My "Blogging Frozen Heads TV" with Tyler Cowen is now available: I found the conversation enjoyable but somewhat frustrating; I'll be interested to hear others' reactions. Tyler is in general reluctant to test his reasoning by
Jeffrey, see my latest post. Ems have a good aging cure, and I don't think advanced nanotech is required. Yes a lower discount rate implies a lower cutoff odds.
Eliezer, a reasonable theory, which we should test relative to all the other theories that have been offered.
Nick, Eliezer said prominent women will be more radical than prominent men. Being radical is a high-variance strategy.
I think what's really going on is that intellectual success doesn't affect the sexual status of women nearly as much as it affects the sexual status of men. In fact, athletic success doesn't seem to either (go here and do a keyword search for "medal".) When you think about it, men are actually pretty lucky--we are superficially judged in areas where it's possible and often noble to improve, whereas women are superficially judged on mostly fixed characteristics.
I was also surprised at the combination of Robin favoring cryonics, yet being skeptical of much medical investment. Robin's 5% probability cutoff sounds very reasonable (my own, extremely crude, calculation is to say: Assume that successful cryonics gave unbounded life expectancy, assume a net present value of that life at a 1% discount rate, approximate the cost of cryonics as being about a year's income, and assume that the value of an extra year's income, the difference between spending that year working and spending it on vacation, is about the value of an extra year of life. This gives me a breakeven probability of around 1%). What seems strange is for him to expect better odds than 5% - particularly since he's done research showing that the average payback on currentmedical practise (after e.g. the medications used have met all of the efficacy tests the FDA requires) is low or negative.
My own view of the odds for successful recovery from cryonic suspension is that quite a number of perhaps 50:50 odds events have to turn out favorably:<ol><li>One has to actually receive a prompt (pre-autolysis) suspension<li>Something like Drexler/Merkle nanotechnology has to be developed.<li>Something capable of massively parallel microsurgery has to be developed from nanotechnology.<li>The problem of backtracing movement of fractured neural tissue has to turn out to be easy to develop.(This one is a specialty application - if it takes more than a handful of person-years, we're sunk.)<li>Future medicine has to develop a cure for aging.<li>The specific cryonics provider that one uses has to survive till the above conditions are met.<li>One's cryonics provider has to be motivated to actually thaw/repair its patients.</ol>
I don't think I'm counting the same risk twice in this list. If I just wildly guess that they all are 50:50, the odds wind up a little below 1%, which is close enough that it was worth it for me to sign up. I can't see the odds being as high as 5%.
Creating money devalues currency, destroying it increases its value. The diminishing marginal utility of money may reduce how much the rich benefit - but they still benefit more than those who have nothing.
The evolutionary psychology here seems really obvious. If you get cues telling you you're low-status, you'll take high-variance status bets - this manifests as a feeling of being open to odd ideas. If you get cues telling you you're high-status, people deferring to you and respecting you, then it pays to try to keep your high status.Testable prediction: women will exhibit less mainstreaming as a function of status increases than men.
Odd to hear an economist rationalizing burning money as a charitable act. Most charity seems to be done to signal to others (or yourself) that you are kind and generous. Burning money benefits the rich most. Do it in public and people will not think you are kind and generous - they will think that you are nuts.
@Hopefully: OK, I think I am there now. You are saying that people who share my views are psychically deficient - like colourblind people.
I do not think you have a grasp on my position. It has nothing to do with qualia. Cryonics plays on people's fear of death to divert resources away from young healthy people towards the cryonics leaders. It is a death cult - a lot like the Egyptian ones. I am with the cryonics wives - I do not think it is healthy.
I agreed with Tyler a lot more than with Hanson about the value of fiction.
Regarding Twitter overheads, standard apps allow you to link your Facebook status with twittering - so there is not really much of a maintenance overhead. Twitter have a better public infrastructure than Facebook do - Facebook has been more of a walled garden, historically. I am less sure of the advantage of Twitter over services like FriendFeed.
As a general comment, I rarely seem to get much that I value from Tyler Cowen. I have a poor background in economic theory - so I figure there should be mountains of stuff I could be learning from him, but I don't seem to come away any the wiser. "Messy pluralistic analysis, whatever that is" - heh: thumbs up.
@Hopefully: Huh? You mean there is more than one of me? ;-)
The prevalence of Tim Tylers seems to me to be evidence that the qualia of a subjective conscious experience, like non-colorblindness, may not be universally distributed in humanity.
You both seem to agree that cryonics is mostly about signalling. Count me in on that one: cryonics is mostly about signalling. The message I get is concerned with money, and with the life vs children balance - but also I tend to think that enthusiasts tend to have a screw loose.
Yes, if you value your own life highly enough, if you have enough money, cryonics can make sense - despite the low probability of success. What I don't get is why anyone would value their own life that highly. Why not preserve enough to make a clone of yourself - and then give the clone a similar education? Are the "random" developmental details of your life *that* important - compared to the genes (in your DNA) and the memes - which can be acquired again - or better, replaced with more modern versions? What about freezing germ-cells? Only half you - but at least those can be "revived" with today's technology.
Elizer: Viscusi finds that a $15 million drop in GDP correlates with the loss of a statistical life. Estimate is based on the income elasticity of demand for risky goods. So use that number if you prefer that method. The other methods come out around $7 million.
Eliezer only said "less mainstreaming". This could mean high-status women are more open, or low-status women are less open, than men.
Jeffrey, see my latest post. Ems have a good aging cure, and I don't think advanced nanotech is required. Yes a lower discount rate implies a lower cutoff odds.
Eliezer, a reasonable theory, which we should test relative to all the other theories that have been offered.
Nick, Eliezer said prominent women will be more radical than prominent men. Being radical is a high-variance strategy.
I think what's really going on is that intellectual success doesn't affect the sexual status of women nearly as much as it affects the sexual status of men. In fact, athletic success doesn't seem to either (go here and do a keyword search for "medal".) When you think about it, men are actually pretty lucky--we are superficially judged in areas where it's possible and often noble to improve, whereas women are superficially judged on mostly fixed characteristics.
Jeff,
The technology items are correlated.
I was also surprised at the combination of Robin favoring cryonics, yet being skeptical of much medical investment. Robin's 5% probability cutoff sounds very reasonable (my own, extremely crude, calculation is to say: Assume that successful cryonics gave unbounded life expectancy, assume a net present value of that life at a 1% discount rate, approximate the cost of cryonics as being about a year's income, and assume that the value of an extra year's income, the difference between spending that year working and spending it on vacation, is about the value of an extra year of life. This gives me a breakeven probability of around 1%). What seems strange is for him to expect better odds than 5% - particularly since he's done research showing that the average payback on currentmedical practise (after e.g. the medications used have met all of the efficacy tests the FDA requires) is low or negative.
My own view of the odds for successful recovery from cryonic suspension is that quite a number of perhaps 50:50 odds events have to turn out favorably:<ol><li>One has to actually receive a prompt (pre-autolysis) suspension<li>Something like Drexler/Merkle nanotechnology has to be developed.<li>Something capable of massively parallel microsurgery has to be developed from nanotechnology.<li>The problem of backtracing movement of fractured neural tissue has to turn out to be easy to develop.(This one is a specialty application - if it takes more than a handful of person-years, we're sunk.)<li>Future medicine has to develop a cure for aging.<li>The specific cryonics provider that one uses has to survive till the above conditions are met.<li>One's cryonics provider has to be motivated to actually thaw/repair its patients.</ol>
I don't think I'm counting the same risk twice in this list. If I just wildly guess that they all are 50:50, the odds wind up a little below 1%, which is close enough that it was worth it for me to sign up. I can't see the odds being as high as 5%.
John: Status has much less linear return in reproductive success for men than women, so high-variance strategies are more favorable for men.
Creating money devalues currency, destroying it increases its value. The diminishing marginal utility of money may reduce how much the rich benefit - but they still benefit more than those who have nothing.
Eliezer, how does the women and men thing follow from your explanation?
Repost from a comment of mine on MR:
The evolutionary psychology here seems really obvious. If you get cues telling you you're low-status, you'll take high-variance status bets - this manifests as a feeling of being open to odd ideas. If you get cues telling you you're high-status, people deferring to you and respecting you, then it pays to try to keep your high status.Testable prediction: women will exhibit less mainstreaming as a function of status increases than men.
"Burning money benefits the rich most." -Tim Tyler
If money has a diminishing marginal utility, then wouldn't the poor benefit the most or am I missing something?
Odd to hear an economist rationalizing burning money as a charitable act. Most charity seems to be done to signal to others (or yourself) that you are kind and generous. Burning money benefits the rich most. Do it in public and people will not think you are kind and generous - they will think that you are nuts.
@Hopefully: OK, I think I am there now. You are saying that people who share my views are psychically deficient - like colourblind people.
I do not think you have a grasp on my position. It has nothing to do with qualia. Cryonics plays on people's fear of death to divert resources away from young healthy people towards the cryonics leaders. It is a death cult - a lot like the Egyptian ones. I am with the cryonics wives - I do not think it is healthy.
I agreed with Tyler a lot more than with Hanson about the value of fiction.
Regarding Twitter overheads, standard apps allow you to link your Facebook status with twittering - so there is not really much of a maintenance overhead. Twitter have a better public infrastructure than Facebook do - Facebook has been more of a walled garden, historically. I am less sure of the advantage of Twitter over services like FriendFeed.
As a general comment, I rarely seem to get much that I value from Tyler Cowen. I have a poor background in economic theory - so I figure there should be mountains of stuff I could be learning from him, but I don't seem to come away any the wiser. "Messy pluralistic analysis, whatever that is" - heh: thumbs up.
@Hopefully: Huh? You mean there is more than one of me? ;-)
The prevalence of Tim Tylers seems to me to be evidence that the qualia of a subjective conscious experience, like non-colorblindness, may not be universally distributed in humanity.
You both seem to agree that cryonics is mostly about signalling. Count me in on that one: cryonics is mostly about signalling. The message I get is concerned with money, and with the life vs children balance - but also I tend to think that enthusiasts tend to have a screw loose.
Yes, if you value your own life highly enough, if you have enough money, cryonics can make sense - despite the low probability of success. What I don't get is why anyone would value their own life that highly. Why not preserve enough to make a clone of yourself - and then give the clone a similar education? Are the "random" developmental details of your life *that* important - compared to the genes (in your DNA) and the memes - which can be acquired again - or better, replaced with more modern versions? What about freezing germ-cells? Only half you - but at least those can be "revived" with today's technology.
As I mentioned on Tyler's blog, freezing his head would give Robin a 100% chance of resurrecting his very powerful and disarming top teeth smile.
Elizer: Viscusi finds that a $15 million drop in GDP correlates with the loss of a statistical life. Estimate is based on the income elasticity of demand for risky goods. So use that number if you prefer that method. The other methods come out around $7 million.