= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CarlShulman comments on Open Thread, March 1-15, 2013 - 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 (237)
Yes. Like, maybe the latter probability is only 10 or 100 times greater than the former probability.
This seems strangely averse to bad outcomes to me. Are you taking into account that the ratio between the goodness of the best possible experiences and the badness of the worst possible experiences (per second, and per year) should be much closer to 1:1 than the ratio of the most intense per second experiences we observe today, for reasons discussed in this post?
Why should we consider possible rather than actual experiences in this context? It seems that cryonics patients who are successfully revived will retain their original reward circuitry, so I don't see why we should expect their best possible experiences to be as good as their worst possible experiences are bad, given that this is not the case for current humans.
For some of the same reasons depressed people take drugs to elevate their mood.
I like that post very much. I'm trying to make such an update, but it's hard to tell how much I should adjust from my intuitive impressions.