paper-machine comments on "Ray Kurzweil and Uploading: Just Say No!", Nick Agar - Less Wrong

4 Post author: gwern 02 December 2011 09:42PM

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

Comments (79)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 03 December 2011 07:15:17AM *  0 points [-]

Also, in the absence of any evidence that this is at all unlikely to occur. But notice the original poster does not dwell on the probability of this scenario, only on its mere possibility. It seems to me you're disagreeing with some phantasm you imported into the conversation.

Comment author: rwallace 03 December 2011 07:25:17AM 0 points [-]

Also, in the absence of any evidence that this is at all unlikely to occur.

If you think the situation is that symmetrical, you should be indifferent on the question of whether to commit suicide today.

But notice the original poster does not dwell on the probability of this scenario, only on its mere possibility.

If it had been generated as part of an exhaustive listing of all possible scenarios, I would have refrained from comment. As it is, being raised in the context of a discussion on whether one should try for uploading in the unlikely event one lives that long, it's obviously intended to be an argument for a negative answer, which means it constitutes:

  1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/

  2. Advocacy of death.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 December 2011 08:12:32AM 0 points [-]

If you think the situation is that symmetrical, you should be indifferent on the question of whether to commit suicide today.

Do you have some actual data for me to update on? Otherwise, we're just bickering over unjustifiable priors. That's why I'm withholding judgment.

As it is, being raised in the context of a discussion on whether one should try for uploading in the unlikely event one lives that long, it's obviously intended to be an argument for a negative answer

It did come out as this later, but not "obviously" from the original comment.