CarlShulman comments on How Likely Is Cryonics To Work? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (122)
This one seems conceptually strange in a cost-benefit analysis: if you get into straits in which you don't want to pay your insurance premia and membership fees, then you stop paying and lose the protection (unless you have been suspended or died in the interim). In this situation both the costs and benefits are reduced, so it shouldn't play the role it does in the above calculation.
This rate is empirically too high.
Why so high?
One does have to inform this probability by historical rates.
A lot of these claims are going to be correlated with each other and brain preservation adequacy (from the first section), likewise for technological/economic capacities and interests. If you apply a mistaken independence assumption and break apart many correlated things you'll get big underestimates of probability.
How sure are we that electrical information is not important? That the neurons in other parts of your body are not very important?
Brain electrical activity can collapse to undetectable levels and be recovered from.
One can think about amputees and the like, and your own degree of attachment to certain kinds of muscle memory, etc.
Ok. I've revised my probability down to 2%. Updated in the google doc. Thanks!
be from?
Mangled link.