Discussion at X PRIZE news.

The discussion continues over at X PRIZE news.

http://xprizenews.or...der=asc&start=0

I'm glad that Dr. Keith is staying in this. Most would have been disaffected and quit, but he sticks with it, determined to make his point. And he is pointing out weaknesses in the SENS presentation (not necessarily the science) that I have been worried about, so perhaps this might be an opportunity for improvement. Improvement will definitely be needed in the next few years for SENS to be taken seriously by the public and by the scientific community.

Jay

I'm glad that Dr. Keith is staying in this. Most would have been disaffected and quit, but he sticks with it, determined to make his point. And he is pointing out weaknesses in the SENS presentation (not necessarily the science) that I have been worried about, so perhaps this might be an opportunity for improvement. Improvement will definitely be needed in the next few years for SENS to be taken seriously by the public and by the scientific community.

I disagree with you Jay. The guy has demonstrated that he is just another uninformed biologist who has a predetermined way of looking at things. I suspect he hasn't really even bothered to look at the SENS proposal in its entirety.

He's pretty much a blow hard playing to his small little click of people. Overall, I am not very much impressed with his level of knowledge or his ability to critique SENS.

Does SENS need improvements? Yes, I think even Aubrey would agree that it will require modifications. Did "Dr" Keith really point out any of its deficiencies? No, his only really attempt was his argument regarding "biological entropy" which he completely bungled.

Given how quickly Dr. Keith has come up to speed in this debate, and given his arrogance as a scientist matched against no one yet with a doctorate, and some without even a degree in biology, which must be frustrating, I'm impressed that he's still in this, and he's taking the time to answer most of the points being brought up. Yes, some common mistakes, but remember, he doesn't have our background of having heard the same mistakes being parroted, so I don't fault him as much. On the other hand, we could argue that, as a scientist in the field with a doctorate (supposedly), he should be held to a higher standard. But hey, at least he's speaking on the record, right?

And yes, I think he did point out deficiencies. The problem was, he pointed them out from the point of view of our current technology, giving no thought for how quickly science is advancing (he even derides the gains of the last five years, let alone the last twenty, by saying that we have at best refined old technologies, with no new pertinent information).

So I think his biggest problem is his lack of appreciation for Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, which applies as much to biology these days as it does to computers.

It seems to me that Keith has made up his mind. If he where really interested in disputing SENS he would have made his way to the SENS discussions here on ImmInst which I have pointed him to more than once. I am guessing he took a hastily position and is now trying to win the argument with any method necessary. He is continually trying to attack my person rather than responding to my points. The hole thing also has a kind of "Insiders vs. Outsiders" fringe to it which is rather damaging to the discussion.

I am hoping the discussion has given other readers some perspective but I doubt Keith will change his mind.

I am guessing he took a hastily position and is now trying to win the argument with any method necessary. He is continually trying to attack my person rather than responding to my points.

Bingo. Come on Jay, take off the rose colored glasses. Whether the guys has a PhD or GED I could give a hoot. I'm interested in his arguments, and they've all been deficient as far as I am concerned.

It seems to me that Keith has made up his mind. If he where really interested in disputing SENS he would have made his way to the SENS discussions here on ImmInst which I have pointed him to more than once. I am guessing he took a hastily position and is now trying to win the argument with any method necessary. He is continually trying to attack my person rather than responding to my points. The hole thing also has a kind of "Insiders vs. Outsiders" fringe to it which is rather damaging to the discussion.

I am hoping the discussion has given other readers some perspective but I doubt Keith will change his mind.

While I appreciate some (by no means all) of Dr. Keith's critiques, I can agree with what lightowl has said.

I remember him lambasting (well, trying, he failed miserably on the science) the cell depletion point, but he claims he dissected all seven points. I must have missed that one, I'll go back and look. He seems to be holding it as a sore point that no one has critiqued his critique of all 7 points, and using that as an excuse to not dive too deeply into other people's critiques of his position.

These kinds of ad hominem attacks are even more common from professionals who fall into dispute with non professionals I often find as they tend to feel they are defending their *credentials* as an extension of their credibility.

I find it is a sure sign of weakness when the credentials come out and someone says: "You should believe me because you should respect my experience."

and definitely when it deteriorates quickly into my opinion is worth more than yours regardless of the facts because of my credentials.

and definitely when it deteriorates quickly into my opinion is worth more than yours regardless of the facts because of my credentials

Absolutely. When someone brings this into an arugment it is a sure sign that they are standing on a foundation of sand.

Ooh, Aubreys over there now. This should be interesting.

I've been following the entire discussion, it's a little above my head, but an interesting exchange nonetheless. Dr. Keith seems to be intelligent and knowledgeable, but he's also a bit abbrasive.

Dr keith is the most annoying person i've ever seen on a forum

Or as prometheus (whom he refers to as "promdress" ) would say, "Dr" Keith. [lol]

Yeah, you get these types from time to time, but it has made for a thought provoking exchange.

All:

I posted an earlier version of this an hour or so ago, but it doesn't seem to've appeared; apologies if this winds up being a double-post.

Dr_Keith_H: I was (and remain) unwilling to devote too much attention to what appears to be an unfinished work. I find it regretful that you would let something like "the cell replacement issue" stand as it is, as you must agree it is insufficient at the moment. I recommend that you flesh it out further, no doubt others have recommended this?

prometheus: Has it not occured to you that the area of cell replacement, ... due to having a broader range of therapeutic applications is being maniacally pursued by a great many investigators - whilst the more anti-senscence (hence generally avoided by mainstream biogerontologists) oriented targets such as genomic and mitochondrial stability have been comparatively neglected. It is these targets which de Grey has focused his efforts on, using a simple yet innovative approach to formulate a methodology of adressing the aging problem - at least until, as he says "escape velocity" is achieved, ie a sufficiently advanced technology comes along that makes his proposed interventions superfluous by enabling more advanced methods of lifespan extension.

His methodological innovation was to liberate the design of a solution from the requirement of a high degree of knowledge about the system he was looking to modulate - much like the Wright brothers did when they solved the problem of flight without having the requisite knowledge of aerodynamics in order to do so.

Here, Prometheus shows clearly something that I confess to having doubted: that despite his disagreements about SENS prioritization and the "NeoSENS" alternatives, he is genuinely above partisanship and fully able to recognize both the value of de Grey's contributions and the SENS approach in particular. Sir, my hat is off to you.

With apologies to Ben Franklin: we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly molecular entropy shall hang us all separately.

-Michael

And my hat off to you for your content and consistency.

Anyway, like most of you I was hoping for some constructive criticism to emerge from a different point of view. As yet, their prima donna, Keith does not appear to have read the substance of SENS aside from his focus on cell replacement. It seems that both he and his audience enjoy his style above substance.

Jay, if you can see value in it why don't you have a go at conversing there - be careful however - he is as likely debate biology as to mutate names and I can easily see Jay Fox turning into something like Gay Sox . I have been called "prom dresser" and Aubrey has been called "de Gay". It's quite hilarious really, but at this stage I have yet to see any original thinking - PhD or otherwise. Incidentally Jay, I have had more theoretical biology conversations of value with non-PhD's than PhD's - you are a good example! I suppose I have not had much luck with conversing with brilliant PhD people - they must be hard at work.

Dr. Keith seems to be coming around in his last few posts, and playing it off as "I was just trying to help you guys improve your message", roughly paraphrased. Actually, if I didn't know better, I'd say Aubrey has a new convert among the PhD "elite". And yes, the quotes were meant to be ironic on multiple levels.

Heh, I just realized the irony of calling him a "convert". Anyway...

Jay, if you can see value in it why don't you have a go at conversing there...

With Aubrey over there, at this point, I don't see any point in my posting there. About the only point I'd like to make, in rebuttal to Dr. Keith, is that, while it's true that problems may appear once we've taken people beyond "normal" lifespans, Aubrey has already covered this point.

I believe it might even be on the SENS website somewhere: the concept of testing SENS on chimps (and I'd prefer a second primate species at least, just to cover our bases). Given that they age roughly twice as fast, with respect to most aging phenotypes, and certainly no slower across the vast majority, any problems that might pop up in humans will (should?) show up first in chimps, decades earlier, buying us time to figure out how to fix them.

Hey chumps ... now now ... that's just my style, I'm a medium nasty sort of person even in real life but I get by, so don't take anything personal like. Except for promdress of course, he can't help but take it personal. Oh get over it, I wont be here very long and you can soon and with good conscience forget I ever existed.

Well, this thread sure is interesting (well of course, how could one not be interested in a thread where one is given a large dose of largely undeserved limelight). Ha!

I'll just make a couple of points (well, points is stretching it for most of them) and be on my way. Obviously you will find that they are in no particular order.

i) I call promdress that because he showed that he has a really thin skin from the getgo and doesn't really stop to think before he posts ... he totally missed my "sleepwalker"/donnie darko reference and went of his head about something indignant. This has motivated me to ignore him for the most part ... my loss I guess.

ii) I only looked at the "cell depletion" part of the SENS proposals and I have not looked at anything else. The thing I whined about was that it (the very little bit I looked at) seemed very superficial. Having found it so, I didn't bother going to the others. I have been informed that it is aimed at the average reader.

iii) I ignored Micheal for two reasons, mostly because Aubrey showed up and secondly because he is one amazingly loquacious person (yes I know, pot - kettle - black) and I literally didn't have time to put it all in proper perspective. I have however, printed out his contributions and when Aubrey and I have drawn to a close our tete-a-tete I'll go back over it and see if there's anything left for continuation.

iv) Let's get back to SENS. Why is the pitch aimed so low? I suspect (admittedly this is based on only one of the seven steps, but hey ... weakest link and all that jazz) that one reason that Aubrey gets the cold shoulder in professional quarters is related to the oversimplification I saw.

v) I don't pretend to know or understand everything in molecular/medical biology. Alongside this I do acknowledge that when it comes to thinking about science I begin with skepticism and prefer to try and tear ideas down until I find the ones that resist my (possibly feeble) attacks. I am one faithless bastard. Unfortunately, if someone blathers on at me about something they don't really understand I just automatically assume they are an idiot.

vi) Thanks Matt, I love you too.

vii) um ... heck I don't know ... you guys suck. That's an insult less painful than a car-bomb (admittedly that's a giant assumption on my part, having never been car-bombed) and it doesn't even have to be true, but that's the diabolic half of free speech for you. Speaking of which ... doesn't it say, when you signed up here, that you guys have to tolerate some nasty stuff on the forums from time to time? Suck it up and deal.

viii) I missed the result of promdress's hate-vote because I was on holiday yesterday (Switzerland is an awesome place to live). The administrators on Xprize shut it down before I got back. Did any of you rubes see how I scored?

ix) So you pitch the pitch of SENS to Joe Blow. He reads it but he doesn't have the critical analysis skills, let alone molecular biology background, to really give it the careful thought that it deserves. If you want credible comment from the scientific community (and I agree the nay-sayers seemed pretty polemic about it all so far) then shouldn't you aim it at the scientific community. Or perhaps that just isn't necessary. I don't know, maybe you guys can swing it outside of normal channels. Big universe, anything is possible.

You guys think I'm for or against SENS? I don't care about it particularly, although I find it interesting that people argue that life extension is somehow important.

Well, it was neutral meeting you. G'bye.

DKH

Hello Keith, ( If you are still here )

Welcome to the Immortality Institute, where people care about life extension. I find it curious that you use so much time on something that you really don't find important. Well, I guess its the biological aspect you are mostly interested in.

As you probably know innovation is largely political and demand driven. If we can make our case that life extension might be possible in the near term it is likely that a larger amount of resources are directed towards its research and development. I think that is why you will find a larger effort to reach the layman rather than the scientists. If the layman demands life extension the politicians will direct resources toward the research, and thus scientists will find it easier to find money for such projects and will put a higher priority on them.

I know, you think people who support something they don't fully understand are fools. Well, consider the democratic system. Its about electing people you think can understand and respond to the issues. It may be foolish but it works. At least it has up until now.

You can call me an idiot for supporting life extension, but I wont call you a fool for not finding it important. That's the cool thing about democracy. Everybody don't have to agree. All we need is a large amount of people who see it our way and we will have a voice with which to demand change. Hopefully you will join us with time, but it is not important.

Have a nice day.

although I find it interesting that people argue that life extension is somehow important.

Well, speaking strictly from the perspective of therapeutic medicine, what is important? Given that SENS seems likely to delay or prevent the progression of Alzheimer's on a shoestring budget relative to the many billions being sunk down that hole (i.e. Alzheimer's research), wouldn't that make it kinda important?

So you pitch the pitch of SENS to Joe Blow. He reads it but he doesn't have the critical analysis skills, let alone molecular biology background, to really give it the careful thought that it deserves. If you want credible comment from the scientific community (and I agree the nay-sayers seemed pretty polemic about it all so far) then shouldn't you aim it at the scientific community. Or perhaps that just isn't necessary. I don't know, maybe you guys can swing it outside of normal channels. Big universe, anything is possible.

You might think we're all a bunch of fanatical cultists following de Grey's every word, without a thought of our own, but some of us have questioned de Grey's science and his policy decisions (e.g. the website's being aimed at "Joe Blow") quite vociferously, including certain people with thin skin. Those who haven't questioned aren't withholding dissent because of blind "faith", they are withholding dissent because de Grey makes a damn good point, scientifically and otherwise. Having matched wits with him, I'm sure you can appreciate this.

If nothing else, SENS main weakness is that it's not committee-driven, so the mistakes of one man can have far-reaching effects. It also happens to be one of its strengths, at least for now, because the man at the helm is thinking outside the bureaucracy of traditional scientific orthodoxy, and outside the realm of "can I get a grant for this?".

Welcome to imminst keith [mellow]

Im Whoa182 over at xprize

You dont find life extension worth while or desirable at all?

Well I guess you are not the first person to say that, so have a fun death when it comes [wis]

Welcome Keisha

Tell you what, read the rest of SENS, and as a molecular biologist, provide some feedback, and you're forgiven. All I was interested in was scientific debate.

Concerning the "hate poll", you well know since you read it that it was not that at all but a lateral and humorous approach to draw attention to your antisocial antics. It was also a wake up call to the leadership of xprizenews. In the event that you missed my response to your post where you claim that I demanded "automatic respect", this is more or less what I said before your embarassed moderators took it down: "My parents taught me to automatically respect everyone until such time that they conduct themselves in a manner not befitting such respect. I think it's such a fine philosophy that I passed down this value to my own child." Then addressng xprizenews leadership more than yourself I pointed out that they would do well in future to learn from the way that we conduct ourselves over at Immnist.org in respect to new members in the spirit of sustaining a diverse and rich population.

Lets just forget keith anyway

Hes ignorant and it's a waste of time replying to the crap he speaks

Hes ignorant and it's a waste of time replying to the crap he speaks

I disagree. Repeating what I wrote earlier, he seems both intelligent and well educated, but generally uninterested in SENS and somewhat abbrasive in discussion. Dr. Keith's criticisms turned to the SENS website when Aubrey's work gained legitimacy in his eyes. At least that was my interpretation of what happened, speaking as a very lay spectator, others may contradict me.

From his earlier posts he has a bad attitude and acts all cocky. Also has no respect for others in the discussion.

Keith's attitude is inexcusable, but we must accept the sad fact that Aubrey's willingness to participate in such discussion and tolerance of the layperson is not typical of the average scientist. As Cosmos pointed out, Keith appears fundamentally uninterested in SENS from a viability or any other perspective and as he admitted is more concerned with "improving the critical thinking skills" of the people in his lab and those of Xprizenews forums more than any genuine scientific debate. Interesting.. but entirely unproductive.