There is no need in infinite survival for this argument against suicide. A large part of suicide attempts ends with serious injuries which also prevent the person from the next attempts. My guess is around 10 per cent (don’t want to use AI).
For example, I read about a boy who shot himself in head but missed and ended destroying both his eyes. This means he will suffer the whole remaining life but will be unable to commit suicide again.
As i said in other comment—if we apply the same argument to euthanasia, we would need QI—in the case of euthanasia, the chances of mis-firing is extremely small, like 0.00001% - and normal utility calculation doesn’t work. But QI updates any arbitrary small probability of mis-firing to 1.
Agreed. And this argument stands without having to adopt the framework of QI, something that is possibly difficult for someone undergoing mental health crisis, which often affects the the prefrontal cortex in such a way that the very high-level reasoning this post requires is significantly impaired. The post models ‘rationalist who has rejected standard arguments against suicide’ but the target population for an actual intervention is more likely ‘rationalist in acute neurological crisis,’ who requires different tools.
But if we apply the same argument to euthanasia, we need QI—in the case of euthanasia, the chances of mis-firing is extremely small, like 0.00001% - and normal utility calculation doesn’t work. But QI updates any arbitrary small probability of mis-firing to 1.
There is no need in infinite survival for this argument against suicide. A large part of suicide attempts ends with serious injuries which also prevent the person from the next attempts. My guess is around 10 per cent (don’t want to use AI).
For example, I read about a boy who shot himself in head but missed and ended destroying both his eyes. This means he will suffer the whole remaining life but will be unable to commit suicide again.
Sure, however that’s an argument against suicide that doesn’t really need the backup of quantum properties.
As i said in other comment—if we apply the same argument to euthanasia, we would need QI—in the case of euthanasia, the chances of mis-firing is extremely small, like 0.00001% - and normal utility calculation doesn’t work. But QI updates any arbitrary small probability of mis-firing to 1.
Agreed. And this argument stands without having to adopt the framework of QI, something that is possibly difficult for someone undergoing mental health crisis, which often affects the the prefrontal cortex in such a way that the very high-level reasoning this post requires is significantly impaired. The post models ‘rationalist who has rejected standard arguments against suicide’ but the target population for an actual intervention is more likely ‘rationalist in acute neurological crisis,’ who requires different tools.
But if we apply the same argument to euthanasia, we need QI—in the case of euthanasia, the chances of mis-firing is extremely small, like 0.00001% - and normal utility calculation doesn’t work. But QI updates any arbitrary small probability of mis-firing to 1.