= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
A question for Eliezer and anyone else with an opinion: what is your probability estimate of cryonics working? Why? An actual number is important, since otherwise cryonics is an instance of pascal's mugging. "Well, it's infinitely more than zero and you can multiply it by infinity if it does work" doesn't cut it for me. Since I place the probability of a positive singularity diminishingly small (p<0.0001), I don't see a point in wasting the money I could be enjoying now on lottery tickets or spending the social capital and energy on something that will make me seem insane.
In response to
Normal Cryonics
And there is also the downside risk even if it does work - what if you are reanimated to be a slave of some non-FAI warlord! From this example, we can see that the probability of successful cryo actually resulting in a negative outcome is at least as big as the probability of non-FAI winning out.*
So the question actually reduces to a classic heaven-and-hell or nothing argument - would you rather the chance of heaven with the possibility of hell, or neither?
(*Of course, if the non-FAI sees no need to even have you around and doesn't even bother thawing you out and just kills you, this is a negative outcome also, as you've wasted lots of money.)
In response to
Normal Cryonics
Forgive my ignorance, but aren't the real costs of cryonics much higher than their nominal fees, given the need to ensure that the preserved are financially secure post re-animation? What is the relative utility of perhaps having the chance of being re-animated as compared to not having a poor lifestyle (i.e. "going to the movies or eating at nice restaurants") now?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Sam Harris gave a TED talk a couple months ago, but I haven't seen it linked here. The title is Science can answer moral questions.
This is a blog devoted to rationality - it's no wonder it hasn't been linked here.