Obviously it has reasoning standards. They are much higher than the average person might expect, because that’s one of the goals of the community.
Bias was an poor word to use, and I retract my use of the term. I mean that as a relatively new participant, there are ideas that seem far-fetched because I have not examined the arguments for them. I admit that this is nothing more than my visceral reaction. Until I examine each issue thoroughly, I won’t be able to say anything but “that viscerally strikes me as biased.” Cryonics, for instance, is a conclusion that seems far-fetched because I have a very poor understanding of biology, and no exposure to the discussion around it. Without a better background in the science and philosophy of cryonics, I have no way of incorporating casual acceptance of the idea into my own conclusion. I recognize that, admit it, and am apparently not being clear about that fact. In trying to express empathy with a visceral reaction of disbelief, I misused the word “bias” and will be more clear in the future.
On the second point: I understand that there’s a cost to treating every post with the same rigor. Posts that are poorly reasoned, and come to potentially dangerous conclusions, should be examined more rigorously. Posts that are just as bad, but whose conclusions are less dangerous, can probably be taken less seriously. Even so...someone who makes many such arguments, with a mix of dangerous and less-dangerous conclusions, might see a lack of negative feedback as positive feedback. That’s an issue in itself, but newcomers wouldn’t be in a position to recognize that.
Cryonics is not a discussion that’s primarily about biology. A lot of outsider will want to either think that cryonics works or that it doesn’t.
On LW there a current that we don’t make binary judgements like that but instead reason with probabilities. So thinking that there a 20% chance that cryonics works is enough for people to go out and buy cryonics insurance because of the huge value that cryonics has if it succeeds.
That’s radically different than most people outside of LW think.
Cryonics is not a discussion that’s primarily about biology.
Well, the biological aspect is “where exactly in the body is ‘me’ located”?
For example, many people on LW seem to assume that the whole ‘me’ is in the head; so you can just freeze the head, and feed the rest to the worms. Maybe that’s a wrong idea; maybe the ‘me’ is much more distributed in the body, and the head is merely a coordinating organ, plus a center of a few things that need to work really fast. Maybe if the future science will revive the head and connect it to some cloned/artificial average human body, we will see the original personality replaced by more or less an average personality; perhaps keeping the memories of the original, but unable to empathise with the hobbies or values of the original.
For example, many people on LW seem to assume that the whole ‘me’ is in the head; so you can just freeze the head, and feed the rest to the worms.
Whether you need to freeze the whole body or whether the head is enough is a meaningful debate, but it has little to do with why a lot of people oppose cryonics.
At this stage, I can see an argument for freezing the gut, or at least samples of the gut, so as to get the microbiome. Anyone know about reviving frozen microbes?
There is evidence for and against cryonics that I KNOW exists, but I haven’t parsed most of it yet.
If I come to the conclusion that cryonics insurance is worth betting on, I am not sure I can get my spouse on board. Since he’d ultimately be in charge of what happens to my remains, AND we have an agreement to be open about our financial decisions, him being on board is mandatory.
If I come to the conclusion that cryonics is worth betting on, I might feel morally obligated to proselytize about it. That has massive social costs for me.
I’m freaked out by the concept because very intelligent people in my life have dismissed the concept as “idiotic,” and apparently cryonics believers make researchers in the field of cryogenics very uncomfortable.
Basically, it’s a whole mess of things to come to terms with. The spouse thing is the biggest.
I think those concerns are understandable but the thing that makes LW special is that discourse here often ignores uncomfortable barriers of thought like this. That can feel weird for outsiders.
Yes, LW does have reasoning standards. That’s part of what being refining the art of human rationality is about.
What do you mean with “biased”? That LW is different than mainstream society in the ideas it values?
Do you think it’s a bias to treat badly reasoned post which might result in people dying the differently than harmless badly reasoned posts?
Obviously it has reasoning standards. They are much higher than the average person might expect, because that’s one of the goals of the community.
Bias was an poor word to use, and I retract my use of the term. I mean that as a relatively new participant, there are ideas that seem far-fetched because I have not examined the arguments for them. I admit that this is nothing more than my visceral reaction. Until I examine each issue thoroughly, I won’t be able to say anything but “that viscerally strikes me as biased.” Cryonics, for instance, is a conclusion that seems far-fetched because I have a very poor understanding of biology, and no exposure to the discussion around it. Without a better background in the science and philosophy of cryonics, I have no way of incorporating casual acceptance of the idea into my own conclusion. I recognize that, admit it, and am apparently not being clear about that fact. In trying to express empathy with a visceral reaction of disbelief, I misused the word “bias” and will be more clear in the future.
On the second point: I understand that there’s a cost to treating every post with the same rigor. Posts that are poorly reasoned, and come to potentially dangerous conclusions, should be examined more rigorously. Posts that are just as bad, but whose conclusions are less dangerous, can probably be taken less seriously. Even so...someone who makes many such arguments, with a mix of dangerous and less-dangerous conclusions, might see a lack of negative feedback as positive feedback. That’s an issue in itself, but newcomers wouldn’t be in a position to recognize that.
Cryonics is not a discussion that’s primarily about biology. A lot of outsider will want to either think that cryonics works or that it doesn’t. On LW there a current that we don’t make binary judgements like that but instead reason with probabilities. So thinking that there a 20% chance that cryonics works is enough for people to go out and buy cryonics insurance because of the huge value that cryonics has if it succeeds. That’s radically different than most people outside of LW think.
Well, the biological aspect is “where exactly in the body is ‘me’ located”?
For example, many people on LW seem to assume that the whole ‘me’ is in the head; so you can just freeze the head, and feed the rest to the worms. Maybe that’s a wrong idea; maybe the ‘me’ is much more distributed in the body, and the head is merely a coordinating organ, plus a center of a few things that need to work really fast. Maybe if the future science will revive the head and connect it to some cloned/artificial average human body, we will see the original personality replaced by more or less an average personality; perhaps keeping the memories of the original, but unable to empathise with the hobbies or values of the original.
Whether you need to freeze the whole body or whether the head is enough is a meaningful debate, but it has little to do with why a lot of people oppose cryonics.
At this stage, I can see an argument for freezing the gut, or at least samples of the gut, so as to get the microbiome. Anyone know about reviving frozen microbes?
It’s not hard. IIRC people brought to life microbes which were frozen in permafrost tens of thousands of years ago.
I understand that; I’m still not comfortable enough with the discussion about cryonics to bet on it working.
Do you have a probability in your head about cryonics working or not working, or do you feel uncomfortable assigning a probability?
A little of both, I think.
There is evidence for and against cryonics that I KNOW exists, but I haven’t parsed most of it yet.
If I come to the conclusion that cryonics insurance is worth betting on, I am not sure I can get my spouse on board. Since he’d ultimately be in charge of what happens to my remains, AND we have an agreement to be open about our financial decisions, him being on board is mandatory.
If I come to the conclusion that cryonics is worth betting on, I might feel morally obligated to proselytize about it. That has massive social costs for me.
I’m freaked out by the concept because very intelligent people in my life have dismissed the concept as “idiotic,” and apparently cryonics believers make researchers in the field of cryogenics very uncomfortable.
Basically, it’s a whole mess of things to come to terms with. The spouse thing is the biggest.
I think those concerns are understandable but the thing that makes LW special is that discourse here often ignores uncomfortable barriers of thought like this. That can feel weird for outsiders.