Has anyone on Less Wrong considered (and answered) an anthropic objection to cryonics? It might go something like this:
“If cryonics works, then the society in which I am revived will be a transhuman/posthuman one with very advanced technology, and a very large number of observer moments. But if such societies existed in the universe, or ever came to exist, then I would expect to find myself already part of one, and I don’t. (Note here the use of Bostrom’s strong self-selection assumption or SSSA.) Therefore I should judge it unlikely that posthuman/transhuman societies exist or will come to exist. Therefore I should judge it unlikely that cryonics will work.”
One counter-argument (which Bostrom himself might use) would be based on reference classes. Perhaps I’m currently in a limited reference class that precludes me being part of a transhuman/posthuman society. But this also has a dubious implication for cryonics, since for cryonics to work it must be possible for me to change that reference class, moving from a very small one to a much larger one. So again, wouldn’t I expect to have already done that?
You should provide an argument as to why it would be more likely to be born into a post human society. For a post human society to exist, a human and pre-human world would probably, although perhaps not necessarily, have to exist first. Even if it is more common to exist in transhumance state, there would still be non-transhuman minds.
This is just an application of the “Self-Sampling Assumption” (or “principle of mediocrity”).
There will be many more observer moments in a “post-human” society than a “pre-posthuman” one (at human level or lower), because the population is much larger and observers live longer. So if the universe contains both sorts of society, a typical observer (or observer moment) would be much more likely to be in a “post-human” society. If the universe only contains “pre-posthuman” societies (e.g. because societies self-destruct before reaching a post-human level of technology) then an observer would have to be in one of the “pre-posthuman” ones because there aren’t any others.
I’d suggest you look at Nick Bostrom’s web-site for more details, including his discussion on reference classes.
P.S. It is also possible to use the “Self-Indication Assumption” as an alternative to the “Self-Sampling Assumption”. Or to use a non-anthropic model like “Full Non-Indexical Conditioning”. But these don’t get rid of the argument that we are unlikely to turn into a post-human society, and for some rather interesting reasons, which Katja Grace discusses here
So far, I think reference classes are the only counter-argument that might work.
Has anyone on Less Wrong considered (and answered) an anthropic objection to cryonics? It might go something like this:
“If cryonics works, then the society in which I am revived will be a transhuman/posthuman one with very advanced technology, and a very large number of observer moments. But if such societies existed in the universe, or ever came to exist, then I would expect to find myself already part of one, and I don’t. (Note here the use of Bostrom’s strong self-selection assumption or SSSA.) Therefore I should judge it unlikely that posthuman/transhuman societies exist or will come to exist. Therefore I should judge it unlikely that cryonics will work.”
One counter-argument (which Bostrom himself might use) would be based on reference classes. Perhaps I’m currently in a limited reference class that precludes me being part of a transhuman/posthuman society. But this also has a dubious implication for cryonics, since for cryonics to work it must be possible for me to change that reference class, moving from a very small one to a much larger one. So again, wouldn’t I expect to have already done that?
You should provide an argument as to why it would be more likely to be born into a post human society. For a post human society to exist, a human and pre-human world would probably, although perhaps not necessarily, have to exist first. Even if it is more common to exist in transhumance state, there would still be non-transhuman minds.
This is just an application of the “Self-Sampling Assumption” (or “principle of mediocrity”).
There will be many more observer moments in a “post-human” society than a “pre-posthuman” one (at human level or lower), because the population is much larger and observers live longer. So if the universe contains both sorts of society, a typical observer (or observer moment) would be much more likely to be in a “post-human” society. If the universe only contains “pre-posthuman” societies (e.g. because societies self-destruct before reaching a post-human level of technology) then an observer would have to be in one of the “pre-posthuman” ones because there aren’t any others.
I’d suggest you look at Nick Bostrom’s web-site for more details, including his discussion on reference classes.
P.S. It is also possible to use the “Self-Indication Assumption” as an alternative to the “Self-Sampling Assumption”. Or to use a non-anthropic model like “Full Non-Indexical Conditioning”. But these don’t get rid of the argument that we are unlikely to turn into a post-human society, and for some rather interesting reasons, which Katja Grace discusses here
So far, I think reference classes are the only counter-argument that might work.
I figured the reasoning behind that. I just thought it would be a good idea for you to post the explanation with your argument.
Ah, thanks!