= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on This Didn't Have To Happen - 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 (183)
I take it more to be like refusing to get on an airplane until any one has arrived anywhere, ever.
For all I know, cryonics makes it harder to revive people. Not that I think it's likely that's the case, but it certainly doesn't seem worth my time and money.
It's like being the guy who checks the Wright brothers' calculations, finds them correct, and still refuses to leap onboard their untried prototype to escape a tiger, but instead prefers to stand and be eaten.
Look, conventional death makes it maximally hard to revive a person. Their information has dissipated. You would essentially need a time machine. Cryonics is a guaranteed improvement over that - at least you have something to work with.
Perhaps more like the Wright brothers were planning to figure out how to land the plane after they throw it off a cliff. And your example throws out the benefits of not signing up for cryonics, which are a major factor for me.
Note that if Wright brothers didn't believe that there was a considerable chance of the plain not crashing, it would be a bad investment to build the plain in the first place. The question is about the cost: does the current state of knowledge support the positive outcome sufficiently to think of designing a plane? To design a plane? To build a plane? To perform an experiment, risking its destruction? To test-pilot a plane, risking one's life?
The same goes for cryonics, here you risk something like 100 bucks a year.
So they haven't figured out the landing gear. So you might break your neck, might break your arm - but the tiger is sprinting towards you! It certainly will eat you!
I'll take my odds against a tiger rather than a cliff any day. How confident are you that you won't live forever?
Do you believe in the "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct." situations?
Sure - if Einstein signed up for cryonics, I might even follow suit. But a lot of really smart people are signing up for 'heaven', and I'm not listening to them, either.
Missing the point I think. Einstein wasn't stating this as any sort of appeal to authority. He was expressing his confidence in his mathematical proofs.
Mathematical proofs are an appeal to authority. Their standards rest entirely on the ability of experts on Mathematics to understand them. If we had a canonical mechanical proof-checker or something, it might be a different story.
But they were Einstein's proofs. He was confident in the math that he understood. If he were trying to convince someone else, then yes he'd be using himself as an authority.
So, you concede that it's possible to know the outcome in advance without empirical observation of success.
Now, what makes Einstein a special person for this purpose? Can it be you that decides?
Sure, it could be me that decides. That's why I've decided. What's your point?
That was an allusion to this question, which you still haven't answered. If, in principle, you could indeed decide that successful revival is possible, based only on theoretical knowledge, before any successful revival was ever performed, then you should be able to explain what kind of indirect evidence it would take to persuade you that successful revival is sufficiently likely for you to decide to sign up for cryonics.