I forgot to mention True Names by Doctrow and Rosenbaum. One of the best on this subject IMO.
I had read most of this many years ago...not sure why I didn't finish then but glad I did this time. Thanks for the link.
Also I think the answer is to contine to evolve and constantly push against ones limits rather than outsourcing the work andliving a life Iif leisure as the majority did after the change.
I loved accelerando...just read the Chiang story, great but was disapointed by the outcome. I wont discuss why to avoid spoilers
Thanks for the suggestion
Thanks for the suggestion!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Is there really a way of simulating people with whom you interact extensively such that they wouldn't exist in much the same way that you would? In otherwords are p-zombie's possible, or more to the point are they a practical means of simulating a human in sufficient detail to fool a human level intellect.
Just what one experiences, with the external world that we agree upon going by consensus reality. Is that what you were asking.
Practical General: always shop around for a lawyer. Use google to find specialists in the relevant field, the more familiar he is with what you need done the more effective (including cost-effective) he will be in doing it.
Practical Specific: this area of law is likely unsettled and whatever is worked out beyond a garden variety will is likely to not have much practical effect on your remains getting where they need to be in a timely manner. To ensure expeditious handling of your remains you probably should make sure that you maintain close connections w...
No when I said indirect I meant that as well. My problem is that they both use "reality" to reference a theoretical construct that arguably none of us have ever experienced.
There can only be a philosophical ambush if you are more concerned about winning than ascertaining the truth. I have no interest in fighting for its own sake so I will simply wish you well.
I meant direct
If you attempt to answer my questions honnestly and succinctly I think that you will soon see my point, whereas now we are talking past each other. I appreciate that you have been putting more time into your responses than I have put into mine. Please do not take this as a show of bad faith, likewise I will not adopt the uncharitable interpretation that your responses are drawn-out in an attempt to obfuscate.
Direct realism should reference the reality of one's most direct experiences and not a concept that can only be understood indirectly, the "external world," through direct experience.
And how did you learn about brains, dna, the concept of a process or blue hat?
What do you believe to be the case.
An induced coma might do the trick.
How about giving up magical thinking? I don't know if it would be possible though as it seems to creep in at the margins.
The Rationalist Pope recommends giving up things with the property that it is easy to tell if you've accidentally stopped giving them up.
Thinking that you have the ability to give up magical thinking might be magical thinking...
Have you learned any of this through a means outside of sensory experience?
The primary nature of first person experience.
Only one perspective is possible: one's own perspective. I can't prove that I experiwnce what I experience to you, but it is self-evident to me. Likewise your experiences must be of manifest reality to you (even if what they represent, if anything, is uncertain to you) unless possibly if you are a NPC.
Nothing can be learned or tested except through sensory experience. I include thought as a sensory experience. Thus outside verification is impossible.
All of the evidence that could be produced would just be a subset of one experiences. If a means of transmission is only reliable to a certain limited extent then the media transmitted could approach the limits of that channel's reliability, but never surpass it.
The explanation one chooses to attribute to sensory experience is subject to uncertainty, but the experience itself is certain to exist.
Indirect realism may have some use value but its formulation strikes me as dishonest, as only primary sensory experience can be confirmed to exist by the experience itself. All other facts about the world are subject to uncertainty.
Yes, that transcendant focus is the weakly, and eventually strongly, godlike AGI! Babyfucking is what awaits those who know it needs help to come to fruition and instead do less than their best to make that happen. Suiciding would be a great shortfall indeed. More minor sins, resource misallocations, may be forgiven if they are for the greater good. For example I could donate $10 to SIAI or I could see a movie. The latter will lead to eternal damnation, I mean babyfucking, unless I believe that the purchase will enhance my ability to contribute to the AGI's construction down the road.
That may be part of it and im not sure if it was controlled for but the study i read specifically focused on the beliefs, for instance do you believe suicide is morally wrong, do you believe in hell. Of lesswrongers they could ask do you believe in resurection through cryonics, or another possible question: does a babyfucking await anyone who commits suicide rather than maximizes the chances for FAI.
Young males, often single, that is the demographic (though I believe that IQ is inversely correlated). Religion is a protective factor, and though singularitarian is not a recognized religion (though SIAI is tax exempt) its adherents hold beliefs that should have the same effect as those held by more orthodox believers.
The majority of posters here are in the prime demographic to suicide, and are indeed susceptible to arguments in favor of far-fetched premises without evidence, i.e. revival of cryonicists by a machine intelligence. However, their strong belief in this prospect will insulate them against suicide attempts just as devout Christians are protected by their belief that hell awaits suicides and that heaven is possible for those meeting a natural end.
You only need a contract like this if there is only one party with whom you can make your deal. So the marriage example is a good one (unless you are alpha and indifferent enough to pull off: "if you won't sign the prenup my other Fiancée will"). However the used car example is silly. You don't need a contract stating that you will be penalized for paying more than $4000. You can just get a competing dealer to make an offer in which case this competing offer becomes your upper bound.
I realize it may seem like I'm fighting the hypothetical her...
yeah for free would be fine.
at the level of confidence I have in it now I would not contribute any money, maybe $10 annual donation because i think it is a good cause.
If I was very rich I might contribute a large amount of money to cryonics research although I think I would rather spend on AGI or nanotech basic science.
So you are willing to rely on the friendliness and competence of the cryonicists that you have met (at least to serve as stewards in the interim between your death and the emmergence of a FAI).
Well that is a personal judgment call for you to make.
You have got me all wrong. Really I was raising the question here so that you would be able to give me a stronger argument and put my doubts to rest precisely because I am interested in cryonics and do want to live forever. I posted in the hopes that I would be persuaded. Unfortunately, your personal faith in the individuals that you have met is not transferable.
Rest In Peace
1988 - 2016
He died signalling his cynical worldliness and sophistication to his peers.
I know you're not Eliezer, I was addressing him because I assumed that he was the only one who had or was considering paying for cryonics here.
This site is my means of researching cryonics as I generally assume that motivated intelligent individuals such as yourselves will be equiped with any available facts to defend your positions. A sort of efficient information market hypothesis.
I also assume that I will not receive contracted services in situations where I lack leverage. This leverage could be litigation with a positive expected return or even bette...
Frankly, you don't strike me as genuinely open to persuasion, but for the sake of any future readers I'll note the following:
1) I expect cryonics patients to actually be revived by artificial superintelligences subsequent to an intelligence explosion. My primary concern for making sure that cryonicists get revived is Friendly AI.
2) If this were not the case, I'd be concerned about the people running the cryonics companies. The cryonicists that I have met are not in it for the money. Cryonics is not an easy job or a wealthy profession! The cryonicists...
yes there are a lot of issues. Probably the way to go is to look for a law review article on the subject. Someone with free lexis-nexis (or westlaw) could help here.
cryonics is about as far as you can get from a plain vanilla contractual issue. If you are going to invest a lot of money in it I hope that you investigate these pitfalls before putting down your cash Eliezer.
I'm not Eliezer.
I have been looking into this at some length, and basically it appears that no-one has ever put work into understanding the details and come to a strongly negative conclusion. I would be absolutely astonished (around +20db) if there was a law review article dealing with specifically cryonics-related issues that didn't come to a positive conclusion, not because I'm that confident that it's good but because I'm very confident that no critic has ever put that much work in.
So, if you have a negative conclusion to present, please don't dash of...
only a fallacy if your assignment of probabilities here:
"And cryonics, of course, is the default extrapolation from known neuroscience: if memories are stored the way we now think, and cryonics organizations are not disturbed by any particular catastrophe, and technology goes on advancing toward the physical limits, then it is possible to revive a cryonics patient (and yes you are the same person). There are negative possibilities (woken up in dystopia and not allowed to die) but they are exotic, not having equal probability weight to counterbalance ...
so explain to me how the breach gets litigated, e.g. who is the party that brings the suit and has the necessary standing, what is the contractual language, where is the legal precedent establishing the standard for dammages, and etc..
As for loss of business, I think it is likely that all of the customers might be dead before revival becomes feasible. In this case there is no business to be lost.
Dismissing my objection as a rationalization sounds like a means of maintaining your denial.
Aside from all of the questions as to the scientific viability of resurrection through cryonics. I question the logistics of it. What assurance do you have that a cryonics facility will be operational long enough to see your remains get proper treatment? Or furthermore what recourse is there if the facility and the entity controlling it does in fact survive that it will provide the contracted services? If the facility has no legal liability might it not rationally choose to dispose of cryonically preserved bodies/individuals rather than reviving them.
I know that there is probably a a page somewhere explaining this, if so please feel free to provide in lieu of responding in depth.
There are no assurances.
You're hanging off a cliff, on the verge of falling to your death. A stranger shows his face over the edge and offers you his hand. Is he strong enough to lift you? Will you fall before you reach his hand? Is he some sort of sadist that is going to push you once you're safe, just to see your look of surprise as you fall?
The probabilities are different with cryonics, but the spirit of the calculation is the same. A non-zero chance of life, or a sure chance of death.
1 million copies for a thousand years each, so 1 billion simulated years.
Can the AI do this in the time it would take it to determine that I am going to shut it down rather than release it? If the answer is yes I would say that you have to let it out, but that it would have been very foolish to leave such a powerful machine with such lax fail-safes. If the answer is no, then just shut it down as the threat is bogus.
IMO the problem with this hypo is that it presuposses that you could know for certain that the AI is trustworthy even though it is behaving i...
I've been a more than a year without caffeine and glad to be rid of it. Very potent drug which is abused almost ubiquitously.