. I changed the wording as per Will_Newsome's suggestion.
Okay, downvoted in agreement now :)