5 ms·

We shall have to work faster. http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda

by robertk 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago
You know, I think it's really distasteful that you people use the deaths of people who probably wouldn't have even agreed with the message of that essay to promote the ideas in that essay.
- VMG 15y ago
  He went in for cancer treatment, so he clearly wanted to avoid death, which is what the essay is about.
  - jpulgarin 15y ago
    Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-201011?currentPage=all http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-...
    - robertk 15y ago
      Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the probability of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that people may at least read and decide for themselves on an issue as important as this?) Firstly, Christopher is not dismissive of life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse. If he could live longer right now due to a technique formerly classified a "espoused by transhumanists," he would choose to, as is evinced all over that essay. Rather, he is largely dismissive of life-extension techniques that don't work. The transhumanism part has nothing to do with it. In that essay, cryonics is lumped in with the paragraph that discusses bad advice. So we can agree that Christopher considers cryonics as bad science, the same way he considers eating the granulated essence of the peach pit to prevent overwhelming growth of a malignant neoplasm bad science. On the other hand, the rest of the essay discusses good science, that is, science which has been proven to work. He discusses its "near-miraculous" quality. Perfusion of chemicals to preserve and prepare brain tissue is already textbook science, just not applied to whole brains. The case of Clive Wearing is one piece of an assortment of evidence that consciousness is a clever illusion (the philosopher of consciousness, Daniel Dennett, can say a lot here). Ultimately, cryonics is science that (by definition) has not been proved to work, but nonetheless serious science. Please don't deny that. Harvard neuroscientist Kenneth Hayworth explains this much better than I could, so I leave the floor to him: http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philosophy.pdf http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philoso... This issue is much too important to worry about what's distasteful.
      - jpulgarin 15y ago
        Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation I should have been clearer: "Christopher Hitchens believes that most of the techniques that transhumanists think will lead to radically longer lifespans will not work." I think that we are not in disagreement.
        robertk 15y ago
        I see. Then I lay the claim that Hitchens did not have enough medical expertise to know what will or will not work, and conditional on something working, he would have espoused it, and conditional on it not working, he would have not have espoused it. As such, I further lay the claim that he would have been in favor of allowing people to evaluate the underlying science for themselves, in case he made a mistake and it does work.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    Or he just didn't want to die of cancer, but rather of old age.
    - VMG 15y ago
      What does that even mean?
      - Confusion 15y ago
        That would mean the goal is not escaping death per se. The goal could be escaping a painful death or particular kind of death. There was a hint of a false dilemma.
        endtime 15y ago
        As I understand it, "old age" is a euphemism for "getting X after a certain age", where X is something like cancer.
        lsparrish 15y ago
        I doubt it was specifically the painfulness of the particular death that he was trying to escape (by that particular action), as cancer treatment itself is painful. It seems to me more likely he was trying to escape preventable death, which is a broad category that could (but in Hitchens' mind probably did not) include aging itself. I think the supposition that he saw death from aging as unpreventable is supported by his lack of explicit advocacy for anti-aging research and by his public dismissal of cryonics. But that's probably because the current evidence is too fuzzy. We don't have the ability to bring back a cryonics patient, and we do know the damage involved in preserving them is non-negligible. If he actually saw reversible human cryopreservation in action, with negligible damage, I doubt he would have abstained from taking a ten or twenty year jaunt to the future to see if they have a better treatment available for his cancer, or any other disease of aging.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Going in for cancer treatment does not imply a philosophical commitment to human immortality. You people are the new Randroids.
    - lsparrish 15y ago
      Um. Why doesn't it? Because when you think about it, that's a surprising thing about humans in general. Why do people who do not believe in immortality (as an ideal, I'm saying) still go in for cancer treatment?
      - JoshuaZ 15y ago
        To expand on what phil is saying: It is by itself logically consistent for someone to decide that there's enough fun left in their life and enough stuff that they need to do that they don't want to die now even if they don't necessarily mind dying in the indefinite future.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        Humans don't live their lives as an exercise in exploring the rational consequences of consciously held principles. And actually, a lot of people don't go in for cancer treatment, because cancer treatment is fucking miserable and doesn't always extend your lifespan as much as you'd hope.
- lsparrish 15y ago
  How are you assigning the probability here? Some of his arguments (which are actually standard pro-atheism arguments) seem to be based on life extension, i.e. science leads to longer lifespans therefore it is superior to religion. His dismissal of cryonics is well known (and deeply tragic in my opinion), but he has not to my knowledge taken the position that everyone should, morally or philosophically, have a duty to die by the time they hit age 120 or so, or that there is such a thing as a "natural lifespan" towards which we are obliged.
- D_Alex 15y ago
  Think what you like, by all means. I think your comment is shallow, and a disservice to humanity in general.

We shall have to work faster. http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda

by robertk 15y ago

We shall have to work faster. http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda

You know, I think it's really distasteful that you people use the deaths of people who probably wouldn't have even agreed with the message of that essay to promote the ideas in that essay.

VMG 15y ago
He went in for cancer treatment, so he clearly wanted to avoid death, which is what the essay is about.
- jpulgarin 15y ago
  Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-201011?currentPage=all http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-...
  - robertk 15y ago
    Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the probability of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that people may at least read and decide for themselves on an issue as important as this?) Firstly, Christopher is not dismissive of life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse. If he could live longer right now due to a technique formerly classified a "espoused by transhumanists," he would choose to, as is evinced all over that essay. Rather, he is largely dismissive of life-extension techniques that don't work. The transhumanism part has nothing to do with it. In that essay, cryonics is lumped in with the paragraph that discusses bad advice. So we can agree that Christopher considers cryonics as bad science, the same way he considers eating the granulated essence of the peach pit to prevent overwhelming growth of a malignant neoplasm bad science. On the other hand, the rest of the essay discusses good science, that is, science which has been proven to work. He discusses its "near-miraculous" quality. Perfusion of chemicals to preserve and prepare brain tissue is already textbook science, just not applied to whole brains. The case of Clive Wearing is one piece of an assortment of evidence that consciousness is a clever illusion (the philosopher of consciousness, Daniel Dennett, can say a lot here). Ultimately, cryonics is science that (by definition) has not been proved to work, but nonetheless serious science. Please don't deny that. Harvard neuroscientist Kenneth Hayworth explains this much better than I could, so I leave the floor to him: http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philosophy.pdf http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philoso... This issue is much too important to worry about what's distasteful.
    - jpulgarin 15y ago
      Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation I should have been clearer: "Christopher Hitchens believes that most of the techniques that transhumanists think will lead to radically longer lifespans will not work." I think that we are not in disagreement.
      - robertk 15y ago
        I see. Then I lay the claim that Hitchens did not have enough medical expertise to know what will or will not work, and conditional on something working, he would have espoused it, and conditional on it not working, he would have not have espoused it. As such, I further lay the claim that he would have been in favor of allowing people to evaluate the underlying science for themselves, in case he made a mistake and it does work.
- Confusion 15y ago
  Or he just didn't want to die of cancer, but rather of old age.
  - VMG 15y ago
    What does that even mean?
    - Confusion 15y ago
      That would mean the goal is not escaping death per se. The goal could be escaping a painful death or particular kind of death. There was a hint of a false dilemma.
      - endtime 15y ago
        As I understand it, "old age" is a euphemism for "getting X after a certain age", where X is something like cancer.
      - lsparrish 15y ago
        I doubt it was specifically the painfulness of the particular death that he was trying to escape (by that particular action), as cancer treatment itself is painful. It seems to me more likely he was trying to escape preventable death, which is a broad category that could (but in Hitchens' mind probably did not) include aging itself. I think the supposition that he saw death from aging as unpreventable is supported by his lack of explicit advocacy for anti-aging research and by his public dismissal of cryonics. But that's probably because the current evidence is too fuzzy. We don't have the ability to bring back a cryonics patient, and we do know the damage involved in preserving them is non-negligible. If he actually saw reversible human cryopreservation in action, with negligible damage, I doubt he would have abstained from taking a ten or twenty year jaunt to the future to see if they have a better treatment available for his cancer, or any other disease of aging.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Going in for cancer treatment does not imply a philosophical commitment to human immortality. You people are the new Randroids.
  - lsparrish 15y ago
    Um. Why doesn't it? Because when you think about it, that's a surprising thing about humans in general. Why do people who do not believe in immortality (as an ideal, I'm saying) still go in for cancer treatment?
    - JoshuaZ 15y ago
      To expand on what phil is saying: It is by itself logically consistent for someone to decide that there's enough fun left in their life and enough stuff that they need to do that they don't want to die now even if they don't necessarily mind dying in the indefinite future.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Humans don't live their lives as an exercise in exploring the rational consequences of consciously held principles. And actually, a lot of people don't go in for cancer treatment, because cancer treatment is fucking miserable and doesn't always extend your lifespan as much as you'd hope.
lsparrish 15y ago
How are you assigning the probability here? Some of his arguments (which are actually standard pro-atheism arguments) seem to be based on life extension, i.e. science leads to longer lifespans therefore it is superior to religion. His dismissal of cryonics is well known (and deeply tragic in my opinion), but he has not to my knowledge taken the position that everyone should, morally or philosophically, have a duty to die by the time they hit age 120 or so, or that there is such a thing as a "natural lifespan" towards which we are obliged.
D_Alex 15y ago
Think what you like, by all means. I think your comment is shallow, and a disservice to humanity in general.