Synaptic

Karma: 394

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 14:25 UTC
5 points
on: How Likely Is Cryonics To Work?
I upvoted because this is a good effort to make your probabilities explicit.

One meta point: A lot of this seems a bit too nihilistic. Cryonics is small, very small. If you, Jeff Kaufman, decide (and actually go through with the process) of signing up, that act non-trivially decreases the probability that cryonics will be outlawed. If you decide to contribute even in some small way to the (non-profit) org, that act decreases the probability that the org will fail, scaled (enormously) by how actively you engage. If you move closer to the org you sign up with, that increases the probability of a good cryopres. If you don’t engage in risky behaviors, that decreases the prob of an acute event which would disallow a cryopres. If you exercise, that decreases the prob of developing AD. And etc.

You seem to be approaching cryonics as pure consumption, when you stand to gain much more (and do much more good, see http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cryonics-as-charity.html) if you consider it more of an active pursuit.

Perhaps it is easier, mentally, to ignore this factor (which others, including Robin Hanson, seem to have done), but it doesn’t seem prudent.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 14:45 UTC
4 points
on: Convincing my dad to sign up for Alcor: Advice?
I think it is going to have to be a slow process.

First, you should try to convince him on the intellectual level that cryonics is feasible. If he is willing to read and likes science, this might be a good post to send him a link of: http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/23/does-personal-identity-survive-cryopreservation/. I also might send him a link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics, which is pretty balanced. Frame it is an academic exercise. Who knows, maybe he can poke some holes in it? (And if he does, please report them back here.)

Second, only once (and if) he becomes convinced of its academic merits would I try to convince him to personally sign up. At that point I would pull out the “I’m your son and don’t want to see your identity erased” card. Then use arguments similar to http://lesswrong.com/lw/wq/you_only_live_twice/.

But do note that the vast majority of people who are interested in cryonics self-select for it, and based on prior odds, you are unlikely to be successful in your endeavor. Sorry.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 17:25 UTC
4 points
in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: How Likely Is Cryonics To Work?

Similarly, does it take more than an additional $300/year to double my chances of revival?

I don’t know, what do you think? It seems to me that if you can figure out some way to help the brain preservation foundation (http://www.brainpreservation.org/) develop a non-cryogenic (i.e., room temp) method of preservation, it could much more than double your chances.

Unfortunately for cryonics, it has tough competition as a charity. I don’t think it comes anywhere close to givewell’s top charity.

Looking back on it, which activity has had more benefit over its lifespan, the development of antibiotics in the 1930′s, or the development and enactment of the US welfare state in the 1930s? Which one cost more money?

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 17:44 UTC
4 points
in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: How Likely Is Cryonics To Work?
I agree that $300, with no concomitant time investment, would probably not be enough.

I guess I’m just surprised that a (smart) person could read all of this information about a potentially hugely transformative technology, assign such a low probability (20%) to the likelihood that “not all of what makes you you is encoded in the physical state of the brain,” and still just generally not care much and prefer to go play music instead. I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m weird.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 17:48 UTC
2 points
in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: How Likely Is Cryonics To Work?
OK, I update my “surprise” based on this info that you donate so much to charity. Good stuff.

I was using that as an example of how 1) donations to well-meaning and efficacious current charities can have unintended negative consequences in the long run (i.e., make people dependent), and 2) investments in scientific research (including the societal infrastructure to support it) tend to pay off great dividends in the long run.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 18:08 UTC
1 point
in reply to: shminux’s comment on: How Likely Is Cryonics To Work?
It is also illegal in France. See http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2010/10/11/october-2010-cryonics-symposium-in-germany/ : “In the late 1960s the Cryonics Society of France was the largest cryonics organization outside of the United States. Roland was the President and Anatole Dolinoff was Vice-President. Roland showed me a list of officers and directors of the organization, pointing-out who had been fighting with whom, and the fact that virtually all were dead without having been cryopreserved. Dolinoff believed that cryonics was illegal in France because of a decree issued by the French Minister of Health in 1968.”

Also see http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=7353

Possibly this could be due to fear of the spread of US culture into france. See, for instance, how the French also recently banned the use of the words “facebook” and “twitter” on tv: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/french-ban-twitter-facebook_n_871153.html

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 19:38 UTC
5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [gooey request-for-help] I don’t know what to do.
First, I think this post was a good idea, and thanks for taking the time to write it and for putting yourself out there.

Consider reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy, and see whether that was the strategy which your therapist used. If not you might want to broach the topic with your parents and see whether they’ll find you a therapist who will use CBT. Worth a shot, although it’s [not necessarily efficacious in depression].

On the other hand CBT does not work for all people. I’d really suggest for you to have and/or “buy” some fun. Selfishness in the short run is often for the good of everyone in the long run.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 20:15 UTC
5 points
in reply to: lessdazed’s comment on: Biopreservation (of the cells of nearly-extinct animals) in hopes that future tech can restore them
I’ll upvote if you can explain to me how reading one line of this post is like being chased by a velociraptor.

Synaptic 26 Sep 2011 21:12 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Biopreservation (of the cells of nearly-extinct animals) in hopes that future tech can restore them
Yes, I agree both of these matter. I wonder which one is more important?

Synaptic 28 Sep 2011 2:40 UTC
7 points
on: Cryonic suspension where?
The relevant question seems to be Alcor vs CI. Form what I can tell, ACS is expensive and does its storage with CI anyway.

Alcor costs (http://www.alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html):

$200,000.00 Whole Body Cryopreservation ($110,000 to the Patient Care Trust, $60,000 for cryopreservation, $30,000.00 to the Comprehensive Member Standby (CMS) Fund),

OR $80,000.00 Neurocryopreservation ($25,000 to the Patient Care Trust, $30,000 for cryopreservation, $25,000.00 to the CMS Fund).

CI + SA costs (http://www.cryonics.org/comparisons.html, and http://www.cryonics.org/SA/SA_CI_Attachment_2.html):

$28,000 CI whole body preservation, with personal shipping,

OR $28,000 + $52,500 cost for SA ($7,500 deployment, $30,000 transport, $15,000 air transport) = $80,500.

Note that this is a minimum for the deployment costs of SA. If the personnel are deployed for longer than 2 days or more than once, the costs rise.

From what I can tell, CI does not mention putting money aside for a patient trust.

Summary:

If you live in Michigan, prefer whole body preservation, and/or your associates are willing and able to competently deal with your transport, then CI would be a relatively better deal.

If you don’t mind neurocryopreservation, prefer SA for skilled transport, and/or are more concerned about the long-term stability of the organization (due to the patient trust fund), then Alcor would be a relatively better deal.

Note that the annual dues of Alcor are much higher, $800 (if you get CMS, which is pretty much essential) to $120. This adds up, and if you live 40 more years, is equal to $32,000 (and more once you inflation-adjust).

Given this annual fee structure, it might make relatively more sense to sign up with CI when you are younger and switch to Alcor when you are older.

My main advice is to start on life insurance first. I also recommend Rudi Hoffman.

Synaptic 4 Oct 2011 22:39 UTC
3 points
on: Cryonics on Castle [Spoilers]

The patients have heart rate monitors with GPS signalers that signal the cryonics company as soon as the patient flatlines. This is just obviously the way things should be and it is regrettable that the market is not yet broad enough for ‘obvious’ to have been translated into common practice.

See http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/alarms.html:

“For over fifteen years I have been hearing that the kinds of systems cryonicists would want for vital signs alarm systems will be commercially available within a year or two. In that sense, December 2010 is not that much different from 1995, except that the claims are getting louder and more convincing. I should be getting excited, except that over a decade of feeling like the village idiot chasing a wallet on a string has made me very cynical.…

Cryonicist Nick Pavlica seemed to be making some progress with his bed alarm, but after extensive testing by me, I still must say that it gives false alarms or does not alarm when it should. At the moment, the best I can say for the product is that it appears to provide a good panic-button system for dialing to a pre-programmed list of phone numbers.”

Synaptic 8 Oct 2011 14:24 UTC
12 points
on: Link: WJS article that uses Steve Jobs’ death to mock cryonics and the Singularity
One funny thing is that “cryogenics” and the singularity are so often lumped together, even though interest in them is for many people inversely correlated—if you believe in a near singularity (and are relatively young), you don’t need cryonics for personal survival, and if you don’t believe in a near singularity, you do need cryonics.

Synaptic 8 Oct 2011 14:56 UTC
6 points
in reply to: mwengler’s comment on: Mike Darwin on Steve Jobs’s hypocritical stance towards death
And you are talking as if Jobs’s moral stances do not hold especially more weight than other’s do, as if his opinions were just the opinions of another guy, not something special. That is, when Steve Jobs says “don’t mind death, it’s ultimately a good thing,” people listen.

If he had said “when people develop dementia, they are no longer able to contribute to society and thus we should accept their passing,” I would still disagree, but at least his (near mode) actions would not be inconsistent with his (far mode) words.

But no, he makes no attempt to distinguish whether an individual can still contribute to society in his unabashed glorification of death, and therefore we should (likewise) not forgive his hypocrisy because he was still able to contribute.

Synaptic 28 Feb 2012 3:30 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Quinn’s comment on: Mike Darwin on the Less Wrong intelligentsia
This was the quote I was referring to:

So, I often have a nagging worry that what I’m working on only seems like it’s reducing existential risk after the best analysis I can do right now, but actually it’s increasing existential risk. That’s not a pleasant feeling, but it’s the kind of uncertainty you have to live with when working on these kinds of problems. All you can do is try really hard, and then try harder.

I was referencing how it is difficult to effectively lead an organization that is so focused on the distant future and which must make so many difficult decisions.

I should have been clearer.

Synaptic 28 Feb 2012 4:05 UTC
1 point
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Mike Darwin on the Less Wrong intelligentsia
Thank you for the clarification of your stance. The best counterargument seems to be that brain preservation has the potential to save many more lives than are lost due to malaria, if properly implemented, and yet receives very little if no funding. For example, malaria research received 1.5 billion in funding in 2007, whereas one of the only studies explicitly designed as relevant to cryonics is still struggling to reach its modest goal of $3000 as I write this.

they have a nontrivial chance of living to see a positive singularity/radical life extension to get there

How you do define and estimate this probability?

plus GiveWell builds the effective altruism community and its capabilities

True. But donations to cryonics organizations build the effective brain preservation community and its capabilities, and once again we are back to the question of which has the higher marginal expected utility.

Instead of stretching to argue that pushing cryonics is really at the frontier, better to admit you want to do it for non-existential risk reasons

Fair enough, I’ll defer to your expertise on existential risk.

Synaptic 28 Feb 2012 5:02 UTC
1 point
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Mike Darwin on the Less Wrong intelligentsia

Marginal costs could go down with scale, but there is a lot of evidence that it is difficult to scale up, and costs would need to fall a lot.

Would you mind going into details?

Plastination is a route that has been discussed but has had in my understanding zero research devoted to actually understanding whether it would work in humans for preserving personal identity. Ken Hayworth says that it could cost just a few thousand dollars.

Right now it may seem like there is no cheap route for effective brain preservation, but it is also clear that we as a species have not tried very hard to find out. Do you weigh that uncertainty in your calculations?

People saved from malaria can actively take care of themselves and preserve their own lives

One counter to this, which I do not necessarily endorse, is that people saved from malaria may also contribute to the world in negative ways, whereas preserved people are only likely to be revived if future society has good reason to believe that they will be a net positive.

ETA: Then again, I suppose there could also be strife and violence about the status of the preserved individuals, which actually might be worse in EV.

Synaptic 3 Apr 2012 4:23 UTC
2 points
on: Cryonics on LessWrong vs at LessWrong meetups
Do you have any information about the relative level of detail both groups went into in their arguments? There is little to go on here.

Synaptic 1 Jun 2012 19:56 UTC
14 points
on: Far negatives of cryonics?
This has been discussed here. Enoosti:

Yes, the paper clip reference wasn’t the only point I was trying to make; it was just a (failed) cherry on top. I mainly took issue with being revived in the common dystopian vision: constant states of warfare, violence, and so on. It simply isn’t possible, given that you need to keep refilling dewars with LN2 and so much more; in other words, the chain of care would be disrupted, and you would be dead long before they found a way to resuscitate you. And that leaves basically only a sudden “I Have No Mouth” scenario; i.e. one day it’s sunny, Alcor is fondly taking care of your dewar, and then BAM! you’ve been resuscitated by that A.I. I guess I just find it unlikely that such an A.I. will say: “I will find Yvain, resuscitate him, and torture him.” It just seems like a waste of energy.

This has also been discussed here. humpolec:

What you’re describing is an evil AI, not just an unFriendly one—unFriendly AI doesn’t care about your values. Wouldn’t an evil AI be even harder to achieve than a Friendly one?

It has also been discussed here. Michael Vassar:

It would take quite a black swan tech to undo all the good from tech up to this point. UFAI probably wouldn’t pass the test, since without tech humans would go extinct with a smaller total population of lives lived anyway. Hell worlds seem unlikely. 1984 or the Brave New World (roughly) are a bit more likely, but is it worse than extinction? I don’t generally feel that way, though I’m not sure.

Synaptic 2 Jun 2012 2:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Bart119’s comment on: Far negatives of cryonics?

But are they less probable than the positive high-payoff scenarios (in just, happy societies that value freedom, comfort, and the pursuit of knowledge)? Evidence? Are you keeping in mind optimism bias?

Adele_L in a comment in this thread:

based on the general trend that societies with higher levels of technology tend to be better ones to live in

Synaptic 15 Jun 2012 17:08 UTC
13 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open Thread, June 16-30, 2012
Somewhat positive:

Ken Hayworth: http://www.brainpreservation.org/

Rafal Smigrodzki: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Cryonet/message/2522

Mike Darwin: http://chronopause.com/

It is critically important, especially for the engineers, information technology, and computer scientists who are reading this to understand that the brain is not a computer, but rather, it is a massive, 3-dimensional hard-wired circuit.

Aubrey de Grey: http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/tag/aubrey-de-grey/

Ravin Jain: http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/meetdirectors.html#ravin

Lukewarm:

Sebastian Seung: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9wu/new_book_from_leading_neuroscientist_in_support/5us2

Negative:

kalla724: comments http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/8f4/neil_degrasse_tyson_on_cryogenics/

The critique reduces to a claim that personal identity is stored non-redundantly at the level of protein post-translational modifications. If there was actually good evidence that this is how memory/personality is stored, I expect it would be better known. Plus if this is the case how has LTP been shown to be sustained following vitrification and re-warming? I await kalla724′s full critique.