Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#81

Post by dpark »

jpulgarin wrote: post #44
dpark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only good reasons (that I can think of right now) not to sign up are if (1) you can't afford the ~$50/month or whatever your life insurance premiums + member dues would be, or (2) you rely on the financial support of people who are strongly anti-cryonics. Or you think it's dumb and fruitless and a waste of money. We don't have any way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation. It could be that after…

How can you say that cryonics working is "probably pretty unlikely" if "we have no way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation". You can give probabilities to the events that would make cryonics fail and come up with an expected value.

As the other commenter said, not all unknowns are equal. It's possible that Hitler was secretly frozen and will be the first person thawed in the event that we learn how. I doubt anyone can assign a true probability to that possibility, but most everyone would agree it's extremely unlikely.

And no, you can't put a probability on those events which might make cryonics fail, because you don't know how long it will be before we discover a way to revive and restore those that have been frozen. It might happen tomorrow (likely not), or it might never happen. On a long enough timeline, the probability of failure approaches 1.

You also can't really assign a probability that you will personally be unfrozen. Sure, you pay $50/mo to be maintained, but that's wholly different from the $100k it might cost to thaw you.

There are so many ways cryonics could fail you, and really only one way they could succeed.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#82

Post by lsparrish »

dpark wrote: post #81
jpulgarin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say that cryonics working is "probably pretty unlikely" if "we have no way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation". You can give probabilities to the events that would make cryonics fail and come up with an expected value.

As the other commenter said, not all unknowns are equal. It's possible that Hitler was secretly frozen and will be the first person thawed in the event that we learn how. I doubt anyone can assign a true probability to that possibility, but most everyone would agree it's extremely unlikely. And no, you can't put a probability on those events which might make cryonics fail, because you don't know how long it will be b…

You don't pay $50/month after you die (that would be a unworkable business model for obvious reasons), rather the $100k or so goes mostly into a trust which pays for your maintenance (more like $100/year, could be far lower on a larger scale) after you are gone. Alcor's funding minimums are higher than CI's partly because they are expecting reanimation to be costly. They also pay ongoing costs mostly from member dues so far, so the patient care trust is just sitting there accumulating interest to be later used for reanimation.

If you can get the probability of failure in any given year low enough, the half-life of the organization could be brought up to thousands of years. You can also set up back-up organizations that are obligated to take over if one of them fails. It's a matter of diversification.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#83

Post by Udo »

cbr wrote: post #80
Udo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these are quite interesting though the "probabilities" are completely arbitrary, of course. From what I can gather the reasons against cryo can be clustered into these: 1) Access failure: an external event prevents the initiation of your cryo-preservation, such as your relatives and/or your hospital insisting on your death taking place as scheduled, or other things preventing you from having access to the fac…

Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the freezing process. It's very difficult to develop any process without the feedback of whether it is working. Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible, overly expensive, or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).

  Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about
  is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake 
  in the freezing process. [...]
I'm sorry I probably didn't make myself clear enough there. This is not my 1 = failure to access preservation technology but actually my category 3 = preservation/restauration failure. I did include those scenarios.

  Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible
Yes, it does include that, more specifically: it takes into account that some minds might not be sufficiently preserved for technical reasons. But if you mean that restoration in general could turn out to be impossible, I'm going to have to take a stand against that. I have a modest background in information technology and biology, and from where I stand there is nothing in principle that precludes restauration. The main question here becomes: how big is the interval between cardiac arrest and cryo? From our current understanding I'd say that we're probably good if this time is between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the temperature of the environment and the manner of death).

  overly expensive,
That's right, because I think that's a ridiculous reason.

  or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).
This is what I mean by "persistence failure" (see there).

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#84

Post by lsparrish »

wazoox wrote: post #72
burgerbrain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least cryo tanks are tangible.

The probability that they stay in shape for even a couple of centuries is abysmally low (how many companies survive that long?). The probability that, in the unlikely case your dead frozen head isn't thrown away at some point in time, you can be revived from it is so extraordinarily remote that I don't see the point. It is way more likely that at some point technology will allow to simulate famous personalities from…

If you think a person can be reanimated from their writings, even a tiny piece of carefully preserved neural tissue should be extremely valuable for making sure the person is simulated accurately.

You should probably stop using the terms "dead" and "frozen" in this context. Cryopreservation seeks to avoid ice crystal formation, and cryonics seeks to avoid death. So it has the effect of affirming the consequent.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#85

Post by dpark »

jpulgarin wrote: post #52
nknight wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I would want to be > 99% sure about this before completely giving up on cryonics. That same logic can be used to justify spending inordinate resources on any sort of snake oil. Why should cryonics be special?

You don't know what logic he used, only his conclusion. Perhaps the logic is: * If something is agreed to have a chance of extending my life for thousands of years by more than 5% of people whose thinking I respect and * it costs less than 200k and * there are no obvious people who are profiting from this then * I want to be >99% sure about it not being viable before giving up on it.

Since religion promises eternal life, and a large number of respected scientists are religious, I assume that you are Christian, right? Also Muslim? And maybe Jewish?

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#86

Post by dpark »

lsparrish wrote: post #82
dpark wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the other commenter said, not all unknowns are equal. It's possible that Hitler was secretly frozen and will be the first person thawed in the event that we learn how. I doubt anyone can assign a true probability to that possibility, but most everyone would agree it's extremely unlikely. And no, you can't put a probability on those events which might make cryonics fail, because you don't know how long it will be b…

You don't pay $50/month after you die (that would be a unworkable business model for obvious reasons), rather the $100k or so goes mostly into a trust which pays for your maintenance (more like $100/year, could be far lower on a larger scale) after you are gone. Alcor's funding minimums are higher than CI's partly because they are expecting reanimation to be costly. They also pay ongoing costs mostly from member dues…

Obviously you do not personally pay after death, but you set aside money for a trust before hand, which amounts to the same thing.

I disagree with your assertion that you can get the company to live thousands of years. How many human organizations have lasted that long? Even the Catholic church has only been around for 2k (so they claim at least) and I can't think of anything else that approaches that longevity, not even nations. And there are way too many cases for potential failure to calculate real probabilities so arguing about getting them low enough is moot.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#87

Post by dpark »

mmaro wrote: post #43
dpark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only good reasons (that I can think of right now) not to sign up are if (1) you can't afford the ~$50/month or whatever your life insurance premiums + member dues would be, or (2) you rely on the financial support of people who are strongly anti-cryonics. Or you think it's dumb and fruitless and a waste of money. We don't have any way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation. It could be that after…

That's a reasonable concern, but at this meta level there are two things going in cryonics' favor: there's a good chance you're overconfident about its non-utility[1], and there's a chance that your reanimation comes much earlier than expected, so the cumulative risks don't add up to much. And FWIW, Alcor and Cryonics Institute don't require power for storage; they require deliveries of liquid nitrogen. I don't think…

So much hand waving...

On what basis do you claim there's a good chance I'm overconfident about cryonics' non-utility? I could say your overconfident in its utility and be standing on ground at leas as firm a you.

There's also a chance that you never get reanimated, or that you're reanimated by future humans who torture you to see how ancient humans react to stimulus, or any number of other possibilities that make cryonics unattractive.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#88

Post by dpark »

burgerbrain wrote: post #74
wazoox wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The probability that they stay in shape for even a couple of centuries is abysmally low (how many companies survive that long?). The probability that, in the unlikely case your dead frozen head isn't thrown away at some point in time, you can be revived from it is so extraordinarily remote that I don't see the point. It is way more likely that at some point technology will allow to simulate famous personalities from…

Don't get me wrong, I'm not big on the stuff. But it's no Pascal's Wager either. This is way better than supernatural shit. This is a bad bet, not an impossible bet / illogical argument.

It is not "supernatural shit", but it is Pascal's Wager. It takes the same form and has the same flaws. It is an invalid argument.

By paying $25k to be frozen, you also get a nonzero chance that you'll be revived and live through thousands of years of torture.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#89

Post by gwern »

thret wrote: post #48
dpark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only good reasons (that I can think of right now) not to sign up are if (1) you can't afford the ~$50/month or whatever your life insurance premiums + member dues would be, or (2) you rely on the financial support of people who are strongly anti-cryonics. Or you think it's dumb and fruitless and a waste of money. We don't have any way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation. It could be that after…

If there's a non-zero chance that you will be returned to life at some point in the future, then however unlikely that chance is worth 25k. It is a lottery; the cost is small compared to the payoff and it rationalises hope.

That is not true, and when you express it like that, it is a Pascal's wager! I would not pay 25k for a 0.00001% chance of revival, because I do not value my life at >25 billion USD.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#90

Post by gwern »

vacri wrote: post #69
thret wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's a non-zero chance that you will be returned to life at some point in the future, then however unlikely that chance is worth 25k. It is a lottery; the cost is small compared to the payoff and it rationalises hope.

Also often forgotten is that biology isn't like an on/off switch - will you come back the same way physcially? Mentally? Could you live with having lost some of your higher mental facilities?

Given the mental damage done by aging (http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#aging), it is a fact that ~>98% of humans, given the opportunity to live with having lost some of their higher mental facilities, will in fact choose to live.
Post reply on HN