jkaufman comments on How Likely Is Cryonics To Work? - Less Wrong

18 Post author: jkaufman 25 September 2011 11:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (122)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jkaufman 26 September 2011 04:12:08PM 1 point [-]

suspensions do go wrong fairly frequently, but not anywhere close to 86% of the time!

If we have actual data on this, this should replace most of my first section. Can we get it? Though the people in a position to collect the data have a lot to lose by admitting poor numbers.

Also, some of my 86% for the first section includes things that we can't tell yet if they worked out all right:

  • Not all of what makes you you is encoded in the physical state of the brain
  • The current cryonics process is insufficient to preserve everything

And then there are things that are not currently a problem but could become one:

  • Some law is passed that prohibits cryonics
  • You die in a hospital that refuses access to you by the cryonics people

Actual data on the fraction of the time someone signed up for cryonics is actually suspended in what we think was the correct way would be really helpful, though.

Comment author: gwern 26 September 2011 04:17:38PM 5 points [-]

http://www.alcor.org/cases.html seems like a good starting point.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 26 September 2011 04:38:06PM 4 points [-]

Ugh. Some of that makes for very horrifying reading. One of the ones labeled worst case scenario makes me want to track down the people who did the autopsy and punch them.

Comment author: gwern 26 September 2011 04:56:52PM 5 points [-]

I did say 'fairly frequently'.... Nor does long involvement necessarily save one; Mike Darwin was rather angry at Ben Best over how he botched Curtis Henderson.