Mati_Roy
Thanks for engaging!
I’m not sure I understand the “new information” part; maybe you’re just saying as your current probability. But yeah, I agree the probability on “I will be reanimated” is better as a good preservation is useless if the world will never reanimate you. However, I find it really strange to throw out a perfectly good brain in the trash because you think future will never reanimate you; I’m way more inclined to take a decision based on the quality of brain preservation and not being so confident about the longterm future to rule out reanimation capability and willingness.
My thought experiment isn’t about trading those, but maybe you’re saying the analogy is imperfect because living today is more valuable then living in the future, which is a coherent position yeah.
So, maybe “if being signed up for cryonics now make the difference in getting you reanimated and at least as much total happiness in the future, God will replace you with an unconscious replica that will do exactly what you would have done”
I’m not following. Are you saying cryonics revival “is just a copy”? And so the analogy should preserve that?
Let’s say you wanted to stay dead. Either being reanimated would pull you back down to earth, or you have some powerful enemies in the future or for whatever reason, it’s roughly as important to you that you stay dead as it currently is that you don’t. If you do nothing, you will be cryopreserved upon death. How much do you pay to avoid that?
If I understand correctly, you’re saying “what if being reanimated was bad instead of good, then how much would you pay to not be reanimated?”. The answer is probably “depends how bad” 🤷♂️ I don’t know if I’m missing something deeper you meant to ask though.
great post by a researcher on the different options (not just those 2): https://brainpreservation.github.io/Embodied_Brain
Facebook thread with a lot of comments on this question: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cryonicists/permalink/1743940262479292/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
are prediction markets about the price of a liquid asset reliable?
ex.: https://polymarket.com/event/what-price-will-bitcoin-hit-before-2027
simple toy example to make my point: if a crypto is 100k, and I’m 100% sure it will go to 200k, then I wouldn’t want to correct a prediction market for any probability above 50% of reaching 200k as I would rather just invest in the crypto directly
afaiu, options are a better mechanism for that
and we should expect prediction markets to under estimate the probability an asset will grow (?)
wonderful!
I like that Nectome uses this approach and those standards; I think it’s a very valuable organization to have as part of the brain preservation ecosystem.
I think exploring some form of standards, or at least some options for third party quality reviews would be very valuable.
I want preservationists of this era to be able to be sued for malpractice because their technique was sloppy and they didn’t deliver preservative chemicals to a dime-sized brain region within 15 minutes post-mortem.
I imagine you’re not making the following strong claims, but I can’t tell for sure, so would like to check.
You’re not saying “It should be illegal for someone to get their brain preserved if it takes more than 15 minutes to start the procedure because the medical intervention wouldn’t be good enough so they should be forced to completely die instead and not attempt to preserve them.”, right? I would strongly disagree if that’s what you were saying.You’re not saying “It should be illegal for someone to prioritize other preservation metrics over methods that allow for easier microscopy verification of structural preservation even if that’s what they prefer”, right? I would also disagree with that, both because I want people to be able to do whatever they want, and also because there’s still enough uncertainty that I don’t think we can be sufficiently confident about some alternative approaches not being actually meaningfully superior in some ways. (I do assign more probability mass to prioritizing structural preservation, and that influences my decision making for myself, but also I’m not aware of research proving that cryonics without fixative does not preserved important structure, and forcing people to not use that seems at the very least premature.)
Amazing to see this new option enter the space. Fantastic work; I’m a fan!
I guess the presale is like a bet on Nectome’s future; you have a risk of losing your money if Nectome goes under + risk of being locked in if your preferred provider changes, in exchange for a future discount. At 3% inflation, 20k today is like ~27k in 10 years. I’m curious about the unit economics.
What’s the structure, finance, and governance for the graveyard-like part of Nectome?
non-profit? perpetual board?what fraction of the cost is put into a trust for long-term preservation?
So I guess the process would be like, you’re ready to use Nectome with MAiD, so you take out your life insurance policy, pay Nectome, and then use MAiD, all in a short timeframe, otherwise there’s a period where you don’t have an insurance policy for Alcor, and could die without MAiD. Sounds risky. Alternatively, have 2 full insurance policies, but that increases the cost significantly.
nice title; it’s also the title of my blog 😛 https://lessdead.com/
sounds good!
“Pascal mugging” has become such a semantic stop sign; I see it apply way too loosely like “oh this has a large value if realized therefore Pascal mugging and therefore it’s bad” 😔 at this point why not say all start-ups are Pascal mugging investors (and by “mugging” here we mean give them high expected returns but low probability)
Sparks Brain Preservation is $45k for members ($150/yr for membership), and you should be able set up a payment so you would pay with your assets after death (payment doesn’t need to be upfront). You can also apply to a hardship fund if that still remains infeasible for you. As far as I can tell it’s the org with the best electron micrographs of human brain preservation. And there’s nationwide coverage. Bonus: Signing up is easy; the form is pretty straightforward.
I’d be curious to know what you think about it.
(Note: I’m on the board. We’re a non-profit.)
59 years after the first cryopreservation we finally have non-zero electron micrographs!!! Super grateful for Greg Fahy’s research! And thanks for doing a write-up on it!
I’m sorry for your lost. I bet she got a better preservation than most humans given the laws are much more supportive for non-human preservations.
Thanks for writing and sharing that! I have at least one family member for whom physician approval is one of their main uncertainty about the validity of cryonics
if your mind clones are edited to not mind being shut down, then is ethically fine to shut them down? it wouldn’t violate their preference and also it would make it clear to you that you’re not a mind clone. but still feels icky. and are you indistinguishable from a mind clone when you’re not actively reflecting on your desire not to die? how similar can a mind clone be while having such a core value altered?
Cool! Thanks for the update!
I also think upload is probably fine.
But also, while not an expert, I don’t think I’d put most of my probaiblity mass on “it’s physically impossible to ‘unfix’ a brain / return a protein to their original state”.
this is a fully general argument against everything, is it not?
seems like a galaxy brain curse. the more galaxy brain your idea is the more evidence i would ask for it
i agree with almost everything except:
1) i think you care a lot about yourself over the next most similar person today (reveal preferences probably agree)
2) it’s possible in principle to care about dying, and we do in practice; it adds up to normality; fading into the void matters; decreasing measure is likely bad even though increasing measure might not be good (not saying this is an argument, more just a claim)
3) under uncertainty it’s better to sign up