Even 0.2% seems quite optimistic to me. Without going into detail, anything from 3-8 seems like it could be 10% or lower and 12-14 seem nearly impossible to estimate. I wouldn’t be surprised to find my personal estimate below one in a million.
Yeah. For your interest, here are the calculations from Alcor:
Steve Harris, MD:
1) Materialism is correct: 0.95-0.99 2) Identity encoded in structure: 0.95-0.99 3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95 4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90 5) Mishap-free storage: 0.95-0.99 6) Cryonics organization survives: 0.20-0.60 7) Sufficient social stability: 0.70-0.90 8) Cryonics is continuously legal: 0.70-0.90 9) Nanotechnology is physically possible: 0.90-0.98 10) Nanotechnology is perfected: 0.95-0.98 11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic: 0.20-0.50 12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”: 0.85-0.95 13) Cryonic revival is permitted: 0.50-0.80 The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.008-0.18 Technologically, will cryonics work? 0.29-0.81 Overall, will it work? 0.002-0.15
That is, a 0.2-15% probability that cyronics works overall.
Mike Perry, PhD:
Note: his calculation lumps 7 of the 13 parameters as ‘the social problem’ which he calls condition n.
1) Materialism is correct 1.00-1.00 2) Identity encoded in structure: 1.00-1.00 3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95 4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90 5) Mishap-free storage: 0.90-0.99 6) Cryonics organization survives: n-n 7) Sufficient social stability n-n 8) Cryonics is continuously legal n-n 9) Nanotechnology is physically possible 1-1 10) Nanotechnology is perfected n-n 11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic n-n 12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough” n-n 13) Cryonic revival is permitted n-n The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.39-0.86 Technologically, will it work? 0.34-0.89 Overall, will it work? 0.13-0.77
That is, a 13-77% probability that cyronics works overall.
Given stories I’ve heard about cryonics orgs, I’d put 10-50% on 5. Given my impression of neuroscience, I’d put 4 at 25-75%.
Given that I’m more pessimistic in general, I’d put an addition 2x penalty on my skepticism of their other guesses.
That puts me around 0.01%-20% spread, or one in ten thousand lower bound, which is better than I expected. If I was convinced that a cryo org was actually a responsible business that would be enough for me to try to make it happen.
Yes—it’s hard to perform the calculations and end up with a high probability that cryonics works.
I think cryonics overall is much less feasible than many Less Wrongers tend to assume. Overall, I think anti-aging has a much higher chance of working to keep us alive much longer than cryonics does.
Even 0.2% seems quite optimistic to me. Without going into detail, anything from 3-8 seems like it could be 10% or lower and 12-14 seem nearly impossible to estimate. I wouldn’t be surprised to find my personal estimate below one in a million.
Yeah. For your interest, here are the calculations from Alcor:
Steve Harris, MD:
1) Materialism is correct: 0.95-0.99
2) Identity encoded in structure: 0.95-0.99
3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95
4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90
5) Mishap-free storage: 0.95-0.99
6) Cryonics organization survives: 0.20-0.60
7) Sufficient social stability: 0.70-0.90
8) Cryonics is continuously legal: 0.70-0.90
9) Nanotechnology is physically possible: 0.90-0.98
10) Nanotechnology is perfected: 0.95-0.98
11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic: 0.20-0.50
12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”: 0.85-0.95
13) Cryonic revival is permitted: 0.50-0.80
The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.008-0.18
Technologically, will cryonics work? 0.29-0.81
Overall, will it work? 0.002-0.15
That is, a 0.2-15% probability that cyronics works overall.
Mike Perry, PhD:
Note: his calculation lumps 7 of the 13 parameters as ‘the social problem’ which he calls condition n.
1) Materialism is correct 1.00-1.00
2) Identity encoded in structure: 1.00-1.00
3) Favorable conditions for suspension: 0.75-0.95
4) Suspension preserves enough information: 0.50-0.90
5) Mishap-free storage: 0.90-0.99
6) Cryonics organization survives: n-n
7) Sufficient social stability n-n
8) Cryonics is continuously legal n-n
9) Nanotechnology is physically possible 1-1
10) Nanotechnology is perfected n-n
11) Nanotechnology is non-catastrophic n-n
12) Cryonic revival is “cheap enough” n-n
13) Cryonic revival is permitted n-n
The social problem is non-catastrophic: 0.39-0.86
Technologically, will it work? 0.34-0.89
Overall, will it work? 0.13-0.77
That is, a 13-77% probability that cyronics works overall.
Yeah I think my main disagreements are 4 and 5.
Given stories I’ve heard about cryonics orgs, I’d put 10-50% on 5. Given my impression of neuroscience, I’d put 4 at 25-75%.
Given that I’m more pessimistic in general, I’d put an addition 2x penalty on my skepticism of their other guesses.
That puts me around 0.01%-20% spread, or one in ten thousand lower bound, which is better than I expected. If I was convinced that a cryo org was actually a responsible business that would be enough for me to try to make it happen.
Yes—it’s hard to perform the calculations and end up with a high probability that cryonics works.
I think cryonics overall is much less feasible than many Less Wrongers tend to assume. Overall, I think anti-aging has a much higher chance of working to keep us alive much longer than cryonics does.