68 replies to this topic

[alex83]

I think that talking about not getting old or not dying is not enough, we all should do whatever we can to try to achieve it. If we won't no body would. I was wandering, what are you guys doing to achieve immortality? I think that listing a lot of ways acting towards it, would help people to decide the right and most effective direction. I will begin:

I am currently about to complete a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and a B.A in Physics and going to apply for M.Sc in Biology or Biomedicine (I haven't decided yet, I would talk to those faculties advisors soon...), I actually hadn't immorality in mind when I started studying, but I think that a degree in EE and Physics would be very helpful to me, because I intend to take a technical approach (i.e. not just doing a theoretical research but implementing the research for actually curing aging), so if I could start all over again I would definitely do both those degrees anyway. I sure that we all have less time than we think, so I try to get progress as fast as I can.

[reason]

http://www.longevitymeme.org
http://www.fightaging.org

Those would be my primary efforts, as well as what I can do around here and for the Methuselah Foundation. Basically raising awareness, advocacy, making the field respectable and more widely known, that sort of stuff.

I think that the tech side of things is in hand - in the sense that "all" that is required is a lot of money and a lot of hard work over the next half century. The problem is thus making sure that this money and hard work actually happens...

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Aegist]

I'm Studying Molecular Biology and Philosophy with an ends of Aging research in mind. I'm hoping people like reason will give me a lot of money one day

[reason]

Good choice - but don't forget to study computer science along with it: the future of medicine is bioinformatics.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Bruce Klein]

My next goal is to help people connect their brains directly to computers.

[alex83]

My next goal is to help people connect their brains directly to computers.

What do you mean exactly? How are you going to do it? (Do you participate in any particular research?).

[alex83]

Good choice - but don't forget to study computer science along with it: the future of medicine is bioinformatics.

If you want to make things happen in the physical world you have to influence it, by means like EE, physics, biology, etc. I strongly recommend studying some electrical engineering related courses instead of computer science, so you could try to implement you knowledge in Molecular Biology.
CS won't help you implementing your knowledge.
To stop/reverse aging we have to implement theoretical research as soon as possible. Rather than sticking to it. After all, that is the bottom line...

[Bruce Klein]

No actual research. My help is in bridging the information gap between researchers. Here's a small start: http://www.imminst.org/ibci more soon.

[David]

My areas are Psychology and Business, (majoring in marketing) which puts my perspective in a different headspace. I'm concentrating on cultivating a healthy mind body and bank balance so that I can increase my chances of still being here when immortality technology arrives.

In addition, I try to make the world a better place, by taking responsibility for both myself and my influence on my environment, both natural and human (not that we arn't a part of the envoronment!).

Promoting equality and free speech, two cornerstones of the free society I believe in are high on the list as well. Puts me at odds with some of the other more facist members from time to time, but that fine with me! I keep my mind open enough to understand and embrace their views, whilst agitating for sanity and change. Rome wasn't built in a day!

As you can see, I don't believe immortality is just about me, its about a valuable and desirable living zone.

Dave

[reason]

Dave, are you familar with Paul Wakfer? He's a life extensionist with libertarianism very high on his to-do list. You might find his ideas interesting:

http://www.morelife.org/

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Richard Leis]

Awareness is an important first step...it opens up your mind to the possibility that there is an option besides death. Education helps you transition from being a "fan" of immortality to a potential player. Control over your finances, and the capital to spend on immortality enablers, brings peace of mind. Activism, research, and investment put you in an overall better position.

Personally, I write to achieve immortality. I don't mean my writing is a surrogate for my own immortality but an actual enabler of my physical immortality. It exercises my brain, focuses my thoughts, fuels my resolve, offers continuing education opportunities, and helps me shape my own path into the future. It helps me put things in perspective. It reminds me where I am right now and where I want to be. When I write I write for others to read, but my audience always includes me.

Greg Bear in his novel "Blood Music" suggested that through thought (given sufficient individual consciousnesses) reality was malleable. We are shaping our immortal future simply by writing and discussing and learning and taking any action at all.

Edited by enoosphere, 21 March 2004 - 02:31 AM.

[ocsrazor]

I build electronic, microscopy, and software tools for observing and interfacing to large scale mammalian neural cultures in an effort to better understand neuronal computation and build the next generation of neural interface devices. Through my experiments I also hope to understand the nature of nervous system development, evolution, and information processing so that I may smooth the accelerating integration of humanity with its technology.

As a former molecular biologist, analyst of the aging biotechnology industry, and current bioengineer it is my opinion that classical biotechnology (biochemistry, molecular biology, drug development, etc) is facing huge compexity problems and running into several dead ends in getting at the problem of human aging.

The critical fields where progress is necessary for altering human aging include general systems theory, general and machine intelligence, information theory, mathematics of complex nonlinear dynamics, tissue engineering, materials engineering (including nanomaterials), neuromorphic engineering, semiconductors and computational hardware in general, and of course ( bias noted) neural interface engineering.

Molecular biology is of course useful as a tool, but it is reaching its limits as far as explanatory power. I think the most productive direction to move towards are hybrid fields such as bioengineering or systems biology. Any good bioengineer or systems theorist should be able to count MoBio as part of the their set of tools, but it is more often than not a means to an end.

The reason I moved away from the traditional biomedical sciences was that it became very clear to me that "better than original" tissue systems would be possible to design much more easily than trying re-engineer existing organic systems for longevity and upgradability, given all of the built-in legacy problems associated with biological systems. In short, interfacing components which give additional functionality to human beings are possible now, while wholesale redesign (which is what I believe will be necessary for greatly extended longevity) will still be a while in coming. We should use biology as teacher, but should not make its limits our own.

[Aegist]

I think I understand that Ocsrazor. The more I come to understand exactly what aging is, the more I understand that there is no 'problem' that can be solved, but rather an almost infinite list of interacting elements which just happen to result in deterioration of the body. To stop aging, is to cease having an evolutionarily designed biological body. The only way for us to stop aging is for us to either completely redesign ourselves biologically (way too much work), or for us to continue the fight of senesence delaying evolution. ie: Continue addressing the most frequent 'limiting factor' in our life span determinancy, and delaying it.

This fight could of course go on forever, and probably will. Our only hope is that it will go on faster than the aging itself occurs [lol] But no, this isn't really a solution.

[th3hegem0n]

On the track for studying about molecular biology and computer science.

[alex83]

Molecular Biology is a good choice, Computer science would not allow you to make useful technology for curing aging. Biology as well as Computer Science are not an engineering professions. You could do some research on aging but not an effective cure, which is what needed as fast as possible.
Electrical Engineering (ee) would grant you the knowledge to approach the problem. We don't need to understand the mechanism of life fully to maintain it. It is like a broken lamp, you don't need to know how it works, you just need to replace it and would be light again.

Some of the topics covered by ee are: microelectronics, nanotech, signal processing, control systems, communication, optics and electro-optics, biological signals and its processing, field theory, biological systems, etc.

To know the above is necessary for developing some real anti-aging technology (you simply have to know how to influence the physical world = how to implement your knowledge. otherwise you would end up performing a research that would be of no practical use in your life span. After all the main idea is to prevent the aging of people already alive (including yours), otherwise I don't see any point in all of this), without knowing this staff in addition to biology, your chances to develop something effective are nearing zero.

Although you can find the info in any universitie site, you can write me any questions you have about studying, and I would try to help.

[ocsrazor]

Hi alex83,

I have to completely disagree with you on CS making an impact on "curing" aging. Aging is a complex system problem and cannot be succesfully tackled by traditional biological research methods alone. Quite a number of the harder problems that we are facing in biology and bioengineering require better mathematics and simulations in order to be attacked.

There is a limited degree to which you can treat biological tissues as black box components. The highly complex system dynamics in the interactions between artificial engineered systems and the original biological ones can be more effectively studied if we do both computational simulations and empirical research and engineering. Development time for bioengineered systems is being greatly shortened through effective simulation tools. Anyone who wants to bridge fields such as th3hegem0n should be encouraged not dissuaded - we desperately need more computer scientists and theoretical physicists to get involved in studying biological problems.

Best,
Peter

[JonesGuy]

David bring up a good point; whether I do the research or not, it's likely that there will be more and more 'aging preventions' as I get older. The question then becomes whether we'll be customers or not.

Heck, we're already customers of a great deal of research (representing time, intellect, and money invested) with regards to life extension. Millions have been spent showing that smoking reduces your life expectancy, and millions more have been spent showing that it's good to eat your vegetables. I assume most of us follow these simple, though expensively derived, suggestions.

In the battle to cure aging, there are four types of participants. Researchers invest their time and effort in an attempt to understand and slow aging. Investors fund and support the researchers because they believe in some of the vision. Consumers purchase the products that are developed (whether information or goods). Arm-chair wannabees moan and whine and don't do anything.

I have a friend who really wants humanity to become space capable. If you talk to him, you can tell he looks forward to the day where people live and work in space. But, he's done almost nothing to speed the process. He won't write his politician. He won't buy information products. He certainly won't invest money in any start-up venture.

On the other hand, there are a million ways to contribute. BJ has invested resources and time, so that he can encourage immortalists. David says that he's saving to purchase the products when they come out. These are all valuable. Heck, even generating 'hits' on news articles on these topics will cause more articles to be written. Have you ever wondered why the cosmetics industry is so huge? Because everyone and their dog is interested in beauty. Most people are interested in living longer; they just don't want to talk about the process or pay for it.

[alex83]

Hi Peter,

If you want to implement theoretical knowledge in the physical world, you have to act by means of ee, theoretical physics is indeed very important for research, and very powerful tool in actual engineering (that's why I have done (not officially yet) a B.A in Physics (and almost done a B.Sc. in ee), and going to apply for M.Sc in physics in addition to some biology related Graduate studies).

Cs is a very powerful tool too, but I think that the topic of curing aging is so complex, that we need people that knows as much as possible about the behavior and possibility of influence on the physical (biological) world, we need to invent completely new approaches. Knowledge of biology and ee would give one so much more chances for developing such approach then Cs.
I think that physics is absolutely necessary too but you can't learn all at once, and I suppose that if th3hegem0n would decide to actually do the research on aging, he would have to learn Physics, if he would study Cs instead of ee (or at least biomedicine) he would lack the engineering approach and would not be able to invent any practical approach.

Without knowledge in engineering (signals and systems, some necessary math (that by the way don't taught in Cs), waves and em fields, staff like Electro-optics, etc), and Physics (Biophysics, Solid state, Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, etc), one would not be able to understand the biology, and of curse won't invent any practical approach, to curing aging.

The bottom line is that we have to invent some practical methods for prolonging our lives, to give us more time to proceed. This should be done as fast as possible, this could be done only by engineering approach.

If you really think that I am way wrong, please write some examples of the necessity of Cs degree (over ee) in the anti aging research. I think that studying ee with biology instead of Cs would give one tools way more useful, and maybe an actual chance in developing some working methodes.

Regards.
Alex.

[David]

"Dave, are you familar with Paul Wakfer?" Reason.

Thanks for that Reason. An interesting site.

David

[ocsrazor]

Hi Alex,

Just for background you should know that my three particular areas of expertise are: biology of human aging, neurobiology, and (recently) electrical engineering. I have a BS in microbiology, a MS in molecular and cell biology with a focus in neuro, and spent a few years as an analyst for the aging biotechnology industry. I agree with you that knowledge of the signals and controls fields are useful to understanding and interfacing to biological systems, this is the area I decided to focus my classwork for my PhD in. I am just completing my last semester of graduate level courses in EE. I now work on systems for interfacing to large scale neuronal networks.

What I am finding though is that engineering methods alone are just not capable of handling problems of the type of complexity we are encountering as bioengineers in the lab, and that we need better algorithmics to understand interface and control for these systems. I work with ee's who are tops in their field and the best we are doing right now is modeling ~1000 neurons and not very well, this just isn't good enough. We need better machine intelligence, data mining and pattern recognition systems in order to comprehend the volumes of data we are producing. We need better ways of handling massively complex nonlinear systems. This applies to systems biology too, we just don't really have a clue yet about massively nonlinear, emergent control. Improvement in this situation isn't likely to come from pure ee, but is likely to come from people woking in CS, pure mathematics, and physics in collaboration with biologists and bioengineers. In short, we need a synergy of all these fields, so multiple approaches should be considered - there isn't one path.

Best,
Peter

[macdog]

I think my greatest contribution to this emerging science will be my study of ecologics. As ocs says, massively nonlinear, emergent control is poorly understood, but it obviously works! The biosphere is just such a system, and the more we learn about how it works the more other aspects of systems theory and chaos theory will be revealed. The planet has done a pretty good job overall of surviving some pretty horrific shocks.

I also think that ecologics will go a long way to improving longevity by shifting the paradigm a bit. The average long-term city dweller has lungs that are almost indistinguishable from the average long term smoker. Right now we've kind of peaked on this man v nature paradigm, and most of live in cities with toxic air, polluted water and semi-regular heat waves worsened by the urban heat island effect that kill large numbers of people. Not to mention that the impoverishment of demographics leads to health risks for everybody by the encouragement of violence. There's also the requirements to survive in our economy by working for less than a living wage. Now most of the folks in this forum do their work, because they love their work, so it isn't a stress. Most people in the world do their work because if they don't they'll wind up on the street. I'm not saying we should all go back to being hunter gatherers, but we should definetly learn to get away from the paradigm that people need to starve so food will have value, people need to be homeless so shelter will have value. See my post "Tribes, phyles and 'claves" where I take a stab at addressing how a sort of sociological ecology could emerge. Again, that's another way I'd really like to work towards these goals, and in that case I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is.

[lightowl]

Q. What do you do to promote aging research to help everybody.

A. I currently don't have any official education that could help in actual aging research, so I am doing things where I can use my best knowledge and abilities. I am talking with people and trying to convince them that the world is changing. At least that is my opinion. And that they have a say in what this change is going to be. I genuinely dislike Smalltalk, so when I stumble upon people engaging in that kind of talk I actively try to change the subject toward immortality. It is tough activism, but I feel I am making a difference. Also, I am actively promoting and supporting The Methuselah Foundation. Then of course I am trying to show everyone I know and meet what is going on in circles like ImmInst. I am financially supporting people I think is doing the best work in promoting and actually doing aging research.


Q. What do you do to personally achieve immortality.

A. I realize I have to have a reasonably successful economy to have a chance of achieving personal immortality in my lifetime. So I am trying to pursue a stable progressive fulltime job while actively taking risks that may or may not ensure a fast cash flow. That is investing in the stock market and taking the occasional chance in the big lotteries. Heh, I know it is a long shot, but if you don't play you will not win. Also, I am giving my body a break, by not eating, drinking and smoking stuff that will hurt it. I am trying to keep my body fit to ensure as long a natural lifetime as possible.

[immorta]

Q. What do you do to promote aging research to help everybody.

I'm developing community project management software here: SuperConfa.com to allow people not only bla-bla without consequences on imminst site but also plan actions, time and resources nedded to personaly get ITPI (Immortality Technology, Product or Information)

Q. What do you do to personally achieve immortality.
I can do nothing now. I can only enlarge my lifespan with diets, calorie restriction, food breaks.... etc but it can make me immortal.

[bacopa]

In short, interfacing components which give additional functionality to human beings are possible now, while wholesale redesign (which is what I believe will be necessary for greatly extended longevity) will still be a while in coming. We should use biology as teacher, but should not make its limits our own.

Ocscrazor what do you mean by 'wholesale redesign', on a biological level or ee level? Also can one self teach themselves any of these complex fields of research study? Any books I should read? thanks.

[DogUnderTree]

Realistically: donate money, and try to get others to buy stock in private research companies like Michael West's Advanced Cell Technologies.

Edited by DogUnderTree, 21 June 2006 - 10:46 PM.

[kerr_avon]

Ocscrazor what do you mean by 'wholesale redesign', on a biological level or ee level?  Also can one self teach themselves any of these complex fields of research study?  Any books I should read?  thanks.

Not to speak for ocs but I think he might be getting at something like a "synthetic" cell. I have seen reports on Betterhumans.com about "naked" viral DNA being used for gene therapy and there have been experiments in cutting out all but a very few genes to see what is the minimal set needed to produce a working cell. I think what ocs said in his post was very interesting and touched on something that I've thought about. Biological systems likely contain huge amounts of what we computer geeks call "cruft". It's actually probably worse than that since at least crappy programmers have some idea what they're doing. Biology evolved randomly and so there's no overall teleology guiding the design. So instead of trying to figure it all out we just take what we can understand, throw away the rest and do a bottom-up redesign creating our own synthetic biology from scratch. So do I have it right ocs?

[kerr_avon]

First let me apologize if this post is vague or ill-formed since the thoughts driving it currently are as well!

I have a B.S. in Math and got about 3/4 of the way through an undergrad Physics program before that and switched to Math for boring financial and personal reasons I won't go into. Currently, I work as a programmer (web developer) for a defense contractor. I absolutely despise my job. Routine, mindless web app type work with a lot of Microsoft stuff I could care less about (I'm more an open source and Java guy). The atmosphere of the place is also stifling, depressing and ridden with fear and office politics of the most petty and vicious sort. I have the feeling that this particular career is played out anyway and in any case I am more and more interested in nano-tech, bio-tech, AI, genetic algorithms, (basically any of the more "out there" ideas in CS in general). I simply do not how to proceed.

I have thought of taking the GREs and applying to grad school but I've also looked at the subject tests in things like BioChem and even Physics and Math and I realize that I would need to basically go back and take some coursework to get my confidence up to the point where I could take the test and get a nice high score. I think you can take only the General test alone though and perhaps gain entry to a grad school so that you may begin taking courses in preparation for the subject tests. Does anyone know about this? I'm actually not very familiar with what actually typically happens when you go to grad school and it's been a while (10 years) since I was really plugged into academia.

I like ocsrazor's idea about bringing together CS, Math, Physics and Chem/BioChem as a way of achieving breakthroughs but it's a tall order. How to proceed. How to break off a manageable piece. There's also the need, for me anyway, to pursue something that will be profitable and not just acquire beautiful knowledge and then end up working at the Quik-e-Mart. This is essentially what has already happened to me - my current IT job is basically just a higher paying variation on "clean up in aisle 4" all damn day. I'm 35 but still single so I have more freedom than many people my age. There is still the mortage to pay though.

On a personal level and getting more back on topic: I'm doing the calorie restriction thing. I try to avoid gratuitous risks like smoking, drinking, rocket boating, cliff-diving, etc... and I work out every day. I'm thinking about adding resveratrol to my supplements. I'm sure there's more I could be doing.

[ocsrazor]

dfowler and kerr avon,

What I mean by wholesale redesign is using bioengineering methods to slowly augment and then whooly replace biological tissues. I see ee and bioengineering methods as rapidly overlapping within the next few years. As the process of mechanical, electrical, and general materials miniturization continues, there will be less and less separation between those fields and molecular, cellular and tissue biology (which have already become more technical disciplines than pure science).

I don't think a synthetic cell is particularly necessary, because the structure of a cell itself is a form of evolutionary legacy ('cruft' as kerr put it) That type of encapsulation will likely not be necessary in a wholly non-organic design. We are already engineering down on the scale of molecules and further progress in nano and related fields will give us a finer degree of control. There will need to be some form of hierarchical structure, but it will likely be even more distributed than what we currently see in organisms. The big advantage of cells is that you can produce a single organism from one cell, and that maintenance and damage repair is efficient - but these same advantages could be conferred with distributed molecular replicators (nanbots or the like).

Keep in mind this is long range speculation and that current bioengineering is going to be focused on just survival and immediate functional benefits rather than enhancement of capability. This means crude cybernetic parts (robotic limbs and organs, artificial skin, sensory devices, etc.) and stem cell replacement therapies will probably be the paradigm for the next 20 years or so. After that point biological and traditional engineering methods will fully merge and you will probably get systems which appear organic in their function and adaptibility, but are fully synthetic in their construction.

dfowler - as to books, I really need to catalogue my library at some point, I am drawing on huge number of different sources for this stuff. My book expenses for last year exceeded $3000! If you ask in a specific field I can try to give you a good selection.

kerr - just take your general GRE's, and then learn as much as you can about the specific field you want to enter. Most science grad schools base entrance on general enthusiasm for the subject combined with general GRE scores and undergraduate performance. It will help greatly if you can find a faculty "champion" at the department you want to enter. With your background you could easily enter a CS grad school and then find a project of importance to the bioengineering, AI, or Alife fields that would aid in moving the research paradigm along.

Best,
Peter

[kerr_avon]

dfowler and kerr avon,

kerr - just take your general GRE's, and then learn as much as you can about the specific field you want to enter.  Most science grad schools base entrance on general enthusiasm for the subject combined with general GRE scores and undergraduate performance.  It will help greatly if you can find a faculty "champion" at the department you want to enter. With your background you could easily enter a CS grad school and then find a project of importance to the bioengineering, AI, or Alife fields that would aid in moving the research paradigm along.

Best,
Peter

Thanks for the advice. I've learned a lot more about the whole business of grad school since I posted. I've taken the step of re-applying to UCF as a post-bac (still no declared field). They let you take courses as a non-degree seeker before you enroll in a particular program or take the GREs. I am still torn as to whether I should pursue more of an AI and pure CS and Math option or try to move back towards the physical sciences that I started in. Need to do some more reading I think. I still keep meaning to read up on Dennett and Minsky's theories about AI, not to mention Nanosystems. I am going to try to take something this fall that will be foundational for all the various areas we are concerned with here. I have a B.S. in Math as I mentioned, also most of a bachelors in Physics so I have the whole Calc/Physics track up to Calc 3 and Physics 3. Any suggestions for a good starter course, either grad or undergrad level to take that I can get some use out of? I'm looking for that "faculty champion" by the way. But that may take a while [lol]