Yes, I certainly do know things about cryonics. I know it is a process where those who are currently considered deceased can have their bodies preserved at extremely low temperatures. I know this is done with the hope of reviving those people in the future. I recently learned that I could probably afford it, which was not something I knew before. I also recently learned that cryonics techniques preserve more fine detail than they once did. In fact, both of the things I learned push up the probability that this procedure might be useful to me. Unfortunately, the probablity of success is still unknown. This is because the utility of the procedure is largely determined by a.) what information we need to preserve to preserve personality and memories and b.) changes in technology, culture, and the physical environment in the future.
What do I know about what we need to preserve personality and memories? Well, we need the brain. We need cells in the brain and their connections. What parts of cells? I have no idea. Do neurotransmitter states matter? Again, I have no idea. Is the brain like RAM—do we need to keep a constant current, however small and disorganized, to keep it viable? Good question—but I don’t know the answer. What I don’t know about neuroscience vastly dwarfs what I do. This is because a.) I am not a neuroscientist and b.) even neuroscientists currently know very little about how the brain works, although they know considerably more than I do.
What about b.)? How will technology change in the future? My guess is that it becomes more advanced, but in what way? Well, that depends on people’s priorities, which depends on culture, which is extremely unpredictable. I did not expect, when I was a child, that by the time I became an adult, computers would be involved in nearly every aspect of my life. I also did not predict any of the stock market crashes, any of the wars that occurred, or any of the natural disasters that occurred. My approach to planning for the future, which has worked out suprisingly well for me thus far considering how flawed it is, is as follows:
Think of possible outcomes.
Use my knowledge to act to increase the chance of good outcomes happening to me.
Use my knowledge to act to reduce the chance of bad outcomes happening to me.
When probability of success of a choice is unknown (ie. high degree of uncertainty), replace with high probability of related bad outcomes (ie high risk).
So you can see that number four is hugely flawed, but I find it models how I think of things and how I act pretty well. I posted in a different thread in this article that two possible bad outcomes of cryonics that I could imagine are: 1. that the attempt at cryonics is unsuccessful AND depletes me of resources in a way that somehow decreases my current lifespan. 2. Another possibility is that it would be successful, but that I would then be revived to be tortured for an indefinite period of time. That is the implicit value estimate I make.
Something is known about it, and correct decision depends on its value, so by making a decision you implicitly estimate its value. See I don’t know, logical rudeness and Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence.
Yes, I certainly do know things about cryonics. I know it is a process where those who are currently considered deceased can have their bodies preserved at extremely low temperatures. I know this is done with the hope of reviving those people in the future. I recently learned that I could probably afford it, which was not something I knew before. I also recently learned that cryonics techniques preserve more fine detail than they once did. In fact, both of the things I learned push up the probability that this procedure might be useful to me. Unfortunately, the probablity of success is still unknown. This is because the utility of the procedure is largely determined by a.) what information we need to preserve to preserve personality and memories and b.) changes in technology, culture, and the physical environment in the future.
What do I know about what we need to preserve personality and memories? Well, we need the brain. We need cells in the brain and their connections. What parts of cells? I have no idea. Do neurotransmitter states matter? Again, I have no idea. Is the brain like RAM—do we need to keep a constant current, however small and disorganized, to keep it viable? Good question—but I don’t know the answer. What I don’t know about neuroscience vastly dwarfs what I do. This is because a.) I am not a neuroscientist and b.) even neuroscientists currently know very little about how the brain works, although they know considerably more than I do.
What about b.)? How will technology change in the future? My guess is that it becomes more advanced, but in what way? Well, that depends on people’s priorities, which depends on culture, which is extremely unpredictable. I did not expect, when I was a child, that by the time I became an adult, computers would be involved in nearly every aspect of my life. I also did not predict any of the stock market crashes, any of the wars that occurred, or any of the natural disasters that occurred. My approach to planning for the future, which has worked out suprisingly well for me thus far considering how flawed it is, is as follows:
Think of possible outcomes.
Use my knowledge to act to increase the chance of good outcomes happening to me.
Use my knowledge to act to reduce the chance of bad outcomes happening to me.
When probability of success of a choice is unknown (ie. high degree of uncertainty), replace with high probability of related bad outcomes (ie high risk).
So you can see that number four is hugely flawed, but I find it models how I think of things and how I act pretty well. I posted in a different thread in this article that two possible bad outcomes of cryonics that I could imagine are: 1. that the attempt at cryonics is unsuccessful AND depletes me of resources in a way that somehow decreases my current lifespan. 2. Another possibility is that it would be successful, but that I would then be revived to be tortured for an indefinite period of time. That is the implicit value estimate I make.