I’m surprised that you didn’t bring up what I find to be a fairly obvious problem with Cryonics: what if nobody feels like unthawing you? Of course, not having followed this dialogue I’m probably missing some equally obvious counter to this argument.
If I were defending cryonics, I would say that a small chance of immortality beats sure death hands-down.
It sounds like Pascal’s Wager (small chance at success, potentially infinite payoff), but it doesn’t fail for the same reasons Pascal’s Wager does (Pascal’s gambit for one religion would work just as well for any other one.) - discussed here a while back.
I’m surprised that you didn’t bring up what I find to be a fairly obvious problem with Cryonics: what if nobody feels like unthawing you? Of course, not having followed this dialogue I’m probably missing some equally obvious counter to this argument.
If I were defending cryonics, I would say that a small chance of immortality beats sure death hands-down.
It sounds like Pascal’s Wager (small chance at success, potentially infinite payoff), but it doesn’t fail for the same reasons Pascal’s Wager does (Pascal’s gambit for one religion would work just as well for any other one.) - discussed here a while back.
Re: “If I were defending cryonics, I would say that a small chance of immortality beats sure death hands-down.”
That’s what advocates usually say. It assumes that the goal of organisms is not to die—which is not a biologically realistic assumption.