You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Alicorn comments on Mentioning cryonics to a dying person - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: DanielH 09 August 2012 06:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (72)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Alicorn 09 August 2012 04:35:23PM *  4 points [-]

I'm not clear on whether I should advocate this, but I wonder if you could spin not-cryo as a conspiracy (without outright lying):

"Have you heard of cryonics?"

"Heard of what?

"Yeah, didn't think so. They have a hell of a time getting past the typical story about death. Cryonics isn't even like crackpot theories, like the Rapture or what have you, that get a hearing simply for being ridiculous -"

"Okay, but what are you talking about?"

"There are organizations that will preserve legally dead bodies, frozen. The definition of death has slid forward over time - right now it's brain death, but for a long time we had to make do with heartbeat, for instance. It might keep on sliding to the point where being frozen isn't 'dead' anymore, and they'll know how to fix the preserved patients. Might not, too - everyone seriously advocating admits that, which is why there aren't frothing maniacs raving about it. But you can look at it as an experimental medical procedure no one thinks you need to hear about."

Comment author: handoflixue 09 August 2012 06:24:17PM 6 points [-]

It's the grandfather that's in to conspiracies, not her. And it was mentioned that the grandmother doesn't much listen to conspiracy theories, so this is probably a Very Bad Approach.

Comment author: shminux 09 August 2012 09:01:38PM 1 point [-]

Presumably she means to advocate it to the grandfather

Comment author: DanielH 17 August 2012 07:55:51PM 0 points [-]

I considered this because of your article Light Arts, and rejected it because I disagree with that article in at least some cases, this being one of them. I could talk about it as I think about it -- a good idea that people, even scientists who should know better, reject because of unwillingness to think about death and unwillingness to believe it isn't final -- and let him draw his own opinions on why it isn't common knowledge (like I could prevent him anyway), but saying myself that it has a reasonable chance of being a conspiracy, or even implying it, is not something I could do.