= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
printing-spoon comments on More Cryonics Probability Estimates - 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 (89)
To me this just looks like a bias-manipulating "unpacking" trick - as you divide larger categories into smaller and smaller subcategories, the probability that people assign to the total category goes up and up. I could equally make cryonics success sound almost certain by lumping all the failure categories together into one or two big things to be probability-assigned, and unpacking all the disjunctive paths to success into finer and finer subcategories. Which I don't do, because I don't lie.
Also, yon neuroscientist does not understand the information-theoretic criterion of death.
How do you know the raised estimate with this "trick" is worse than the estimate without?
I could just as easily say, "As you merge smaller categories into larger and larger categories, the probability that people assign to the total category goes down."