• 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

First World Persons Age 55 have a 50% chance of immortality

#singularity #immortal

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 sensei

  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 30 December 2017 - 01:16 AM


Thoughts?

 

I think the Singularity will happen before the next 25 years.

 

Mean life expectancy is ~80 years.

 

 

For perspective:

 

Henrietta Lacks cancer cells are immortal -- they have been reproducing and infecting other cell cultures since 1951.

 

They keep going and going and going.

 

So -- human cellular immortality is a proven principle

 

The rest (not being cancer) is engineering.


Edited by sensei, 30 December 2017 - 01:18 AM.


#2 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 31 December 2017 - 06:43 PM

According to this, eliminating zombie cells will break the age-115 barrier:

 



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 31 December 2017 - 07:34 PM

According to this, eliminating zombie cells will break the age-115 barrier:

 

 

 

 

Jean Calment broke the 115 age barrier already

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Jeanne_Calment

 

There are a handful of 130-145 year old persons that have documentation that is still int he process of being verified



#4 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 31 December 2017 - 09:32 PM

Jean Calment broke the 115 age barrier already

There are a handful of 130-145 year old persons that have documentation that is still int he process of being verified

 

JeanC was mentioned in video as exception.

 

Your "handful" will be appearing here eventually:

https://en.wikipedia...Longevity_myths



#5 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 31 December 2017 - 11:20 PM

 

Jean Calment broke the 115 age barrier already

There are a handful of 130-145 year old persons that have documentation that is still int he process of being verified

 

JeanC was mentioned in video as exception.

 

Your "handful" will be appearing here eventually:

https://en.wikipedia...Longevity_myths

 

 

At least 20 people have been documented in the modern era to have exceeded 115 years -- so the idea that it is some sort of barrier is rubbish.

 

https://en.wikipedia...rson_since_1955

 

HeLa cells (human cervical carcinoma cells from Henrietta Lacks) have been dividing since 1951 -- and are functionally immortal 



#6 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 31 December 2017 - 11:25 PM

 

Jean Calment broke the 115 age barrier already

There are a handful of 130-145 year old persons that have documentation that is still int he process of being verified

 

JeanC was mentioned in video as exception.

 

Your "handful" will be appearing here eventually:

https://en.wikipedia...Longevity_myths

 

 

And the video completely gets the law of increasing entropy WRONG!!

 

Entropy ONLY increases in a closed system.  Our bodies are not closed, simply adding a bit of energy in the proper way (like for instance Crispr Cas 13 point mutation correction) can decrease entropy and increase order.



#7 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:24 AM

> At least 20 people have been documented in the modern era to have exceeded 115 years -- so the idea that it is some sort of barrier is rubbish.

 

Tsk tsk.  Missing video big picture.  Genetic barrier ~115.  :|?  :|?  :|?

JeanC NOT a product of scientific lifespan breakthrough, probably an outlier mutant.

117/115 = 1.7% = insignificant, a couple of mutants maybe.

NONE of (20) record-holders result of scientific lifespan breakthrough.

Science has raised human AVERAGE lifespan, not human lifespan genetic barrier!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dozens of significant scientific breakthroughs daily or weekly.

NONE have yet to be human life extension breakthroughs.  :|o  :|o  :|o

Yeast has been extended (10) lifespans, mice (2) lifespans, humans NOTHING :excl:  :excl:YET.


Edited by Rib Jig, 02 January 2018 - 12:25 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#8 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 January 2018 - 01:32 AM

PS. there's no lifespan upper end "long tail"...

except for 122 outliers, a graph of human lifespan fall off like a steep cliff at ~115;

with what other human physical statistic, does one see such a steep drop-off???

 

NOT height (at either end)

NOT running ability

NOT IQ

NOT any other body-brain-related function...??????????????

 

JUST LIFESPAN...?

 

PSS.  according to this, many of those "recordsetting"

lifespans you mentioned are discredited here:

https://en.wikipedia...ongevity_claims


Edited by Rib Jig, 02 January 2018 - 01:37 AM.


#9 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 02 January 2018 - 05:40 PM

 

> At least 20 people have been documented in the modern era to have exceeded 115 years -- so the idea that it is some sort of barrier is rubbish.

 

Tsk tsk.  Missing video big picture.  Genetic barrier ~115.  :|?  :|?  :|?

 

 

Tsk tsk

 

If there was a genetic barrier, cancer cells would not be immortal



#10 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 January 2018 - 05:50 PM

Genetic barrier of human lifespan not yet breached by science.

Unlike common sense barrier of this thread.

(kids, grandma died, but stop crying, her living cancer cells

are in that petri dish on her favorite rocking chair...)

Check. Checkmate.

 

 


Edited by Rib Jig, 02 January 2018 - 05:51 PM.

  • Cheerful x 1

#11 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 02 January 2018 - 08:34 PM

Genetic barrier of human lifespan not yet breached by science.

Unlike common sense barrier of this thread.

(kids, grandma died, but stop crying, her living cancer cells

are in that petri dish on her favorite rocking chair...)

Check. Checkmate.

 

If it's a genetic barrier, then cancer cells would not be immortal.

 

The video is a bunch of crap.

 

We already know that 

 

 2,3,5,4′-Tetrahydroxystilbene-2-O-β-D-Glucoside (a constitutent of He SHou Wu  (polygonum multiflorum))

 

Increases the maximal lifespan of senescent-accelerated mice by 17%

 

A recent study revealed that THSG prolongs the lifespan of senescence-accelerated prone mouse (SAMP8) by 17% and notably improves their memory. THSG also increase neural klotho protein level and reduce levels of the neural insulin, the insulin receptors, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and IGF-1 receptor in the brain of SAMP8 [5].

 

 

  1. X. Zhou, Q. Yang, Y. Xie et al., “Tetrahydroxystilbene glucoside extends mouse life span via upregulating neural klotho and downregulating neural insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1,” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1462–1470, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

 

https://www.hindawi....l/2016/4973239/

 

senescent accelerated mice are mice that age faster than normal -- they are bred from a naturally occurring strain of senescent accelerated mice (kind of like progeria in humans)

 

 

A 17% increase  is the equivalent of 140-160 year old people -- pretty close to the ages ascribed to Chinese Herbalists that took He Shou Wu daily for decades.

 

Oh -- BTW, it also induces stem cell proliferation and differentiation, reverses vascular senescence, induces cardio-myocyte generation, regulates blood sugar, and increases the clearance of lipofuscin.



#12 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 02 January 2018 - 08:57 PM

It's not possible to predict if and when the singularity takes place. It might take centuries. 



#13 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 January 2018 - 11:00 PM

It's not possible to predict if and when the singularity takes place. It might take centuries. 

 

BAM!  :cool:  :cool:  :cool: 



#14 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 03 January 2018 - 04:28 AM

It's not possible to predict if and when the singularity takes place. It might take centuries. 

 

 

Nope it's possible to predict it.

 

You might argue that it is unlikely the prediction is correct, but it it quite possible to predict, and correctly.


 

It's not possible to predict if and when the singularity takes place. It might take centuries. 

 

BAM!  :cool:  :cool:  :cool: 

 

Nope it's possible to predict it.

 

You might argue that it is unlikely the prediction is correct, but it it quite possible to predict, and correctly.

 

BAM -- learn what probability actually means.

 

Likely, unlikely -- could be correct

 

NOT POSSIBLE -- is an incorrect statement -- quantum physics proves there is a non-zero probability that anything can possibly happen -- therefore NOTHING is impossible



#15 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 03 January 2018 - 05:23 AM

It is not possible to predict it with any confidence, and it might take centuries. Do not expect that the magical singularity will save you in the future...that would be almost a religious belief. 



#16 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 January 2018 - 02:24 PM

> Do not expect that the magical singularity will save you in the future...that would be almost a religious belief. 

 

call it

a. Singularity Of Imagination

b. Genetic Barrier Deniers

???

 



#17 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 03 January 2018 - 03:52 PM

It is not possible to predict it with any confidence, and it might take centuries. Do not expect that the magical singularity will save you in the future...that would be almost a religious belief.


Your statement is false.

You believe it is not possible to predict with any confidence.

Using Moore's Law, one can confidently predict the approximate year computing powers will reach the level necessary for the Singularity to occur.

One can also use deep analytics and dumb AI to evaluate the exponential advancement in the biosciences.

From CRISPR CAS 9 to single base pair editing of live embryos that cured beta-thalessemia took 5 years.

From Watson and Crick to Crispr Cas 9 took 70 years.

It seems clear you don't believe the singularity will ever occur.

It also seems clear you don't believe tech advancement is exponential and will become asymptotic with respect to advancement (y) vs time (x)

All the singularity means is the point where human prediction of future technological advancements and capabilities becomes non-useful as the pace of advancement out-strips any reasonable predictive ability.

Math proves it will happen -- and quite soon.

AI can already beat us at GO and Chess, at stock market prediction, and many other things.

Many of the news articles written ont he web, (real news) are written by AI bots -- not actual people.

Edited by sensei, 03 January 2018 - 03:55 PM.


#18 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 January 2018 - 03:58 PM

The video.

And now this:

http://www.independe...y-a7346611.html



#19 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 03 January 2018 - 06:41 PM

The video.
And now this:
http://www.independe...y-a7346611.html


Nice opinion piece with no science behind it; just a lot of conjecture.

#20 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 January 2018 - 07:46 PM

Nice opinion piece with no science behind it; just a lot of conjecture.

 

Describes portions of this thread...??!!!

 

"no science behind it" indisputably disproved:

https://www.nature.c...les/nature19793

 

Prediction: next post in thread, from pseudo-science source, will call Nature crap...

:blush: I don't  :blink: like it  :blush: therefore  :blink: it is  :mad: crap



#21 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 03 January 2018 - 08:16 PM

Nice opinion piece with no science behind it; just a lot of conjecture.

 
Describes portions of this thread...??!!!
 
"no science behind it" indisputably disproved:
https://www.nature.c...les/nature19793
 
Prediction: next post in thread, from pseudo-science source, will call Nature crap...
:blush: I don't  :blink: like it  :blush: therefore  :blink: it is  :mad: crap


from the abstract you linked to:

"Here, by analysing global demographic data, we show that improvements in survival with age tend to decline after age 100, and that the age at death of the world’s oldest person has not increased since the 1990s. Our results strongly suggest that the maximum lifespan of humans is fixed and subject to natural constraints."

Like I said -- conjecture "suggest"

#22 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 05 January 2018 - 12:38 PM

When will algorithms become conscious, based on current "reliable" predictions? Are you assuming anything is possible given enough transistors?



#23 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 05 January 2018 - 03:45 PM

When will algorithms become conscious, based on current "reliable" predictions? Are you assuming anything is possible given enough transistors?

 

That quite depends on your definition of conscious, doesn't it?

 

At what point after birth do humans become conscious? - What are the criteria to determine consciousness?

 

One can make a very strong argument that we are nothing more than analog biological machines that have been taught to behave/believe a set of rules that we define as consciousness (sense of self, awareness of the world around us, independent cognition ...)

 

Yet some humans believe there is no self.

 

Take certain substances and the lines of what we call reality blur.

 

Gestalt...

 

So, frame your definition of conscious and we can start.



#24 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 January 2018 - 05:25 PM

Conscious = aware. Sense of self is not necessary.



#25 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 06 January 2018 - 05:52 PM

Conscious = aware. Sense of self is not necessary.

 

aware:having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

 

By your definition, some AI are already conscious as they are aware of changes in their environment via multi sensor input and respond accordingly.

 

Heck, by your definition a roomba is conscious because it perceives the imminent impact with the wall (situation) or furniture and avoids it.

 

By your definition Chess AI are conscious because they have knowledge of the FACTS of the rules of chess, and the situation of the pieces on the board.


Edited by sensei, 06 January 2018 - 05:55 PM.


#26 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 07 January 2018 - 11:06 AM

Aware means the algorithm "feels" something. Qualia is needed. 



#27 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 07 January 2018 - 05:18 PM

Aware means the algorithm "feels" something. Qualia is needed. 

 

Define "feels" -- if you are talking emotion (like empathy) then many humans fail the test.

 

People on the Autism Spectrum tend to lack empathy -- I have scored a 4 and a 0 out of 80  on the empathy test (low means lack of empathy)

 

If you are talking about a quale (singular for qualia) - a proposed instance of subjective consciousness in some schools of philosophy -- how can you DISPROVE an AI has actually had a quale/qualia

 

Furthermore, qualia in humans can be created/destroyed in the same way one would write a program. With the proper conditioning, a human who subjectively enjoys the taste of an orange (qualia), can be operantly conditioned to 'feel' nothing when tasting an orange. -(no qualia).  and vice-versa

 

Have they become non-conscious that they are eating an orange?

 

 

Or we take this classical thought experiment:

 

"Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

 

 

Is that not directly analogous to an AI that knows the same thing as mary about blue light, yet has only been exposed to red light, upon being exposed to blue light, and processing it through it's optical sensor -- does it not experience learning seeing blue light? 

 

IT's all about complexity of stimulus action response. 


Edited by sensei, 07 January 2018 - 05:46 PM.


#28 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 07 January 2018 - 05:51 PM

I have scored a 4 and a 0 out of 80  on the empathy test (low means lack of empathy)

 

Disturbing.

But you wouldn't care.

Me = 28.

Disturbing to me.

But you wouldn't care.

Regardless, thanks for pointing out test!!!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by Rib Jig, 07 January 2018 - 05:53 PM.


#29 sensei

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 929 posts
  • 115

Posted 07 January 2018 - 05:57 PM

 

I have scored a 4 and a 0 out of 80  on the empathy test (low means lack of empathy)

 

Disturbing.

But you wouldn't care.

Me = 28.

Disturbing to me.

But you wouldn't care.

Regardless, thanks for pointing out test!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Actually, it's part of mind blindness (another ASD issue) -- we can't believe anybody thinks any differently then we do.  (I mean, why would they like that book -- it was rubbish....)



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 08 January 2018 - 05:11 PM

Is consciousness a requirement for the singularity, or is superintelligence enough? 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users