Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Jiro 21 June 2017 03:37:17PM 3 points [-]

I am skeptical of this whole thing, because calling someone else's side of a debate a "folk ontology" assumes that their side is the wrong side. So the whole article is basically saying "now that I've determined that my opponent is wrong, how should I deal with it?"--it sounds like a recipe for skipping that pesky debate stuff and prematurely assuming that one's opponent is wrong.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 21 June 2017 11:19:47PM 1 point [-]

This post was meant to apply when you find either that your own folk ontology is incorrect or to assist people who agree that the folk ontology is incorrect but find themselves disagreeing because they have chosen different responses. Establishing the folk ontology to be incorrect was a prerequisite and like all beliefs should be subject to revision based on new evidence.

This is in no way meant to dismiss genuine debate. As a moral nihilist, I might put moral realism in the category of incorrect "folk ontology". However, if I'm discussing or debating with a moral realist, I will have to engage their arguments not just dismiss it because I have already labeled their view as a folk ontology. In such a debate, it can be helpful to recognize which response I have taken and be clear when other participants may be adopting a different one.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 21 June 2017 02:26:38PM 1 point [-]

When we find that the concepts typically held by people, termed folk ontologies, don't correspond to the territory, what should we do with those terms/words? This post discusses three possible ways of handling them. Each is described and discussed with examples from science and philosophy.

[Link] Three Responses to Incorrect Folk Ontologies

8 J_Thomas_Moros 21 June 2017 02:26PM
Comment author: Lumifer 20 April 2017 01:51:38AM 0 points [-]

success would be the number of patient's signed up for cryonics, greater cultural acceptance and recognition of cryonics as a reasonable patient choice from the medical field and government

It's interesting that none of these criteria actually have anything to do with the promise of cryonics.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 20 April 2017 12:39:17PM 0 points [-]

The reality today is that we are probably still a long way off from being able to revive someone. To me, the promise of cryonics has a lot to do with being a fallback plan for life extension technologies. Consequently, it is important that it be available and used today. Thus my definition of success. That said, if the cryonics movement were more successful in the way I have described, a lot more effort and money would go into cryonics research and bring us much closer to being able to revive someone. It would also mean that currently cryopreserved patients would be more likely to be cared for long enough to be revived.

Comment author: username2 18 April 2017 09:22:03PM *  7 points [-]

Signing up for cryonics is ridiculously complicated. There should be a one-click group life insurance policy for funding it, and a notary that comes to you to complete the paperwork. It should take less than 10 minutes to get the ball rolling, and less than an hour time commitment total (albeit in chunks at a time as the paperwork is processed), and a single auto-billed monthly payment. Upgrading to a cryonics trust should be of similarly little complexity.

Also there should be late night basic cable channels showing cryonics infomercials. I'm quite serious about this.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 20 April 2017 01:15:25AM 0 points [-]

I agree that signing up for cryonics is far too complicated and this is one of the things that needs to be addressed. My friend and I have a number of ideas how that might be done.

While I'm not sure about late night basic cable infomercials, existing cryonics organizations certainly don't carry out much if any advertising. There are a number of good reasons that they are not advertising. Those can and should be addressed by any future cryonics organization.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 18 April 2017 05:29:26PM 9 points [-]

What does "successful" look like here? Number of patients in cryonic storage? Successfully revived tissues or experimental animals?

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 20 April 2017 01:08:01AM *  0 points [-]

To me, success would be the number of patient's signed up for cryonics, greater cultural acceptance and recognition of cryonics as a reasonable patient choice from the medical field and government.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 18 April 2017 04:41:48PM 10 points [-]

A friend and I are investigating why the cryonics movement hasn't been more successful and looking at what can be done to improve the situation. We have some ideas and have begun reaching out to people in the cryonics community. If you are interested in helping, message me. Right now it is mostly researching things about the existing cryonics organizations and coming up with ideas. In the future, there could be lots of other ways to contribute.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 18 April 2017 02:43:30AM 0 points [-]

I find Jordon Peterson's views fascinating and have a rationalist friend whose thinking has recently been greatly influenced by him. So much so that my friend recently went to a church service. My problem with his view is that it ignores the on the ground reality that many adherents believe their religion to be true in the sense of being a proper map of the territory. This is in direct contradiction to Peterson's use of religion and truth. I warned my friend that this is what he would find in church. Sure enough, that is what he found, and he will not be returning.

Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 11 April 2017 03:25:06PM *  5 points [-]

I and some other rationalists have been thinking about cryonics a lot recently and how we might improve the strength of cryonics offerings and the rate of adoption. After some consideration, we came up with a couple suggestions for changes to the survey that we think would be helpful and interesting.

  1. A question along the lines of "What impact do you believe money and attention put towards life extension or other technologies such as cryonics has on the world as a whole?" Answers:

    • Very positive
    • Positive
    • Neutral
    • Negative
    • Very Negative

    The purpose of this question is to evaluate whether the community feels that resources put toward the benefit of individuals through life extension and cryonics has a positive or negative impact on the world. For example, people who expect to live longer may have more of a long term orientation, leading them to do more to improve the future.

  2. Add to the question about being signed up for cryonics an option along the lines of "No, I would like to sign up but can't due to opposition I would face from family or friends". We hear this is one of the reasons people don't sign up for cryonics. It would be great to get some numbers on this, and it doesn't add an extra question, just an extra option for that question.
Comment author: J_Thomas_Moros 30 March 2017 03:54:43AM 3 points [-]

This is a review of the book Review: Freezing People is (Not) Easy by Bob Nelson. The book recounts his experiences as president of the Cryonics Society of California during which he cryopreserved and then attempted (and failed) to maintain the cryopreservation of a number of early cryonics patients.

View more: Next