NTs Are Unable to Grasp The Simple Concepts of Probability.

Post Reply New Topic

Evidently you possess a very strange mix of trust in current theory and pure speculation. I do not particularly have much trust in either cryogenics or time travel or, for that matter, flying saucers but if investing money is concerned, my observation has been that when desperate people have some possibility of investing money in hare brained schemes the people who are eager to take them up on it are pretty sure to be scoundrels. Religion is firmly based on selling pie in the sky and the poor suckers who let themselves be scammed have supported it for centuries. Cryogenics or Scientology or some other pseudoscientific nonsense will always find gullible crowds but until someone has been demonstrably frozen and successfully brought back to life with a sound mind I will treat the matter as a very bad investment with zero probability.

Thus confirming the fact that you are unable to grasp the concept of statistics and probability. You don't actually have to see something in person for it to have a probability. It was known and considered highly probable before Columbus sailed to the Americas that the Earth was round for example. You also don't dispute my math (and I'm not sure what the "pure speculation" part is), which you should be doing if I am incorrect, but instead go off talking about baseless examples of religion and scoundrels (which incidentally has other purposes than an afterlife, but there is no need to go into that here). The people who sign up for cryonics by and large are not desperate, they just know the basic expected value calculation, a rational decision to make. Also, I have always been referring to cryonics, not cryogenics (there is a difference, considering you are unaware of it, it seems odd/lazy on your end that you would dismiss it as pseudoscience without any research, plus it makes you look kinda foolish). Considering you seem to lack the knowledge of the subject as well as knowledge of basic statistical applications such as expected value (both of which you would need to challenge my argument), further discussion on this would appear meaningless unless you can come up with a better argument (or present actual reasons or math and not just rhetoric).

Let me put it this way. I recently heard the history of a guy who proposed to freeze people. He managed to get a few takers and froze a few people but the containers were expensive so he had to resort to stuffing several people into one container and he had problems getting a reliable supply of liquid nitrogen and the pumps broke down several times so the whole experience was a total screw up. This is the actual story, I didn't make it up. Obviously if I were to invest in such a venture I would have to have some belief the process could be maintained for a considerable length of time, perhaps many centuries. Aside from the science which is dubious at best there has to be a strong financial support to maintain the system. This guy simply couldn't do it. So far, the organization to maintain the system simply doesn't exist. There are too many unstable factors, aside from the coming social upheavals on food and fuel and climate in general. Civilization is not stable enough to trust in the system. Probability zero whatever your idiotic math may say based on unknown factors.

While the story you describe without many details might be true, it still seems different than the cryonics I was talking about (i.e. Alcor which does not have the problem you describe and they also planned for possible disasters). Also, do you make your decision on an entire area based on some story you heard once without knowing many details? Also, you accuse me of making stuff up on pure speculation, while you make such claims like, "coming social upheavals on food and fuel and climate in general". Where is the evidence for this coming social upheaval? The food and fuel problem is not that much worse than anything we've experienced in the past, so I would argue those points are mute atm. As for global warming, I'm not sure how that (or the food/fuel problem) would affect cryonics. Historically, civilization has been heading towards increasing stability overall since the Middle Ages (you could maybe argue it isn't in some 3rd world countries, but they are not relevant here), so I fail to see how you would argue it will become less. Just because there are unknown factors does not mean the probability is instantly zero (again, your assumption that it does furthers my point). There were still many unknown factors when the first atomic bomb went off, and it still went off. My math and logic is correct, you could take to any statistician, mathematician or economist if you have doubts (then again, I get the impression you distrust all math). In fact, the only way you could effectively argue that my math is idiotic is to use your own math to disprove it, which I do not think you are capable of. Alternatively, you could actually provide reasons, something you also do not seem to do. You claim social upheaval, but you lack evidence and theory that would support it. You claim the probability is zero, but again you lack reasons as to why it is zero (although you try and use an intellectual stop sign, like labeling it as pseudoscience to avoid any real discussion about it). You can claim its pseudoscience, but that adds nothing to your argument. In order to argue that it is pseudoscience and is bad, you need to come up with actual reasons and not just rhetoric; "I just don't believe in it" is not a valid argument (this applies to any type of argument, not just this one). You claim my math is wrong or is idiotic, but you cannot actually name any reasons as to why it is (again, you can't just claim "unknown factors" as a reason). Of course to actually comes up with legitimate reasons probably does require some research on the subject; however, if you are unwilling to do that then you probably should not be debating in the first place.

This is not a debate, it is a mere declaration that there are too many unknown factors for you to make any sensible calculation. The nations as such have existed for less than 300 years(which is a very short period in this matter) and the way things are going in the USA its general technical capability is declining at a rapid rate. You cannot sensibly calculate even who will win the coming presidential election and that is an event that is coming up very shortly. There is an old saying that there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. It holds very true here.

You are incorrect, this is a debate. You can't just go and declare "there are too many unknowns" and as such there is no debate. It does not matter if the United States is no longer the most technologically advanced nation in terms of this argument (look at France, it is still here). My point was, events such as a global world war are becoming increasing unlikely in the foreseeable feature (one reason being is the global economy, most major nations all trade with each other, making war less likely). Even if there are internal changes in a nation, unprecedented chaos normally does not ensue. The future might be unknown, but you can still assume the near future will most likely be fairly similar to today (obviously not in a technological sense, though). Also, that 1% probability is meant to take things like "the world ending while I'm being preserved" into account. You could set up a betting market and take bets if the U.S. will collapse in 20 years if you wanted to get a more accurate probability of that occurring too. I can estimate who will win the presentational election, actually via organizations like Intrade (which is far more accurate than polls), and I fail to see how saying I cannot calculate who will win the election has any bearing at all on this subject (in case you are unaware the success or failure of cryonics is not decided by democratic vote).

You can estimate probability the "known unknowns" that you describe (i.e. bizarre world events that you describe) and through in additional probabilities for the "unknown unknowns". Just because there are unknown factors does not mean you cannot make an estimation (otherwise, we'd never have gotten very far in the field of science or physics considering they generally seek to make these unknowns known). For example, if I know X and Y, but there is another unknown factor W, I can still calculate Z (just with a margin of error or say Z+W and come up with ways to estimate W).

So, your argument against all of statistics is a quote that Desraeli/Twain said (which I would classify as rhetoric)? Do you even know the meaning behind the quote? If so, you'd know it is not applicable here (the reason is because some statisticians used advanced methodology to "torture the data" in order to make it seem more favorable to them, which I am not doing at all here since expected value is extremely straightforward and basic). I'm curious as to what your statistical background is. Have you even studied it at all, or do you just rely on rhetoric to satisfy your knowledge of the field? You still lack legitimate arguments (even if there are too many unknowns is considered an acceptable argument, that does not mean one should not think about it, it means you need to try and discover these unknowns or at least assign probabilities to them), if you cannot come up with anything better than there are too many unknowns then you need to concede.

If you are aware of all the critical factors and the likelihood of their influence on the final result it is possible to make a mathematical calculated guess of the outcome. But the preservation of a frozen human for a matter of what might be centuries in a dynamic system that requires continuous maintenance requires a knowledge of all the significant factors which you quite obviously do not have. Aside from the technical and scientific factors there are social and environmental systems critically involved. Our knowledge on many levels is changing radically in a way that cannot be calculated. Even within the last decade society has changed radically and the near future indicates the rate of change will be even faster. And these changes are not merely modifications of what we now know. They will be total revisions of basic viewpoints which you simply cannot speak of in terms of probability. In astronomy we have just learned that most of the matter and energy in the universe is a total mystery. About a hundred years ago we were not even aware of the nature of galaxies and Einstein's basic theories were barely revealed, and mostly miscomprehended. Aircraft were strange little things of fabric and wood and the automobile was a rich man's toy. A hundred years is a very short time and the cryogenic thing most probably needs a good deal longer to be successful and I sincerely doubt you can put a mathematical number on just how much time it requires.


TAKE-OUT

"I want,"
He said,
"When I
Am dead
To be most neatly kept.
My eyes
Just closed,
My frame
Relaxed
Just as if I slept."

"All rot
Must cease.
I'll pay the fees."
He cried, like King Canute.
"For I must freeze
At two degrees
Cryogenic absolute!"

So, sure enough
His friends
Did stuff
Him in a vacuum bottle.
Stiff and blue
Was their last view,
With a cork stuck in his glottal.

The Sun
Did burn,
The Earth
Did turn
Two hundred million spins,
While time
Did pass,
Beneath the grass
Where our frozen friend still grins.

As species must,
Mankind was dust,
But mind must have a site.

So, dogs and cats
In hats and spats
became somewhat more bright.

A feline digger
Couldn't figure
The frozen sarcophagus.
"What is this thing
Some ancient king
Sent through time to plague us?"

He did pop
The thermos top
And slid out frozen friend.
The flesh
Still fresh,
Turquoise skin
Like a djinn.
This could cat comprehend.

So, wrapped in foil
And fried in oil
Our friend turned crispy brown.
With vintage wine
The taste was fine
When feline gulped him down.

But doubt still gripped
This cryptic crypt.
The cat had not a hunch
Why mankind
Had so inclined
To send him a boxed lunch

Yes, society and technology changes over time and knowledge increases. As for your statement that we need all significant factors in order to "preserve" a human for a few centuries, we already have that. Scientists know with their current technology, they can "preserve" a human, the problem is reviving. The theory is that in a hundred years or so, society might have advanced far enough to have the technology to do so (which is really the only big unknown). Changes in society or the environment do not necessarily matter in this calculation. If a new era of hippies emerge, so what? How does that affect whether or not it is possible to "preserve" someone in any way? The environment is not much of a factor because the facilities are located in the Arizona desert I believe so even if these big bag negative things with global warming happen, it won't likely have much an effect on their facilities. Your examples of technological improvements in the last hundred years actually furthers my point; humans are always acquiring more and more knowledge. New knowledge does not invalid old knowledge either (we had the 1st generation of cars and then the 2nd generation evolved and made improvements on the 1st). All and all technological and scientific progress is a good thing that furthers the argument for cryonics, so I don't see what your point is with that.

What basis do you have for saying you'd need longer than a hundred years? You describe all these technological advances that were made in a hundred years, and technology more recently is growing at a faster rate, it is entirely possible for the technology to be developed in less than a hundred years, and even then one does not have to be revived within a hundred years to be successful (the few hundred years statement I made, however, is based more on factual evidence given the rate of decay that would occur when "frozen", which is most likely correct even though it was not my main intent). That aside, my point with probabilities is, you are supposed to subjectively take all this into account when coming up with a number and then use that number to calculate your expected value (that is the only math I've really tried to calculate here).

Because nothing in a desert was ever lost for dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years.... obviously.

Nobody every lost the pyramids of Egypt (of course some fell apart...).

But the best tombs were regularly raided and trashed.

Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-Shelley


Hubris!

Said tombs also did not have more of a security system and were made from stone. Plus, unless there is some sort of zombie or vampire outbreak, I doubt people are going to raid other "frozen" people.

No doubt they would make fascinating museum exhibits - relics of an ancient civilization.

I still want to see AspieChav's attractive sister.

what is there exactly in a cryo-facility buried deep in the arizona desert, buried and/or lost for a thousand years etc etc that you wouldnt want to steal? A veritable treasure trove regardless of what level civilisation is at when you find it.