Nonsense. It concerns the instrumental (and epistemic) rationality of personal survival.
Aside from that though, weren’t you the one complaining about lack of practical research in cryonics as opposed to speculation? I’d think this was right up your alley in that respect.
You mean, “rationality is about getting the things I want, this post is about something I want, therefore this post is about rationality”?
Your post appears to be asking for suggestions as to methods of gathering engineering effort to improve a particular medical technology. You haven’t made it clear how this is any more relevant to refining the art of human rationality than any other possible thing that any given person might want to happen.
Also, you appear to be using the term “epistemic rationality” for what I believe is termed “instrumental rationality”.
I have an interest in the subject, but discussion of it is, I would think, on-topic here insofar as it relates to the art of refining human rationality. This post really doesn’t seem to relate to that very much at all.
The primary focus of the article is instrumental, but there are epistemic elements as well because if you can run actual experiments, you can get closer to the truth than by thought experiments alone. Perhaps I should edit the article to say more about that directly.
If you can make it more on-topic—for instance, a worked example of a detailed abstract point about thinking, where you lead with the abstract point and then give the worked example—that’d make quite a good post IMO.
(I find writing here I tend to use the conventional “good writing” rule of “show, don’t tell”, when really I suspect I should be using “tell, then also show”. If this post is really about thinking, then it’s all “show” and no “tell”.)
This post is off-topic, as it is not concerned with the art of refining human rationality.
Edit: Rather more helpful response downthread.
Nonsense. It concerns the instrumental (and epistemic) rationality of personal survival.
Aside from that though, weren’t you the one complaining about lack of practical research in cryonics as opposed to speculation? I’d think this was right up your alley in that respect.
You mean, “rationality is about getting the things I want, this post is about something I want, therefore this post is about rationality”?
Your post appears to be asking for suggestions as to methods of gathering engineering effort to improve a particular medical technology. You haven’t made it clear how this is any more relevant to refining the art of human rationality than any other possible thing that any given person might want to happen.
Also, you appear to be using the term “epistemic rationality” for what I believe is termed “instrumental rationality”.
I have an interest in the subject, but discussion of it is, I would think, on-topic here insofar as it relates to the art of refining human rationality. This post really doesn’t seem to relate to that very much at all.
The primary focus of the article is instrumental, but there are epistemic elements as well because if you can run actual experiments, you can get closer to the truth than by thought experiments alone. Perhaps I should edit the article to say more about that directly.
If you can make it more on-topic—for instance, a worked example of a detailed abstract point about thinking, where you lead with the abstract point and then give the worked example—that’d make quite a good post IMO.
(I find writing here I tend to use the conventional “good writing” rule of “show, don’t tell”, when really I suspect I should be using “tell, then also show”. If this post is really about thinking, then it’s all “show” and no “tell”.)