4 ms·

I'm not sure what you have to gain by planting a 'pseudoscientific crank' flag in a response here, but I'll address it anyways. I don't follow Kurzweil's diet,

I'm not sure what you have to gain by planting a 'pseudoscientific crank' flag in a response here, but I'll address it anyways. I don't follow Kurzweil's diet, and I haven't read any of his books, but to the best of my knowledge, Kurzweil invokes no chakras and no crystals. He doesn't promise unrealistic weight gain, and he doesn't seem to be advertising any harmful methods. He may be guilty of overselling the possible benefits of synthesizing several positive regimens (e.g., light exercise, low glycemic index, antioxidants, nutritional supplements), but, with the exception of alkaline water, I don't see any cogent criticism or glaring 'lack of supporting evidence'. Would you care to supply a context for your tar, or did you just have an agenda?

philwelch 16y ago
I only meant to suggest that whether or not someone is intentionally "profiteering off of people's fears and ignorance" in andreyf's words isn't necessarily the best criterion by which to judge their credibility--and conversely, that your defenses of Kurzweil's honesty and earnestness miss the underlying point.
- crystalis 16y ago
  Your underlying point is that he isn't credible; andreyf's point is about profiteering. It's possible he wanted information on credibility, rather than the stated profiteering, but your paternalism has yet to supply any actual answers.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    My underlying point isn't about Kurzweil at all. It's that sincerity doesn't excuse being a professional crank. Amateur cranks are bad enough, but professional cranks do benefit from "people's fears and ignorance" at their expense, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they may be.
    - crystalis 16y ago
      But this isn't about cranks. It's not even about Kurzweil! It's about Singularitarians that explicitly aren't Kurzweil, even. You haven't made any points germane to the conversation here. If you'd like to place some actual points regarding Kurzweil as a crank, or tar all things Singularity with the crank label, or find an actual topic about cranks, your words may be well placed, but until then, your Gricean maxims may need some work.
      - andreyf 16y ago
        Shit, sorry. I really tried to phrase it in a way to avoid trolling, but it looks like sometimes it's just in my blood. I'm sure Kurzweil is a deeply honest and righteous man. I'm just conflicted at how the medical establishment (that is, all the doctors I've talked to), don't seem to advocate nearly the amount of supplements he does, by several orders of magnitude. Is Kurzweil really that far ahead of this character we imagine called "modern medical institutions", or is he just wrong (as Aristotle was about astrology)? It's hard to question whether or not you're wrong when you're making lots of money one way or another.
        crystalis 16y ago
        I wouldn't class your initial comment as a troll, and with a little bit of context, philwelch's commentary could have been pretty useful. Kurzweil might not be so far ahead of "modern medical institutions", but it's easy to see why he differs from most doctors: he's doing math on a very different scale. Kurzweil's endgame is immortality via Singularity, and that affects his expected utility greatly. He actually gains when he spends two hours and ten dollars to gain one hour of expected lifespan when he has the expectation of eventually going infinite on lifespan via non-nutritional means. Most doctors, and most patients, don't expect the same eventual Singularity that Kurzweil is betting on, and without that expected payout, the supplements very likely seem ineffective in both time and cost efficiency. Most doctors seem hesitant to recommend courses of action that don't introduce significant qualitative (e.g., diabetes vs. no diabetes) or quantitative (orders of magnitude) returns. (There's also the bit of cognitive dissonance where doctors are fine with heart transplants, but less fine with things that "artificially" extend lifespan or otherwise mess with our "natural" life.)

philwelch 16y ago

I only meant to suggest that whether or not someone is intentionally "profiteering off of people's fears and ignorance" in andreyf's words isn't necessarily the best criterion by which to judge their credibility--and conversely, that your defenses of Kurzweil's honesty and earnestness miss the underlying point.

crystalis 16y ago
Your underlying point is that he isn't credible; andreyf's point is about profiteering. It's possible he wanted information on credibility, rather than the stated profiteering, but your paternalism has yet to supply any actual answers.
- philwelch 16y ago
  My underlying point isn't about Kurzweil at all. It's that sincerity doesn't excuse being a professional crank. Amateur cranks are bad enough, but professional cranks do benefit from "people's fears and ignorance" at their expense, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they may be.
  - crystalis 16y ago
    But this isn't about cranks. It's not even about Kurzweil! It's about Singularitarians that explicitly aren't Kurzweil, even. You haven't made any points germane to the conversation here. If you'd like to place some actual points regarding Kurzweil as a crank, or tar all things Singularity with the crank label, or find an actual topic about cranks, your words may be well placed, but until then, your Gricean maxims may need some work.
    - andreyf 16y ago
      Shit, sorry. I really tried to phrase it in a way to avoid trolling, but it looks like sometimes it's just in my blood. I'm sure Kurzweil is a deeply honest and righteous man. I'm just conflicted at how the medical establishment (that is, all the doctors I've talked to), don't seem to advocate nearly the amount of supplements he does, by several orders of magnitude. Is Kurzweil really that far ahead of this character we imagine called "modern medical institutions", or is he just wrong (as Aristotle was about astrology)? It's hard to question whether or not you're wrong when you're making lots of money one way or another.
      - crystalis 16y ago
        I wouldn't class your initial comment as a troll, and with a little bit of context, philwelch's commentary could have been pretty useful. Kurzweil might not be so far ahead of "modern medical institutions", but it's easy to see why he differs from most doctors: he's doing math on a very different scale. Kurzweil's endgame is immortality via Singularity, and that affects his expected utility greatly. He actually gains when he spends two hours and ten dollars to gain one hour of expected lifespan when he has the expectation of eventually going infinite on lifespan via non-nutritional means. Most doctors, and most patients, don't expect the same eventual Singularity that Kurzweil is betting on, and without that expected payout, the supplements very likely seem ineffective in both time and cost efficiency. Most doctors seem hesitant to recommend courses of action that don't introduce significant qualitative (e.g., diabetes vs. no diabetes) or quantitative (orders of magnitude) returns. (There's also the bit of cognitive dissonance where doctors are fine with heart transplants, but less fine with things that "artificially" extend lifespan or otherwise mess with our "natural" life.)