Ben,

On 11/5/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Glad the convergence08 wiki issues were resolved ...
>
> About futurists: I don't think that term should be reserved for those who
> are actively working as scientists or engineers ...
>
> About Aubrey: I don't buy the argument that theoretical biology isn't real
> biology.  I think we need more theoretical biology.  In physics no one says
> a theoretician isn't a real physicist!!!


As I explained, I am on fence here. In physics, a theoretical
physicist clearly identifies the unproven assumptions, and experimental
physicists get right onto testing those assumptions. Further, they all work
in the same Physics Building on the University, talk things over with each
over in the coffee room, etc. It is EXTREMELY rare for someone like Einstein
to figure something important out in a vacuum (no pun intended).

More to your interests. After I wrote my first NN program, I took a 2-year
job at the University of Washington Department of Neurological Surgery, and
not only learned just about everything then known about neurons, but I also
learned how shaky that knowledge was, etc. I got more from the coffee room
than from everywhere else combined.

Fast forward 30 years. The head of the department is now the head of
research for the entire U of W medical center. He recently commented that
the BIGGEST loss to neural research was the loss of the coffee room when
molecular biology drove a wedge through the field.

In summary, I completely agree that we need theoretical people. However,
once a theory is on the table you simply can't stop there. If you know
something/anything new about aging, there is probably someone out there
whose life you could easily save (at least for a few years) with that
knowledge. If no such person exists, then your "knowledge" is probably
situated within some useless paradigm. In short, at least with longevity,
there is simply no excuse for not trying things out, as there is certainly
no shortage of experimental subjects.

Note that I have posted that I often work with elderly people to cure
whatever is presently killing them, but I have not (yet) worked with mice.
The explanation is simple: Human subjects find me - I don't even have to
look for them. They pay for their own lab work, etc. They are
self-maintaining, etc.

I have contacted Aubrey's Methuselah foundation for help in locating a
source of mice for others with my interest to practice on before moving onto
people, but so far, without success. They seem to be interested in my
approaches, but the labs who supply the mice are concerned about possible
press blowback when I turn mice over to the grandchildren of elderly people
to practice on before working on grandma, who of course has absolutely NO
other access to competent help, as the medical establishment has already
written her off and only wants to prescribe pain meds until she dies.

Now, as of yesterday, they can simply euthanize grandma, so what's the
problem?

Note that I had no trouble finding a veterinarian who would do the autopsies
of countless mice FOR FREE just to get this field moving.

I even talked to one lady whose time job it is to euthanize mice at the
University of Washington. Certainly, if the mice were to become someone's
pet as their owner tried various things, it would be a MUCH better future
for the mouse than a needle prick followed by nothing. I could just as well
been talking to a stone wall.

Hence, there is now an ever growing population of people who are
experimenting directly on grandma, having been given no other rational
choice by a system-gone-berserk.

In this crazy light, I cut Aubrey no slack at all, but still remain open
minded about whether he is a real futurist, or a pretent futurist. Perhaps
only time will tell.

Steve Richfield



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to