5 ms·

A few off the top of my head (most are self-explanatory): Charles Darwin, Richard P. Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Von Neuman, Paul Erdos, Alan Tur

A few off the top of my head (most are self-explanatory): Charles Darwin, Richard P. Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Von Neuman, Paul Erdos, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Thomas Jefferson, Aubrey de Grey, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Douglas R. Hofstadter

araneae 17y ago
Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims? And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction before being disgusted by his treatment with concept of things which are self referential. It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.) Pity, because the rest of your list is pretty damn classy. Those two are pretty weird additions.
- dfranke 17y ago
  I find it a little odd that you think Aubrey de Grey is crazy but Eliezer Yudkowsky isn't, given that EY is a vocal supporter of de Grey's research and claims that we'll live forever for considerably more speculative reasons than any that de Grey asserts. Any explanation of the distinction other than that EY is probably reading this comment and that de Grey probably isn't?
  - araneae 17y ago
    The answer to your query is that I confess a blazing ignorance of EY. Basically, the only people that buy the whole load of nonsense are folks that desperately want to live forever, like my ex (who regularly makes donations to fund longevity research). Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. It's a little unintuitive, but consider the tarantula. The female tarantula lives 8 years; the male tarantula only about 2. This is because it's advantageous for females to live longer. For the males, it's more advantageous to live for shorter periods, so they age and die earlier. You're not going to be able to treat aging because it's programmed in. The only solution is to fix the source code.
    - dfranke 17y ago
      False all around. Aging is a result of evolutionary neglect, not evolutionary pressure. We haven't evolved to live longer because until extremely recent times, only a negligible fraction of us lasted long enough for old age (or menopause) to become an issue. Furthermore, your argument about tarantulas rests on group selection, which is discredited.
      - araneae 17y ago
        That's a semantic argument. But what it means for aging is functionally the same; we're programmed to last a certain amount of time (when there is pressure) and when the pressure runs out... we break down. This is essentially the same as having a programmed break down time. Secondly, the argument on tarantulas does not rest on group selection at all. For any one male tarantula, he spreads his genes better by living 2 years than living 8. Long living male tarantulas don't do as well, presumably because of some trade-offs between reproduction and lifespan. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
        Locke1689 17y ago
        So what if there's pressure? You argue that we must rewrite the source code -- so? Genetics = source code. So rewrite the source code.
        MikeCapone 17y ago
        We're too far away from understanding metabolism for that to be a realistic path to defeating aging in the near future. The engineering approach of periodical repair seems like the only game in town.
    - MikeCapone 17y ago
      > Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. That's incorrect. Our genes don't care if they carry on by reproduction or by living longer in a single individual, but we care. How a body ages after reproductive age is in an evolutionary blind spot. Individuals with mutations that promote longer life aren't passing those genes on so the selective pressure if very small. We don't have a clock that runs out of time. We just keep accumulating long-lived damage (misfolded proteins, advanced glycation endproducts, etc) until its enough to cause pathologies, from which we eventually die. You are not the cells that you were a few years ago. Most have been replaced. But there are certain types of damage that your body can't fix, which is where an engineering approach could come in (for example, say we could have a vaccine that would make your body target beta amyloids in your brain, so you'd clear those misfolded proteins before they accumulate enough to give you alzheimer's).
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    My admiration of Eliezer comes from two things: 1) His work in the field of Artificial General Intelligence 2) His desire to see human rationality turned into something a bit more organized and easy to spread (see his post cycles at lesswrong.com).
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  > Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims? That's not what he claims. You have apparently only heard the soundbites. All the details of his proposals are in his book (check Amazon). After reading it, I happen to think that his engineering approach is brilliant compared to the traditional gerontological approach. Periodically repairing the damage (of which there are only 7 types) before it accumulates enough to create pathologies is much smarter than trying to learn how to cure all pathologies, or trying to fiddle with metabolism. For a quick overview, you can google his TED talk (but it's a bit old and doesn't contain much biology). >And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction Once again, you seem to be commenting on something that you don't know much about. I'll admit I like Hofstadter more for who he is and how he writes, not for a specific idea or achievement, but GEB definitely isn't "dumb".
  - araneae 17y ago
    I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit.
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    > I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit. Please elaborate. Why do you think it's bullshit? Why shouldn't it be possible to repair damage that accumulates in our cells? You've offered no clear arguments so far.
    - araneae 17y ago
      See below.
- Eliezer 17y ago
  > And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction ...perhaps you should try reading the rest of the book. > It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.) Do you have a photo? Because if there's a Wikipedia article about how a fake blase-sophisticated seen-it-all-before pose of superiority can suck all the joy out of life, it should show your photo.

araneae 17y ago

Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims? And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction before being disgusted by his treatment with concept of things which are self referential. It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.) Pity, because the rest of your list is pretty damn classy. Those two are pretty weird additions.

dfranke 17y ago
I find it a little odd that you think Aubrey de Grey is crazy but Eliezer Yudkowsky isn't, given that EY is a vocal supporter of de Grey's research and claims that we'll live forever for considerably more speculative reasons than any that de Grey asserts. Any explanation of the distinction other than that EY is probably reading this comment and that de Grey probably isn't?
- araneae 17y ago
  The answer to your query is that I confess a blazing ignorance of EY. Basically, the only people that buy the whole load of nonsense are folks that desperately want to live forever, like my ex (who regularly makes donations to fund longevity research). Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. It's a little unintuitive, but consider the tarantula. The female tarantula lives 8 years; the male tarantula only about 2. This is because it's advantageous for females to live longer. For the males, it's more advantageous to live for shorter periods, so they age and die earlier. You're not going to be able to treat aging because it's programmed in. The only solution is to fix the source code.
  - dfranke 17y ago
    False all around. Aging is a result of evolutionary neglect, not evolutionary pressure. We haven't evolved to live longer because until extremely recent times, only a negligible fraction of us lasted long enough for old age (or menopause) to become an issue. Furthermore, your argument about tarantulas rests on group selection, which is discredited.
    - araneae 17y ago
      That's a semantic argument. But what it means for aging is functionally the same; we're programmed to last a certain amount of time (when there is pressure) and when the pressure runs out... we break down. This is essentially the same as having a programmed break down time. Secondly, the argument on tarantulas does not rest on group selection at all. For any one male tarantula, he spreads his genes better by living 2 years than living 8. Long living male tarantulas don't do as well, presumably because of some trade-offs between reproduction and lifespan. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
      - Locke1689 17y ago
        So what if there's pressure? You argue that we must rewrite the source code -- so? Genetics = source code. So rewrite the source code.
        MikeCapone 17y ago
        We're too far away from understanding metabolism for that to be a realistic path to defeating aging in the near future. The engineering approach of periodical repair seems like the only game in town.
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    > Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. That's incorrect. Our genes don't care if they carry on by reproduction or by living longer in a single individual, but we care. How a body ages after reproductive age is in an evolutionary blind spot. Individuals with mutations that promote longer life aren't passing those genes on so the selective pressure if very small. We don't have a clock that runs out of time. We just keep accumulating long-lived damage (misfolded proteins, advanced glycation endproducts, etc) until its enough to cause pathologies, from which we eventually die. You are not the cells that you were a few years ago. Most have been replaced. But there are certain types of damage that your body can't fix, which is where an engineering approach could come in (for example, say we could have a vaccine that would make your body target beta amyloids in your brain, so you'd clear those misfolded proteins before they accumulate enough to give you alzheimer's).
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  My admiration of Eliezer comes from two things: 1) His work in the field of Artificial General Intelligence 2) His desire to see human rationality turned into something a bit more organized and easy to spread (see his post cycles at lesswrong.com).
MikeCapone 17y ago
> Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims? That's not what he claims. You have apparently only heard the soundbites. All the details of his proposals are in his book (check Amazon). After reading it, I happen to think that his engineering approach is brilliant compared to the traditional gerontological approach. Periodically repairing the damage (of which there are only 7 types) before it accumulates enough to create pathologies is much smarter than trying to learn how to cure all pathologies, or trying to fiddle with metabolism. For a quick overview, you can google his TED talk (but it's a bit old and doesn't contain much biology). >And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction Once again, you seem to be commenting on something that you don't know much about. I'll admit I like Hofstadter more for who he is and how he writes, not for a specific idea or achievement, but GEB definitely isn't "dumb".
- araneae 17y ago
  I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  > I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit. Please elaborate. Why do you think it's bullshit? Why shouldn't it be possible to repair damage that accumulates in our cells? You've offered no clear arguments so far.
  - araneae 17y ago
    See below.
Eliezer 17y ago
> And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction ...perhaps you should try reading the rest of the book. > It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.) Do you have a photo? Because if there's a Wikipedia article about how a fake blase-sophisticated seen-it-all-before pose of superiority can suck all the joy out of life, it should show your photo.