4 ms·

Sounds like a pretty good replacement to me, considering how scientific progress demonstrably exists, has a stellar track record, excellent prospects, &etc &etc

by venus 14y ago

Sounds like a pretty good replacement to me, considering how scientific progress demonstrably exists, has a stellar track record, excellent prospects, &etc &etc. > Defying death will always be lucrative As it should be! I'll pay literally every cent I have not to die. > the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming This is nothing but speculation on your behalf.

fusiongyro 14y ago
On the contrary, the idea that cryogenics will work is the very definition of speculation.
- edanm 14y ago
  You write "on the contrary", but your statement didn't actually contradict the parent. Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement. You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    If your definition of "sensible investment" is "very low probability of very high payout with very high probability of 100% loss" you must think the lottery is another great example of a sensible investment.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      It's not a fair comparison. For starters, right now you have P = 1 probability of 100% loss if you don't sign up (barring divine intervention). And then again, every person who invests in cryonics is making it slightly more probable to work for others, as the money goes to research and accumulating experience in doing cryopreservation. National lottery doesn't make it more probable for everyone to win (or at least for future players) if more people play it.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        On the contrary, if nobody plays the lottery, nobody will win. The lottery works by randomly redistributing the ticket fees. I look forward to hearing precisely how you figure I'm going to lose 100% on an investment I'm not making. You're comparing the 100% likely outcome that I do not live forever having spent my money on non-snake oil with the 100% likely outcome that you do not live forever having spent your money on snake oil. The idea that something impossible is going to be more likely because you're spending money on it is just assuming the outcome you want. Unicorns continue not to exist despite every little girl wishing for them. I point out that spending money on unicorn research isn't going to generate them any faster.
    - edanm 14y ago
      Luckily for humans, we've already developed mathematics to deal with things like "what's a sensible investment" - probability and expected value. The expected value of lotteries is less than the ticket price, so it's not a sensible investment, if we assume "sensible investment" means maximizing expected value on every dollar spent (which is what you seem to be doing implicitly. Feel free to suggest another definition). On the other hand, people will tend to put very high utility on living longer, and if cryonics works, the potentially vast number of added years is amazingly valuable. Run an expected value computation on this, and because of the crazy upside of cryonics, you can have very low levels of confidence that it will actually work, and it will still be worth it from an expected value point of view.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        The expected value is the probability of the event times the value of the event. If the probability is zero, it doesn't matter what the value is, the expected value is still zero. That you've managed to convince yourself that p > 0 with cryonics is just evidence that snake oil production is a better investment.
        edanm 14y ago
        So your real argument is, I take it, the the probability of cryonics working is 0? This is different than what I understood before. In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is: 1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased. 2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people. I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
        fusiongyro 14y ago

by venus 14y ago

fusiongyro 14y ago

On the contrary, the idea that cryogenics will work is the very definition of speculation.

edanm 14y ago
You write "on the contrary", but your statement didn't actually contradict the parent. Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement. You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  If your definition of "sensible investment" is "very low probability of very high payout with very high probability of 100% loss" you must think the lottery is another great example of a sensible investment.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    It's not a fair comparison. For starters, right now you have P = 1 probability of 100% loss if you don't sign up (barring divine intervention). And then again, every person who invests in cryonics is making it slightly more probable to work for others, as the money goes to research and accumulating experience in doing cryopreservation. National lottery doesn't make it more probable for everyone to win (or at least for future players) if more people play it.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      On the contrary, if nobody plays the lottery, nobody will win. The lottery works by randomly redistributing the ticket fees. I look forward to hearing precisely how you figure I'm going to lose 100% on an investment I'm not making. You're comparing the 100% likely outcome that I do not live forever having spent my money on non-snake oil with the 100% likely outcome that you do not live forever having spent your money on snake oil. The idea that something impossible is going to be more likely because you're spending money on it is just assuming the outcome you want. Unicorns continue not to exist despite every little girl wishing for them. I point out that spending money on unicorn research isn't going to generate them any faster.
  - edanm 14y ago
    Luckily for humans, we've already developed mathematics to deal with things like "what's a sensible investment" - probability and expected value. The expected value of lotteries is less than the ticket price, so it's not a sensible investment, if we assume "sensible investment" means maximizing expected value on every dollar spent (which is what you seem to be doing implicitly. Feel free to suggest another definition). On the other hand, people will tend to put very high utility on living longer, and if cryonics works, the potentially vast number of added years is amazingly valuable. Run an expected value computation on this, and because of the crazy upside of cryonics, you can have very low levels of confidence that it will actually work, and it will still be worth it from an expected value point of view.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      The expected value is the probability of the event times the value of the event. If the probability is zero, it doesn't matter what the value is, the expected value is still zero. That you've managed to convince yourself that p > 0 with cryonics is just evidence that snake oil production is a better investment.
      - edanm 14y ago
        So your real argument is, I take it, the the probability of cryonics working is 0? This is different than what I understood before. In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is: 1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased. 2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people. I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
        fusiongyro 14y ago