• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Refuting de Grey


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 HP Lalancette

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:57 AM


Hello. I am a new member to this forum and I have a blog where my goal is to refute Transhumanism. I have been focusing more on Kurzweil but I am trying to refine my arguments against de Grey now. (I plan to move on to Drexler eventually). I just wrote a new post that I think really nails de Grey's fundamental argument about his longevity escape velocity and I wanted to post it here to get some feedback to see if I am way off or not. Here it is:

I was curious to see if de Grey had actually tried to defend his belief in inevitable accelerating technology when I came across Bret Weinstein's argument in the SENS Challenge (here). In my last post, I claimed that de Grey had read my blog since he seemed to respond to a point I made on the deceleration of aviation technology. This is wrong because de Grey already was forced to respond to this point by Weinstein. It is instructive to read this exchange because it goes right to the heart of de Grey's entire argument.



Weinstein identifies de Grey's fundamental point:



The clear, but unstated, implication of de Grey's framing is that senescence is a tractable engineering problem. In fact, it's not even an implication, it's an assumption.



Precisely. However, I would add that de Grey's assumption is even more expansive than that. He assumes that there is a technical solution to EVERYTHING. This includes preventing earthquakes and hurricanes, space travel, and re-engineering stars to prevent them from going supernova. The only limit comes from our lack of will to solve the problem. However, Weinstein points out that:


(h)e is ignoring the fact of diminishing returns, and the apparent inevitability of the curve leveling off.



Diminishing returns happens to all accelerating trends because each doubling is twice as hard as the previous one. De Grey's thinking (like all Transhumanists') is Malthusian in that he merely assumes that the trend will go on forever.



De Grey responds:



The "escape velocity" concept is based not on faith but on the history of technology, in which incremental refinements of an initial breakthrough reliably occur at, if anything, an accelerating rate rather than encountering diminishing returns, subject only to sustained public enthusiasm for further progress (which faded with, e.g., space travel but seems dependable in respect of postponing aging).



This sentence encapsulates de Grey's entire argument. All of the SENS ideas are just obfuscatory filler compared to it. In short, all technologies inevitably accelerate and only slow down for lack of public enthusiasm.



In responding to Weinstein's main point that 'Diminishing returns is the proper model (for technological progress), and it provides little basis for hope,' de Grey just reverses Weinstein's point back at him:



reasons also exist for optimism regarding our ability to continue to combat new sources of aging damage … we will be taking advantage of … the accelerating rate of progress in biomedical research generally.



Follow that? Biomedical research won't decelerate because it is accelerating.



Another flawed assumption that all Transhumanists have is displayed by de Grey:



Engineering problems are properly considered tractable unless their achievement would contravene scientific laws or mathematical theorems



Weinstein responds to this point in his rebuttal:



And what about the laws, limits and theorems that are emergent in complex systems? Humanity is only just beginning to understand these second order limits that arise in highly complex systems, and yet de Grey would have us believe that the least restrictive set of rules, the ones we already know, are the only ones with which we need to concern ourselves.



Precisely. I made this point in another posting but it is worth repeating. You don't know what is going to happen with any technology until you actually test it. The behavior of even very simple systems can be controlled by complex interactions of multiple factors that can make the technology intractable. De Grey claims that he is an engineer but he thinks like a scientist in how he assumes that the world follows nice regular abstract patterns that can be easily modeled and manipulated. In reality, everything around us is interacting in a complex combinatorial non-linear way that almost always defies description by 'scientific laws and mathematical theorems'.



Weinstein concludes:



What can I say? The conclusion is sacred. Total rejuvenation and perpetual youth are foreseeable for people alive today. If escape velocity is required, then it must be justified. If diminishing returns is an impediment, then it must be entirely sociological.



Yep. These Transhumanists want to believe it and nothing you can say will change their minds. This only reinforces my feeling that I shouldn't be wasting my time with this nonsense. I'm not one to argue with religious believers since it is nearly impossible to change their minds and the main reason they believe is because it makes them feel good about themselves, so let them be.



Fortunately, the looming end of the accelerating price-to-performance ratio of computers should deal a severe, hopefully mortal, blow to Transhumanism.

#2 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:13 AM

ah, good.

Please stick around and discuss your ideas. We need more people here against immortalism and transhumanism so we can generate more discussion on those core subjects.

As for refuting Aubrey, I recommend emailing him and asking his opinion rather than relying on hearsay.

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:56 AM

I think you should go after Drexler first. He's a much easier target.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:13 AM

What is his email address?


I'm sure you can google him.. ;)

You say you're a physical scientist on your blog. How do you propose to debate on matters of highly esoteric biology?

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:18 AM

HP, Your refutation hinges on an assumption of a need for technological advances in biomedicine to increase essentially forever for SENS to work. This is not really supportable. Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology. A certain amount of technological advance would be helpful, to be sure, but is probably not required. Thus the point of diminishing returns is moot. By the time the returns are diminishing in biomedicine, we will be far enough along for SENS to work.

Likewise, the "looming" end of the accelerating performance/price ratio of computers probably will not come soon enough to deal much of a blow to Transhumanism. I can't tell if it was you or Weinstein who hopes this supposed blow will be "mortal", but you might want to discuss why you are apparently so opposed to Transhumanism. Are you a traditional religionist who sees Transhumanism as weakening your sect?

It would be helpful to use the quote function in the forum editor so that we can keep attributions straight.
  • like x 1

#6 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:30 AM

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

Are you sure?

#7 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:34 AM

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

Are you sure?


everything except for oncosens. Though there are many promising advances on the horizon for that as well.

#8 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:35 AM

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

Are you sure?


everything except for oncosens. Though there are many promising advances on the horizon for that as well.

What about that thing with the mitochondria?

#9 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:43 AM

Elrond, why is there a replenisens section if sens does not actually have a research program/strategy in this area?

#10 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:45 AM

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

Are you sure?


everything except for oncosens. Though there are many promising advances on the horizon for that as well.

What about that thing with the mitochondria?


that involves the application of existing technology as evidenced by the fact that the MF actually has people working on doing it (in general the MF targets its limited funds at things that are reasonably attainable that other people just happen to not be working on). You're correct in thinking that this one is probably further from the clinic than stem cells, getting rid of excess cells and all the "junk" sens strands. And we might not even need it in my opinion if we get good at replacing cells.

Edited by elrond, 29 January 2009 - 06:46 AM.


#11 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:48 AM

Elrond, why is there a replenisens section if sens does not actually have a research program/strategy in this area?


thats called stem cell research. Society is already pouring in much more resources than the MF could add to that. It would be a relative drop in the bucket. Better to focus on fruit no one else is bothering to pick.

#12 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:58 AM

Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology.

Are you sure?


everything except for oncosens. Though there are many promising advances on the horizon for that as well.

What about that thing with the mitochondria?


that involves the application of existing technology as evidenced by the fact that the MF actually has people working on doing it (in general the MF targets its limited funds at things that are reasonably attainable that other people just happen to not be working on).


im not sure i understand you.. if i can rephrase with greater specificity: 1. what is the known technology that can enable the mitochondrial genes to be relocated in the nucleus per se. 2. then for this to be done in an adult organism. 3. and finally to make sure the transplanted gene regulation isnt altered?

i dont think we have technology to accommodate the second and third parts..

#13 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:00 AM

Elrond, why is there a replenisens section if sens does not actually have a research program/strategy in this area?


thats called stem cell research. Society is already pouring in much more resources than the MF could add to that. It would be a relative drop in the bucket. Better to focus on fruit no one else is bothering to pick.


i recognize why mf isnt funding research in this area but why do they even have a section by this name?

#14 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:04 AM

perhaps you'd like to read a bit more about sens. At no point does aubrey or anyone make the claim that the MF will be doing all of it. You realize he came up with it before there was such a thing as an MF?

We would all love if society would get to work on all the strands so we could go lay on the beach.

#15 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:10 AM

dr. manahattan I recommend going here

http://www.mfoundati...splay.php?f=103

for in depth discussion on the various sens strands with their experts.

#16 RunterBeaker

  • Guest
  • 47 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:13 AM

You forgot about the most important aspect of the acceleration of technological advancement, which is the paradigm shift.

#17 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:37 AM

perhaps you'd like to read a bit more about sens. At no point does aubrey or anyone make the claim that the MF will be doing all of it. You realize he came up with it before there was such a thing as an MF?

my point is, why is there such a thing as replenisens if there is no project behind it? particularly given there's a 'donate' button on the same page.. its confusing. i mean say someone obtains the view they are donating to replenisens?

#18 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:56 AM

dr. manahattan I recommend going here

http://www.mfoundati...splay.php?f=103

for in depth discussion on the various sens strands with their experts.


hmm.. just visited the replenisens forum and noted that the resident expert there is michael rae (also an advisor here) but despite his unquestionable talent as a writer (i am quickly becoming a fan - of his writing style), he is not a stem cell biologist. indeed he appears to act as scientific journalist - albeit with a penchant for senscentrism - who is developing content for those forums. do correct me if im wrong.

#19 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 29 January 2009 - 08:05 AM

HP Lalancette,

Good to have another skeptic aboard, I truly do get worried when I come across blogs, news articles or other sources of information which claim to refute our assumptions because I am afraid they might be right. There have been a couple times where I have to sit back and really think hard how to defend one or more of my transhumanistic views and sometimes the answer isn't really satisfactory.

Now, I am no bio-scientist, or technological trend analyzer so I will not try to defend either of Kurzweil's or de Grey's statements... HOWEVER, I do work extensively with AI and read/work on the subject daily and so I have a highly developed bullshit detector...

And guess what? After reading about 10 of your blog posts, I've detected some bullshit!

If you're interested in what I have to say, address me by name and I'll conjure up a nice response, but for now, I don't have time.

Good luck in the defense of your blog.

#20 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 29 January 2009 - 08:20 AM

Actually, he lost me a lot earlier (didnt have to read to the 10th post) when he called AG a computer guy.. FFS the guy is the editor of rejuvenation research! And lets remember einstein was just a patent clerk who failed high school! May as well accuse AG of having once worn diapers!

#21 HP Lalancette

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2009 - 12:31 PM

HP, Your refutation hinges on an assumption of a need for technological advances in biomedicine to increase essentially forever for SENS to work. This is not really supportable. Most if not all of SENS is based on applications of known technology. A certain amount of technological advance would be helpful, to be sure, but is probably not required. Thus the point of diminishing returns is moot. By the time the returns are diminishing in biomedicine, we will be far enough along for SENS to work.

Likewise, the "looming" end of the accelerating performance/price ratio of computers probably will not come soon enough to deal much of a blow to Transhumanism. I can't tell if it was you or Weinstein who hopes this supposed blow will be "mortal", but you might want to discuss why you are apparently so opposed to Transhumanism. Are you a traditional religionist who sees Transhumanism as weakening your sect?

It would be helpful to use the quote function in the forum editor so that we can keep attributions straight.


According to de Grey, SENS will only give us 20-30 more years of life span. I am not addressing it at all. My goal is to refute the longevity escape velocity. De Grey has admitted that he doesn't know what the problems will be after SENS let alone what the solutions will be to those problems. Nevertheless, he confidently predicts that there will be solutions. That prediction is based on his unproven assumption that technology always accelerates (give public support). That is what I am attacking.

#22 HP Lalancette

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2009 - 12:33 PM

What is his email address?


I'm sure you can google him.. ;)

You say you're a physical scientist on your blog. How do you propose to debate on matters of highly esoteric biology?



The longevity escape velocity has nothing to do with biology. As de Grey has admitted, it is based on his interpretation of the history of technology. The examples from technology that he uses come from the physical sciences (aviation, automobiles, space travel, etc.) Therefore, I am actually better suited to debate it.

#23 HP Lalancette

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2009 - 12:44 PM

Actually, he lost me a lot earlier (didnt have to read to the 10th post) when he called AG a computer guy.. FFS the guy is the editor of rejuvenation research! And lets remember einstein was just a patent clerk who failed high school! May as well accuse AG of having once worn diapers!


Being the editor of a journal is one of those jobs that few want to do because it requires a lot of work that is usually poorly compensated (if at all). I doubt that de Grey had to compete against other applicants for the job.

More damning though is that as far as I can tell, de Grey has never actually collected a data point. He has no experimental background whatsoever. In fact, since he was never educated as a biologist, he literally has never done any laboratory work at all. If he had, he might have some humility about what can be done in the real world using science and technology.

#24 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 January 2009 - 01:29 AM

Mr Lalancette,

It's interesting that you mention aviation history, since I have used this example myself, even if with conclusions somewhat different from yours. I'll quote myself from another thread on this forum:

What worries me is the possibility of technological 'bottlenecks', where lack of progress in certain areas could freeze human maximal life span for long time. If you look at certain areas of technology, like for instance aero spatial engineering, it seems that from the 60s the progress has slowed down enormously. I still remember when in the 70s people believed that by year 2000 moon flights would become almost as easy and accessible as intercontinental flights. Economic and political decisions play a very important role in all this. Personally, my hopes are in a breakout in nanotechnologies and quantum computers in a few decennia.


I think soon or late technologies reach a limit where significant improvements are no longer possible. However, they may be substituted by different technologies that can reach the same goal much more efficiently. One typical example is airplane propulsion. The performance of propeller planes is today only marginally better than in the 40s, because propeller engine technology has reached its limit. However, in the 40s jet planes were developed, a completely different propulsion technology that gave airplane performance a true quantum leap. I think the same is probably true for biotechnologies. But of course what is needed is the will and resources to create these new technologies. If the space race had proceeded at the same pace as in the 60s, I'm sure today we would already be on Mars. In fact, engines for a Mars rocket were actually experimented back in the 60s (the NERVA project if my memory doesn't fail me). However, the economic crisis of the 70s and the Soviet backing from the Moon race caused these projects to be dropped. So for the projects of orbital colonies from the early 70s.

When I travel by plane I often think how commercial aircraft today basically look like those in the 60s and have similar performance. That's not however for lack of technological development, but rather because for commercial companies it is just not economic to introduce radically new technologies. In reality projects for orbital commercial planes modeled on the Sanger principle already exist. Two commercial airplanes with performance far superior to the current ones did in fact exist, namely the Concorde and its Tupolev copy, but the Concorde has already been withdrawn from service because it was not cost worthy (the Tu-144 was officially withdrawn in 1978 but still used saltuary afterwards). Today far more advanced and exotic aerospace technologies are under development, like nanotechnology propulsion, that may well revolution space exploration in the future. Of course, we can't know for sure if these technologies will succeed. For that one would need the classic magical crystal sphere… But it's reasonable to hope that they will. Similarly, it seems reasonable to hope that progress in biology and related fields will achieve a significant lengthening of healthy human life span, both by implementation and development of current technologies, and by development of new ones. The odds may be more difficult than in some other fields, but it's at least reasonable to hope that progress will be achieved. Reasonable hope is very different from blind faith. The will to work toward achieving that progress is of course dependent from factors other than technology and science.

Talking specifically about SENS, its goal is finite, even if very ambitious by today standards. It's defeating aging, not turning us into omnipotent beings. So infinite technological progress is not required for its implementation. Even if it weren't possible to reach this ultimate goal, partial results would still be valuable (at least according to my scale of values). We don't know if these partial results will be realized, let alone the final goal, but there are at least some reasonable chances that they will. From my point of view – and I guess from that of most of the members here – what is at stake is so important that it is definitely worth to give a try to those chances.

To conclude, despite your attempts to criticize SENS on epistemological grounds, it seems to me that the real reasons behind your criticism are ideological and personal. I was impressed by your last phrase:

Fortunately, the looming end of the accelerating price-to-performance ratio of computers should deal a severe, hopefully mortal, blow to Transhumanism. (I reported the words that strike me most in bold style)

It sounds like you are moved by an intense hatred towards Transhumanism and – I guess – life extensionism in general. Whatever are the reasons behind this attitude, they certainly are not to be found on scientific or technological grounds.

Thanks for your attention.

Edited by Proconsul, 30 January 2009 - 01:39 AM.

  • like x 1

#25 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:23 AM

This topic reminds me of this kind of thing: http://www.interesti...0/msg00038.html

#26 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 30 January 2009 - 03:03 AM

Actually, he lost me a lot earlier (didnt have to read to the 10th post) when he called AG a computer guy.. FFS the guy is the editor of rejuvenation research! And lets remember einstein was just a patent clerk who failed high school! May as well accuse AG of having once worn diapers!


Being the editor of a journal is one of those jobs that few want to do because it requires a lot of work that is usually poorly compensated (if at all). I doubt that de Grey had to compete against other applicants for the job.

More damning though is that as far as I can tell, de Grey has never actually collected a data point. He has no experimental background whatsoever. In fact, since he was never educated as a biologist, he literally has never done any laboratory work at all. If he had, he might have some humility about what can be done in the real world using science and technology.


In my circles being the editor of a science journal is considered noteworthy. Additionally, there are those for whom financial compensation is not a high level consideration - I mean who in their right mind gets into science for the money, anyway? ;)

However, you have made an important point, and that is that he has, according to many critics, very limited bench experience.. On the other hand, that does not seem to matter to many senior scientists who have extensive bench experience and appear to respect him sufficiently to positively discuss his ideas, attend the conferences he organizes, etc.

At the end of the day, is he harming anyone with some of his more scientifically substrateless notions? No. Yet he has captured the imaginations of many, some of which may be drawn into learning about science and health, which is a good thing.

He is apparently, a remarkably intelligent and articulate fellow despite a tendency to be weighed down by a habit of abrasiveness. Perhaps you should meet or at the very least have a telephone conversation..

#27 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 30 January 2009 - 04:25 AM

Yep. These Transhumanists want to believe it and nothing you can say will change their minds. This only reinforces my feeling that I shouldn't be wasting my time with this nonsense. I'm not one to argue with religious believers since it is nearly impossible to change their minds and the main reason they believe is because it makes them feel good about themselves, so let them be.


I share your sentiment that elements of Transhumanism have a religious aspect to them. It is good to see another skeptic on here, especially one that can put together a coherent and logical argument. In the future, as niner asked, please do put each individual's statements in quotes so that it is easier to follow and attribute to the correct author. And don't get discouraged in fielding your opinions, though I suspect you'd be more well received if you didn't sound like you hated the concept of Transhumanism, altogether. That said, whatever your motivations might be, I don't mind--and actually applaud--your counter-position. Too often these forums are prone to an insulated bubble-world view of reality.

#28 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 January 2009 - 01:12 PM

So accelerating returns are not a guarantee. So what. Should we all stop working on a better future? Just sit around, accept our fate, and die. Every human generation has investigated, explored, and engineered things toward the goal of a better future. Is this the generation that gives up? Is that what you are hoping for?

Fortunately, the looming end of the accelerating price-to-performance ratio of computers should deal a severe, hopefully mortal, blow to Transhumanism.


To hope that transhumanism is dealt a mortal blow is to hope for the end of evolution on this planet. I know there are some people that think humans are a cancer/disease on the planet and everything would be better off without us (see Voluntary Human Extinction Movement), but this is not most people, and you won't find many of them here.
  • like x 1

#29 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 30 January 2009 - 03:41 PM

The problem with mr Lalancette is not his skepticism. Skepticism and doubts are generally good things, they help to develop critical thinking and to keep in touch with reality. The problem with him is his attitude. Most of us - me for sure - are here because they think that aging and death are bad things that are going to affects us, and we hope to be able to do something about it. Mr Lalancette comes here and tell us: 'Hey guys, don't even bother. I'm here to prove that you are wrong and to crush your hopes. And I really hope I will'. Even if he were right and wanted to tell us, I believe he should use a little more tact and respect. I may be blunt, but that's not the kind of attitude that's going to gain my simpathy (even if he probably doesn't give the classic rat's s**t about it anyway). Perhaps I should just grow a thicker skin.

#30 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 January 2009 - 04:58 PM

what about Jay Olshansky?. He is a skepticist but as far as I've understood he thinks prolonging health and life is a good thing.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users