= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
topynate comments on I Will Pay $500 To Anyone Who Can Convince Me To Cancel My Cryonics Subscription - 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 (181)
It is likely that you would not wish for your brain-state to be available to all-and-sundry, subjecting you to the possibility of being simulated according to their whims. However, you know nothing about the ethics of the society that will exist when the technology to extract and run your brain-state is developed. Thus you are taking a risk of a negative outcome that may be less attractive to you than mere non-existence.
This argument has made me start seriously reconsidering my generally positive view of cryonics. Does anyone have a convincing refutation?
The best I can come up with is that if resuscitation is likely to happen soon, we can predict the values of the society we'll wake up in, especially if recovery becomes possible before more potentially "value disrupting" technologies like uploading and AI are developed. But I don't find this too convincing.
My attempt at a reply turned into an essay, which I've posted here.
This answer raises the question of how narrow the scope of the contest is:
Do you want to specifically hear arguments from scientific evidence about how cryonics is not going to preserve your consciousness?
Or, do you want arguments not to do cryonics in general? Because that can also be accomplished via arguments as to the possible cons of having your consciousness preserved, arguments towards opportunity costs of attempting it (effective altruism), etc. It's a much broader question.
(Edit - nevermind, answered in the OP upon more careful reading)