92 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

Michael Annissimov , it is still a bump, not a spike but hey-new people will not only look at transhumanism, a few will stick around and help the movement (like JMorgan) . '09 is poised for a bit more growth than the past few years, and the Rolling Stones article is no PR disaster, I've seen worse bring in people to transhumanism. I'm sure you'll be accused of being culturally conservative one day as you get older. I feel a lot more conservative at age 33 than when I was in my early 20's, leaps and bounds--and that is only one decade

My daughter would love to color her hair, I'm still saying she has to wait till 18 Most of her generation (age 12) is into popular culture very heavily. Transhumanism is "geeky" (as she has recently been calling me--with a sort of respectful tone ) but it has been and still is growing. I'd love for things to come along more quickly, but I know from reading and teaching history--that societal change takes a lot longer than most people think. The best we can do is write, get the word out--support with our money as well.

[DJS]

I just want to say that Ray Kurzweil is the reason I'm here now.

I find myself wondering why you felt this desire. Do you feel a sense of loyalty? Obligation? In order to be a critical rationalist you need to get past such sentimentalities.

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we'd have to say that Aubrey's ideas are extreme too, but none of us are willing to say that. Why is it that we accept Aubrey's projections without any doubt, but we're ready to toss Kurzweil under the bus?

Joel, you bring up a point worthy of discussion. First I'd like to say that, obviously, Aubrey is his own person and can do as he pleases, but I can't say that I approve of him so closely associating with Kurzweil.

Now, in regards to Aubrey's time frame for reaching escape velocity - of course I have doubts! There are a (still unknown) number of technical hurdles which must be over come and I think Aubrey would be the first to acknowledge this fact. If you listen to him carefully you'll notice that he always adds qualifiers to his remarks such as "50-50 probability" and "given adequate funding". Aubrey is clearly aware that nothing is certain when it comes to the future. It seems, from everything I've seen and read of him, that he tends to view his bold prediction as a necessary evil which serves to counter balance the ubiquitous pessimism of the gerontological establishment. None of this means that I agree with making a prediction such as Aubrey's made, but at least I understand his motivation for doing so - he's trying to sell a scientific platform.

But what is Kurweil trying to sell other than warm fuzzy techno-rapture feelings about singularity? What's his agenda? The Singularity University? Are you kidding me? It looks like the branch davidian compound 2.0. Kurzweil exudes this sense of technological inevitability that can only be described as an article of faith. He states his predictions as a matter of fact. Even for the layperson, his graphs, charts and calcuations can be identified as gross misrepresentations. (See the links provided by Shannon earlier in this thread) Combine with this his long standing habit of making strange, unjustifiable claims about the power of technology and his crude, misguided conceptualization regarding the nature of human level intelligence and there you have it, Kurzweil in a nutshell. (pardon the pun)

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

[DJS]

the Rolling Stones article is no PR disaster, I've seen worse bring in people to transhumanism.

Shannon, I guess you subscribe to the "any PR is good PR" philosophy.

[eternaltraveler]

Yet another PR disaster.

I use to be conflicted about Kurzweil because his pop literature has served for many as an introduction to the futurist meme. But not anymore. This man is clearly unstable. Mainstream transhumanism needs to distance itself from him as much as possible.

Kurzweil has become the "mainstream" spokesman for transhumanism, like it or not. He has his own Hogwarts now, and two(!) films about him and his ideas will come out later this year. It looks like a well orchestrated public relations or propaganda campaign.

ya, ugh.

[eternaltraveler]

Aubrey is clearly aware that nothing is certain when it comes to the future.

Indeed this is true. I've known Aubrey for awhile now. And I don't agree with absolutely everything he says. But he can, and does, back up what he says, even his less conservative predictions have a foundation in reality. It is rational to assume that technological progress will continue after therapies like what he envisions come to reality which will prolong life past where his therapies alone could hope too. Whether or not this results in "escape velocity" for some people is debatable, but not unreasonable.

But what is Kurweil trying to sell other than warm fuzzy techno-rapture feelings about singularity?

More supplement books?

Despite Kurzweil not being entirely representative of, umm, reality. I still think he's probably been a net positive. Any PR is good PR when a movement is tiny and completely unnoticed. We are now past that stage and you are right we need to crystallize out those portions of the transhumanist/immortalist/sinularitarian community that base their work on a strong scientific foundation.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 13 February 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[advancedatheist]

But what is Kurweil trying to sell other than warm fuzzy techno-rapture feelings about singularity?

More supplement books?

Well, yeah. Thanks for reminding me of yet another part of the Kurzweil propaganda machine. He even uses the f-word in the title (a huge taboo in the current framing of cryonics literature):

Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever(!), due out in April of this year:

Product Description
In their groundbreaking book Fantastic Voyage, Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, M.D., resented the scientific evidence for radical life extension, foretelling dramatic advances over the next two decades that will effectively stop and reverse aging and disease. The book won raves from the scientific community and the book-buying public alike. As John Gray, author of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, said: “Fantastic Voyage boldly challenges conventional wisdom about aging and illness and offers groundbreaking solutions to remain young and healthy indefinitely.” Now the authors take their vision to the next level, providing the mainstream, health-conscious public with a practical and easy-to-understand program to slow down the aging process in order to take full advantage of the expected lifespan-extending advances in bio- and nanotechnology, right around the corner. The authors provide applicable tips on everything from the latest research on eating to prevent disease to how to talk to one’s physician about early detection using tests that aren't yet part of the standard check-ups, but will be. Medical research has become an information technology, and Transcend gives readers all the resources they need to stay on the cutting edge.

[advancedatheist]

My daughter would love to color her hair, I'm still saying she has to wait till 18 Most of her generation (age 12) is into popular culture very heavily. Transhumanism is "geeky" (as she has recently been calling me--with a sort of respectful tone ) but it has been and still is growing.

Posthumans Go Hollywood! (Maybe.)

[Mind]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

I am not sure what is wrong with the Singularity University - bringing top minds from different disciplines together during a time of rapidly converging and accelerating technology. Not sure what is so bad about that. Anyone care to explain? Or maybe we could just stick our heads in the sand. Woohoo! Might as well put an end to Lifeboat as well. Who needs to think about advancing technology anyway. lol.

[Mind]

All you super-rational-never-emotional snipers from the gallery should explain how we are supposed to get anywhere without leaders and visionaries. Anyone with a tiny modicum of knowledge about human history and human psychology should know how the masses are moved. It isn't by presenting scientific papers. How many of you have raised several million dollars of private money for longevity research? How many of you have spread as much awareness of technological changes - the potential, the challenges, the dangers?

I am not saying everyone has to be a mindless devotee, just be careful not to cut the movers-and-shakers off at the knees.

[brokenportal]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

I am not sure what is wrong with the Singularity University - bringing top minds from different disciplines together during a time of rapidly converging and accelerating technology. Not sure what is so bad about that. Anyone care to explain? Or maybe we could just stick our heads in the sand. Woohoo! Might as well put an end to Lifeboat as well. Who needs to think about advancing technology anyway. lol.

All you super-rational-never-emotional snipers from the gallery should explain how we are supposed to get anywhere without leaders and visionaries. Anyone with a tiny modicum of knowledge about human history and human psychology should know how the masses are moved. It isn't by presenting scientific papers. How many of you have raised several million dollars of private money for longevity research? How many of you have spread as much awareness of technological changes - the potential, the challenges, the dangers?

I am not saying everyone has to be a mindless devotee, just be careful not to cut the movers-and-shakers off at the knees.

I agree.

[advancedatheist]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation (.pdf), by Jonathan Huebner.

The Singularity Myth, by Theodore Modis.

I am not sure what is wrong with the Singularity University - bringing top minds from different disciplines together during a time of rapidly converging and accelerating technology. Not sure what is so bad about that.

If SU leads to some tangible projects, I don't have a problem with that. For example, get someone like Neil Gershenfeld in there with a fab lab and have the students start making stuff based on allegedly converging and accelerating technologies. Otherwise it just becomes just another discussion club not unlike the one J.R.R. Tolkien belonged to. (I can hear it now: When Kurzweil's turn to lecture comes up, someone in the audience complains, "Oh, no. Not another fucking semi-log graph!)

[DJS]

All you super-rational-never-emotional snipers from the gallery should explain how we are supposed to get anywhere without leaders and visionaries. Anyone with a tiny modicum of knowledge about human history and human psychology should know how the masses are moved. It isn't by presenting scientific papers. How many of you have raised several million dollars of private money for longevity research? How many of you have spread as much awareness of technological changes - the potential, the challenges, the dangers?

I am not saying everyone has to be a mindless devotee, just be careful not to cut the movers-and-shakers off at the knees.

Look, I'm a big fan of Aubrey. I'm also a big fan of Peter Thiel and other entrepreneurs. So I'm not sure what your point is. I understand that pragmatics are important, but the utility card does seem to be a little over used when it comes to Kurzweil (say, where else is the utility card over used? )

[DJS]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

Mind, I'm not disagreeing that technology builds off of technology. Nor am I denying the possibility that we will continue to see technology advance, possibly even to the point someday of technological singularity. So what then is the issue? The issue is about intellectual honesty. The issue is about the rate of change. The issue is about the continuous evolution/refinement of our understanding of our objectives and the (usually escalating) requirements for attaining them. And most importantly, the issue is about the intellectual humility these challenges should instill in us and our confidence levels when it comes to beliefs in future trends. Simply put, the issue is rationality.

And from my perspective, if you're make statements which betray an unjustifiable level of confidence, you're suspect.

[Prometheus]

All you super-rational-never-emotional snipers from the gallery should explain how we are supposed to get anywhere without leaders and visionaries. Anyone with a tiny modicum of knowledge about human history and human psychology should know how the masses are moved. It isn't by presenting scientific papers. How many of you have raised several million dollars of private money for longevity research? How many of you have spread as much awareness of technological changes - the potential, the challenges, the dangers?

Indeed, only one - Aubrey de Grey. And it is worth mentioning that there was another fiercely ideological scientist turned science populist who tackled a perhaps equally controversial topic - the existence of civilizations other than ours. He was Carl Sagan.

I am not saying everyone has to be a mindless devotee, just be careful not to cut the movers-and-shakers off at the knees.

The problem is that such movements attract mindless devotees. Many members here, for example have a striking slanted view of biology. That, does not help 'the movement'.

And exactly what does it mean to be careful not to cut the movers-and-shakers off at the knees?

[Mind]

Hey Don. I don't like how Kurzweil speaks with such certitude either. It would be nice if he put some time ranges on his predictions or a degree of confidence. But I am not prepared to cast him out or call him a nutcase. He, more than anyone else in the last decade has prepared businesspeople, scientists, and society alike for radical change. The radical changes might not occur exactly as he predicts but there will be great societal upheavals due to technology (as there has been throughout human history). If there is one thing I have noticed in my short life is that people react very poorly to change ("going postal" - just one example). Kurzweil gives 50 to 100 lectures a year all over the world. He has been doing this for over 5 years now. Even if his techno-utopian version of the future is not correct, at least people are thinking about it and at least they are given a version of the future that is positive and a reason to work for that future - instead of just going postal.

My main criticism of Kurzweil - as Mark mentioned earlier (very funny by the way) - is that he keeps using the same graph with the same data points. He needs to start updating it and point out where things have been correct or if there are some bottlenecks or economic/social pressures against accelerating change, things like that.

[eternaltraveler]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

yes.

he makes predictions that violate laws of physics like saying he is going to bring his non suspended father back to life, and he heavily promotes use of a garbage can full of supplements with no rational basis behind them.

I'm not at all saying he hasn't been helpful, as I said above, he has, but the man is not above reproach, and he'd be a lot more helpful if he dropped about 190 of his 200 supplements (and probably healthier), dropped the singularity as a religion, and dropped the predictions that are impossible without time travel (unless he has a theoretical framework that shows a sufficiently advanced civilization will be able to time travel).

rational dialog is critical within our movement if it is to be a success in a reasonable time frame and not have us all branded nutcases until the day we die. We must totally avoid mindless devotion.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 14 February 2009 - 07:10 PM.

[advancedatheist]

he makes predictions that violate laws of physics like saying he is going to bring his non suspended father back to life,

Depends on how you define "back to life." Would a clone of Kurzweil's dad based on DNA fragments extracted from his remains count? The idea of reconstructing the Neanderthal genome would have sounded like science fiction 20 years ago, yet Fredric Kurzweil's grave provides a much fresher DNA sample.

and he heavily promotes use of a garbage can full of supplements with no rational basis behind them.

Ironically the Rolling Stone article starts out by mentioning Kurzweil's unhealthy appearance and fatigue from jet lag. You'd expect that from a 61 year old man who tries to live more energetically than he should.

[Prometheus]

It seems, from everything I've seen and read of him, that he tends to view his bold prediction as a necessary evil which serves to counter balance the ubiquitous pessimism of the gerontological establishment. None of this means that I agree with making a prediction such as Aubrey's made, but at least I understand his motivation for doing so - he's trying to sell a scientific platform.

For a 'devotee', this is a very honest appraisal..

Kurzweil exudes this sense of technological inevitability that can only be described as an article of faith. He states his predictions as a matter of fact. Even for the layperson, his graphs, charts and calcuations can be identified as gross misrepresentations. (See the links provided by Shannon earlier in this thread) Combine with this his long standing habit of making strange, unjustifiable claims about the power of technology and his crude, misguided conceptualization regarding the nature of human level intelligence and there you have it, Kurzweil in a nutshell. (pardon the pun)

Kurzweil is riding high on numerous business and technological accomplishments, which provide strong confidence in his estimations. Evidently he has been on the mark on matters of technology but in my view, and I should qualify that I haven't read any of his stuff with the exception of snippets and articles about him and his work, he does not appear to have the vantage of someone who has undergone formal training in life sciences. For a demonstrated prodigy-level thinker like Kurzweil this may not be as much of a hindrance, however. But I am surprised that in his efforts to influence metabolism by megadose micronutrient supplementation he has not taken into account nutrigenetic individuality.

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

That is very harsh treatment indeed. Clearly you (and others subscribing to this view) are threatened by him. Why?

For a de Grey apologist why do you particularly find it so difficult to stomach Kurzweil's conjectures?

How do SENS and cryogenics, as examples, compare favorably to Kurzweil?

[Prometheus]

From 1982 to 2008 Kurzweil has been awarded 15 honorary doctorates of which 9 are for science..

[eternaltraveler]

Depends on how you define "back to life." Would a clone of Kurzweil's dad based on DNA fragments extracted from his remains count? The idea of reconstructing the Neanderthal genome would have sounded like science fiction 20 years ago, yet Fredric Kurzweil's grave provides a much fresher DNA sample.

uhh...

is it murder if you kill only one twin?

[Shannon Vyff]

the Rolling Stones article is no PR disaster, I've seen worse bring in people to transhumanism.

Shannon, I guess you subscribe to the "any PR is good PR" philosophy.

Unequivocally so , that is the reason I'm a cyronicst--I saw a horrible "scam/scare/shock" piece about Alcor when I was in high-school, really I was interested in the fact that there were actually cryonics organizations and I started researching on my own, ordered CI paperwork at 19. That Rolling Stone piece was not even meant to disgust people, in all it was interesting and a little bit "out there".

[Shannon Vyff]

Aubrey is clearly aware that nothing is certain when it comes to the future.

Indeed this is true. I've known Aubrey for awhile now. And I don't agree with absolutely everything he says. But he can, and does, back up what he says, even his less conservative predictions have a foundation in reality. It is rational to assume that technological progress will continue after therapies like what he envisions come to reality which will prolong life past where his therapies alone could hope too. Whether or not this results in "escape velocity" for some people is debatable, but not unreasonable.

But what is Kurweil trying to sell other than warm fuzzy techno-rapture feelings about singularity?

More supplement books?

Despite Kurzweil not being entirely representative of, umm, reality. I still think he's probably been a net positive. Any PR is good PR when a movement is tiny and completely unnoticed. We are now past that stage and you are right we need to crystallize out those portions of the transhumanist/immortalist/sinularitarian community that base their work on a strong scientific foundation.

Very well put

[Shannon Vyff]

I use Kurzweil as a hero with my own kids, and the kids in the classes I teach. He was a child genius, he's done much to help those with disabilities --and he is one of the world's best known futurists. He inspires kids and gets them excited, I think his book do the same for adults and we need that. He is right with over half of what he says, no one can be right all the time--but he gets more right than most people do. He helps businesses, he helps the "extreme" life extension movement and he has invested greatly in the development of truly sentient artificial intelligence. I'm very excited that more people will be learning about him, and in turn general transhumanism this coming year .

[advancedatheist]

Mark, why are you so culturally conservative, always being all crotchety about what my generation likes?

Let me take another stab at answering this, Michael.

About a decade ago the A&E cable network ran a series called "The Unexplained." One of the episodes dealt with "human transformations," and profiled two individuals. The first one, a plain-looking Ohio farm girl named Cindy Jackson, found the sort of life her social background threatened to lock her into as an adult thoroughly unappealing, so she vowed when she grew up to try to look like her Barbie doll, and to try to live in the way she imagined a real-life Barbie would live. When she came of age, she therefore moved to London (and why wouldn't Barbie live in London?) to study art and perform as a rock musician; then when she inherited some money, she started to undergo a series of cosmetic procedures to approximate the way she thought Barbie would look. Her improved appearance and self-confidence also enabled her to move in more elite London circles (like a courtesan, I gathered), and eventually she founded a successful cosmetic surgery consulting business. (I don't know how her finances look now, given the UK's participation in the worldwide economic collapse.)

That took up the first half of the episode. The second half profiled, as Wikipedia puts it, "a Chicago man whose fascination with the Star Trek universe prompted him to transform his own life by leaving his marriage and family and taking a 'higher calling,' to become the leader of the International Federation of Trekkers."

Uh, right.

After watching that episode a decade ago, I realized that both of these individuals had some emotional problems they probably could have dealt with in better ways. But I came away from it respecting Cindy Jackson a whole hell of a lot more than the Trekker. The Trekker guy chose Gene Roddenberry's franchised "virtual world" as a distraction from an otherwise unfulfilling life, which doesn't solve anything because all this Star Trek nonsense doesn't exist.

By contrast Cindy, who wanted to look and live like her childhood Barbie doll, ironically chose a difficult but feasible path in the real world: London exists, cosmetic surgery exists, glamorous social networks exist, etc. She could have taken the easy route of dwelling in the "virtual worlds" of romance novels, soap operas and chick flicks, like a lot of frumpy women who feel excluded from ever looking attractive and having relationships with high status men. Instead she worked to instantiate her dreams in her real life.

I can relate better to people who want to do the Cindy Jackson thing than I do to people who call computer games "the wave of the future." To me she looks like a role model for a "real" transhumanist, though she might not have ever even heard of transhumanism.

Edited by advancedatheist, 15 February 2009 - 02:39 AM.

[advancedatheist]

From 1982 to 2008 Kurzweil has been awarded 15 honorary doctorates of which 9 are for science..

That works out to about 0.58 of a doctorate per year. Has that rate started to accelerate recently? Kurzweil might have to start another semi-log graph.

[niner]

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we'd have to say that Aubrey's ideas are extreme too, but none of us are willing to say that. Why is it that we accept Aubrey's projections without any doubt, but we're ready to toss Kurzweil under the bus?

How do SENS and cryogenics, as examples, compare favorably to Kurzweil?

SENS doesn't require any alterations to the laws of physics. SENS, or at least significant parts of it, really doesn't even require any new technology. It only requires further application of existing technology. It's an engineering problem. Kurzweil resurrecting his father is just crazy talk.

[Prometheus]

How do SENS and cryogenics, as examples, compare favorably to Kurzweil?

SENS doesn't require any alterations to the laws of physics. SENS, or at least significant parts of it, really doesn't even require any new technology. It only requires further application of existing technology.

Are you sure? What about the two major ones, OncoSENS and MitoSENS? They are riddled with technical and scientific challenges. For example how do you stop telomerase expression throughout the body in every single cell that expresses it? Even if you accomplish that how do you sustain tissues that turn over new cells on a daily basis such as the epithelia of the alimentary canal? Even if the magic enzymes are discovered for GlycoSENS, AmyloSENS and LysoSENS, how are they going to be localized to the target sites? On the SENS site they write that for LysoSENS its as simple as incorporating the enzymes in bone marrow stem cells but how will the stem cells find their way to the atheromatous plaques and by what mechanism will those stem cells secrete the requisite enzyme? To address amyloid plaques, in AmyloSENS they talk about a vaccine to induce an inflammatory response and use as an example the work done by Elan but their efficacy studies are dubious at best. In other words, don't assume its a done deal. It may all sound convincing to the layman but the technical implementation is completely undefined.

It's an engineering problem.

It's an implementation problem. Its a proof of concept problem. In fact it remains a hypothesis until any of it can be shown to work.

Kurzweil resurrecting his father is just crazy talk.

With respect, unless you are a postgraduate physicist you are as unqualified to presume on Kurzweil's craziness as you have been to assume that de Grey has discovered a cure for aging that needs some 'engineering' refinement to make it work..

NB This is not a dump on SENS post. I consider the notion of SENS electrifying and I am a de Grey admirer, however, I am appalled at how SENS devotees can be so judgmental of Kurzweil, a decidedly brilliant man, whilst being accepting of de Grey to the point of blatant gullibility. To the external observer this type of asymmetrical stance only serves to weaken SENS's position because it appears as if it is being supported by academically unsophisticated fanatics.

[advancedatheist]

I am appalled at how SENS devotees can be so judgmental of Kurzweil, a decidedly brilliant man, whilst being accepting of de Grey to the point of blatant gullibility.

I don't get the whole de Grey cult following, either. But then, I've seen a couple cycles of cure-for-aging claims come and go. I've said elsewhere on this forum that if de Grey's ideas don't work, scientists need to find that out sooner rather than later so that they can move on to possibly better ideas.

Regarding the previous cycles of anti-aging enthusiasm, I didn't attend the 1978 Alcor conference about "life extension sciences" described in this ad published in the now defunct L-5 News. But it looks like at least 8 (~ 25 percent) and possibly more of the people listed as speakers have died by now. Only three of them that I know of -- Leaf, Esfandiary & Segall -- went into cryonic suspension. Robert Anton Wilson had the brain of his murdered daughter Luna Wilson placed into cryonic suspension a couple years before this conference (and as far as I know some cryonics organization still has her), but it looks like he allowed for conventional burial or cremation for himself:



So, I have to wonder if we'll see Kurzweil's and de Grey's names listed on similar conferences in our century which will seem ironic after they've died according to the actuarial table.

[niner]

How do SENS and cryogenics, as examples, compare favorably to Kurzweil?

SENS doesn't require any alterations to the laws of physics. SENS, or at least significant parts of it, really doesn't even require any new technology. It only requires further application of existing technology.

Are you sure? What about the two major ones, OncoSENS and MitoSENS? They are riddled with technical and scientific challenges. For example how do you stop telomerase expression throughout the body in every single cell that expresses it? Even if you accomplish that how do you sustain tissues that turn over new cells on a daily basis such as the epithelia of the alimentary canal? Even if the magic enzymes are discovered for GlycoSENS, AmyloSENS and LysoSENS, how are they going to be localized to the target sites? On the SENS site they write that for LysoSENS its as simple as incorporating the enzymes in bone marrow stem cells but how will the stem cells find their way to the atheromatous plaques and by what mechanism will those stem cells secrete the requisite enzyme? To address amyloid plaques, in AmyloSENS they talk about a vaccine to induce an inflammatory response and use as an example the work done by Elan but their efficacy studies are dubious at best. In other words, don't assume its a done deal. It may all sound convincing to the layman but the technical implementation is completely undefined.

It's an engineering problem.

It's an implementation problem. Its a proof of concept problem. In fact it remains a hypothesis until any of it can be shown to work.

Kurzweil resurrecting his father is just crazy talk.

With respect, unless you are a postgraduate physicist you are as unqualified to presume on Kurzweil's craziness as you have been to assume that de Grey has discovered a cure for aging that needs some 'engineering' refinement to make it work..

NB This is not a dump on SENS post. I consider the notion of SENS electrifying and I am a de Grey admirer, however, I am appalled at how SENS devotees can be so judgmental of Kurzweil, a decidedly brilliant man, whilst being accepting of de Grey to the point of blatant gullibility. To the external observer this type of asymmetrical stance only serves to weaken SENS's position because it appears as if it is being supported by academically unsophisticated fanatics.

I believe I have sufficient postgraduate training in the "hard" sciences to comment on the unlikelihood of Kurzweil seeing his father again. My main point is that SENS does not appear to require technology that does not presently exist. If this makes me a SENS "devotee", and "accepting of de Grey to the point of blatant gullibility"... well I don't see the connection. Should we assume that you believe Kurzweil will be successful at reanimating his father? If so, does this make you a blatantly gullible Kurzweil devotee?

[Mind]

Better tools help us make better tools. Better computer software and hardware help us make better computer software and hardware - the central tenet of Kurzweil's predictions/theories. If you are going to say Kurzweil is a nut, an embarrassment, and be thrown under the bus, you should at least explain why or how our tools will all of a sudden stop getting better. Anyone want to take a stab?

A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation (.pdf), by Jonathan Huebner.

Inventor Woody Norris says "Almost nothing has been invented yet".