= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I used ingres's excellent LW 2016 survey data set to do some analyses on the extended LW community's interest in cryonics. Fair warning, the stats are pretty basic and descriptive. Here it is: http://www.brainpreservation.org/interest-in-cryonics-from-the-less-wrong-2016-survey/
You didn't explain anything about the evolution of your thoughts related to cryonics/brain preservation in particular. Why is that?
In response to
Genosets
I'm a PhD student in genomics (read: argument to authority). Regulatory issues are definitely important and largely an impediment that should be removed, imo. That said, I think the larger issue is capturing and integrating good phenotypic and disease state data into datasets. Although there are large genomics data sets available, generally they have pretty sparse and poorly annotated phenotypic data. This is actually tied to other regulatory issues related to medicine. If you think this is important, please do consider getting involved in the area.
In response to
We really need a "cryonics sales pitch" article.
Is there a foundation devoted to promotion of cryonics? If no, it would be probably very desirable to create such. Popularizing cryonics can save an incredible amout of existences and so, many people supporting cryonics would probably be willing to donate money to make some more organized promotion. Not to mention personal gains - the more popular cryonics would become, the lower the costs and better logistics.
If you are or know someone supporting cryonics and having experience/knowledge in non-profit organisations or professional promotion, please consider that.
Yes. This is part of the mission of the Brain Preservation Foundation. The American Cryonics Society is also in this space, I believe.
In response to
Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)
You cannot use observed dependences in the data to suggest decision changes because p(y | x) is not in general equal to p(y | do(x)).
In response to
comment
by
on
Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)
What should cleonid do instead (if anything)? And even if something is not true in general, could it still be used as an approximation?
In response to
comment
by
on
I have just donated $10,000 to the Immortality Bus, which was the most rational decision of my life
Personally I think that it is one of very important goals, may be next time.
In response to
comment
by
on
I have just donated $10,000 to the Immortality Bus, which was the most rational decision of my life
Great! Please feel free to also contact Ken Hayworth if you are interested in more information: http://brainpreservation.org/content/contact
In response to
comment
by
on
I have just donated $10,000 to the Immortality Bus, which was the most rational decision of my life
If I will donate to any actual research organisation I would do it for Buck institute.
Interesting, I'm curious why--it looks to me like they're adequately funded for the foreseeable future. Do you think their research plan is better / their prestige is higher / something else?
In response to
comment
by
on
I have just donated $10,000 to the Immortality Bus, which was the most rational decision of my life
What does "adequately funded" mean in this context? Certainly labs at the Buck Insitute could easily expand in personal or experiments given more money. Importantly, SENS and BI also collaborate, and many SENS grant dollars are awarded to scientists at BI (I don't know the exact numbers, but last time I looked into it, this was the case).
In response to
I have just donated $10,000 to the Immortality Bus, which was the most rational decision of my life
If you think that there is promise in brain preservation (e.g., cryonics), your money may also be highly leveraged if you donate to the Brain Preservation Foundation (disclosure: I'm a volunteer for BPF). Cryonics is not a static technology -- this is the #1 lesson from Mike Darwin's blog, who is probably the most knowledgeable person about cryonics alive. And other technologies for brain preservation, such as aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation, are possible. BPF has a track record of providing grants that has already led to promising research avenues. However, there is basically no funding for this research, as publicly evidenced by the fact that BPF's two largest donations over the past two years have been for $1000 each.
Please note that the list is not complete. I only chose only about half of the wikipedia entries - the most important ones and those playable. In particular I left out most of the memory biases as these can't be simulated. Also those thay look too far back into history e.g. childhoodamnesia. I even took the freedom to merge some entries.
Cool. You might also find my attempt at this interesting: http://lesswrong.com/lw/csf/which_cognitive_biases_should_we_trust_in/
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I am a little bothered by the scale you used - on a scale from 0-5 where:
0: no and don't want to sign up 1: no, still considering it. 2: no, would like to but can't afford it. etc. towards more interested in cryonics.
If we take an ordinary human who has barely even heard that cryonics is a real thing - the entry point to the scale is somewhere between 0 and 1 on the 6 point scale. Which means that as much as we have detailed data of states above 1; we don't have detailed data of states below 1. Which means that we potentially only recorded half the story; and with that; we have unrepresentative data that skews positively towards cryonics.
Upvoted because this is a good critique. My rationale for using this scale is that I was less interested in absolute interest in cryonics and more in relative interest in cryonics between groups. The data and my code are publicly available, so if you are bothered by it, then you should do your own analysis.