this site is now closed to new membership and exists for archival purposes only
Which should be the main focus of scientific research in the immediate future, anti-aging (as argued by Aubrey De Grey) or A.I (argued by Ben Goertzel in his '10 yrs to a singularity' video)?
This topic was originally called "Criticism of SENS - Strategies to Engineer Negligble Senescence (Anti-aging)", as the subject matter of this discussion is similar, I decided to edit the original rather than start a new topic.
-Both scientists argue their corner very well, but which should be the main focus of science?
Dr. De Grey's argument is essentially that 'the clock is ticking' for all of us - and, as the technology is within our grasp we should work to prevent as many unnecessary deaths from aging as possible.
Ben Goertzel's argument is that creating a strong A.I is the quickest way to bring about a singularity (rather than through biotechnology). His is basically a ' rising tide raises all boats' argument.
Which is right?
-Both scientists argue their corner very well, but which should be the main focus of science?
Dr. De Grey's argument is essentially that 'the clock is ticking' for all of us - and, as the technology is within our grasp we should work to prevent as many unnecessary deaths from aging as possible.
Ben Goertzel's argument is that creating a strong A.I is the quickest way to bring about a singularity (rather than through biotechnology). His is basically a ' rising tide raises all boats' argument.
Which is right?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kurt Schoedel on
-
I think Aubrey's postulate that it is these 7 mechanisms that result in aging is essentially correct. His point that no reaction mechanisms other than these 7 have been identified since 1982, despite developments in analytical technology, is a very strong point in favor of his argument. The only mechanism of aging that has been pushed by his critics is decay of genomic DNA, which may or may not be the case. Aubry says this is a problem, but not one that shows up in our current lifespans. I think stem cell regenerative therapies is the way to deal with this problem.
However, his proposed methods of remediation may or may not work. I think he under-estimates the inherent self-repair capability that already exists in biological systems (such as ourselves).
I do think he is correct that nothing more advanced than somatic cell gene therapy is necessary to "cure" aging.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
His theory seems sound, which would suggest that aging could be cured through gene therapy.
But I'm not 100% convinced - it just seems far too simple.
Tricking the immune system seems to be central to some of the point of SENS, for example tricking it into removing extracellular 'junk'.
I don't know enough about the immune system to say for sure how realistic that is, but from what I do know - the immune system is pretty fickle. It differs a great deal from person to person. Plus it can counter act gene therapy and, if the therapy stimulates an immune response the first time, the immune system is liable to counter act any further attempts.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
For a while I have thought that nanotechnology could be used to create a sort of enhanced / smart immune system. However, I don't know all that much about nanotech - it could raise the same problems (regarding the immune system) as gene therapy.
Do you think it's more plausible?
-
Permalink Reply by Kemos on
-
An immunity chip which programs the ways by which the immune system responds.
Just like in Civilization: Call to Power!
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
I agree with both statements (SENS realistic and encouraging more research), I'm just interested to see what other people think about the subject.
-
-
The only technical criticism of SENS that i am aware of is the possibility that aging is cause by stochastic (random) damage to genomic DNA. Aubery argues that this is not so, but admits that this will be a problem when we are all around 200 or so. This means (in my book) that it is a problem. My suggestion to him is such and, therefor, we ought work on this as this will solve several of the SENS stands all at once (killing several birds with one buck shot).
Cloning tells us that this problem can be solved. Nuclear reprograming of regular cells into stem cells, then replenishment of the existing stem cell reservours (the hypothalamus being at the top of the cascade) should do the job. Contrary to the mama's myth, brains do grow new neurons over time (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/cp-nab051807.php). So the key here is to do this over a 5-10 year period such that individuality and continuity (meaning that "you" remain "you") is preserved with reasonable fidelity.
I have not received Aubrey's response on this.
The reason why I think that SENS is conceptually correct is that Aubrey has done the reasonable approach of analyzing the molecular biology of human systems, then proposed reverse engineering of it. This is far more sensible and, therefor, more productive than what the MD's and big pharma does, which is essentially random and, therefor, useless.
-
Permalink Reply by Peregryn on
-
I think that the main focus of scientific research in the immediate future, and therefore a focus of financial support as well, should be SENS research without a doubt. My reasons for this is that SENS research seems to be much closer to coming up with a solution than A.I. by a long shot. The main problem with A.I. is that we still don't even understand what consciousness is or even how our own minds work in anything more than a very fuzzy sense. This strikes me as a very large hurdle to overcome, something I don't think we are as close to overcoming as some might think. So, whereas there are a number of very fundamental problems that need to be solved for A.I., it seems that we have a fairly good grasp of aging, which means that it is just a matter of figuring out the details and the appropriate methods. As such, aging holds much more immediate promise, and besides, once we can live forever, we have all the time in the world to figure out A.I.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Dotse on
-
In response to the second title, the two aren't mutually exclusive, and we have more than enough resources to pursue them simultaneously. If we had to abandon one for the other, I'd support strong AI. Yes, I'm young and anti-aging means little to me at the moment, but if we want to consider the global political situation, strong AI would do a far better job of reducing the total number of casualties than SENS alone in the long run. Anti-aging can save lives now, but when radicalist groups start infiltrating nanotech labs all around the world, it would be interesting to see how the [human] centenarians devise a more effective counter-measure other than to indefintely 'stop the nano-presses!'.
In response to Peregryn, consciousness is not relevant for designing intelligence. Conscious humans developed mathematics, but a calculator does not need to be conscious to solve a quadratic equation. AI has done beautifully so far, despite what many people believe, and all that's left now is to piece together the independent narrow AI stuctures into a complete system.
That being said, I can understand if SENS is pursued instead because people would want to save lives now. I just think this will cost more lives in the future. I do see strong AI as the best solution to the world's current political situation, ie. it could develop solutions that no human would be smart enough or bold enough to propose. Whatever happens, strong AI will be developed, manhattan project or not. For me, the question of its development is not if, or when, but who.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Carver Tiffany III on
-
I agree with Jonathan that we have the resources to pursue both projects simultaneously. Regarding SENS v. Novamente anyway, I think Goertzel's pursuit has a much more promising potential, though also presents greater existential risk. As for probability of and time-frame for 'sufficient' project completion, I believe AGI research wins the day. While SENS may have a greater expected value in the short-term, AGI will simply be completed first.
We are incredibly close to solving the AI problem. Goertzel is implementing a design I believe will work (and, if it doesn't, will provide significant insight into what would work). In addition, I would argue that humanity has already developed a form of artificial general intelligence which has benefited mankind greatly: the Internet. Computer networking in all it's forms (including human interfacing) is now seeing a renaissance.
Not only is consciousness not relevant for designing intelligence, I believe, moreover, that it's straight up not relevant. In many aspects of my life, I'm attempting to mitigate, to more healthy levels, our Western reliance on Platonicism. I believe consciousness is a straw-man argument supporting ever-increasing counterarguments to dualism.
I'm going to continue to follow and support, in what ways I can, both projects. For the above (and other) reasons though, my money's on Ben.
About
© 2010 Created by Christopher on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
