= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jkaufman 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)
"How likely is it that the current cryonics process prevents information-theoretic death" is a question for neuroscientists, not economists.
Identical twins raised apart act fairly similarly, and economists are better qualified to judge this claim than neuroscientists. Given my DNA and all the information saved in my brain by cryonics it almost certainly would be possible for a super-intelligence with full nanotech to create something which would act similar to how I do in similar circumstances. For me at least, that's enough to preserve my identity and have cryonics work. So for me the answer to your question is almost certainly yes. To know if cryonics will work we need to estimate long-term tech trends to guess if Alcor could keep my body in tact long enough until someone develops the needed revival technologies.
I'm curious... if P1 is the probability that a superintelligence with full nanotech can create something which would act similar to how you do in similar circumstances given your DNA and all the information in your cryonically frozen brain, and P2 is that probability given just your DNA, what's your estimate of P1/P2?
Good point, especially if you include everything I have published in both P1 and P2 then P1 and P2 might be fairly close. This along with the possibility of time travel to bring back the dead is a valid argument against cryonics. Even in these two instances, cryonics would be valuable as a strong signal to the future that yes I really, really want to be brought back. Also, the more information the super-intelligence has the better job it will do. Cryonics working isn't a completely binary thing.
So... it sounds like you're saying that your confidence that cryonic preservation differentially prevents information-theoretic death is relatively low (given that you estimate the results with and without it to be fairly close)... yes?
(nods)
What's your estimate of the signal-strength ratio, to such a superintelligence of your preferences in the matter, between (everything it knows about you + you signed up for cryonics) and (everything it knows about you + you didn't sign up for cryonics)?
True.
Yes given an AI super-intelligence trying to bring me back.
I'm not sure. So few people have signed up for cryonics and given cryonics' significant monetary and social cost it does make for a powerful signal.
If we assume there is no AI superintelligence trying to bring you back, what's your estimate of the ratio of the probabilities of information-theoretic death given cryonic preservation and absent cryonic preservation?
To a modern-day observer, I agree completely. Do you think it's an equally powerful signal to the superintelligence you posit?
I don't know enough about nanotech to give a good estimate of this path. The brain uploading path via brain scans is reasonable given cryonics and, of course, hopeless without it.
OK... thanks for clarifying.
Have you considered getting your DNA sequenced and storing that in a very robust medium?
Yes. I'm a member of 23andMe, although they don't do a full sequencing.
Sorry, I should be more clear. You think your DNA is going to be really helpful to a superintelligence bringing you back, then it would make sense to try and increase the chances it stays around. 23andMe is a step in this direction, but as full genome sequencing gets cheaper at some point you should probably do that too. It's alreadfy much cheaper than cryonics and in a few years should be cheaper by an even larger margin.