/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12102827
we won't cure aging for a while, but I think we'll reach escape velocity in <100 years. There are a lot of other things (like cancer) you need to solve though or else solving aging is pointless. Also while I say escape velocity in <100 years, I don't think everyone alive at that point will make it, whatever treatments are around will probably be more effective or only effective on younger people

>>12102960
that's the same thing i think about it. i'm 18, most my relatives lived to be quite old, and I'm a health freak, good diet, lots of exercise. im hoping i'll make it, and doing what i can to maximise my chances, but i still think there is only a ~20% chance of me benefiting from it

>>12102827
If society carried on forever, then around 100-150 years to halt aging of biological humans and plenty of ways to sidestep it (like brain uploads) in 30-50 years.
However, technological civilisation will collapse in the next 20 years and we will never rebuild to this level. It's very sad.

>>12102969
you're already dead

>>12103090
no

>>12102969
Even if you make every right choice for your whole life, you can still just get cancer or get fucked by a genetic condition and die just like that. Shit sucks.

Are there any statistics out there comparing health obsessed people with just normal people (who aren't morbidly obese)?

>>12103110
also I recall reading something about how all these health things people do to live longer has minimal if any effect on age, it definitely can improve the quality of life, but how long you live mostly comes down to genetics and luck

>>12103002
>brain uploads in 50 years
No
Brain uploads are far far harder than stopping ageing. It's a meme pushed by CStards who don't understand that brains being like computers is just a simile we use, and the brain and a computer have very little direct analogues. It's by no means even possible to upload a human mind to a computer without an enormous leap forward in our understanding of both computers and consciousness.

>>12103154
Hence 30-50 years and not 10. It took 40ish years to go from nuclear wavefunctions to a fission reactor.

>>12102827
Literally never. Life expectancy in America is already slipping backwards.

>>12103329
>Hence 30-50 years
Why are NPCs always so arrogant about their abilities? You're a stupid fucking monkey. You're not going to have a robot brain in 30 years, retard.

>>12103137
>>12103110
>not sequencing your genome
>trusting people that only care about the health of the masses to help you
>not taking your fate into your own hands
NGMI

>>12103356
i am not my genome, i'm my genome plus the sum of my experiences

>>12102827
Never, but due to political not scientific reasons.

>>12103329
It took 60 years to go from saying we will have efficient fusion reactor within 30 years to saying we will have efficient fusion reactors within 30 years perhaps.

>>12103410
life extension has a lot of private sector money going into it though. All those billionaires who want to live forever. If it wasn't for bill gates wife he would have spent his money on researching it to and we would have been farther ahead. Instead though all we got was Africans getting drugs and vaccine tags

>>12102827
In my opinion, we have the possibility of achieving this in 20-30 years, I'll elaborate below.
My undergrad and grad degrees are in medical research topics.
From what I've read of de greys work, and the talks I've seen on youtube, he makes a relatively good case by identifying seven age-related disease processes that cover every age-related disease (that I'm aware of at least)

The idea is that if we can prevent the accumulation of damage before it is too far gone, then we can remove the damage, and repair the body. This seems reasonable in the disease I am most interested in; alzheimers.
Alzheimers genetics indicates the build up of particular proteins intracellularly and extracellularly, and that these proteins are toxic to particular brain cells. There seems to also be two mechanisms by which these proteins aggregate, with the second one being concentration dependent (secondary nucleation) and the main driver of amyloid related alzheimer pathogenesis. IF we could prevent amyloid reaching this concentration, perhaps we could stave off alzheimers indefinitely.

The obvious problems to this are the financial cost to the consumer or tax payer. With alzheimers there is the concern about specificity of treatment, effectiveness, safety, delivery mechanism, and so on.

The barrier to "cures" for aging appear to be purely technical, rather than theoretical.
This is largely why my intended PhD is around the topic of computational biology.
If we can cut the cost of research, and increase the effectiveness using in silico "experiments" then there is a higher chance of success. This can be achieved through improvements in protein folding simulation, and molecular dynamics simulations.

That's why I personally put that it would be possible to cure aging within 20-50 years, if the funding is there, and if there aren't any extreme unexpected hurdles.

That said, there are apparently some surprising (unpublished) advances due to senolytics in mice.

>>12103579
>and if there aren't any extreme unexpected hurdles

yeah probably nothing will come up

>>12103517
Fusion has had much more funding (who cares if it comes from private of public sector, compare the volume of money involved) so far and has barely advanced. You can't predict the evolution of a new field of science just by looking how much funding it gets. It's at least ten years too early to have a poll like this.

Also, reminder that average life expectancy is stagnating in most Western countries and that average life expectancy in good health hasn't progressed in a long time. Why don't our Silicon Valley overlords start working on this first?

>>12103655
I mean... It took the private space sector with a fraction of the money the public sector gets to revitalize and really revolutionize rocketry again, why can't it happen with aging cure? Also if you were to compare fusion to rocketry to curing aging, I think we could all agree curing aging is the most desirable benefit to most people, and they may be willing to work harder. It directly affects them and their future, rocketry just affects their future, less so direct, and your average person may not care about fusion as we already have lots of power generation so there could be a who cares attitude. The aging cure sort of has this perfect storm of motivators to get the right people and the right money all into the field at the same time

>>12103614
who knows man
that's why I want to help develop methods that can improve our ability to adapt to new problems as they arise.

70 years ago, we were just discovering prion diseases. Maybe we'll have a way to treat particular prion diseases, but if we don't have a method of identifying, analyzing, and treating new diseases as we discover them, then I'm worried we could run into some new unheard of disease that people don't get because they don't reach the age where it would become apparent

>>12103684
> It took the private space sector
You mean massively subsidized companies entirely relying on existing technologies?

>why can't it happen with aging cure?
My argument is not that it can't happen, but that there is no particular reason for it happening within 30 years right now, and more importantly, that we can't know in advance how long it takes, even with good funding.

The private sector is not a magical entity that makes everything runs faster. Its contribution depends on business environment, legacy technology and practice, and of course difficulty of the problem. What do we know about any of them when it comes to age cure?
We're just spitballing our wish fulfillment for now, why not just admit it?

> I think we could all agree curing aging is the most desirable benefit to most people
Similar argument goes for ending wars, look how much success the Society of Nations and the U.N had with that.

>The aging cure sort of has this perfect storm of motivators
Ok this I see being a valid argument, although I would not call it a perfect storm. It's still impossible to tell how long this will take, and remember, there is no more powerful motivator than a war. If it took about 15 years from advanced work on atom fission to nuclear bombs in time of war, I expect that resolving an equally difficult problem in the current situation would take easily twice as much. And I doubt curing aging by any reasonable definition is easier than learning how to trigger chain fission.

>>12103709
>Similar argument goes for ending wars, look how much success the Society of Nations and the U.N had with that.
they had a lot of success lol there are wayyy less wars now than there were 50 years ago. it doesnt feel like that bc of the media, but check the stats.

on the whole i agree with what you're saying but that was a bad example to pick

>>12103718
let's wait a little bit longer - maybe a century at least - since the greatest genocide the world has ever seen before we pat our chimp selves on the back, ok?

>>12103329
More like 300 years at least

>>12103743
>the greatest genocide the world has ever seen
Yeah it really was great wasn't it lads?

>>12102827
They cured it 400 years ago. They don't give that shit to everyone, or we'd have over population issues.

>>12102827
why does no one want to give this man money? All sorts of other aging companies that started up recently and have produced FA get boatloads of cash, meanwhile he's stuck with the meager investments of a couple millionaires even though he's producing more tangible results and has a better roadmap

>>12104038
no, the killing of ~60,000 jews was in fact bad. we don't want to jinx ourselves by saying we're out of the woods yet, because we're just so damn good at genocide, torture and wanton killing that not flexing that muscle might just be too great of a task for humanity

>>12103579
>The barrier to "cures" for aging appear to be purely technical, rather than theoretical.
Wrong. You can't fix it without knowing how it works. Let's say you see a city from above. The metro stops working. People start driving instead, so all turns into a massive traffic jam and everything stagnates. So you, not knowing a metro is even there, develop a method to extract the cars from the city. After a long development, you find a "cure" that removes the cars, but from some mysterious reason the city decays even more. Because the cars were not the real problem, they were only trying to compensate for the lack of working metro which you didn't even know existed.

You need a detailed knowledge of how something works in order to fix it. (even though the average repairman might not need to know all the details, those who developed the procedures do)

>>12104364
First question: are you the anon that thinks aging is due to the body having the incorrect metals, like copper? If you are, don't bother replying to the rest of my post. If you aren't, this is the anon: warosu.org/sci/thread/S12065379#p12065387

What makes you think we don't know how age related diseases work?
Are you simply projecting your lack of understanding on to other people?

I gave an example in my post, and I'll simply state it here again: There is a protein which has been experimentally validated many times to be neurotoxic. This protein has been validated many times to build up over time before reaching the threshold for neurotoxicity.
It has been shown in mice models of alzheimers that if you break down this protein you can improve function and reverse pathology. This protein is also often mutated in familial alzheimers, leading to early onset alzheimers between age 30-60, where non-familial alzheimers presents around and after age 65. There are also familial mutants with mutations in presenilin 1 and 2, which break down the protein in question, leading to familial alzheimers.

I'm not going to post a thesis on the topic. Simply put, people who are knowledgeable on the topic understand the mechanism, they know how it works.
Your lack of understanding on the mechanism may lead you to think otherwise, but that's simply the dunning kruger effect

>>12102827
Two days after I die.

>>12102827 When is it considered to be "cured"? What a shitty poll. (Strawpolls can be rigged anyway.)
Is it cured when it's slowed down and brain health is maintained do you only need to e.g. replace organs with lab/animal-grown ones at some point?

>>12103684
Rocketry is ancient and primitive garbage. The Space Shuttle was an INFERIOR, COST-CUTTING DESIGN when it was on the fucking drawing board. We had superior technological designs even then, but the government was concerned with saving money. And even the Space Shuttle is superior to the bullshit we have now. We have gone backwards. No more functional websites, no more functional operating systems, no more hypersonic passenger planes, no more space shuttle, and probably soon, no more ISS. You fucking pop-sci weirdos need to come to terms with the fact that mankind does not always advance and every civilization declines and falls. We are in such a time now.

>>12102827
No one wants to live forever....

once you loose your arms or legs, plagued by disease, permanently or seriously injured you'll wish for prosthetics....

Once 95 percent of your body is gone, you'll wish for artificial limbs

Once the Earth is over populated and food is scarce and you existence is complete hunger and weakness you'll wish for unlimited food.

Once you're shoulder to shoulder with all humans and no space, you'll wish for travel to other worlds

When your on Venus / Mars and all you have is intense feeling of heat or cold you'll wish for tera-forming

IT NEVER ENDS.... but hey stop aging right....

>>12104832
If the protein is the cars, what is the metro? If it is the primary cause, why can its buildup also be triggered by head trauma? If we can cure mice by removing it, why can't we cure people the same way?

>>12105950
cope lifelet
just sudoku if you hate living so much

>>12102827
In awe at the amount of "Never"s.
That's just intellectual dishonesty.

The human race is one of greed. If we want it we will eventually achieve it, same with AI.
Like I said, it's just pure dishonesty to claim we won't ever fix senescence, especially considering the major advancements we've made already.

Either the "Never"s are a bunch of bio-dysmorphic cybertrannies, or theyre simply ignorant. I can't imagine any other option.

>>12105959
I'm not going to give a huge amount of detail, but I have to address the overlap of alzheimers, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
Amyloid precursor protein (APP) mutants are associated with familial alzheimers. And PSEN1/2 are genes associated with APP processing.
Alzheimers disease is characterized by both extracellular amyloid plaques, and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles made of tau-protein.

Mutations in the gene encoding tau-protein, MAPT, lead to a dementia with a different pathological classification, known as fronto-temporal lobe dementia.

If you look at pic-related, I've highlighted key points in my explanation of alzheimers.
You'll see that if tau gets affected, then axonal anterograde transport gets impaired. This impairment includes the translocation of APP. If APP isn't translocated away from the soma, then it is available to get cleaved by gamma secretase (of which PSEN1/2 are parts) into amyloid beta.

If you look at the diagram, amyloid beta problems lead to tau problems, tau problems lead to amyloid beta problems.
The mechanism of tau protein problems is axonal transport. In chronic traumatic encephalopathy, axons are damaged by physical shearing forces. Axons are literally ripped apart, and therefore transport of cargo, including APP can't occur, leading to greater APP levels in the soma, leading to greater APP concentration.

That answers your first question about why buildup can also be triggered by head trauma.
----

Cont

>>12106498
To answer your question about "curing" it in mice, but not in people. It's not precisely a cure in mice, at least not in the studies I've seen, it reverse the loss of function and the pathology, but it's not a complete reversal.

The main problem is that it requires introduction of genetically altered stem cells which secrete neprilysin. Look at the picture, neprilysin breaks down amyloid beta. Also, cells dont usually secrete neprilysin, so the only way to break down extracellular amyloid plaques in through extracellular neprilysin through engineered stem cells.

We care about extracellular amyloid plaques because they can increase the rate of amyloid oligomer formation through secondary nucleation. So whilst plaques stay outside the cells, smaller amyloid beta aggregates and monomers can enter cells and be neurotoxic in a high concentration. This is a further problem in that once amyloid pathology is present in one part of the brain, the proteins can enter new cells, and cause the pathological mechanism in those new cells to occur, leading to more amyloid beta production.

The reason we can put these stem cells in mice but not humans is that the stem cells tend to migrate a short distance in the brain of mice. This isn't a problem in mice, because their brain is so small that the stem cells can cover a large amount of the brain. In humans, our brain is orders of magnitude larger, so it's harder to deliver the stem cells to the deep brain structures. And if we could put a single injection in a deep brain structure, the stem cells would only cover a small sphere of influence.

Neural stem cells genetically-modified to express neprilysin reduce pathology in Alzheimer transgenic models
link.springer.com/article/10.1186/scrt440

>>12106530
>>12106498

>>12105959
Also you didn't answer whether you are the copper-anon or not, which is interesting.

I'll add now that in mice models, they are fed the same diet, so if a treatment can restore function and reverse pathology in these mice, whilst not affecting the metals in their diet, it indicates that metals are not the cause. Or atleast that there are multiple causes, one of which is amyloid.

I forgot the picture so im going to post the whole thing again

>>12105959
I'm not going to give a huge amount of detail, but I have to address the overlap of alzheimers, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
Amyloid precursor protein (APP) mutants are associated with familial alzheimers. And PSEN1/2 are genes associated with APP processing.
Alzheimers disease is characterized by both extracellular amyloid plaques, and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles made of tau-protein.

Mutations in the gene encoding tau-protein, MAPT, lead to a dementia with a different pathological classification, known as fronto-temporal lobe dementia.

If you look at pic-related, I've highlighted key points in my explanation of alzheimers.
You'll see that if tau gets affected, then axonal anterograde transport gets impaired. This impairment includes the translocation of APP. If APP isn't translocated away from the soma, then it is available to get cleaved by gamma secretase (of which PSEN1/2 are parts) into amyloid beta.

If you look at the diagram, amyloid beta problems lead to tau problems, tau problems lead to amyloid beta problems.
The mechanism of tau protein problems is axonal transport. In chronic traumatic encephalopathy, axons are damaged by physical shearing forces. Axons are literally ripped apart, and therefore transport of cargo, including APP can't occur, leading to greater APP levels in the soma, leading to greater APP concentration.

That answers your first question about why buildup can also be triggered by head trauma.
----

Cont

>>12105959
To answer your question about "curing" it in mice, but not in people. It's not precisely a cure in mice, at least not in the studies I've seen, it reverse the loss of function and the pathology, but it's not a complete reversal.

The main problem is that it requires introduction of genetically altered stem cells which secrete neprilysin. Look at the picture, neprilysin breaks down amyloid beta. Also, cells dont usually secrete neprilysin, so the only way to break down extracellular amyloid plaques in through extracellular neprilysin through engineered stem cells.

We care about extracellular amyloid plaques because they can increase the rate of amyloid oligomer formation through secondary nucleation. So whilst plaques stay outside the cells, smaller amyloid beta aggregates and monomers can enter cells and be neurotoxic in a high concentration. This is a further problem in that once amyloid pathology is present in one part of the brain, the proteins can enter new cells, and cause the pathological mechanism in those new cells to occur, leading to more amyloid beta production.

The reason we can put these stem cells in mice but not humans is that the stem cells tend to migrate a short distance in the brain of mice. This isn't a problem in mice, because their brain is so small that the stem cells can cover a large amount of the brain. In humans, our brain is orders of magnitude larger, so it's harder to deliver the stem cells to the deep brain structures. And if we could put a single injection in a deep brain structure, the stem cells would only cover a small sphere of influence.

Neural stem cells genetically-modified to express neprilysin reduce pathology in Alzheimer transgenic models
link.springer.com/article/10.1186/scrt440

>>12105959
Also you didn't answer whether you are the copper-anon or not, which is interesting.

I'll add now that in mice models, they are fed the same diet, so if a treatment can restore function and reverse pathology in these mice, whilst not affecting the metals in their diet, it indicates that metals are not the cause. Or atleast that there are multiple causes, one of which is amyloid.

>>12106545
>>12106552

>>12106471
here's a man who is confused about the second law of thermodynamics. isn't he strong and brave to be posting on 4chan! stunning

>>12106557
half equivalency retard

So on the one hand we have the largest company with the smartest people working on aging (Alphabet/Calico), one of the world's best bioengineers Dr Craig Venter working on aging, we have Prof George Church of Harvard who leads one of the most elaborately staffed and well funded bio labs going claiming that he will largely actually fucking cure aging probably within a decade....oh now we also have a genuine quantum computer that will nuke the speed of drug interaction research, DeepMind absolutely killing it on protein folding, literally on the fucking cusp of the most gilded age in biotech research imaginable, the components and technology having aligned and synchronised in the most profound way.....

And we have you useless faggots (pic related) with zero credentials saying not for 100 years. lol

It gets licked within 20.

>>12106728
one must think sisyphus happy as he rolls his boulder of cope up the mountain, only to see it roll down again tomorrow

>>12106746
>heh i dont want to l-live forever
>heheh I w-w-want to d-die
>haha-ha imagine coping b-b-believing in im-im- *voice break*- immortality

cope harder lifelet

>implying life isn’t eternal
>implying the physical body should be

>>12105950
I do. Fuck you.

>>12106471
>That's just intellectual dishonesty.
Show evidence for ANY progress in the past 30 years.

>>12103137
Well whatever you read is bullshit because most people, even old people die from complications mediated by health and fitness. If you eat healthy and exercise and maintain a normal weight you will statistically live a lot longer than people who don't, obviously I have no idea when other factors kick in but you can have a pretty good chance of living ~90

>>12107186
I've read healthy living might gain a person an extra decade, but what's interesting to me is how many of the people who live well beyond 100 aren't/weren't doing anything unusual. Not necessarily great diets, or physically active, quite a few smokers as well. Meanwhile, some people are health nuts and drop dead before 50.

>>12107199
You've read wrong. Healthy living will only ALLOW YOU to live to your natural maximum lifespan. Only direct medical intervention can extend that.

>>12107286
>You've read wrong. Healthy living will only ALLOW YOU to live to your natural maximum lifespan.
Well your maximum is whatever your maximum is, of course you can't exceed it. The extra 10 years presumably comes from not dying of cancer or heart disease.

>>12107292
>Well your maximum is whatever your maximum is, of course you can't exceed it.
Yeah that's sort of the entire point of life extension medicine, dummy. Why the fuck do NPCs have such an impossible time distinguishing between maximum lifespan and healthspan? They're too totally different things. They are NOT the same thing.

>>12107302
>Why the fuck do NPCs have such an impossible time distinguishing between maximum lifespan and healthspan?
No issue there, that wasn't the topic being discussed in those series of replies, and you jumped in with an unrelated point.

>>12107319
Nope. These threads always degenerate exactly the same way. OP shills that we're all going to be immortal if we all just give our money to Aubrey de Gay, then people bring up that this field has made absolutely no progress, then shills lie, then retards start conflating increasing average life expectancy with life extension, which are radically different things.

>>12104832
>are you the anon that thinks aging is due to the body having the incorrect metals, like copper?
That isn't anything new, e.g.:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18248325/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22635102/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12890080/
etc.

>>12106746
First gene therapies literally in clinical trials in dogs right now, cope

>>12102827
The longer we live the more chance we can get cancer. The longer we live the higher chance we have to die. Immortality eventually equals death.

>>12107810
There's also always a small chance that you could choke on food.
So if you eliminate every other way to die, *everyone* on earth would choke on food sooner or later.

>>12107810
We corrected you the first time you made this ignorant argument...

>>12102827
When we stop telomeres being degraded

>>12103655
>Fusion has had much more funding
No way. Source?

>>12103154
Brainlet. Literally everything is modelable as a computer. The universe is computable. The brain is a computer in a very practical sense. There is firmware as the physical arrangement, then memory as well as some on the fly execution which we call the consciousness. If we can sample the brain's arrangement and the state of each neuron, we can store a snapshot of a person. I'm banking on biological "nanotech" being used for this to nondestructively back a brain up My bet is it will come to around 4TB compressed. Executing the stored brain snapshot is a lot harder, but at least we could start archiving people.
This isn't magic. You're probably just pissed that CSfags keep making large strides on literally everything.

>>12106555
>Also you didn't answer whether you are the copper-anon or not, which is interesting.
Why should I talk with somebody who is blatantly antiscience? Anyway interesting your graph alsk blames calcium overload, while you call me a schizo for claiming the same. Still, in mitochondria iron is more likely to blame.

>>12107339
Metals playing a role along with other parts of the cell (proteins, DNA, small molecules, lipids) is not controversial. Even genetic studies have found mutations in a gene, transferrin, associated with iron and linked with neurodegeneration.

The schizo-posts are to do with this anon (>>12108076) taking some mythology about immortality, giants, and alchemy, then building an entire explanation for aging based on these flawed premises; and then pretends that he didn't make these posts, but also refuses to use a tripcode so he can maintain plausible deniability.
This means every thread, any of the anons who actually do real science, rather than this creationist-science-tier schizothinking, have to discern if we're talking to someone who can actually think without delusions

>>12108073
>Literally everything is modelable as a computer. The universe is computable
Do you have a proof for this?

>>12108076
>your graph alsk blames calcium overload, while you call me a schizo for claiming the same.
This is a retarded thing to say, because you're not claiming the same thing. You'd realize this if you actually studied the subject

For example, in stroke, the glutamate cascade leads to calcium channels being left open for a long time, leading to too much calcium entering the cell, resulting in cell death.

The calcium is present in the body at concentration X, a loss of blood flow occurs, leading to glutamate cascade, leading to calcium entering neurons in too high levels, leading to cell death. But the calcium levels in the body stay at concentration X the whole time.

Your claim seems to be "having too much calcium in your body will cause A, B, C disease", yet having concentration X calcium only causes neuron death following the stroke glutamate cascade, whereas your hypothesis should lead to stroke related neuron death as soon as the concentration is reached.

This mechanism is similar in alzheimers. Having too much calcium doesn't cause alzheimers. The pathological pathways (amyloid beta pathways and tau pathways) lead to calcium-related problems.
Having too much calcium, without tau and Abeta problems, will not cause alzheimers.
This is evidenced by genetic studies where mutations in APP and MAPT lead to early onset neurodegeneration.

If calcium could cause alzheimers on it's own, then early onset alzheimers would be more common, and late onset would be less common, because calcium levels are higher around age 10-40. We would also expect strokes to affect people around age 10-40 more frequently than older individuals, since 10-40 have higher calcium levels; yet we don't see this.

You are making a false equivalence to shill your pseudoscientific thoughts

>>12102827
We most likely won't cure ageing within the next 80 years but we'll probably see huge advancement regarding cryogenics or similar tech that successfully keeps you in stasis because of prolonged space travel. That way you can stay conserved until an aging cure is developed and then live forever.

>>12102827
we'll cure ageing the day after I die

>>12108212
It's a theory based on never seeing usable hypercomputation performed by the universe. All physical interactions seen so far have finite resolution and bounded execution time.
But more generally, it's actually a sneaky tautology. The second we see a physical process which is uncomputable in a classic computer, we can leverage that process to create a higher capability computer.
The following details a few higher capability computers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation#Analysis_of_capabilities
It is very, very unlikely that the brain does any of this though. We have no reason to believe so, because a human has never performed a supertask, and we don't have an abnormal ability to decide on halting problems. We've never done anything that some sufficiently good programming on a classical computer can do.
So a brain is almost certainly subject to the limits of classical computation, which our machines have not come even close to reaching, and neither has our brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation

>>12107816
I'll live on Huel

>>12102827
>When will we cure ageing?

Curing baldness is one million times easier than curing ageing .
We have not cure balding.

We will cure ageing about 100 years before we cure balding.

When we come up with antioxidants worth shit.

>>12108207
You know it's you talking the nonsense about giants and alchemy, I have always been talking about metalloproteins ending up with the wrong metals. The only mythology oart I have talked about was that the widespread and seemingly unrelated myths about aging not happening could be that aging was indeed not happening before people fucked something up with their activity.
>>12108228
This is false.
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/considering-mineralization-in-aging/
>When you open a 70-year old patient on the operating table and touch the aorta, the feeling may resemble touching an eggshell or sand paper. It is stiffer than the heart of a young person and the key reasons for this are the abundant calcium deposits in the connective tissue that accumulate with age.

if/when it exists i guarantee they'd make it illegal

>>12108408
Why?

>>12108400
>https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/10/considering-mineralization-in-aging/
>the major problem is that it occurs spontaneously during aging as calcium-containing molecules are trapped in the extracellular matrix and develop into apatite over time.

So this has nothing to do with calcium inside cells, you massive retard. I said stroke and alzheimers are not caused by calcium, then you start talking about aorta extracellular calcification.

>The only mythology oart I have talked about was that the widespread and seemingly unrelated myths about aging not happening could be that aging was indeed not happening before people fucked something up with their activity.

You literally talked about it in one of your other posts, whilst calling someone a liar.
You're pretending it's not you saying all this retarded shit, maybe you are schizo enough to not remember you wrote it, but unless you start using your trip again, I'm going to keep attributing these claims to you.

You can't hide behind plausible deniability

>>12108408
>they'd make it illegal
no reason to, an immortal work force that needs to be for treatment every 25 years is much better then current knowledge passing people. You can lock people into long duration contracts, everything becomes subscription service, no more retirement and knowledge transfer. Salaries will drop massively as no one will ever stop working

>>12108428
If calcium accumulates in your body, the most obvious way is to try eating less of it. (Occams razor) It's easy to do, and you are likely to learn something new even if it doesn't help.
>You literally talked about it in one of your other posts, whilst calling someone a liar.
The lies are the anti progress babblings about sin and whatever else. The post in the pictire is not talking about giants, but about gigantism possibly caused by a nutrient defect. (Instead of "better nutrition") the word "gigantism" was meant to imply the rise is pathological, ratger than resulting from better overal health. Anyway it might be some other metal, as chromium deficiency seems to lead to the elongated eye shape.

>>12108428
Is it you spamming all those threads?

>>12102827
>When will we cure ageing?
We shouldn't. >>12109819

>>12109828
Debunked.

>>12109912
{citation(s) needed}

>>12109912
No, you haven't.

>>12108328
>We have not cure balding.
Of course we have. By using stem cells and transplantation. Notice how much stem cells are downplayed after about 2010? They were all the rage before that. Do you think it's because we know less or have fewer uses for them? Nope. It's being suppressed.

>>12109828
Uh-huh, so what are you doing about the rich NOW? Yeah, that's what I thought. Not an argument.

>>12109828
>They would keep it for themselves.
Wrong. They made people age in the first place. Those you think are the wealthy are not them.

>>12102827
Aging won't be entirely cured, but we may be able to minimize the effects such that it happens much slower than it does now.

Aging won't be stopped until they realize the value of basic protective factors such as thyroid, progesterone, co2, red light or collagen, as well as the danger of stress, polyunsaturated fat, endotoxin, estrogen, food contaminants (glyphosate, carrageenan, iron additives, cadaverine, phytoestrogens, etc), uv light, etc
Anyone chasing pharmaceuticals and genetic pathways without even locking down the physiological ways to live to 100 without degenerative disease is getting far ahead of themselves.

>>12102827
you forgot to add the option
>it's already been cured

>>12102827
That's way more deathists than I expected.

>>12103093

>>12108073
>Brainlet. Literally everything is modelable as a computer.
Idiot tier response. To model the brain is insufficient for uploading consciousness. This is a basic point that you absolute idiots seem to completely miss every single time.
Even if you could model the brain, there is still absolutely no proof that you could then transfer the consciousness of the brain to the machine. There is no proof that the simulation, no matter how good, must actually be equivalent to the real thing.
>The universe is computable.
No proof, only a plausible assumption.
>The brain is a computer in a very practical sense
Very very wrong. Only someone with no knowledge of the brain would say this.
>The brain is a computer in a very practical sense
Point to the brain's equivalent of the computer's processor. Show me where the memories are in the brain. Oops, you can't, because the brain does not store memories physically, unlike computers. The brain does not have a processor, or an equivalent. It does not have an algorithm built in, the closest thing being instincts and reflexes.
>"nanotech" being used for this to nondestructively back a brain up
Again, this would only give a simulation of the brain. This would in no way prove that consciousness has been replicated. There is no argument against this until we actually have a theory of consciousness.

>>12111314
The only thing I need to prove you're the biggest retard on /sci/ is:
>the brain does not store memories physically
So you think the brain stores memories by fucking magic then. Probably a christfag or some shit. Explain how information can be stored or transmitted nonphysically. Go ahead, make yourself look even more retarded.
>This would in no way prove that consciousness has been replicated.
In the same way that taking a 192khz 32 bit recording of a record can't "prove" that it's been replicated as far as audiofools are concerned. Never mind that the practical analog bandwidth of a record is 1% of the digital recording, and that the record degrades constantly as it is played. They still think it isn't good enough. You probably won't either when you refuse to have a backup taken because it "can't replicate the consciousness". I, knowing I'm already a lossy Ship of Theseus which degrades every single day, will gladly take the 10x practical digital oversample over losing my mind progressively in a decaying meat sponge.

>>12111296
Death isn't bad. It's a natural part of life and should be come to terms with, and not fear. Death cannot harm a person and is therefore not rational to be feared.. Death is only bad insofar that it prevents you from enjoying the things you like doing, and making plans for the future. Cherish the time you have, and the amazing fact that you're alive at all, considering that an infinitude of potential people never got to live in the first place.

Anti-aging and cryonics fall into two of four categories that people use to deny their mortality, those being rejuvenation and resurrection (the others being literally immortality and legacy), and can be seen as a secular version of the fountain of youth and Christian resurrection respectively.

Life extensionists have yet to produce one treatment for aging, and are one in a long line of people and movements which have attempted to cure aging. Cryonics is even sketchier, being considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science. No one takes it seriously.

Everyone in this thread is going to die. There is no escaping it, you can't stop it. There is no afterlife, and not way of coming back. Your fate, like all of humanity before you is eternal non-existence. Dreamless, thoughtless sleep, forever. Come to peace with it, you'll thank yourself whe you do,.

>>12113283
tl;dr

>>12113416
Death isn't bad. Anti aging is bullshit and cope for the fear of death. Come to terms with death rather than trying to avoid it.

>>12113425
>hurr durr not wanting to become decrepit in old age is fear of death
I've seen some retarded shit on this board but you take the cake Anon. Even if there was perfect antiageing people are still going to die. Nobody is saying they're going to become immortals. What a fucking retard you are my god, if a baboon were taught to type English and espouse it's inane opinions it would make a better conversationalist. Should I live for 10,000 years I would still not meet another as retarded as your post. The day you die will usher in a golden age for humanity as Flynn effect is amplified a thousand times.
My god this is a stupid site but you have shown new depths beyond anything I have seen since the first DESUDESU memes. I have scoured stupidity the world over and you have revealed to me something beyond my imagining. My god Anon, my god.
What do you see of this world Anon? I can imagine it all murk to you, murk inside and murk outside. If anyone else exists that sees like you Anon this is dark world indeed. If there are more like you, ours is a cursed race, doomed to die and die again learning very little and knowing nothing of the world. My god Anon, my god.
In all the history of man there has never been one to rival yourself. In all that I have read and studied you Anon, you are the one that stands out as a shining light of the stupidity possible by man. You are a beacon to us all of what not to be. My god Anon, my god.

>>12111289
We won't cure degenerative diseases until we develop nanomachines, so that means we won't cure ageing until we advance in material's science.

Cancer would be pretty easy to beat with nanomachines.

>>12113425
>death isn't bad
nice cope
you can try to convince yourself you don't fear death, but you're still alive which proves you are afraid.

>>12110458
>>12110640
what sort of faggot statements are these? devoid of content.

>>12108073
>Brainlet. Literally everything is modelable as a computer.
Clearly and objectively wrong. If this were true then we'd already build brain analogs that would be fully conscious, self-aware, and in every way a hyperbrain compared to ours.
>The universe is computable.
{citations from credible sources needed}
>The brain is a computer in a very practical sense.
Uh, NO, the human brain is not a Turing machine, not any way shape or form. You clearly know nothing about neuroscience.
>There is firmware as the physical arrangement, then memory as well as some on the fly execution which we call the consciousness.
LOL wut? No.
>If we can sample the brain's arrangement and the state of each neuron, we can store a snapshot of a person.
>I'm banking on biological "nanotech" being used for this to nondestructively back a brain up My bet is it will come to around 4TB compressed. Executing the stored brain snapshot is a lot harder, but at least we could start archiving people.
Dude, whatever shit you're smoking or injecting right now? Stop doing it.
>This isn't magic. You're probably just pissed that CSfags keep making large strides on literally everything.
Ah, I see. You're one of these fools who think that your half-assed, inadequate, parlor-trick excuse for 'AI' will suddenly 'wake up' and start actually thinking.
What are you, first semester CS major? You read too much scifi and watch too much anime. Get real. None of that is going to happen, it's shit technology that's way over-hyped by marketing departments and the media because they realize it's shit but they have to make their investment back or their investors will chop their heads off.

>>12102827
Entropy can't be stopped.

>>12103356
>sequence genome
>can't get healthcare anymore because of insurance niggers
>can't do shit with it because you're a wageslave
>you end up dying anyways because the opposite of aging is cancer
Fucking retard. Must be one of those math schizos or code monkeys who never go out of their cage so they don't know how the real world works.

>>12113913
>If this were true
Hah, machines cannot fly like birds! If they could, then how come nobody has made one?
t. some retard, 1890
>citations from credible sources
It's obviously true. If we discovered a physical phenomena which was not classically computable, we could utilize it to make a hypercomputer. This has never happened because there are hard limits on computation which make hypercomputers impossible. See the links in: >>12108289
>the human brain is not a Turing machine
Everything is made of finite state machines (limited per the Bekenstein bound). The brain isn't literally a turing machine, but it is turing equivalent.
>LOL wut
>whatever shit you're smoking
Can't argue with that logic.
>You're one of these fools
No, I think we'll have human brain copies running under digital emulation before we have hard AI.
>first semester CS major
Dual EE/CE bachelor with biology minor, doing software engineering for seven years now.
>You read too much scifi
You lack vision.
>over-hyped by marketing departments
Don't take me for a normalfag. I'm suicide shorting the S&P 500 because it's built on hot air.