I'd add step 0: have Singulairty Institute members come for a long visit near you, thus serving as the impetus of the meetup :-)
I accept this correction as well. Let me rephrase: the probability, while being positive, is so small as to be on the magnitude of being able to reverse time flow and to sample the world state at arbitrary points.
This doesn't actually change the gist of my argument, but does remind me to double-check myself for nitpicking possibilities...
You are strictly correct, but after brain disintegration, probability of revival is infinitesimal. You should have challenged me on the taxes bit instead :-)
Pardon me, now I'm the one feeling perplexed: where did I screw up?
First, the only certainties in life are death and taxes. Cryonics aside, we should talk in probabilities, not certainties, and this is true of pretty much everything, including god, heliocentrism, etc.
Second, cryonics may have a small chance of succeeding - say, 1% (number pulled out of thin air) - but that's still enormously better than the alternative 0% chance of being revived after dieing in any other way. Dieing in the line of duty or after great accomplishment is similar to leaving a huge estate behind - it'll help somebody, just not you.
Third, re senile dementia, there is the possibility of committing suicide and undergoing cryonics. (Terry Pratchett spoke of a possible assisted suicide, although I see no indication he considered cryonics.)
If cryonics feels like a wash, that's a problem with our emotions. The math is pretty solid.
One caveat: it's great to want to be rationalist about all things, but let him without sin cast the first stone. So much of the community's energies have gone into analyzing akrasia - understanding that behavior X is rational and proper yet not doing it - that it appears hypocritical and counter-productive to reject members because they haven't yet reached all the right conclusions. After all, MrHen did mark religion for later contemplation.
Clarity check: "trumps" = "is (normatively) more important than"?
will be really confusing if/when that entry drops off the front page.
Hehe :-) if you propose a less confusing quip, I'll edit it in.
Actually, I was wondering that myself! I differentiate myself by the fact that I'm among the very first Vladimirs around here. (I've been an OB reader for three years now, I think.)