Neslit

6 ms·

1.
by Neslit 10y ago
Are there Bayesian interpretations of these results?
2.
by Neslit 10y ago
I don't know if you were including me, but either way I'm sorry and I'll stop now (just saw this). For the record: I sincerely am not trying to annoy or provoke anyone; I've been concerned about derailing the thread, but
3.
by Neslit 10y ago
The point there is that, say humans were largely the same but instead we naturally lived a very long time, e.g. a thousand years. Then someone comes to you and says, "Hey I have this great idea with lots of societal benefits: Why not k
4.
by Neslit 10y ago
“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.” --Woody Allen Some small parts of a
5.
by Neslit 10y ago
>Except we're not machines. I only mean that we're machines enough so that medical techniques work. We are made of parts that break and can be fixed. This is on extremely solid empirical footing. >Some might say the next log
6.
by Neslit 10y ago
>Life and death are complementary Hm, I hear people say this a lot, but I genuinely can't empathize with where they are coming from. This is a blank spot in my map. Could you say more about the intuition behind this statement, and w
7.
by Neslit 10y ago
>filled with a total dread of death I'm not sure I've successfully communicated my feeling about this. It's less like a total dread of death and more like a total dread of losing life, if that makes any sense. Do you have
8.
by Neslit 10y ago
This is genuinely not obvious to me. What convinced you of this? Or, what do you think the world would look like if there were people who actually had a strong, reasonable, non-insane suspicion that they could do the things that cryonics pe
9.
by Neslit 10y ago
Uh, there's a whole lot of mass in the universe; this isn't really a limiting factor, and won't be for quite a long time.
10.
by Neslit 10y ago
>we would be better off if no one died (Clarification: I think we'd obviously be better off if no one involuntarily died.) I don't think I've been hasty in my thinking. What is the most central concern that you have abou
11.
by Neslit 10y ago
But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?
12.
by Neslit 10y ago
Ha :/ Too real. > we're all screwed and you were born a few hundred years too early. It's not a great option, but cryonics seems way better than nothing. (Under the assumptions that the preservation is reasonably high-qua
13.
by Neslit 10y ago
Um? Sorry for being frank, but: are you saying you would commit suicide if the world were more confusing? In any case, I doubt that our future civilization would be at a total loss to help "anachronisms" transition into a surprisi
14.
by Neslit 10y ago
>Yes, I think it is extremely unlikely people will figure out thousand-year lifespans. Why? Do you think this would withstand a thousand years of human ingenuity? I'm confused where you're getting this very confident prediction
15.
by Neslit 10y ago
Well, yeah :P This is a strong argument for trying to prevent fatal accidents!
16.
by Neslit 10y ago
>That seems like a population that would be pretty hard to keep going without having a few extra Earths. Do you think this problem is merely very difficult, or literally impossible to solve (e.g. because of some physical law)? I think th
17.
by Neslit 10y ago
Does this seem like a desirable state of affairs? I think I'd rather not have anyone die involuntarily. If we put our minds to it, I bet we could figure out how to not have anyone die who didn't want to. There's no physical l
18.
by Neslit 10y ago
Personally, I really like living, mainly because there's a lot of awesome stuff to do and see and build, stories to tell, people to be with, etc. The logical next step is that I don't want to die, at least any time soon or involun
19.
by Neslit 10y ago
Do you mean because of limited resources like food and space? Sure, but (1) these look like difficult but quite solvable problems (we are engineers, after all) and (2) the alternative is having every person who has ever lived also be dead,
20.
by Neslit 10y ago
Ok, I think I can see why that would be extra frustrating, on top of the already quite sufficient horror of death. Nevertheless, it is probably a good idea to stay civil and try to communicate meaningfully, rather than venting emotions in a
21.
by Neslit 10y ago
To put it bluntly, I can think of a number of other cases where (1) people say things to children because it is more pleasant or convenient, not because it is true, and (2) these misleading statements have negative effects later. In this ca
22.
by Neslit 10y ago
I agree that it is confusing and painful (and stupid) that cryopreservation does not get way more attention. But, your comment seems a little overly barbed, no? It seems like there would be more positive ways to say what you are saying.
23.
by Neslit 11y ago
That is hilarious. Source, or were you kidding? (I legitimately can't tell.)
24.
by Neslit 11y ago
>we're clear on the fact that for quite a bit of time to come, cryonics is a vulnerable storage facility critically dependent on the infrastructure and benevolent indifference of our civilization Right, I agree. I was wondering abou
25.
by Neslit 11y ago
Thanks for the detailed answer. >If you believe plastination has a decent chance of preserving people's minds, you're operating under the assumption that the connectome itself will yield enough data for an upload. Ok I think th
26.
by Neslit 11y ago
>cryonics [has] much fewer doubts about the preservation of the necessary information Could you say why you think this? Were you convinced by the experiments done by the Cryonics Institute or Alcor? I haven't been able to contact a
27.
by Neslit 12y ago
What the heck? Sorry, I didn't understand any of this. Are you saying that with real moral issues, it always trivially wrong to torture? This seems simply false. If I capture person X and X's laptop Y, and X tells me under no dure
28.
by Neslit 12y ago
At least the part where it's implied that "Someone from organization X used the basilisk to convince innocent bystanders to donate to X" is false, for any value of X that I know of. Pascal's Wager is/was (I imagine?
29.
by Neslit 12y ago
I notice you didn't actually say at which point you would prefer torturing (10^100)*X people for Y years each, over torturing X people for Y+0.0000001 years each, for X and Y at least 0.0000001. (You may assume you don't know anyt
30.
by Neslit 13y ago
Ah sorry... I was just being sloppy, what I wrote doesn't make sense. What I meant was "order of magnitude", but I'm not sure how to write that; Big Theta says two functions grow within a constant factor of each other, w

More ›