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.

eli_sennesh comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: polymathwannabe 29 September 2014 01:28PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (339)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (339)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 06 October 2014 10:10:47AM 1 point [-]

What's the probability you put on cryonics actually working well enough to resurrect the deceased under scenarios of: medicine of 10 years from now, medicine of 20 years from now, just go ahead and assume a Friendly superintelligence?

Comment author: advancedatheist 06 October 2014 06:22:59PM *  0 points [-]

You don't treat cryonics like a game of chance where the probability lies out of your control. You treat cryonics like a project where your efforts force probability in directions favorable to you. Thomas Donaldson explained it this way years ago. The whole essay deserves reading:

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/probability.html

Here is an example of the problem I'm raising, with the issues raised to an absurd level just for clarity. A new gambling house sets up in Reno. The owner undertakes to bet with everyone about whether or not he, the owner, will do his laundry tomorrow. Bets are made today and close at 6 PM. (Perhaps gambling houses already operate this way?) Do we, then, expect a rush of clients? The problem with this bet is that he, the owner, has some control over whether or not he does his laundry. Not only are the dice loaded, but he gets to pick, after all bets are laid, which loaded die to use. Computing probabilities only makes sense when the events bet upon are known to be random.

Ralph Whelan, by contrast, didn't bother to "load the dice" by keeping his funding intact.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 October 2014 08:23:22PM 0 points [-]

You don't treat cryonics like a game of chance where the probability lies out of your control. You treat cryonics like a project where your efforts force probability in directions favorable to you.

No, we don't, because, to my knowledge, there is no active effort being poured into testing and improving the methods of preservation and resuscitation offered by cryonics providers. Cryonics is given as a take-it-or-leave it proposition, and as one, I cannot assign a high probability that it works.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 October 2014 04:23:20PM 0 points [-]

No, we don't, because, to my knowledge, there is no active effort being poured into testing and improving the methods of preservation and resuscitation offered by cryonics providers.

While the funding could be better there the Brain Preservation Foundation.

On the other hand a lot of Xrisk prevention also increases chances of successful revival.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 October 2014 11:50:09AM 0 points [-]

While the funding could be better there the Brain Preservation Foundation.

To which I already donate.

On the other hand a lot of Xrisk prevention also increases chances of successful revival.

Has anyone ever put together a budget of how much money "existential risk prevention" actually needs? Because it seems to show up in this community as a black hole of possible altruism which can never be filled.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit