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.

Kawoomba comments on [LINK] Cryonics - without even trying - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Kawoomba 17 August 2012 08:41AM

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

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kawoomba 18 August 2012 06:53:27PM 1 point [-]

Thanks, I stand corrected on that (darn Occam's Razor for being a heuristic that's subject to occasional failure).

However, I shouldn't have brought that speculative part up. It's peripheral to my point, which is that it's still doable to travel to a place without mandatory autopsies, and to give up a few e.g. weeks of your life for instant cryonification.

Consider:

After a mere around four hours after a stroke (subject to national guidelines), there's no significant treatment done anymore! Not only is the central zone of oxygen deprivation given up upon after a span of minutes to an hour, but the peripheral cells (the penumbra) is as well (after those around 4 hours).

When you die, the entirety of your brain is equivalent to the central area, the ground zero of a stroke, just in terms of oxygen deprivation.

It's a whole other ballpark. Cryonics after more than a few minutes should be called MangledBrainFreezing, it's just that different.

I can't fathom why people who supposedly whole-heartedly (whole brainedly) invested in cryonics don't find ways around such simple barriers as autopsy regulations. (Simple because even if as an alternative there's only 1 state in the US, and a couple European countries, really how many workarounds do you need? Just one.)

Not taking care of that eventuality only makes sense to me if in fact the investment for psychological reasons outweighs the actual credence one lends to cryonics. I realize that doesn't apply to all subscribers.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 19 August 2012 01:16:53AM 0 points [-]

If you had picked a state at random, Occam's Razor (or Bayes rule or whatever) would have applied. Given that someone was providing you with an example of a state without suicide autopsies, you should update significantly less on other states having that property.