Brian Manning Delaney of CR society in the news
Rodney Reid
Is in an SF Gate article (originally from the Boston Globe)this
morning on Calorie Restriction:
"Near starvation, and hoping for a long life
Experimental diets cut calories 40% below normal"
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/20/MNGIL8A7CA1.DTL
enjoy,
...Rodney
(not CR'd yet, I'm having a rough enough time with low carb at the
moment)
Tim Tyler
> Yes, our Brian of years long past (where are you these days?!)
He could well be putting the finishing touches to his book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568583095/
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Nelson J. Navarro
I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it was
ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place) obsolete?
Regards,
Nelson
rodne...@gmail.com (Rodney Reid) wrote in message news:<27c8dad2.04082...@posting.google.com>...
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Yes, our Brian of years long past (where are you these days?!)
Please do no use the "our". He is not something which in any way belongs
to me.
>
> Is in an SF Gate article (originally from the Boston Globe)this
> morning on Calorie Restriction:
>
> "Near starvation, and hoping for a long life
> Experimental diets cut calories 40% below normal"
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/20/MNGIL8A7CA1.DTL
I thought that at least two items in the article were particularly
notable from a negative pov.
Sinclair's statement above his results with drosophila and C elegans:
"We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out of food,"
as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments had
the effects that they did.
Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is rampant in
spoken language and media reports, and this continues to distort the
thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly intelligent
scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like that to his
colleagues or students. Perhaps he believes that he must "dumb down" for
public consumption. If so, how does he ever expect the "public" to ever
get any better? Perhaps he doesn't care.
The second item that I found rather disconcerting was a statement from
the Tufts University Pilot CR project wherein 142 people are doing up to
30% CR for a year funded by the US government.
Susan Roberts, a nutrition professor at Tufts University who oversees
the study stated: "I'm waiting for the results to see that it is safe,
and then I'll probably join them."
I find it incredible that a researcher conducting a human trial upon
normal healthy people is not sure that the protocol being used is safe!
It makes me wonder what she told those involved in the trial about its
safety.
I'm still shaking my head over this one.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
Arbor
Your second point is well taken.
Apropos Sinclair and Delaney: I read that Mr. Delaney relies less on
CR these days and more on taking resveratrol (I am not sure to what
extent though). Did he buy into the "tricking" factor or maybe that
he is just too cold and depressingly overtaxed in Sweden for CR;~)
Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote in message news:<41289D85...@morelife.org>...
Michael C Price
> Sinclair's statement above his results with drosophila and C
> elegans:
>
> "We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out
> of food,"
>
> as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
> that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments
> had the effects that they did.
> Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is
> rampant in spoken language and media reports, and this continues
> to distort the thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly
> intelligent scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like
> that to his colleagues or students.
Since this is the way most biologists talk amongst themselves, I should
think that, yes, this is the way he talks to his colleagues or students.
Only someone who who didn't understand Darwinism
would be mislead by such language.
> Perhaps he believes that he must "dumb down" for
> public consumption.
It's not dumbing down, quite the reverse. It's assuming
a certain level of competence on the part of his listeners.
Perhaps a false assumption, but that's another story.
Don't blame Sinclair for the stupidity of the public
(particularly the religous US public).
> If so, how does he ever expect the "public" to ever
> get any better? Perhaps he doesn't care.
>
> The second item that I found rather disconcerting was a statement
> from the Tufts University Pilot CR project wherein 142 people are
> doing up to 30% CR for a year funded by the US government.
> Susan Roberts, a nutrition professor at Tufts University who oversees
> the study stated: "I'm waiting for the results to see that it is safe,
> and then I'll probably join them."
>
> I find it incredible that a researcher conducting a human trial upon
> normal healthy people is not sure that the protocol being used is
> safe!
> It makes me wonder what she told those involved in the trial about
> its safety.
> I'm still shaking my head over this one.
There is such a thing as informed consent.
Cheers,
Michael C Price
----------------------------------------
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
Tim Tyler
> Apropos Sinclair and Delaney: I read that Mr. Delaney relies less on
> CR these days and more on taking resveratrol (I am not sure to what
> extent though). Did he buy into the "tricking" factor or maybe that
> he is just too cold and depressingly overtaxed in Sweden for CR;~)
There was a news article which reported:
``"Brian Delaney, president of an organization
that tracks those trying to live longer by
severely restricting their diets, gave up the
effort himself. In his 30s, he found that
lifestyle too tough to put up with for 60 to 70
years. Delaney now takes resveratrol."
- http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/14-yeast.html
Brian's comment:
``This one paragraph you quote contains several errors and half-truths --
all understandable, but nonetheless frustrating.''
Tim Tyler
> I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it was
> ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place) obsolete?
I fully expect CR will remain by far the best tested anti-aging
intervention for the next ten years or so.
Nelson J. Navarro
> Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
>
> > I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it was
> > ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place) obsolete?
>
> I fully expect CR will remain by far the best tested anti-aging
> intervention for the next ten years or so.
Maybe if you're a lab rat, that is.
How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
(if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
(to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
place), are a stress response?
Arbor
> There was a news article which reported:
>
> ``"Brian Delaney, president of an organization
> that tracks those trying to live longer by
> severely restricting their diets, gave up the
> effort himself. In his 30s, he found that
> lifestyle too tough to put up with for 60 to 70
> years. Delaney now takes resveratrol."
>
> - http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/14-yeast.html
>
> Brian's comment:
>
> ``This one paragraph you quote contains several errors and half-truths --
> all understandable, but nonetheless frustrating.''
Sooooooo what is the truth???
Mark D.
news:a91894aa.0408...@posting.google.
>
> In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
I'd like to look into this, Nelson. Do you have a good link, please...?
Thanks.
M.
Mark D.
"Mark D." <slee...@slpeeggr.com> wrote in message
news:uCFWc.115$31...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Presumably this is the sort of thing you have in mind...?
---
Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary restriction
on glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury from calorie intake.
Anson RM, Guo Z, de Cabo R, Iyun T, Rios M, Hagepanos A, Ingram DK, Lane MA,
Mattson MP.
Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute
on Aging, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Dietary restriction has been shown to have several health benefits including
increased insulin sensitivity, stress resistance, reduced morbidity, and
increased life span. The mechanism remains unknown, but the need for a
long-term reduction in caloric intake to achieve these benefits has been
assumed. We report that when C57BL6 mice are maintained on an intermittent
fasting (alternate-day fasting) dietary-restriction regimen their overall
food intake is not decreased and their body weight is maintained.
Nevertheless, intermittent fasting resulted in beneficial effects that met
or exceeded those of caloric restriction including reduced serum glucose and
insulin levels and increased resistance of neurons in the brain to
excitotoxic stress. Intermittent fasting therefore has beneficial effects on
glucose regulation and neuronal resistance to injury in these mice that are
independent of caloric intake.
PMID: 12724520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
---
M.
Mack McKinnon
"Nelson J. Navarro" <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote
>In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
>with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
>(if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
I think that voluntarily going with no food for even a day, especially on a
daily basis, is impossible for most people -- as difficult for them as
restricting calories on a daily basis. If you can "intermittently fast",
you can probably practice at least moderate CR all the time. Take your
pick.
It's amazing to me that we have come to the place where people raise so much
stink about disciplining themselves to eat around the amount of calories
that most people in this country ate until the 20th century. Poor people
were obvious because they were "rail thin". Only the rich got fat. Now,
mention CR as an alternative and people feel threatened.
mack
austin
Micky Snir
"Nelson J. Navarro" <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a91894aa.0408...@posting.google.com...
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:<I2wps...@bath.ac.uk>...
> > Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
> >
> > > I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it
was
> > > ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place)
obsolete?
> >
> > I fully expect CR will remain by far the best tested anti-aging
> > intervention for the next ten years or so.
>
>
> Maybe if you're a lab rat, that is.
or a mouse, or a dog or any of the other many species it was "tested"
for and worked quite fine.
>
> How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
> eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
> matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
speculative, but entirely?
>
> In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
is there as much (if any) direct life-span data (as opposed to
mechanistic, make-the-case data) for intermittent fasting as there is
for CR?
>
> In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> place), are a stress response?
what if it is? no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
yes, some curve squaring in some very specific stress responses (like
exercise), but no shifting of the curve.
Micky.
Michael C Price
>>
>> How much benefit a person may get from [CR], particularly
>> someone who eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional
>> supplements, is another matter; it is almost entirely speculative,
>> IMO.
Micky Snir wrote:
>
> speculative, but entirely?
Well, I could speculate that megadosing with niacin upregulates
the sirtuins, which have been posited to be the CR mechanism.
Ergo someone taking niacin would not get any additional
benefit from CRing, indeed they might only suffer detrimental
consequences. Speculative? Yes, but that's not the point.
Micky Snir
"Michael C Price" <michaelEXCI...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hpPWc.63$A7...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Nelson J. Navarro wrote:
> >>
> >> How much benefit a person may get from [CR], particularly
> >> someone who eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional
> >> supplements, is another matter; it is almost entirely speculative,
> >> IMO.
>
> Micky Snir wrote:
> >
> > speculative, but entirely?
>
> Well, I could speculate that megadosing with niacin upregulates
> the sirtuins, which have been posited to be the CR mechanism.
> Ergo someone taking niacin would not get any additional
> benefit from CRing, indeed they might only suffer detrimental
> consequences. Speculative? Yes, but that's not the point.
I'm not sure what your point is, but your speculation above is
definitely more speculative than the speculation that CR works for
humans, because there's so much non-human CR data around showing Max-LS
extension, as opposed to very little if any showing the same for
megadosing with niacin.
Micky.
Michael C Price
>
> "Michael C Price" wrote in message
>> Nelson J. Navarro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How much benefit a person may get from [CR], particularly
>>>> someone who eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional
>>>> supplements, is another matter; it is almost entirely speculative,
>>>> IMO.
>>
>> Micky Snir wrote:
>> >
>> > speculative, but entirely?
>>
>> Well, I could speculate that megadosing with niacin upregulates
>> the sirtuins, which have been posited to be the CR mechanism.
>> Ergo someone taking niacin would not get any additional
>> benefit from CRing, indeed they might only suffer detrimental
>> consequences. Speculative? Yes, but that's not the point.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is,
My point was that Nelson's use of the word "entirely" was
appropriate, which was what you seemed to be objecting to.
> but your speculation above is definitely more speculative than
> the speculation that CR works for humans,
Yes.
But will CR provide any additional benefit to an already
megadosing human?
> because there's so much non-human CR data around showing
> Max-LS extension, as opposed to very little if any showing the
> same for megadosing with niacin.
But there is no contrary data either.
Nelson J. Navarro
> "Nelson J. Navarro" <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a91894aa.0408...@posting.google.com...
> > Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:<I2wps...@bath.ac.uk>...
> > > Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
> > >
> > > > I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it
> was
> > > > ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place)
> obsolete?
> > >
> > > I fully expect CR will remain by far the best tested anti-aging
> > > intervention for the next ten years or so.
> >
> >
> > Maybe if you're a lab rat, that is.
>
> or a mouse, or a dog or any of the other many species it was "tested"
> for and worked quite fine.
Ok, maybe if you're a lab dog or lab cat, etc.
>
> >
> > How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
> > eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
> > matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
>
> speculative, but entirely?
In my view, yes.
>
> >
> > In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> > with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> > (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
>
> is there as much (if any) direct life-span data (as opposed to
> mechanistic, make-the-case data) for intermittent fasting as there is
> for CR?
Probably not.
>
> >
> > In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> > (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> > place), are a stress response?
>
> what if it is?
Then, IMO, it is all the more likely that: (1) intermittent fasting
with little or no net CR will provide benefits comparable to CR; and,
(2) CR may not only not work in some people, it may actually be
harming them. Who knows, maybe Roy Walford went too far and actually
shortend his life.
How does CR induced stress combine with everyday physical and mental
stress, and stress from dietary "xenohormetics", for example? How do
you know where you are on the "inverted U" dose-response curve typical
for stressors?
> no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
Well, for that matter, *nothing* "has been shown" to slow aging in
humans, which is the case I'm interested in.
With regard to other species, what about intermittent fasting?
(Although Anson et. al. didn't measure life span, it's pretty clear
the IF mice were doing somewhat better than the CR mice).
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13;100(10):6216-20. Epub 2003 Apr
30. Related Articles, Links
Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary
restriction on glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury
from calorie intake.
Anson RM, Guo Z, de Cabo R, Iyun T, Rios M, Hagepanos A, Ingram DK,
Lane MA, Mattson MP.
Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National
Institute on Aging, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Dietary restriction has been shown to have several health benefits
including increased insulin sensitivity, stress resistance, reduced
morbidity, and increased life span. The mechanism remains unknown, but
the need for a long-term reduction in caloric intake to achieve these
benefits has been assumed. We report that when C57BL6 mice are
maintained on an intermittent fasting (alternate-day fasting)
dietary-restriction regimen their overall food intake is not decreased
and their body weight is maintained. Nevertheless, intermittent
fasting resulted in beneficial effects that met or exceeded those of
caloric restriction including reduced serum glucose and insulin levels
and increased resistance of neurons in the brain to excitotoxic
stress. Intermittent fasting therefore has beneficial effects on
glucose regulation and neuronal resistance to injury in these mice
that are independent of caloric intake.
PMID: 12724520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
What about mild exercise induced stress?
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004 Mar;286(3):R505-11. Epub
2003 Nov 13. Related Articles, Links
Beneficial effects of moderate exercise on mice aging: survival,
behavior, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial electron transfer.
Navarro A, Gomez C, Lopez-Cepero JM, Boveris A.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Cadiz, 11003 Cadiz, Spain. ana.n...@uca.es
Moderate exercise in a treadmill (10, 15, and 20 cm/s, for 5 min each,
weekly) from 28 to 78 wk of age extended male and female mice life
span by 19 and 9% accompanied by 36 and 13% and 13 and 9% increased
performance in behavioral assays (tightrope and T-maze tests) at 52 wk
of age. Moderate exercise significantly decreased the aging-associated
development of oxidative stress by preventing 1) the increase in
protein carbonyls and thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances contents
of submitochondrial membranes; 2) the decrease in antioxidant enzyme
activities (Mn- and Cu,Zn-superoxide dismutase and catalase); and 3)
the decrease in mitochondrial NADH-cytochrome-c reductase and
cytochrome oxidase activities observed at 52 wk of mice age in brain,
heart, liver, and kidney. These effects were no longer significant at
78 wk of age in mice. Moderate exercise, started at young age in mice,
increased life span, decreased oxidative stress, and prevented the
decline of cytochrome oxidase activity and behavioral performance at
middle age but not at old age.
PMID: 14615275 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
What about this?
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002 Mar;57(3):B109-14. Related
Articles, Links
Multiple stressors in Caenorhabditis elegans induce stress hormesis
and extended longevity.
Cypser JR, Johnson TE.
Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder
80303, USA.
We demonstrate here that the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans displays
broad hormetic abilities. Hormesis is the induction of beneficial
effects by exposure to low doses of otherwise harmful chemical or
physical agents. Heat as well as pretreatment with hyperbaric oxygen
or juglone (a chemical that generates reactive oxygen species)
significantly increased subsequent resistance to the same challenge.
Cross-tolerance between juglone and oxygen was also observed. The same
heat or oxygen pretreatment regimens that induced subsequent stress
resistance also increased life expectancy and maximum life span of
populations undergoing normal aging. Pretreatment with ultraviolet or
ionizing radiation did not promote subsequent resistance or increased
longevity. In dose-response studies, induced thermotolerance
paralleled the induced increase in life expectancy, which is
consistent with a common origin.
PMID: 11867647 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
And then of course there's this, but it's only a theory:
Mol Microbiol. 2004 Aug;53(4):1003-9. Related Articles, Links
Small molecules that regulate lifespan: evidence for xenohormesis.
Lamming DW, Wood JG, Sinclair DA.
Harvard Medical School, Department of Pathology, 77 Avenue Louis
Pasteur, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Summary Barring genetic manipulation, the diet known as calorie
restriction (CR) is currently the only way to slow down ageing in
mammals. The fact that CR works on most species, even microorganisms,
implies a conserved underlying mechanism. Recent findings in the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae indicate that CR extends lifespan because it
is a mild biological stressor that activates Sir2, a key component of
yeast longevity and the founding member of the sirtuin family of
deacetylases. The sirtuin family appears to have first arisen in
primordial eukaryotes, possibly to help them cope with adverse
conditions. Today they are found in plants, yeast, and animals and may
underlie the remarkable health benefits of CR. Interestingly, a class
of polyphenolic molecules produced by plants in response to stress can
activate the sirtuins from yeast and metazoans. At least in the case
of yeast, these molecules greatly extend lifespan by mimicking CR. One
explanation for this surprising observation is the 'xenohormesis
hypothesis', the idea that organisms have evolved to respond to stress
signalling molecules produced by other species in their environment.
In this way, organisms can prepare in advance for a deteriorating
environment and/or loss of food supply.
PMID: 15306006 [PubMed - in process]
Nelson J. Navarro
> "Nelson J. Navarro" <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a91894aa.0408...@posting.google.com...
> > Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:<I2wps...@bath.ac.uk>...
> > > Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
> > >
<snip>
> > In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> > (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> > place), are a stress response?
>
> what if it is? no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
> yes, some curve squaring in some very specific stress responses (like
> exercise), but no shifting of the curve.
>
> Micky.
I forgot to include this one:
Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-6. Related Articles, Links
Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the
life span of mice.
Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero C.
Laboratoire d'Histologie-Embryologie-Cytogenetique, Faculte de
Medecine Toulouse-Rangueil, Toulouse, France. cara...@cict.fr
BACKGROUND: There is epidemiological evidence that suggests there are
beneficial effects of ionizing radiation at low doses. Some
experimental studies confirmed this hormetic effect with doses of
about 1 cGy/day, but no data concerning very low dose rates are
available. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the life
span of mice exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation. METHODS:
Six hundred female C57BL/6 mice, 1 month old, were exposed to chronic
gamma irradiation at very low dose rates of 7 or 14 cGy/year. These
doses are about 25 or 50 times higher than background, but much lower
than the doses of about 1 cGy/day used in previous experiments. Three
hundred mice living in the same room were used as controls. RESULTS:
The life span, after the beginning of the experiment, determined by
the survival time of 50% of each population, is increased in
irradiated mice: 549 days in controls, 673 days in both irradiated
groups. The differences are significant between the control and the
irradiation mice. Differences between mice irradiated with 7 or 14 cGy
are not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the
possibility of a nonharmful effect (hormesis) of ionizing radiation.
They demonstrate that the paradigm, which states that low-dose effects
can be predicted high-dose effects, cannot be systematically applied
in radiation biology in general and gerontology in particular.
PMID: 9693258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Tim Tyler
> > > How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
> > > eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
> > > matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
> >
> > speculative, but entirely?
>
> In my view, yes.
The lifespans of well-nourished animals are extended by CR - and to
a substantial degree. Inevitably the case for human CR has a speculative
element (in the absence of human lifespan studies) - but it's got a lot
more evidence behind it than any other intervention.
> > > In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> > > with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> > > (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
> >
> > is there as much (if any) direct life-span data (as opposed to
> > mechanistic, make-the-case data) for intermittent fasting as there is
> > for CR?
>
> Probably not.
As far as I'm aware there are approximately two lifespan studies that
bear directly on the question of CR vs IF.
``Temporal pattern of food intake not a factor in the retardation of
aging processes by dietary restriction.''
- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7814779
``Meal-timing, circadian rhythms and life span of mice.''
- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=3794831
These are isocaloric studies. As a brief summary, they suggest
intermittent fasting has no obvious benefit over isocaloric CR.
> > > In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> > > (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> > > place), are a stress response?
> >
> > what if it is?
>
> Then, IMO, it is all the more likely that: (1) intermittent fasting
> with little or no net CR will provide benefits comparable to CR [...]
If improves *some* things better than isocaloric CR does - but it's
more stressful, and there's no evidence for any life extension beyond
an isocaloric CR regime.
> (2) CR may not only not work in some people, it may actually be
> harming them.
Definitely true. Do not practice CR if you have tapeworms - or are
suffering from a wasting disorder.
> Who knows, maybe Roy Walford went too far and actually
> shortend his life.
Locking yourself up in an enclosed habitat for two years where
most of the vertebrates and pollinating insects died was probably
not a smart move for a life extensionist - but I'm not sure
whether Roy ever stated that his aim was to live for a long time.
> How does CR induced stress combine with everyday physical and mental
> stress, and stress from dietary "xenohormetics", for example?
Some similarities, some differences.
> How do you know where you are on the "inverted U" dose-response curve
> typical for stressors?
My approach to deciding where I want to be on such curves mostly
involves trial and error. I go along the curve, examine myself
and then adjust.
> > no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
>
> Well, for that matter, *nothing* "has been shown" to slow aging in
> humans, which is the case I'm interested in.
>
> With regard to other species, what about intermittent fasting?
> (Although Anson et. al. [PMID: 12724520] didn't measure life span, it's
> pretty clear the IF mice were doing somewhat better than the CR mice).
No, it isn't. They were better on a small number of parameters -
but maybe they were much worse on some other ones. The lifespan
studies that we *do* have show no net benefit of IF on LS compared
to an isocaloric CR regime.
Tim Tyler
> In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> place), are a stress response?
The theory about why CR works which I prefer is the one elucidated on:
Basically calorie restriction activates a switch to an "alternative way
of being" - characterised by an altered pattern of gene expression.
In other words, it activates a "survival mode".
The mode differs from the one organisms are normally in - primarily
through the different way immediate resources are allocated
between maintenance activities and reproductive activities.
Low calorie consumption *definitely* qualifies as source of stress.
It's a particular sort of stress - and not all stresses are alike.
I wouldn't normally say that CR was effective at prolonging lifespan
*because* it was stressful.
There are different sorts of stress, and whether there are health benefits
depends of the intensity of the stress - and on the harmfulness of any
associated side effects.
However, I do expect some other stressors to prove to have life extension
effects - along similar grounds to CR.
One of my favourite candidates is acupuncture. I believe that there are
approximately zero lifespan studies so far - but from what I can see, the
intervention is relatively safe - and is effective at activating healing
and maintenance activities via stimulation of the immune system - and so
I suspect acupuncture might prove to be a practical life-extension tool.
Some of those nasty chemicals plants use to protect themselves against
predation might also produce similar effects in large enough creatures.
There may be a grain of truth in the "if it doesn't kill you" saying.
Nelson J. Navarro
> Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
>
> > > > How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
> > > > eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
> > > > matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
> > >
> > > speculative, but entirely?
> >
> > In my view, yes.
>
> The lifespans of well-nourished animals are extended by CR - and to
> a substantial degree.
I don't claim to know an awful lot about the experimental evidence for
CR (mainly because I'm not interested in doing it myself and haven't
spent much time looking into it, accordingly) but I think that
statement is somewhat misleading. Aren't there some strains of mice,
for example, that get no benefit from CR? Doesn't CR generally have a
significantly smaller effect on females? Isn't late life CR
ineffective if not harmful in many cases?
Inevitably the case for human CR has a speculative
> element (in the absence of human lifespan studies)
A really big "speculative element", IMO.
- but it's got a lot
> more evidence behind it than any other intervention.
For lab animals eating lab chow, yes...but because of the nature of
the situation, the "lab animals eating lab chow" evidence just doesn't
mean much to me.
>
> > > > In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> > > > with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> > > > (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
> > >
> > > is there as much (if any) direct life-span data (as opposed to
> > > mechanistic, make-the-case data) for intermittent fasting as there is
> > > for CR?
> >
> > Probably not.
>
> As far as I'm aware there are approximately two lifespan studies that
> bear directly on the question of CR vs IF.
>
> ``Temporal pattern of food intake not a factor in the retardation of
> aging processes by dietary restriction.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7814779
>
> ``Meal-timing, circadian rhythms and life span of mice.''
>
> - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=3794831
>
> These are isocaloric studies. As a brief summary, they suggest
> intermittent fasting has no obvious benefit over isocaloric CR.
For the sake of argument perhaps we can just agree that the two are
"comparable" in effect and leave it at that.
>
> > > > In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> > > > (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> > > > place), are a stress response?
> > >
> > > what if it is?
> >
> > Then, IMO, it is all the more likely that: (1) intermittent fasting
> > with little or no net CR will provide benefits comparable to CR [...]
>
> If improves *some* things better than isocaloric CR does - but it's
> more stressful, and there's no evidence for any life extension beyond
> an isocaloric CR regime.
Anson et. al. found lower glucose and insulin in IF animals...so if
someone forced me to modulate my food intake in some manner, I would
choose IF over CR.
>
> > (2) CR may not only not work in some people, it may actually be
> > harming them.
>
> Definitely true. Do not practice CR if you have tapeworms - or are
> suffering from a wasting disorder.
>
> > Who knows, maybe Roy Walford went too far and actually
> > shortend his life.
>
> Locking yourself up in an enclosed habitat for two years where
> most of the vertebrates and pollinating insects died was probably
> not a smart move for a life extensionist - but I'm not sure
> whether Roy ever stated that his aim was to live for a long time.
It's hard to believe that he did not "aim" for a long life.
>
> > How does CR induced stress combine with everyday physical and mental
> > stress, and stress from dietary "xenohormetics", for example?
>
> Some similarities, some differences.
I'm referring to the fact that I don't know how, for life-extension
purposes, the type of stress induced by CR will combine with, say, a
diet that's high in quercetin, or a job that is very physically or
mentally demanding, or a rigorous exercise regimen, etc.
>
> > How do you know where you are on the "inverted U" dose-response curve
> > typical for stressors?
>
> My approach to deciding where I want to be on such curves mostly
> involves trial and error. I go along the curve, examine myself
> and then adjust.
>
> > > no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
> >
> > Well, for that matter, *nothing* "has been shown" to slow aging in
> > humans, which is the case I'm interested in.
> >
> > With regard to other species, what about intermittent fasting?
> > (Although Anson et. al. [PMID: 12724520] didn't measure life span, it's
> > pretty clear the IF mice were doing somewhat better than the CR mice).
>
> No, it isn't.
Well they had somewhat lower glucose and insulin levels, I'd call that
better.
I don't think there's much doubt that the lower the insulin levels
don't imply longer life.
> They were better on a small number of parameters -
The two *main* parameters, glucose and insulin levels.
> but maybe they were much worse on some other ones.
Well, the full paper is available, and I looked at it, and it looks
like IF is better than CR.
Michael
This is a summary of some posts I've made on the CR Society List on
Every Other Day (EOD) AL feeding, as vs. Limited Daily Feeding (LDF --
"conventional" CR), esp as regards the suggestion -- based on the
metabolic effects observed in some new studies by Mark Mattson et al
(1,2) -- that EOD, even in the absence of overall CR (ie, in the
presence of compensatory overeating on the feeding day) might still
slow aging and extend LS. My conclusion is that EOD is not a promising
life-extension strategy, especially for implementation in adult
animals.
I believe it addresses most of the questions & speculatioins put
forward on these subjects in the present thread, & also the notion of
hormesis per se as an anti-aging intervention (again, per se) in
mammals (the evidence for its efficacy in flies, roundworms, and yeast
is much stronger -- unsurprisingly, as de Grey's MiFRA does not apply
to them).
For greater completeness, since Nelson cited it as evidence in favor
of the hormesis hypothesis, let me note that this study:
Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero C.
Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the
life span of
mice.
Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-6.
PMID: 9693258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
... is just "the usual nonsense," as in B vitamins, antioxidants
tested to date, nucleic acids, etc. A cohort of normal,
well-nourished, well-cared-for, non-genetically-mangled mouse not fed
carcinogens or shot up with botulism etc, will live on average ~900
days, will achieve a maximum lifespan of ~1200 days. In this study,
the control animals only lived 549 days on average. Being short-lived,
the "extensions" of lifespan noted in the irradiated group are in fact
just partial normalizations of a shortened life expectancy -- and very
partial at that (to 673 days). Moreover, maximum LS was unaffected.
While the authors do not actually give us the data on max LS per se
(ie, av'g longevity of most longevous decile of the cohort), it's
pretty darned clear from the survival curve (Fig 2) that there was no
effect, and indeed the last mouse in each cohort died within the same
month (which is between months 32 adn 36, and appears to be ~34 mo --
ie, ~1035 days.
This was all the more remarkable since the strain of mouse is
certainly healthy; what the poor little furballs were subjected to in
the Laboratoire d'Histologie-Embryologie-Cytogenetique du Faculte de
Medecine Toulouse-Rangueil cannot have been very healthy.
This, of course, tells us no more about the benefits of hormesis to a
healthy mouse -- let alone a healthy human -- than does a trial
showing extended lifespan in people given succimer after a mercury
spill.
I'll address the misrepresentation of CR Society Prez Brian and
Longevinex "resveratrol" seperately.
The edited post :
--------
The question is important. CR is, at present, the only intervention
available which is proven to retard aging in mammals -- and a large
body of evidence strongly suggests that it does so in humans as well.
CR might make the difference between your catching the first wave of
anti-aging biomedical interventions and missing them by a few months
or years; it might also be crucial for your ability to actually use
those interventions, as it will not just keep you alive, but
biologically young. Biological youth might well be key to either
implementing those technologies (especially if they merely slow down,
as opposed to arrest or reverse, the aging process) or to your ability
to survive them without complications (if they are invasive,
physically ardurous, or prone to side-effects). Based on the evidence
reviewed below, this means you'll have to adapt to a lifestyle of
tracking and reducing your Calories; simply adapting an EOD or "food
window" strategy is unlikely to work.
Let me first point out the obvious, tho' it seems to be often
overlooked in discussions on the subject. Contrary to the impression
many people seem to've gotten from pop press acounts, Mattson's
studies (1,2) do not provide any lifespan data. All they have shown is
that EOD animals undergo a variety of favorable-looking metabolic
shifts, such as lower insulin and glucose levels. These shifts, while
consistent with the effects of LDF, do not themselves constitute
evidence that EOD will lead to life extension in the absence of actual
Calorie restriction.
Many studies in which EOD has been implemented in juvenile animals
have demonstrated LS extension (3-7) (most of them coauthored by
Ingram (a coauthor of (2)) -- but in all of these studies, EOD animals
have undergone decreases in the ballpark of ~30% in body weight in
response to EOD feeding, which suggests that their overall Caloric
intake has indeed been reduced -- an inference which (when measured)
has been confirmed. (NB that (1), unlike (2), reported just this
change).
Of these studies, (5) is of special interest. In this study,
-----------------
Beginning at either 1.5, 6 or 10 months of age, male mice from the A/J
and C57BL/6J strains and their F1 hybrid, B6AF1/J were fed a diet (4.2
kcal/g) either ad libitum every day or in a restricted fashion by ad
libitum feeding every other day.
Relative to estimates for ad libitum controls, the body weights of the
intermittently-fed restricted C57BL/6J and hybrid mice were reduced
and mean and maximum life span were incremented when the
every-other-day regimen was initiated at 1.5 or 6 months of age. When
every-other-day feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both
these genotypes lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean
life span was not significantly affected although maximum life span
was increased.
Among A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body weight
relative to ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10 months of
age; however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum life span
when begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and maximum life
span when begun at 10 months.
--------------
That is: the one strain that did not undergo a reduction in BW (&
thus, by implication, a reduction in overall Caloric intake) in
response to EOD was the same one in which this regimen -- when
implemented in adulthood -- not only failed to increase mean & max LS,
but actually shortened them.
At the same time, the strains in which EOD did reduce BW (& thus, by
implication overall Caloric intake) DID extend LS -- but not robustly.
Indeed, the lack of an increase in mean LS observed in these strains
when implemented in adulthood, despite a (presumed) reduction in
Caloric intake, suggests a lot of early mortality (otherwise the max
LS increase would, by simple arithmetic, increase av'g LS), again
suggesting that this is not a promising strategy.
Also of note is that one of these 'successful' strains was, in fact,
the very same strain (C57BL/6) which (2) reported not to show reduced
BW. It seems reasonable to assume that the statistically
nonsignificant reduction in BW observed in (2) is simply the result of
the brevity of the experiment to date, and that -- extended over a
lifespan -- the small Caloric deficit slowly manifests itself, leading
to the loss of BW observed in (5). Thus, even (2)'s results may
actually be the result of CR.
Second, in studies in which the timing of feeding has been manipulated
(single day feeding vs. several smaller feeding sessions/day) while
keeping Caloric intake constant, no differences in LS have been
observed: the survival curves overlap, almost perfectly (8-10). This
again suggests that the life-extending effects of EOD, when observed,
are simply the result of reduced Caloric intake. This is a direct
experimental refutation of the whole notion IMO, and certainly refutes
the increasingly-widespread notion that just concentrating the same
amount of food into one meal per day or a window of a few hours will
have any substantial impact on long-term health or LS.
Third, while Mattson's group is promulgating the idea that hormesis
(the adaptive response to a specific stressor (such as hunger) with an
overall upregulation of nonspecific stress-resistance ("that which
does not kill you makes you stronger")) plays a key role in the
effects of CR/EOD/LDF, so that a more 'stressful' dietary pattern
(such as simply concentrating the same number of Calories into a
single meal or window) will simulate CR under isocaloric feeding or
enhance "regular" LDF, & while these may very well be involved in some
of the health benefits of these regimens (including, especially, the
neuroprotective effects, via a preconditioning mechanism), (15)
provides several lines of evidence which strongly suggest that it is
not, at least in mammals:
(a) hormesis induced by a multitude of other mechanisms (exercise,
cold, heat shock, irradiation) has repeatedly failed to extend max ls
in mammals (tho' an ambiguity in (13), combined with other evidence,
continues to intrigue me about exposure to cold -- but that other
evidence implies mechanisms other than hormesis are also at work), &
doesn't clearly do so even in flies, worms etc (where most of the
hormesis work has been done);
(b) most of the evidence is in poikilotherms, in whom the stressors
apparently lower metabolic rate; this would (per simple-minded
rate-of-living mechanisms) slow aging in such organisms -- but would
be unlikely to be relevant to mammalian aging;
(c) there's inconsistency in the hormesis work, per strain & gender &
other factors, which make hormesis per se questionable as a causal
agent in the observed effect & certainly a poor place to directly
place one's bet (ie, thru' ignoring Calories in favor of EOD AL, per
(2-7)'s protocols; and in particular
(d) it isn't clear that hormesis extends longevity at all, except in
adverse conditions where longevity is cut short by environmental
hardship (addressing extrinsic rather than intrinsic mortality;
curve-squaring, not slowing aging). Where the control group is
longevous, hormetic interventions seem to have little or no impact on
LS. (Cf Sohal's recent analysis (16) and new results (17) using
SOD-transgenic flies).
Another line of evidence cited in favor of the benefits of EOD is the
fact that it seems to provide some neuroprotection against a variety
of hideous neurotoxins -- for instance, kainate excitotoxicity in (2)
(& other excitotoxins in previous EOD studies from Mattson's lab). I
don't think that injecting the brain with hideous toxins tells us much
about the kinds of challenges that the human brain is likely to
experience on a day-to-day basis, or as part of "normal" aging, and I
certainly don't think they tell us much about the impact of this
regimen on the aging process. In any case, I suggest that the observed
results are best explained as a mixture of the increased ketone body
production noted in (2) and a preconditioning hormetic mechanism. As
(2) notes -- but fails to emphasize -- ketogenic diets, per se,
independent of CR, are widely experimentally & clinically demonstrated
to have neuroprotective effects & reduce seizures ((11-14), including
against kainate (eg. (11)). The mechanism is apparently NOT any direct
neuroprotective effect, nor a change in excitatory signalling; it may
be a simple matter of providing an alternative energy source, which
could rescue neurons in excitotoxic crisis:
"[E]pileptic patients undergoing cortical resection, demonstrated
abnormal expression of [blood-brain barrier] glucose transporter
molecules (GLUT1) ... Diminished ion homeostasis together with
increased metabolic demand of hyperactive neurons may further
aggravate the neuropathological consequences of BBB loss of glucose
uptake mechanisms. Since ketone bodies can provide an alternative to
glucose to support brain energy requirements, it is hypothesized that
one of the mechanisms of the ketogenic diet in epilepsy may relate to
increased availability of beta-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body readily
transported at the BBB." (14)
Finally, even looking at the metabolic results of (1,2) seems IMO to
argue against the EOD paradigm (in the absence of overall energy
restriction) as a fully effective alternative to CR. Because while
glycemia and resistance to excitotoxins were improved, they seem to
report that EOD doesn't lower IGF1 -- even when actual Caloric
restriction is associated therewith.
The cardiovascular study (2), in which 4 mo old rats on an EOD
"regimen consumed 30% less food over time and had reduced body weights
compared with rats fed ad libitum" found that wehn "The levels of ..
IGF-1 in plasma were assessed at 3 and 6 months after diet initiation.
... [T]here were no significant differences in plasma IGF-1 levels
among the three groups [AL, EOD, and 2-DG] at either time point,
although IGF-1 levels in group IF were lower after 6 months on the
diet (Table 1)" -- ie, there was a nominal reduction, if you want to
play voodoo, but not statistically significant, at 6 mo, and no change
at all at 3 mo -- hardly a robust-sounding response.
Even more surprisingly, the excitotoxin study (1), in which EOD did
not lead to any reduction in weight or overall food intake, actually
reported that EOD *increased* IGF1: "Levels of circulating IGF-1 were
decreased in mice on the [LDF] diet but increased in mice on the [EOD]
diet".
Granted the extensive evidence that interfering with IGF1 signalling
exerts anti-aging effects in a variety of species -- including several
rodent models (Ames and Snell dwarves, IGF1-receptor heterozygous
knockouts, etc) -- & that LDF lowers IGF1, it seems reasonable to
assert (and many do) that many of the benefits of LDF may arise from
reduced IGF1. If this is the case, then EOD without CR would be
predicted to flop. This may be one reason for the failure of EOD to
increase LS when implemented in adulthood in the A/J strain.
As has been pointed out to me, however, it is possible that the
significant reductions in insulin observed in EOD might result in
sufficiently elevated IGFBPs as to reduce actual IGF1 signalling. I
would call out to Mattson et al to test this parameter.
However, whatever the actual impact on EOD on this particular
metabolic parameter, the weight of the evidence on LS (3-10) seems to
me to strongly argue against an anti-aging effect of EOD in the
absence of overall CR.
-Michael
1. Wan R, Camandola S, Mattson MP.
Intermittent fasting and dietary supplementation with
2-deoxy-D-glucose improve
functional and metabolic cardiovascular risk factors in rats.
FASEB J. 2003 Apr 22 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12709404 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
2: Anson RM, Guo Z, De Cabo R, Iyun T, Rios M, Hagepanos A, Ingram DK,
Lane MA, Mattson MP.
Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary
restriction on
glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury from calorie
intake.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 30 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12724520 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
3: Beauchene RE, Bales CW, Bragg CS, Hawkins ST, Mason RL.
Effect of age of initiation of feed restriction on growth, body
composition,
and longevity of rats.
J Gerontol. 1986 Jan;41(1):13-9.
PMID: 3941250 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Goodrick CL, Ingram DK, Reynolds MA, Freeman JR, Cider NL.
Differential effects of intermittent feeding and voluntary exercise on
body
weight and lifespan in adult rats.
J Gerontol. 1983 Jan;38(1):36-45.
PMID: 6848584 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Goodrick CL, Ingram DK, Reynolds MA, Freeman JR, Cider N.
Effects of intermittent feeding upon body weight and lifespan in
inbred mice:
interaction of genotype and age.
Mech Ageing Dev. 1990 Jul;55(1):69-87.
PMID: 2402168 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Goodrick CL, Ingram DK, Reynolds MA, Freeman JR, Cider NL.
Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth, activity, and lifespan in
rats
allowed voluntary exercise.
Exp Aging Res. 1983 Fall;9(3):203-9.
PMID: 6641783 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Goodrick CL, Ingram DK, Reynolds MA, Freeman JR, Cider NL.
Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span in rats.
Gerontology. 1982;28(4):233-41.
PMID: 7117847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8. Masoro EJ, Shimokawa I, Higami Y, McMahan CA, Yu BP.
Temporal pattern of food intake not a factor in the retardation of
aging
processes by dietary restriction.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995 Jan;50A(1):B48-53.
PMID: 7814779; UI: 95114284
9. Nelson W.
Food restriction, circadian disorder and longevity of rats and mice.
J Nutr. 1988 Mar;118(3):286-9. Review.
PMID: 3280755; UI: 88171757
10. Nelson W, Halberg F.
Meal-timing, circadian rhythms and life span of mice.
J Nutr. 1986 Nov;116(11):2244-53.
PMID: 3794831; UI: 87085847
11. Noh HS, Kim YS, Lee HP, Chung KM, Kim DW, Kang SS, Cho GJ, Choi
WS.
The protective effect of a ketogenic diet on kainic acid-induced
hippocampal
cell death in the male ICR mice.
Epilepsy Res. 2003 Feb;53(1-2):119-28.
PMID: 12576173 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12. Lefevre F, Aronson N.
Ketogenic diet for the treatment of refractory epilepsy in children: A
systematic review of efficacy.
Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4):E46. Review.
PMID: 10742367 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13. Stafstrom CE.
Animal models of the ketogenic diet: what have we learned, what can we
learn?
Epilepsy Res. 1999 Dec;37(3):241-59. Review.
PMID: 10584974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14. Janigro D.
Blood-brain barrier, ion homeostatis and epilepsy: possible
implications
towards the understanding of ketogenic diet mechanisms.
Epilepsy Res. 1999 Dec;37(3):223-32. Review.
PMID: 10584972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15. Minois N.
Longevity and aging: beneficial effects of exposure to mild stress.
Biogerontology. 2000;1(1):15-29. Review.
PMID: 11707916 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16. Orr WC, Sohal RS.
Does overexpression of Cu,Zn-SOD extend life span in Drosophila
melanogaster?
Exp Gerontol. 2003 Mar;38(3):227-30.
PMID: 12581785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: Orr WC, Mockett RJ, Benes JJ, Sohal RS.
Effects of overexpression of copper-zinc and manganese superoxide
dismutases,
catalase, and thioredoxin reductase genes on longevity in Drosophila
melanogaster.
J Biol Chem. 2003 Jul 18;278(29):26418-22. Epub 2003 May 12.
PMID: 12743125 [PubMed - in process]
Michael
soowhat...@hotmail.com (Arbor) wrote in message news:<9ffdc316.04082...@posting.google.com>...
Contrary to the impression the piece might give, B did not one day
ABANDON CR in favor of supplementation with L*ngevinex: rather, he
reduced the SEVERITY of his CR *several years ago* (because he found
himself unacceptably skinny), and then *recently* added L*ngevinex to
his supplement regimen.
IE, there was a temporal, but not causal, relationship between the two
facts -- again contrary to the impression one mgiht gather from the
article.
-Michael
--
For every hundred bucks the National Institutes of Health devotes to
scientific research, only 6¢ go to fundamental research on the
biology of aging.Spiderman II brought in $180 million in its first six
days of performance. So any one day's receipts for Spiderman
represents *23 years* of basic aging research.
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<I30A7...@bath.ac.uk>...
> > Nelson J. Navarro <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted:
> > > > > How much benefit a person may get from it, particularly someone who
> > > > > eats a "healthy" diet and takes nutritional supplements, is another
> > > > > matter; it is almost entirely speculative, IMO.
> > > >
> > > > speculative, but entirely?
> > >
> > > In my view, yes.
> >
> > The lifespans of well-nourished animals are extended by CR - and to
> > a substantial degree.
>
> I don't claim to know an awful lot about the experimental evidence for
> CR (mainly because I'm not interested in doing it myself and haven't
> spent much time looking into it, accordingly) but I think that
> statement is somewhat misleading. Aren't there some strains of mice,
> for example, that get no benefit from CR? Doesn't CR generally have a
> significantly smaller effect on females? Isn't late life CR
> ineffective if not harmful in many cases?
I didn't mean to suggest that every single subject would have their
lifespan equally extended - which appears to be the thesis your points
are directed against.
> > > > > In light of this, and in light of the fact that intermittent fasting
> > > > > with little or no net calorie restriction seems to work just as well
> > > > > (if not better) in the lab, why not do this instead?
> > > >
> > > > is there as much (if any) direct life-span data (as opposed to
> > > > mechanistic, make-the-case data) for intermittent fasting as there is
> > > > for CR?
> > >
> > > Probably not.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware there are approximately two lifespan studies that
> > bear directly on the question of CR vs IF.
> >
> > ``Temporal pattern of food intake not a factor in the retardation of
> > aging processes by dietary restriction.''
> >
> > - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=7814779
> >
> > ``Meal-timing, circadian rhythms and life span of mice.''
> >
> > - http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=3794831
> >
> > These are isocaloric studies. As a brief summary, they suggest
> > intermittent fasting has no obvious benefit over isocaloric CR.
>
> For the sake of argument perhaps we can just agree that the two are
> "comparable" in effect and leave it at that.
The "two" being "CR" and "an equal degree of CR with IF".
If one is to draw conclusions from just these two studies, (and they
are the only two I know of that compare CR with IF while controlling
for calorie intake) the conclusion must be that the entire life extension
effect is attributable to a reduction in calorie intake - and that
adopting an intermittent feeding regime (while keeping calories constant)
has no effect on lifespan.
> > > > > In any case, do you agree or disagree that the health benefits of CR
> > > > > (to the extent they may exist in any particular case in the first
> > > > > place), are a stress response?
> > > >
> > > > what if it is?
> > >
> > > Then, IMO, it is all the more likely that: (1) intermittent fasting
> > > with little or no net CR will provide benefits comparable to CR [...]
> >
> > If improves *some* things better than isocaloric CR does - but it's
> > more stressful, and there's no evidence for any life extension beyond
> > an isocaloric CR regime.
>
> Anson et. al. found lower glucose and insulin in IF animals...so if
> someone forced me to modulate my food intake in some manner, I would
> choose IF over CR.
For me, there are more factors than my glucose and insulin levels.
> > > Who knows, maybe Roy Walford went too far and actually
> > > shortend his life.
> >
> > Locking yourself up in an enclosed habitat for two years where
> > most of the vertebrates and pollinating insects died was probably
> > not a smart move for a life extensionist - but I'm not sure
> > whether Roy ever stated that his aim was to live for a long time.
>
> It's hard to believe that he did not "aim" for a long life.
The idea appears contrary to his statements and behaviour:
``"If you spend all your time in the laboratory, as most scientists do,
you might spend 35 years in the lab and be very successful and win a Nobel
Prize," he told The Times in 2002. "But those 35 years will be just a
blur. So I find it useful to punctuate time with dangerous and eccentric
activities." He shaved his head, sported a Salvador Dali mustache and
rode a motorcycle, once breaking his leg while attempting a wheelie on
Santa Monica Boulevard.''
- http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~scoles/RWalford.htm
> > > How does CR induced stress combine with everyday physical and mental
> > > stress, and stress from dietary "xenohormetics", for example?
> >
> > Some similarities, some differences.
>
> I'm referring to the fact that I don't know how, for life-extension
> purposes, the type of stress induced by CR will combine with, say, a
> diet that's high in quercetin, or a job that is very physically or
> mentally demanding, or a rigorous exercise regimen, etc.
My apologies for my (confused) answer. I misread your question (I read
"combine" as "compare").
I think the question of how CR interacts with other aspects of people's
lives really has to be answered on an individual basis. As well as its
benefits, CR has a range of less-than-desirable side effects - and
different people are likely to vary in the extent to which they are
are impacted by these.
Regarding quercetin - at least one negative interaction with a fruit
element has been reported recently (albeit in flies):
``Sirtuins don't extend life when coupled with real caloric restriction.
In fact, when flies on a low-calorie diet ate resveratrol and fisetin,
they didn't live any longer than average flies.''
- http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article3524.html
It does seem possible that stress sources are cumulative - and that
already highly-stressed inidviduals might not do well with the additional
source of stress that CR induces.
We know quite a bit about how CR interacts with other things - but
of course we don't yet know everything.
> > > > no other "stress response" has been show to slow aging.
> > >
> > > Well, for that matter, *nothing* "has been shown" to slow aging in
> > > humans, which is the case I'm interested in.
> > >
> > > With regard to other species, what about intermittent fasting?
> > > (Although Anson et. al. [PMID: 12724520] didn't measure life span, it's
> > > pretty clear the IF mice were doing somewhat better than the CR mice).
> >
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Well they had somewhat lower glucose and insulin levels, I'd call that
> better. I don't think there's much doubt that the lower the
> insulin levels don't imply longer life.
Other things being equal.
But in this case other things are most definitely *not* equal - the
organisms are regularly fasting.
There are several possible hazzards - including regular malnutrition
of easily-exhausted micronutrients, and higher levels of stress.
> > They were better on a small number of parameters -
>
> The two *main* parameters, glucose and insulin levels.
Glucose and insulin improvements could easily be trumped by
life-shortening effects of excessive stress.
> > but maybe they were much worse on some other ones.
>
> Well, the full paper is available, and I looked at it, and it looks
> like IF is better than CR.
The issue is still a controversial one. IF is *much* less well studied
than CR - and so most likely represents more of a risk. It does seem
possible that some particular sort of intermittent feeding will produce
lifespan benefits - however, nobody really knows what the best temporal
pattern of food intake will wind up looking like at this stage.
It *does* look to me as though by far the most important LE intervention
will remain calorie restriction - and that intermittent fasting is most
likely to represent some minor icing on the cake - if it proves to have
any positive effect on lifespan at all.
Michael C Price
> The lifespans of well-nourished animals are extended by CR -
> and to a substantial degree. Inevitably the case for human CR
> has a speculative element (in the absence of human lifespan studies)
> - but it's got a lot more evidence behind it than any other intervention.
Perhaps because fewer studies have been conducted on other
interventions.
[....]
>> Who knows, maybe Roy Walford went too far and actually
>> shortend his life.
>
> Locking yourself up in an enclosed habitat for two years where
> most of the vertebrates and pollinating insects died was probably
> not a smart move for a life extensionist - but I'm not sure
> whether Roy ever stated that his aim was to live for a long time.
The preface of his book "Maximum Lifespan" states that whilst
still at [high] school:
"Life span extension became my primary task, an
intellectual adventure and personal challenge in its
own right and a key to others."
His final days were spend trying to sign up for cryonics, so I
don't think there can be any doubt that he was an aspiring
immortalist in the personal as well as abstract sense.
Whilst I disagreed with many of his takes, e.g. his
anti-megadosing stance, there's no doubt his heart was in
the right place. But, as Karl marx said, the road to hell is
paved with good intentions.
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler:
> > The lifespans of well-nourished animals are extended by CR -
> > and to a substantial degree. Inevitably the case for human CR
> > has a speculative element (in the absence of human lifespan studies)
> > - but it's got a lot more evidence behind it than any other intervention.
>
> Perhaps because fewer studies have been conducted on other
> interventions.
Quite possibly: other interventions in existence today
might also eventually prove to be effective.
However testing is important - without it nobody is in a
very good position to tell what works and what doesn't.
Nelson J. Navarro
> All:
>
> This is a summary of some posts I've made on the CR Society
Please, spare us...
List on
> Every Other Day (EOD) AL feeding, as vs. Limited Daily Feeding (LDF --
> "conventional" CR), esp as regards the suggestion -- based on the
> metabolic effects observed in some new studies by Mark Mattson et al
> (1,2) -- that EOD, even in the absence of overall CR (ie, in the
> presence of compensatory overeating on the feeding day) might still
> slow aging and extend LS. My conclusion is that EOD is not a promising
> life-extension strategy, especially for implementation in adult
> animals.
I'll bet there's no argument and no data that anyone could ever set in
front of you that would cause you to question (at least in public)
your rigid, long-held paradigms regarding CR and the utility of CR for
life-extensionists.
>
> I believe it addresses most of the questions & speculatioins put
> forward on these subjects in the present thread, & also the notion of
> hormesis per se as an anti-aging intervention (again, per se)
What do you mean by "hormesis" vis-a-vis "hormesis per se" and an
"anti-aging intervention" vis-a-vis an "anti-aging intervention per
se"? I'm afraid I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to
make.
in
> mammals (the evidence for its efficacy in flies, roundworms, and yeast
> is much stronger -- unsurprisingly, as de Grey's MiFRA does not apply
> to them).
You're implying that life extension by hormesis in mammals is at odds
with MiFRA theory?
>
> For greater completeness, since Nelson cited it as evidence in favor
> of the hormesis hypothesis, let me note that this study:
Frankly, since you haven't been posting much lately, I wasn't
expecting one of your long-winded, intellectually dishonest polemics.
Had I known, I might have been more comprehensive and included some
examples involving humans.
>
> Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero C.
> Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the
> life span of
> mice.
> Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-6.
> PMID: 9693258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>
> ... is just "the usual nonsense," as in B vitamins, antioxidants
> tested to date, nucleic acids, etc.
As in anything that doesn't generally comport with *your* dogmatism.
A cohort of normal,
> well-nourished, well-cared-for, non-genetically-mangled mouse not fed
> carcinogens or shot up with botulism etc, will live on average ~900
> days, will achieve a maximum lifespan of ~1200 days. In this study,
> the control animals only lived 549 days on average. Being short-lived,
> the "extensions" of lifespan noted in the irradiated group are in fact
> just partial normalizations of a shortened life expectancy -- and very
> partial at that (to 673 days). Moreover, maximum LS was unaffected.
> While the authors do not actually give us the data on max LS per se
> (ie, av'g longevity of most longevous decile of the cohort), it's
> pretty darned clear from the survival curve (Fig 2) that there was no
> effect, and indeed the last mouse in each cohort died within the same
> month (which is between months 32 adn 36, and appears to be ~34 mo --
> ie, ~1035 days.
>
> This was all the more remarkable since the strain of mouse is
> certainly healthy; what the poor little furballs were subjected to in
> the Laboratoire d'Histologie-Embryologie-Cytogenetique du Faculte de
> Medecine Toulouse-Rangueil cannot have been very healthy.
>
> This, of course, tells us no more about the benefits of hormesis to a
> healthy mouse -- let alone a healthy human -- than does a trial
> showing extended lifespan in people given succimer after a mercury
> spill.
Ok, so you don't like that study (what a surprise!). How about some
studies involving humans; would that suit your fancy? (Actually, as I
stated earlier, I know you well enough to believe that there is no
study and no data that could ever be presented to you that would cause
you to publicly question your apparent long-held views.
Health Phys. 1993 Nov;65(5):529-31. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
Health Phys. 1994 Aug;67(2):197-8.
Relationship between exposure to radon and various types of cancer.
Cohen BL.
University of Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
Correlations are studied between average radon levels in 1600 U.S.
counties and mortality rates in them from various types of cancer. By
far the strongest correlation is with lung cancer, but the sign of the
correlation is negative. When smoking prevalence is included in a
multiple regression, the large negative correlation between radon and
lung cancer is essentially unaffected.
PMID: 8225990 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Int J Radiat Biol. 1990 Dec;58(6):1035-43.
Comment in:
Int J Radiat Biol. 1991 Jun;59(6):1483, 1485-6.
Apparently beneficial effect of low to intermediate doses of A-bomb
radiation on human lifespan.
Mine M, Okumura Y, Ichimaru M, Nakamura T, Kondo S.
Scientific Data Center for A-Bomb Disaster, Nagasaki University School
of Medicine, Japan.
Among about 100,000 A-bomb survivors registered at Nagasaki University
School of Medicine, 290 male subjects exposed to 50-149 cGy showed
significantly lower mortality from non-cancerous diseases than
age-matched unexposed males. This was deduced from the fitting of a
U-shaped dose-response relationship. Reasons for this effect in males,
but not in females, are discussed with reference to selection of
individuals and to hormesis.
PMID: 1978852 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Hiroshima J Med Sci. 1989 Jun;38(2):53-67. Related Articles, Links
Mortality statistics of major causes of death among atomic bomb
survivors in Hiroshima Prefecture from 1968 to 1982.
Hayakawa N, Ohtaki M, Ueoka H, Matsuura M, Munaka M, Kurihara M.
A comparative study was made on mortality during a 15-year period from
1968 to 1982 between atomic bomb survivors resident in Hiroshima
Prefecture and non-exposed controls. The mortality rate for all causes
of death was lower in atomic bomb survivors than in the non-exposed,
but the rate was higher among those directly exposed within about 1 km
than in the non-exposed. [...]
PMID: 2793517 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I have some other references that I do not have access to that
supposedly show in inverse relation between low-dose radiation and
cancer and all-cause mortality:
Frigerio, N. A. and Stowe, R. S., Carcinogenic and genetic hazard from
background radiation, Biological and environmental effects of
low-level radiation, IAEA, Vienna, Vol. II, pp. 385-393, 1976.
Abbat, J. D., Hamilton, T. R. and Weeks, J. L., Epidemiological
studies in three corporations covering the Canadian nuclear fuel
cycle; Biological effects of low level radiation, IAEA, Vienna, 351
(1983).
<snip> This is getting too long, more later if I get a chance.
Michael C Price
no data will ever convince Mr Rae. If a nutrient extends LS
he will always claim the controls were malnourished or
that what "really" happened was crypto-CR. His claims
are always uttered with total certainty and are usually either
unverifiable or at variance with the facts. He also likes to
selectively edit quoted passages to misrepresent results,
so be careful to check his sources.
Cheers,
Michael C Price
----------------------------------------
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
"Nelson J. Navarro" <njnava...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a91894aa.04082...@posting.google.com...
Nelson J. Navarro
<snip>
> I'll address the misrepresentation of CR Society Prez Brian and
> Longevinex "resveratrol" seperately.
>
> The edited post :
>
> --------
>
> The question is important. CR is, at present, the only intervention
> available which is proven to retard aging in mammals -- and a large
> body of evidence strongly suggests that it does so in humans as well.
In your opinion, that is.
> CR might make the difference between your catching the first wave of
> anti-aging biomedical interventions and missing them by a few months
> or years;
Indeed. CR in people might actually contribute to an early death,
thereby causing someone to miss out on forthcoming life-extension
technology.
it might also be crucial for your ability to actually use
> those interventions, as it will not just keep you alive, but
> biologically young. Biological youth might well be key to either
> implementing those technologies (especially if they merely slow down,
> as opposed to arrest or reverse, the aging process) or to your ability
> to survive them without complications (if they are invasive,
> physically ardurous, or prone to side-effects). Based on the evidence
> reviewed below, this means you'll have to adapt to a lifestyle of
> tracking and reducing your Calories; simply adapting an EOD or "food
> window" strategy is unlikely to work.
>
> Let me first point out the obvious, tho' it seems to be often
> overlooked in discussions on the subject. Contrary to the impression
> many people seem to've gotten from pop press acounts, Mattson's
> studies (1,2) do not provide any lifespan data.
But they do provide data showing that glucose and insulin levels in
the IF animals were actually somewhat lower than the those of CR
animals; which to a reasonable person familiar with the subject matter
imply that the life extension results for IF would be comparable to
CR, as your reference #5 for example, shows.
All they have shown is
> that EOD animals undergo a variety of favorable-looking metabolic
> shifts, such as lower insulin and glucose levels. These shifts, while
> consistent with the effects of LDF, do not themselves constitute
> evidence that EOD will lead to life extension in the absence of actual
> Calorie restriction.
At least not for an accomplished polemicist like you, operating in the
contextual vacuum you often require...ROTFLMAO! (Actually you do raise
one valid or at least potentially valid point - the IGF-1 issue -
which, as minor as I think it is, is certainly worthy of further
investigation and discussion, IMO).
>
> Many studies in which EOD has been implemented in juvenile animals
> have demonstrated LS extension (3-7) (most of them coauthored by
> Ingram (a coauthor of (2)) -- but in all of these studies, EOD animals
> have undergone decreases in the ballpark of ~30% in body weight in
> response to EOD feeding, which suggests that their overall Caloric
> intake has indeed been reduced -- an inference which (when measured)
> has been confirmed. (NB that (1), unlike (2), reported just this
> change).
First, that's not true as stated, as per your reference #5. Second, if
you were interested in honest discussion, you would at least
acknowledge that this, even if were true, hardly proves that CR per se
is necessary for an antiaging effect.
>
> Of these studies, (5) is of special interest. In this study,
>
> -----------------
> Beginning at either 1.5, 6 or 10 months of age, male mice from the A/J
> and C57BL/6J strains and their F1 hybrid, B6AF1/J were fed a diet (4.2
> kcal/g) either ad libitum every day or in a restricted fashion by ad
> libitum feeding every other day.
>
> Relative to estimates for ad libitum controls,
(I wonder why the weights of the controls had to be "estimated")?
the body weights of the
> intermittently-fed restricted C57BL/6J and hybrid mice were reduced
> and mean and maximum life span were incremented when the
> every-other-day regimen was initiated at 1.5 or 6 months of age. When
> every-other-day feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both
> these genotypes lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean
> life span was not significantly affected although maximum life span
> was increased.
>
> Among A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body weight
> relative to ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10 months of
> age; however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum life span
> when begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and maximum life
> span when begun at 10 months.
>
> --------------
>
> That is: the one strain that did not undergo a reduction in BW (&
> thus, by implication, a reduction in overall Caloric intake in
> response to EOD was the same one in which this regimen -- when
> implemented in adulthood -- not only failed to increase mean & max LS,
> but actually shortened them.
All it shows is that different strains react somewhat differently to
the stress of food intake modulation and that age is a factor. Big
deal. Same thing happens with "straight" CR. The important point is
that IF did increase mean and max life span without reducing body
weight...proving that the beneficial "CR effect", to the extent there
is one, does not depend on CR, period. Case closed. (Except for you,
that is; I guess you would have to conclude that the apparent
antiaging effect of the IF diet in this case is merely a coincidence)?
>
> At the same time, the strains in which EOD did reduce BW (& thus, by
> implication overall Caloric intake)
(If not by an increase in ambulatory activity peculiar to that strain,
or by way of a sloppy experiment).
DID extend LS -- but not robustly.
> Indeed, the lack of an increase in mean LS observed in these strains
> when implemented in adulthood, despite a (presumed) reduction in
> Caloric intake, suggests a lot of early mortality (otherwise the max
> LS increase would, by simple arithmetic, increase av'g LS), again
> suggesting that this is not a promising strategy.
Sheesh. So I guess you're actually going to pretend the same kind of
thing doesn't happen with "straight" CR?
Aging (Milano). 1995 Apr;7(2):136-9. Related Articles, Links
Is late-life caloric restriction beneficial?
Lipman RD, Smith DE, Bronson RT, Blumberg J.
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University,
Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Caloric restriction initiated in young mice and rats results in
increases in mean and median life span. When caloric restriction is
implemented in older animals, an increase in life span is still
observed; however, the magnitude of the increase is not as great as
that observed in animals calorie restricted since they were young.
Here we report the results of a pilot study in which caloric
restriction was initiated in mature, older rats. Survival rates and
terminal pathology were characterized and compared between a cohort of
17 continually ad libitum fed Long Evans rats and a cohort of 18 Long
Evans rats, which were gradually introduced to 33% restriction in diet
consumption at 18 months of age. No difference in the median life span
was observed between the two groups. The data suggest there may be a
level of maturity, or a stage in the aging process, after which
caloric restriction no longer increases longevity.
PMID: 7548264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
FASEB J. 2003 Apr;17(6):690-2. Epub 2003 Feb 05. Related Articles,
Links
Genotype and age influence the effect of caloric intake on mortality
in mice.
Forster MJ, Morris P, Sohal RS.
Department of Pharmacology and Neuroscience, Institute for Aging and
Alzheimer's Disease Research, University of North Texas Health Science
Center at Fort Worth, 76107, USA. fors...@hsc.unt.edu
Long-term caloric restriction (CR) has been repeatedly shown to
increase life span and delay the onset of age-associated pathologies
in laboratory mice and rats. The purpose of the current study was to
determine whether the CR-associated increase in life span occurs in
all strains of mice or only in some genotypes and whether the effects
of CR and ad libitum (AL) feeding on mortality accrue gradually or are
rapidly inducible and reversible. In one experiment, groups of male
C57BL/6, DBA/2, and B6D2F1 mice were fed AL or CR (60% of AL) diets
beginning at 4 months of age until death. In the companion study,
separate groups of mice were maintained chronically on AL or CR
regimens until 7, 17, or 22-24 months of age, after which, half of
each AL and CR group was switched to the opposite regimen for 11 wk.
This procedure yielded four experimental groups for each genotype,
namely AL-->AL, AL-->CR, CR-->CR, and CR-->AL, designated according to
long-term and short-term caloric regimen, respectively. Long-term CR
resulted in increased median and maximum life span in C57BL/6 and
B6D2F1 mice but failed to affect either parameter in the DBA/2 mice.
The shift from AL-->CR increased mortality in 17- and 24-month-old
mice, whereas the shift from CR-->AL did not significantly affect
mortality of any age group. Such increased risk of mortality following
implementation of CR at older ages was evident in all three strains
but was most dramatic in DBA/2 mice. Results of this study indicate
that CR does not have beneficial effects in all strains of mice, and
it increases rather than decreases mortality if initiated in advanced
age.
PMID: 12586746 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<snip>
rs
> Hello Rodney,
>
> I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it was
> ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place) obsolete?
This is exemplary of your usual ignorant comments, posted in
juxtaposition with more postings of yours where you write in an
authoritative fashion. It appears that you are trying to present
yourself as some sort of anti-aging scholar, yet it's clear that you
do not possess even a sciolistic level of knowledge in anti-aging
theory and practice.
One would think that over the years you have posted to this newsgroup
that you would actually have read and learned something from the many
informative postings which appear here on a regular basis, but I guess
not.
Ryan
Nelson J. Navarro
> njnava...@yahoo.com (Nelson J. Navarro) wrote in message news:<a91894aa.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hello Rodney,
> >
> > I'm wondering why you'd want to do CR...isn't CR (to the extent it was
> > ever a practical antiaging intervention in the first place) obsolete?
>
> This is exemplary of your usual ignorant comments,
Ok Ryan, in what way is this comment "ignorant"?
posted in
> juxtaposition with more postings of yours where you write in an
> authoritative fashion.
I admit I sometimes question "commonly held beliefs", and I do try to
share ideas that people like you might find "radical"...is that what
you mean by "authoritative"? I've seen first-hand the damage that
group-think can cause, and I'm determined not to fall victim to it.
It appears that you are trying to present
> yourself as some sort of anti-aging scholar,
I am? Or could it be that I'm trying to get discussions going?
Does most everybody here really agree on most everything, as it
sometimes seems?
(BTW, when the Anson et. al. study on IF came out last year, I was
shocked by the lack of discussion about it on sle, especially given
the number of CR people who apparently hang around here).
yet it's clear that you
> do not possess even a sciolistic level of knowledge in anti-aging
> theory and practice.
Well then it's good you're here to at least try to straighten me out
(I see you've got your dictionary handy, too).
>
> One would think that over the years you have posted to this newsgroup
> that you would actually have read and learned something from the many
> informative postings which appear here on a regular basis, but I guess
> not.
ROTFL! Coming from you, I guess I'll take that as a compliment.
Thanks.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>
>>Sinclair's statement above his results with drosophila and C
>>elegans:
>>
>>"We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out
>>of food,"
>>
>>as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
>>that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments
>>had the effects that they did.
>>Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is
>>rampant in spoken language and media reports, and this continues
>>to distort the thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly
>>intelligent scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like
>>that to his colleagues or students.
>
>
> Since this is the way most biologists talk amongst themselves, I should
> think that, yes, this is the way he talks to his colleagues or students.
> Only someone who who didn't understand Darwinism
> would be mislead by such language.
I disagree. I have become convinced that such sloppy and
scientifically/philosophically incorrect use of language cannot help but
have insidious unseen negative effects on one's thinking, and on the
thinking of all others who accept and use such phrases.
>
>>Perhaps he believes that he must "dumb down" for
>>public consumption.
>
>
> It's not dumbing down, quite the reverse. It's assuming
> a certain level of competence on the part of his listeners.
That may be so, but the negative effects I have described above are even
worse when he is talking for public consumption.
>
> Perhaps a false assumption, but that's another story.
> Don't blame Sinclair for the stupidity of the public
> (particularly the religous US public).
I blame all scientists who continue to use such sloppy ways of speaking
when addressing the public. It is in there best interest (and certainly
mine) to help make sure that the public understands they way reality
works. Using expressions which suggest there is a mind behind all
processes of reality does nothing to help dispel the mysticism which is
gaining strength all over the world.
>>If so, how does he ever expect the "public" to ever
>>get any better? Perhaps he doesn't care.
>>
>>The second item that I found rather disconcerting was a statement
>>from the Tufts University Pilot CR project wherein 142 people are
>>doing up to 30% CR for a year funded by the US government.
>>Susan Roberts, a nutrition professor at Tufts University who oversees
>>the study stated: "I'm waiting for the results to see that it is safe,
>>and then I'll probably join them."
>>
>>I find it incredible that a researcher conducting a human trial upon
>>normal healthy people is not sure that the protocol being used is
>>safe!
>>It makes me wonder what she told those involved in the trial about
>>its safety.
>>I'm still shaking my head over this one.
>
>
> There is such a thing as informed consent.
Of course. The question that I wondered was what exactly was stated,
particularly in view of the statement of the overseeing researcher.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> But, as Karl marx said, the road to hell is
> paved with good intentions.
No one seems to be quite sure who first stated that adage (something
close is ascribed to Samuel Johnson), but there is no indication that is
was Karl Marx.
In any case the statement hardly applies to Walford, since he did
nothing which harmed others (which is presumably why one goes to hell).
Michael C Price
> Michael C Price wrote:
>
>> But, as Karl marx said, the road to hell is
>> paved with good intentions.
>
> No one seems to be quite sure who first stated that adage
> (something close is ascribed to Samuel Johnson), but there
> is no indication that is was Karl Marx.
It was Karl Marx who first used the aphorism in the
above form.
Here's something that google found for me:
******************************
In various forms it is an old proverb:
"Hell is full of good intentions or desires."
-St Bernard 12th C.
"Hell is full of good meanings and wishings."
-George Herbert, (1593 - 1633)
"Hell is paved with good intentions."
- John Ray, 17th C.
"I shall have nothing to hand in, but intentions - what they say the wrong
place is paved with."
- J. Froude, 1847
"Sir, Hell is paved with good intentions."
- Samuell Johnson, 1775
The earliest known direct addition of 'the road' was Henry Bohn's collection
of proverbs, 1855.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
- Karl Marx (1818 - 1883), *Capital*
"Hell is paved with good intentions, not bad ones."
-G B Shaw *Man and Superman*
"With mere good intentions, hell is proverbially paved."
- William James, 1890
The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.
- Albert Camus, 'The Plague'
Sometimes 'path' is used instead of 'road'.
************************
> In any case the statement hardly applies to Walford, since he
> did nothing which harmed others (which is presumably why
> one goes to hell).
Well, I only meant it in the poetical sense that we all go to hell
when we die, but actually I think Walford's promulagation of
his anti-megadosing views did harm people. In particular his
misrepresentation of the benefits of selenium and supra-RDA
amounts, which I've posted about on sle before.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
I had a good chuckle over most of your excoriating remarks about Michael
Rae (with which I totally agree), and I also agree that the IF studies
are very interesting. However, my major problem with those IF studies
which so far have only been conducted in mice (I think) is how to apply
them to humans. One day without food for a mouse with respect to their
constant intake (not merely 3 spread out meals per day) is an enormous
length of time and loss of caloric need. Given the normal 7 to one
conversion factor which is mostly related to metabolic rate, it would
seem that the human equivalent would be every other week feeding. But,
IMO, this would be even more impossible than CR for most humans. In
addition, the concentration of eating required during the second week
might well be negative for the human digestive system, particularly
after not working for a whole week. Thus, the problem with IF is how to
do it appropriately for humans.
While I am not a fan of strict CR, I do agree that reduction of carbs in
general and high glycemic ones in particular is advisable along with
exercise, good rest and a broad range of high dose supplements and some
of the newer research chemicals (although not as extreme as Michael
Price in some B vitamins and minerals).
Michael C Price
>>> "We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out
>>> of food,"
>>>
>>> as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
>>> that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments
>>> had the effects that they did.
>>> Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is
>>> rampant in spoken language and media reports, and this continues
>>> to distort the thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly
>>> intelligent scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like
>>> that to his colleagues or students.
>>
>> Since this is the way most biologists talk amongst themselves, I should
>> think that, yes, this is the way he talks to his colleagues or students.
>> would be mislead by such language.
>
> I disagree. I have become convinced that such sloppy and
> scientifically/philosophically incorrect use of language cannot help but
> have insidious unseen negative effects on one's thinking, and on the
> thinking of all others who accept and use such phrases.
I disagree, and since I suspect neither of can prove our
respective positions we'll have to leave it at that..... although
see my comment about "physical correctness" at end.
>>> Perhaps he believes that he must "dumb down" for
>>> public consumption.
>>
>> It's not dumbing down, quite the reverse. It's assuming
>> a certain level of competence on the part of his listeners.
>
> That may be so, but the negative effects I have described above
> are even worse when he is talking for public consumption.
>
>> Perhaps a false assumption, but that's another story.
>> Don't blame Sinclair for the stupidity of the public
>> (particularly the religious US public).
>
> I blame all scientists who continue to use such sloppy ways of speaking
> when addressing the public. It is in their best interest (and certainly
> mine) to help make sure that the public understands they way reality
> works. Using expressions which suggest there is a mind behind all
> processes of reality does nothing to help dispel the mysticism which is
> gaining strength all over the world.
Should physicists also not talk about objects "feeling" the force of
gravity because it might confuse some senile old fool somewhere?
That would be "physical correctness" gone mad!
Michael
njnava...@yahoo.com (Nelson J. Navarro) wrote in message news:<a91894aa.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> mik...@lycos.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<69779556.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > This is a summary of some posts I've made on the CR Society List on
> > Every Other Day (EOD) AL feeding, as vs. Limited Daily Feeding (LDF --
> > "conventional" CR), esp as regards the suggestion -- based on the
> > metabolic effects observed in some new studies by Mark Mattson et al
> > (1,2) -- that EOD, even in the absence of overall CR (ie, in the
> > presence of compensatory overeating on the feeding day) might still
> > slow aging and extend LS. My conclusion is that EOD is not a promising
> > life-extension strategy, especially for implementation in adult
> > animals.
>
> I'll bet there's no argument and no data that anyone could ever set in
> front of you that would cause you to question (at least in public)
> your rigid, long-held paradigms regarding CR and the utility of CR for
> life-extensionists.
I don't have any rigid, long-held paradigms regarding CR: I have a
familiarity with the massive body of evidence extant to support it,
and the absence of meaningful evidence for anything else, and
therefore concede the strong probability that CR will retard
biological aging in humans, and that nothing else presently available
has been shown to do so. "It ain't much, baby -- but it's all we've
got." I am certainly ready to revise my beliefs based on arguments and
data -- but the arguments and data would have to be stronger than the
existing mountain of evidence.
> > I believe it addresses most of the questions & speculatioins put
> > forward on these subjects in the present thread, & also the notion of
> > hormesis per se as an anti-aging intervention (again, per se)
>
> What do you mean by "hormesis" vis-a-vis "hormesis per se"
I mean an intervention (other than CR -- which some would cite an
hormetic intervention, making the whole argument circular) which has
hormetic effects at the biochemical level which can be causally traced
forward to a LS gain.
> and an
> "anti-aging intervention" vis-a-vis an "anti-aging intervention per
> se"?
I mean an intervention which intervenes in the intrinsic biological
aging process, as vs. one that merely prevents or treats
age-associated diseases.
To anticipate: by biological aging, I mean (following standard
definitions in the biogerontological literature) the universal,
progressive, intrinsic, and deleterious process of escalating loss of
molecular fidelity that impairs the organism's ability to maintain
homeostasis in the face of environmental stressors, leading to
progressive increases in vulnerability to pathology, age-associated
disease, and mortality. In a population, it manifests as the
characteristic survival curve of the species when maintained under
optimal conditions.
> > in
> > mammals (the evidence for its efficacy in flies, roundworms, and yeast
> > is much stronger -- unsurprisingly, as de Grey's MiFRA does not apply
> > to them).
>
> You're implying that life extension by hormesis in mammals is at odds
> with MiFRA theory?
No, but that it's very easy to see how hormesis could retard aging in
an organism which is NOT susceptible to MiFRA, and much harder to see
how a true hormetic effect could retard aging in an organism whose
aging was primarily the result of the process it proposes to underlie
mammalian aging.
> >
> > For greater completeness, since Nelson cited it as evidence in favor
> > of the hormesis hypothesis, let me note that this study:
>
> Frankly, since you haven't been posting much lately, I wasn't
> expecting one of your long-winded, intellectually dishonest polemics.
> Had I known, I might have been more comprehensive and included some
> examples involving humans.
Since there are no trials of *any* interventions proving retarded
aging in humans, there are no trials of hormetic interventions which
would be evidential.
> > Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero C.
> > Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the
> > life span of
> > mice.
> > Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-6.
> > PMID: 9693258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> >
> >
> > ... is just "the usual nonsense," as in B vitamins, antioxidants
> > tested to date, nucleic acids, etc.
>
> As in anything that doesn't generally comport with *your* dogmatism.
... because if there were proper evidence for anything other than CR,
I would immediately incorporate it into my "dogmatism."
> > A cohort of normal,
> > well-nourished, well-cared-for, non-genetically-mangled mouse not fed
> > carcinogens or shot up with botulism etc, will live on average ~900
> > days, will achieve a maximum lifespan of ~1200 days. In this study,
> > the control animals only lived 549 days on average. Being short-lived,
> > the "extensions" of lifespan noted in the irradiated group are in fact
> > just partial normalizations of a shortened life expectancy -- and very
> > partial at that (to 673 days). Moreover, maximum LS was unaffected.
> > This, of course, tells us no more about the benefits of hormesis to a
> > healthy mouse -- let alone a healthy human -- than does a trial
> > showing extended lifespan in people given succimer after a mercury
> > spill.
>
> Ok, so you don't like that study (what a surprise!). How about some
> studies involving humans; would that suit your fancy?
The studies you cite show reduced risk of cancer, primarily, which I
don't dispute. I specified that I was addressing the idea that EOD or
hormesis would work as anti-aging interventions per se. I'm sorry if
it wasn't clear to you what I meant, but having just spelled out the
observation that the mice in the Caratero study did not show
extensions of the optimized survival curve, and having hammered this
criterion out repeatedly in past posts, I would've thought that the
standard of evidence I require is pretty clear.
To show an anti-aging effect per se requires a rightward shift of the
characteristic survivorship curve of teh species, leading to a
statistically-significant increase in both mean and maximal (10th
decile) survivorship relative to an optimized control population: in
mice, the key figures are (again) ~900 and ~1200 days, respectively.
And to be confident that the result was not just crypto-CR, one would
additionally need evidence that it was not the result of reduced
Caloric intake or absorption: ie, no difference in food intake nor
body weight relative to controls (unless there are data to show that
the reduction in BW was explicable in terms of eg increased activity).
> (Actually, as I
> stated earlier, I know you well enough to believe that there is no
> study and no data that could ever be presented to you that would cause
> you to publicly question your apparent long-held views.
I think I've made the standard of evidence required clear in the past;
I hope the above is clear enough to avoid confusioin in the future.
"Michael C Price" <michaelEXCI...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<SEuXc.1321$uL5....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>...
> no data will ever convince Mr Rae.
The above data would convince Mr. Rae.
> If a nutrient extends LS
> he will always claim the controls were malnourished or
> that what "really" happened was crypto-CR.
I will certainly claim that if there is evidence to that exact effect,
as in previous discussions; and if there is no evidence to DISprove
this explanation, I will continue to consider the case to be unproven.
The burden of evidence is on the person making the positive claim.
> His claims
> are always uttered with total certainty and are usually either
> unverifiable or at variance with the facts. He also likes to
> selectively edit quoted passages to misrepresent results,
> so be careful to check his sources.
Yes: please, check my sources. They will be found to confirm what I
say -- or I will retract my statements. I have not yet had reason to
do so in this forum in these discussions. Occasionally, Michael Price
and I have had a miscommunication which he has interpreted as
intentional deception on my part, even when I have explained my
meaning; on other occasions, he has taken a straight reporting of
facts to be inaccurate, because he chooses to ignore p-values,
confidence intervals, standard definitions of technical terms, etc. He
has done the same in criticizing Walford.
The closest thing to a counterexaple has been when I asserted that a
study demonstrated a lack of extnesion of max LS, on the basis of
non-reportage of such an effect. As I said at the time, (a) it is
simply not plausible that a researcher would go to the time, trouble,
and expense of doing a LS study, and then NOT report the Holy Grail of
a max LS extension, and (b) the MEAN LSs of the intervention groups
being already abnormally short, there is an inherent mathematical
improbabiliyt of extending max LS.
I wonder if the medium is part of our problems of communication. In
person, I found Michael to be an intelligent, attentive, humorous, and
quite reasonable interlocutor; these characteristics do not come
through as clearly in this forum.
[Nelson and I again]
> > The question is important. CR is, at present, the only intervention
> > available which is proven to retard aging in mammals -- and a large
> > body of evidence strongly suggests that it does so in humans as well.
>
> In your opinion, that is.
In the sense that every statement that any person can make is hir
opinion, yes. In my opinion, spinach is green, Tony Blair is the PM of
Great Britain, and CR is, at present, the only intervention available
which is proven to retard aging in mammals -- and which a large body
of evidence strongly suggests will so in humans as well.
>
> > CR might make the difference between your catching the first wave of
> > anti-aging biomedical interventions and missing them by a few months
> > or years;
>
> Indeed. CR in people might actually contribute to an early death,
> thereby causing someone to miss out on forthcoming life-extension
> technology.
Yes, certainly -- as might any intervention which has not been found
safe in large-scale, randomized controlled trials in humans followed
by extensive postmarket surveillance -- and even then, of course,
statins or aspirin (eg) will still kill a few heart attack victims
prematurely.
CR is certainly a risky endeavor. I'm willing to take that risk
because it happens to be the only anti-aging intervention documented
as such in mammals, and its extrapolability to humans is supported by
available evidence. What astounds me is how little evidence many
require to start swallowing ALT-711, NtBHA, etc. Now, THOSE are poor
gambles for an otherwise-healthy life extensioinist.
> > Contrary to the impression
> > many people seem to've gotten from pop press acounts, Mattson's
> > studies (1,2) do not provide any lifespan data.
>
> But they do provide data showing that glucose and insulin levels in
> the IF animals were actually somewhat lower than the those of CR
> animals; which to a reasonable person familiar with the subject matter
> imply that the life extension results for IF would be comparable to
> CR, as your reference #5 for example, shows.
First, my reference (5) doesn't show that. More importantly, it is a
large jump to argue from a single endocrine marker to the retardatioin
of biological aging. I certainly would not gamble life extension
benefits on a mechanistic speculation -- esp when (as noted) there is
actual lifespan data which suggests the reverse (my original post's
references 5, 8-10).
Indeed, if I WERE inclined to make such a gamble, I would bet AGAINST
EOD on the basis of the higher IGF1 levels under EOD. IGF1 is a much
better-documented accelerator of aging in mammals (Ames dwarf mouse,
Snell mouse, IGF1-R heterozygotes, etc). I'm glad that we seem to
agree on THIS, at least:
> (Actually you do raise
> one valid or at least potentially valid point - the IGF-1 issue -
> which, as minor as I think it is, is certainly worthy of further
> investigation and discussion, IMO).
> > Many studies in which EOD has been implemented in juvenile animals
> > have demonstrated LS extension (3-7) (most of them coauthored by
> > Ingram (a coauthor of (2)) -- but in all of these studies, EOD animals
> > have undergone decreases in the ballpark of ~30% in body weight in
> > response to EOD feeding, which suggests that their overall Caloric
> > intake has indeed been reduced -- an inference which (when measured)
> > has been confirmed. (NB that (1), unlike (2), reported just this
> > change).
>
> First, that's not true as stated, as per your reference #5.
But (a) this still leaves the weight of evidence against EOD per se,
(b) (5) doesn't actually show a robust CR-type response in any case,
as noted ("Robust" as defined by criteria outlined above), and (c):
> Second, if
> you were interested in honest discussion, you would at least
> acknowledge that this, even if were true, hardly proves that CR per se
> is necessary for an antiaging effect.
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. I have
yet to see a study in which EOD, WITHOUT concomitant CR, clearly
produces a clear anti-aging life extension effect, and there is plenty
of evidence to the contrary ((5), 8-10).
> > Of these studies, (5) is of special interest. In this study,
> >
> > -----------------
> > Beginning at either 1.5, 6 or 10 months of age, male mice from the A/J
> > and C57BL/6J strains and their F1 hybrid, B6AF1/J were fed a diet (4.2
> > kcal/g) either ad libitum every day or in a restricted fashion by ad
> > libitum feeding every other day.
> >
> > Relative to estimates for ad libitum controls,
>
> (I wonder why the weights of the controls had to be "estimated")?
I don't get why they said this myself: the text indicates that the
animals were weighed weekly thru'out life.
>
> > the body weights of the
> > intermittently-fed restricted C57BL/6J and hybrid mice were reduced
> > and mean and maximum life span were incremented when the
> > every-other-day regimen was initiated at 1.5 or 6 months of age. When
> > every-other-day feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both
> > these genotypes lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean
> > life span was not significantly affected although maximum life span
> > was increased.
> >
> > Among A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body weight
> > relative to ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10 months of
> > age; however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum life span
> > when begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and maximum life
> > span when begun at 10 months.
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > That is: the one strain that did not undergo a reduction in BW (&
> > thus, by implication, a reduction in overall Caloric intake in
> > response to EOD was the same one in which this regimen -- when
> > implemented in adulthood -- not only failed to increase mean & max LS,
> > but actually shortened them.
>
> All it shows is that different strains react somewhat differently to
> the stress of food intake modulation and that age is a factor.
What it shows is that (1) EOD did not extend lifespan relative to
controls in ANY strain when instituted at 10 mo (~25-30 human years),
and (2) EOD SHORTENED LS when initiated at that age in one strain --
the one in which BW was not perturbed.
I take that as a pretty strong argument against adult-onset EOD as a
life extension intervention, whatever strain of mouse you are.
> Big
> deal. Same thing happens with "straight" CR.
I would agree that different strains show some variation in the
MAGNITUDE of their response to CR. Quantitative variation in
strain-specific response is not parallel to the above data.
Also, if we are going to directly compare this with CR per se, EOD
failed to show any *actual* extension of lifespan (as defined above --
extended from optimized curve) in ANY strain, under ANY conditions:
even when initiated at 1.5 mo, while LS was increased relative to the
controls, the max LS in the EOD C57BL/6s was 31.7 mo; in A/Js, 25.3
mo; and in the B6AF1/Js, 32.4 mo.
> The important point is
> that IF did increase mean and max life span without reducing body
> weight...
It did not actually EXTEND LS in any strain, and to the extent that
there was a normalization of the curve it only did so when implemented
at 6mo (~15 human yrs) or younger. Pragmatically speaking, this study
indicates that EOD is not beneficial to anyone starting the program as
an adult unless Calories are also cut.
> proving that the beneficial "CR effect", to the extent there
> is one, does not depend on CR, period. Case closed.
Not so, as noted above. Until someone documents in even one study that
EOD without CR per se produces a cohort of mice with a survival curve
meeting the previously-outlined criteria (as CR routinely does, even
when implemented in adulthood), there will continue to be a lack of a
parallel -- and on present evidence, it appears distinctly that EOD
without CR will not even square a truncated curve when implemented in
adults.
>(Except for you,
> that is; I guess you would have to conclude that the apparent
> antiaging effect of the IF diet in this case is merely a coincidence)?
There was no apparent antiagign effect. There was some limited
curve-squaring, when implemented in juveniles and/or combined with
actual CR, but no evidence of an effect on aging.
> > At the same time, the strains in which EOD did reduce BW (& thus, by
> > implication overall Caloric intake)
>
> (If not by an increase in ambulatory activity peculiar to that strain,
> or by way of a sloppy experiment).
Sure. The burden of evidence is on the party making the positive
claim.
>
> > DID extend LS -- but not robustly.
> > Indeed, the lack of an increase in mean LS observed in these strains
> > when implemented in adulthood, despite a (presumed) reduction in
> > Caloric intake, suggests a lot of early mortality (otherwise the max
> > LS increase would, by simple arithmetic, increase av'g LS), again
> > suggesting that this is not a promising strategy.
>
> Sheesh. So I guess you're actually going to pretend the same kind of
> thing doesn't happen with "straight" CR?
Badly-designed studies which don't follow the protocols of a proper
adult-onset CR study don't lead consistently to life extension
effects.
> Aging (Milano). 1995 Apr;7(2):136-9.
> Is late-life caloric restriction beneficial?
> Lipman RD, Smith DE, Bronson RT, Blumberg J.
> PMID: 7548264 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
As I noted here:
http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=69779556.0207031917.4de417e6%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
... protein was not held constant between CR & AL in this study; one
of teh 2 key lessons of Weindruch & Walford's breakthrough study in
adult-onset CR is that essential nutrients must not be reduced
relative to controls (unlike the case in juveniles, where you often
can get away with just feeding them less of the same chow).
> FASEB J. 2003 Apr;17(6):690-2.
> Genotype and age influence the effect of caloric intake on mortality
> in mice.
> Forster MJ, Morris P, Sohal RS.
> PMID: 12586746 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I addressed an early conference presentation of this study in the
above post. Protein (again) was not brought up to provide the CR
animals
with equal (or, preferrably, GREATER) absolute protein grams.
Additionaly, as only became clear with the full publication, they did
not institute CR gradually, but all at once (the need for a stepwise
implementation was the OTHER key lesson of W&W), and IAC this was not
in fact a lifespan study: they only followed the switched-over animals
for 11 weeks.
As I said in the above post, at that time, while there was plenty of
evidence that CR initiated ~1/3 of
the way thru' species max LS robustly extends LS in classic CR fashion
(tho' not by as much as when initiated younger), but while there was
plenty of evidence that CR initiated in late life (>=~2/3 of the way
thru' species max LS) still causes various apparently favorable
changes (reduced mt carbonyls, improved insulin sensitivity, &
changes in gene expression largely parallel to those initiated in
young animals -- the source of the the "Aging Reversed!" nonsense
of LEF mag for Dec 2001), no study had yet shown the kind of robust
increase in LS (as outlined above) which clearly demonstrates retarded
aging and which is the hallmark of CR.
I wend on to add that this did not yet prove that no such effect could
occur, but it didn't disprove it, either, because the studies
published up until that time in various ways (outlined in the post)
failed to follow the protocol. However, I said that it struck me as
not improbable that late-life CR would not appreciably impact LS.
I was subsequently delighted to be proven wrong ;). The first study to
actually apply CR properly to old animals was published earlier this
year:
Dhahbi JM, Kim HJ, Mote PL, Beaver RJ, Spindler SR.
Temporal linkage between the phenotypic and genomic responses to
caloric restriction.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 13;101(15):5524-9. Epub 2004 Mar
25.
PMID: 15044709 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
They initiated CR in 19-mo-old mice in stepwise fashion, using diets
that were equal in all essential nutrients except Calories. Result:
even in these older mice, statistically significant increases in mean
and maximal LS (15 & 16%, respectively, or a surprising 40 and 32% of
the remaining life expectancy at birth -- to 35.4 and 43.6 months,
respectively). Ie, a classic CR effect, which meets teh criterion of a
genuine EXTENSION of lifespan.
I have a feeling that someone is going to want to interject tht maybe
the conditioins have just not been right to adequately assess
melatonin, or B vitamins, or CoQ10, or whatever yet. Yep, certainly
possible. But (where's my broken record?) the burden of proof is on
the person making the positive claim.
Michael
A clarification to my just-posted reply to Nelson:
"What it shows is that (1) EOD did not extend lifespan relative to
controls in ANY strain when instituted at 10 mo (~25-30 human years) "
I mean her that it did not actually EXTEND LS, as defined before the
above and as detailed further down in the original post. Moreover, it
shows at this age that it did not extend LS even relative to controls,
EXCEPT when combined with reduced BW (& hence presumably CR), and even
then, the it did not extend mean LS, implying (when combined with
extended MAX LS) an increase in early mortality.
> > When
> > every-other-day feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both
> > these genotypes lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean
> > life span was not significantly affected although maximum life span
> > was increased.
Weight of evidence, blah blah blah.
Michael C Price
for reasons that should become apparent:
> I wonder if the medium is part of our problems of communication.
> In person, I found Michael to be an intelligent, attentive,
> humorous, and quite reasonable interlocutor; these characteristics
> do not come through as clearly in this forum.
Perhaps I should use more emoticons?
I found you likewise when we met at IABG10. One thing I became
convinced of by meeting you (which I wasn't sure of before) is that
your beliefs are sincerely held. Our differences are mainly
conceptual and the miscommunication results from the different
biases this gives us (plus the medium, of course). You regard
calories as more important to aging (in the average human today)
than co-enzyme availability; I take the converse view.
This skews our respective judgements about the plausibility of
various hypotheses implicit in the interpretation of experimental
evidence and the debunking of studies that conflict with our
positions.
>> no data will ever convince Mr Rae.
>
> The above data would convince Mr. Rae.
>
>> If a nutrient extends LS
>> he will always claim the controls were malnourished or
>> that what "really" happened was crypto-CR.
>
> I will certainly claim that if there is evidence to that exact effect,
> as in previous discussions;
You have often claimed these effects where there was no evidence
to support them.
> and if there is no evidence to DISprove this explanation, I
> will continue to consider the case to be unproven.
That's reasonable, but you often go beyond that.
> The burden of evidence is on the person making the positive
> claim.
And equally on people making negative claims.
>> His claims
>> are always uttered with total certainty and are usually either
>> unverifiable or at variance with the facts. He also likes to
>> selectively edit quoted passages to misrepresent results,
>> so be careful to check his sources.
I will rephrase the last sentence:
"He *will* to selectively edit quoted passages to
*unconsciously* misrepresent results, so be careful to
check his sources."
> Yes: please, check my sources. They will be found to confirm
> what I say -- or I will retract my statements.
Ah, yes, everybody always imagines that *they* are a model
of fairness and rectitude, unlike their protagonists. Rarely is this
the case; we are all subject to unconsciousness biases and
rationalisations. Except me, of course :-)
See below for some examples of where you have not retracted
statements at variance with the source data.
> I have not yet had reason to
> do so in this forum in these discussions. Occasionally, Michael Price
> and I have had a miscommunication which he has interpreted as
> intentional deception on my part, even when I have explained my
> meaning;
I presume this is a reference to your claim that the Lindseth et al [6]
experiment with B6 was a case of crypto-CR, despite their
reporting of the lack a variance in food intake, which you edited
out of the sentence you reported? You also claimed the
experiment demonstrated a lack of max LS extension, which
wasn't true, and when challenged you never retracted this claim
either.
> on other occasions, he has taken a straight reporting of
> facts to be inaccurate, because he chooses to ignore p-values,
> confidence intervals, standard definitions of technical terms, etc.
Is this a reference to the Kokkonen & Barrows data [*] that you
claimed was in conflict with my reporting of it? When I pointed
out that you were comparing animals fed different mixtures
(NRC vs AIN76 diets, i.e. apples vs oranges, rather than 1 orange
vs 4 oranges) and that the remaining raw data you quoted
(correctly) was in complete accordance with my summary you
never responded. i.e. you did not retract you erroneous statements.
> He has done the same in criticizing Walford.
Yes, but let's concentrate on *your* errors here :-)
> The closest thing to a counterexaple has been when I asserted that a
> study demonstrated a lack of extension of max LS, on the basis of
> non-reportage of such an effect.
This is a reference to the Pelton & Williams [3] experiment with B5?
If so, yes, that was exactly what you claimed.
> As I said at the time, (a) it is simply not plausible
Plausible to you, not to me. See opening remarks.
> that a researcher would go to the time, trouble,
> and expense of doing a LS study, and then NOT
> report the Holy Grail of a max LS extension,
And as I said at the time, this experiment was before Walford had
raised the profile of maximum lifespan as the Holy Grail, so such
non-reporting means nothing. There are other reasons for not
reporting max LS, such as the greater SD associated with a decile
will more often lead to non-significant results, which the mean
LS will not suffer from.
> and (b) the MEAN LSs of the intervention groups
> being already abnormally short, there is an inherent
> mathematical improbability of extending max LS.
This is simply an incomprehensible objection, unless by
max LS you mean max SPECIES LS. And as I said at the
time (and on other occasions) why should I take max
SPECIES max LS any more seriously than strain, genus, family,
order, class or phylum max LS. You have never responded
to this point.
Cohort max LS is the only standard that makes sense to me,
since it is the max LS exhibited by the controls.
[.........]
> I have a feeling that someone is going to want to interject that
> maybe the conditions have just not been right to adequately
> assess melatonin, or B vitamins, or CoQ10, or whatever yet.
> Yep, certainly possible. But (where's my broken record?) the
> burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
Actually the burden of proof is on all claimants, irrespective of
whether the claim is negative or positive. Didn't your philosophy
classes teach you that?
>
> -Michael
It's fun debating with you, Michael, despite (because of?) our
differences. A lot of my productive research has been in attempt
to refute your position!
[*] AGE, vol 8, pages 13-17, Jan 1985
"The Effect of Dietary Vitamin, Protein, and Intake Levels on the Life Span
of Mice of Different Ages."
by Gertrude C Kokkonen and Charles H Barrows.
[3] Effect of pantothenic acid on the longevity of mice. Richard B Pelton
and Roger J Williams in Proceedings of the Society Experimental Biology &
Medicine 99 632-633, 1958.
Mean lifespan extension of 19.5%. No maximum lifespan data reported.
[6] Favorable Effects of Pyridoxine HCl on the aging process. Lindseth K,
Dictor M & Miquel J in AGE 5(4), 143, 1982.
Late middle-age intervention gave mean total lifespan extension of 11%. No
maximum lifespan data reported.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>>>>"We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out
>>>>of food,"
>>>>
>>>>as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
>>>>that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments
>>>>had the effects that they did.
>>>>Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is
>>>>rampant in spoken language and media reports, and this continues
>>>>to distort the thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly
>>>>intelligent scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like
>>>>that to his colleagues or students.
>>>
>>>Since this is the way most biologists talk amongst themselves, I should
>>>think that, yes, this is the way he talks to his colleagues or students.
>>>Only someone who didn't understand Darwinism
>>>would be mislead by such language.
>>
>>I disagree. I have become convinced that such sloppy and
>>scientifically/philosophically incorrect use of language cannot help but
>>have insidious unseen negative effects on one's thinking, and on the
>>thinking of all others who accept and use such phrases.
>
>
> I disagree, and since I suspect neither of can prove our
> respective positions we'll have to leave it at that.....
The enormous contradictions of current philosophical and social thought
and actions are proof enough to me that many fundamentals are wrong.
This is just one of them.
>>I blame all scientists who continue to use such sloppy ways of speaking
>>when addressing the public. It is in their best interest (and certainly
>>mine) to help make sure that the public understands they way reality
>>works. Using expressions which suggest there is a mind behind all
>>processes of reality does nothing to help dispel the mysticism which is
>>gaining strength all over the world.
>
>
> Should physicists also not talk about objects "feeling" the force of
> gravity
No they should not. But that is not quite as bad, since even most
religionists do not impute feelings to inanimate matter.
> because it might confuse some senile old fool somewhere?
I am more concerned with young and middle aged fools. There are far more
of them and they are affecting society far more than old fools. In
addition, you show a lack of empathy and understanding by equating loss
of mental function with age with foolishness.
> That would be "physical correctness" gone mad!
I am more concerned about correct use of language in general than about
"physical correctness". For another problem with language use see my essay:
"Essential Collectivism in Language: its Effects on Rational Thinking"
at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html
Michael C Price
interesting that your article
> "Essential Collectivism in Language: its Effects on Rational
> Thinking" at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html
another example in mind, namely the use of gender applied
to inanimate objects in most Indo-European languages
(e.g. French; English is a rare exception). This must hark
back to the prehistoric days when every object or force in
the universe was believed to possess, or be an aspect of,
an animating spirit (e.g. water nymphs). Perhaps this is why
Newton was English and the industrial revolution started in
England (or Britain).
Your article does not go as far as you seem to saying
here; namely that all use of all metaphor or poetical
expression is incorrect. I could never agree with this,
but the points made on your webpage are mostly correct.
A couple of queries:
a) Why use the term "Islamite" instead of "Muslim"?
b) and you say: "existents can never be identical"
I can think of a counter-example: all the particles in a superfluid
are identical. The atoms of He4 in beaker of superfluid helium
have no distinct identity, forming a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Each atom is delocalised across the volume of the entire
superfluid, yet, because no helium atom is bound to any of its
companions (it is an inert element), it cannot be regarded as single
entity, or "existent" in your terminology.
Cheers,
Michael C Price
----------------------------------------
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
PS where you said
> In addition, you show a lack of empathy and understanding
> by equating loss of mental function with age with foolishness.
Don't confuse lack of empathy with lack of sympathy. I don't
care if my metaphorical impreciseness offends! :-)
Tim Tyler
> Michael C Price wrote:
> > Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
> >>Sinclair's statement above his results with drosophila and C
> >>elegans:
> >>
> >>"We're tricking the animals into thinking they're running out
> >>of food,"
> >>
> >>as if these primitive animals are capable of thought, and even worse
> >>that "thinking" is in any way related to the reason his experiments
> >>had the effects that they did.
> >>Such anthropomorphic or conscious-implying usage of words is
> >>rampant in spoken language and media reports, and this continues
> >>to distort the thinking of people everywhere. And this from a highly
> >>intelligent scientifically trained individual! I wonder if he talks like
> >>that to his colleagues or students.
> >
> > Since this is the way most biologists talk amongst themselves, I should
> > think that, yes, this is the way he talks to his colleagues or students.
> > Only someone who who didn't understand Darwinism
> > would be mislead by such language.
>
> I disagree. I have become convinced that such sloppy and
> scientifically/philosophically incorrect use of language cannot help but
> have insidious unseen negative effects on one's thinking, and on the
> thinking of all others who accept and use such phrases.
[...]
> I blame all scientists who continue to use such sloppy ways of speaking
> when addressing the public. It is in there best interest (and certainly
> mine) to help make sure that the public understands they way reality
> works. Using expressions which suggest there is a mind behind all
> processes of reality does nothing to help dispel the mysticism which is
> gaining strength all over the world.
That's not the point of it. It's designed to make it easier for
humans to visualise the process going on by "putting themselves
in the agent's shoes".
Such a process does not imply that the agent is conscious or intelligent:
it even helps humans visualise the behaviour of inanimate objects if
they "go into the object" and mentally put themselves in its position.
The reason it helps isbecause humans have lots of mental equipment
designed to visualise the world from perspectives other than their own -
and this mode of explanation beneficially recycles that apparatus.
A researcher explaining why a CR mimetic drug works probably
thinks mysticism is irrelevant to the subject he is addressing.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
The essence of human behavior is mental evaluation and volitional
decision making. Even if one is a strict disbeliever in any notion of
"free will", one must rationally agree that the level of complexity of
human mental activity fundamentally separates mental evaluation from the
complexity of the biochemical processes which were being described.
Thus, when such complexity of decision making is it not possible for an
"agent", it is misleading (and can be obfuscating) to think of oneself
being in that agent's "shoes".
Using a misleading model may well make things easier to "understand",
but I maintain that such "understanding" often leads to "misunderstanding".
> Such a process does not imply that the agent is conscious or intelligent:
> it even helps humans visualise the behaviour of inanimate objects if
> they "go into the object" and mentally put themselves in its position.
>
> The reason it helps is because humans have lots of mental equipment
> designed to visualise the world from perspectives other than their own -
> and this mode of explanation beneficially recycles that apparatus.
Although I do not think it is as useful or necessary as you seem to, I
am not in disagreement with this point of view.
However, this does not relate much to what was originally stated and to
which I objected: "We're tricking the animals into thinking they're
running out of food,". The statement was about animal's thought
processes, which they do not have and in any case would not have been
involved in the biochemistry of what was taking place any more than
human thought processes would be involved.
>
> A researcher explaining why a CR mimetic drug works probably
> thinks mysticism is irrelevant to the subject he is addressing.
Since the world is turning more and more to mysticism every day, it
behooves each of us to do all we can to turn this tide.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Hi Paul,
> interesting that your article
>
>>"Essential Collectivism in Language: its Effects on Rational
>>Thinking" at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html
>
> focuses on pronouns. I had
> another example in mind, namely the use of gender applied
> to inanimate objects in most Indo-European languages
> (e.g. French; English is a rare exception).
Yes. An excellent example.
> This must hark
> back to the prehistoric days when every object or force in
> the universe was believed to possess, or be an aspect of,
> an animating spirit (e.g. water nymphs).
All of these irrational language conventions hark back to prehistoric
tribal days and it is my contention that humans strongly need to mature
and abandon the use of such harmful conventions. I don't think humans
can mature and reach a state of better understanding and peace for
cooperation towards the goal of the maximum possible lifetime happiness
for each until they do so abandon these conventions.
> Perhaps this is why
> Newton was English and the industrial revolution started in
> England (or Britain).
Could well be. Language style and the thinking it encourages is also
likely there reason why the greatest advances in social liberty have
occurred in the English speaking world.
>
> Your article does not go as far as you seem to saying
> here; namely that all use of all metaphor or poetical
> expression is incorrect. I could never agree with this,
> but the points made on your webpage are mostly correct.
Glad you liked it.
>
> A couple of queries:
>
> a) Why use the term "Islamite" instead of "Muslim"?
No good reason. I really did not consider that there is any difference.
The dictionary confirms that they are synonyms:
"islamite." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (28 Aug. 2004).
But perhaps most current usage would use the word "Muslim" when
contrasting religions, so thanks, I will change it.
>
> b) and you say: "existents can never be identical"
> I can think of a counter-example: all the particles in a superfluid
> are identical.
No. Their attributes of spatial *position* are still different.
Otherwise they would be precisely the same particle, not merely being
the same in all other attributes.
But perhaps at the point where I made the statement that was not clear.
I will give some thought to rewriting it. Thanks again for your help.
> The atoms of He4 in beaker of superfluid helium
> have no distinct identity, forming a Bose-Einstein condensate.
> Each atom is delocalised across the volume of the entire
> superfluid, yet, because no helium atom is bound to any of its
> companions (it is an inert element), it cannot be regarded as single
> entity, or "existent" in your terminology.
As a former mathematical physics PhD candidate and math/physics
professor, I still kept abreast of such developments and am well aware
of this. Each atom is still a single and separate existent, if only in
the attribute of spatial position only.
Michael C Price
>> b) and you say: "existents can never be identical"
>> I can think of a counter-example: all the particles in a superfluid
>> are identical.
>
> No. Their attributes of spatial *position* are still different.
> Otherwise they would be precisely the same particle, not merely
> being the same in all other attributes.
They all occupy the same energy level, usually the lowest energy level
defined by the system. Therefore they have the same position
distribution as well. That's what I was referring to when I said they
were all delocalised. It's just that the occupation number is up in the
millions or billions or more for a macroscopic amount of superfluid.
It's what defines a bose-einstein condensate.
As an analogy think of the two electrons in the lowest energy state
around a nucleus. They differ only in their spin, which is okay since
they are fermions. If they were bosons even their spins could be
aligned, in which case we would have an occupation number of 2 for
the lowest electron energy state. A superfluid is like the two
electrons in a helium atom, except that
1) there are many more of them
2) it's composed of bosons (helium4 atoms), not fermions (electrons)
3) the energy level has a wider spatial spread (defined by the
size of the container in my example, rather than the size of
an atom.
So I think existents can be identical, but I don't think it invalidates
your thesis, it just needs bit of trimming. The metaphysics is not
dependent on the physics.
Michael C Price
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bose-Einstein%20condensate
"This causes their positions to "smear out," effectively causing the
individual atoms to overlap each other. In a Bose-Einstein condensate, the
many overlapping atoms can be considered to be a single super-atom, with all
of its constituent atoms sharing a single quantum state."
To anticipate: if you would argue that the superfluid forms a single
existent because all its components' attributes are identical then the
statement "existents can never be identical" becomes a circular,
tautological proposition: existents with identical attributes are defined
away. It is wiser not to rest a system of metaphysics on such a
vacuous foundation. This is general problem I find with metaphysical
frameworks that are overly dependent on the fine details of physics;
they are too prone to toppling when new physics is discovered or
existing physics is re-evaluated.
Cheers,
Michael C Price
----------------------------------------
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
"Michael C Price" <michaelEXCI...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b0aYc.195$rK4...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Nelson J. Navarro
<snip>
> > You're implying that life extension by hormesis in mammals is at odds
> > with MiFRA theory?
>
> No, but that it's very easy to see how hormesis could retard aging in
> an organism which is NOT susceptible to MiFRA, and much harder to see
> how a true hormetic effect could retard aging in an organism whose
> aging was primarily the result of the process it proposes to underlie
> mammalian aging.
In light of the fact that humans, for example, nevertheless have an
impressive array of cell defense mechanisms, it seems only natural to
me to try to tap into these, to stave off aging and disease.
>
> > >
> > > For greater completeness, since Nelson cited it as evidence in favor
> > > of the hormesis hypothesis, let me note that this study:
> >
> > Frankly, since you haven't been posting much lately, I wasn't
> > expecting one of your long-winded, intellectually dishonest polemics.
> > Had I known, I might have been more comprehensive and included some
> > examples involving humans.
>
> Since there are no trials of *any* interventions proving retarded
> aging in humans, there are no trials of hormetic interventions which
> would be evidential.
Which of course isn't the same thing as saying that there's no
evidence that aging can't be slowed by an hormetic mechanism.
>
> > > Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero C.
> > > Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the
> > > life span of
> > > mice.
> > > Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-6.
> > > PMID: 9693258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> > >
> > >
> > > ... is just "the usual nonsense," as in B vitamins, antioxidants
> > > tested to date, nucleic acids, etc.
> >
> > As in anything that doesn't generally comport with *your* dogmatism.
>
> ... because if there were proper evidence for anything other than CR,
> I would immediately incorporate it into my "dogmatism."
Depending on what you mean by "proper evidence", that may be many
years away, if it ever comes at all, for any intervention into human
aging.
In any case, there's presently no "proper evidence", IMO, that
conventional CR will be of any benefit to me (or to you for that
matter). Thus in my view, your faith-based strong devotion to it, and
your propensity to label any other potential antiaging intervention
you can't frame as a case of crypto-CR as "nonsense", makes you
"dogmatic" in my view. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
>
> > > A cohort of normal,
> > > well-nourished, well-cared-for, non-genetically-mangled mouse not fed
> > > carcinogens or shot up with botulism etc, will live on average ~900
> > > days, will achieve a maximum lifespan of ~1200 days. In this study,
> > > the control animals only lived 549 days on average. Being short-lived,
> > > the "extensions" of lifespan noted in the irradiated group are in fact
> > > just partial normalizations of a shortened life expectancy -- and very
> > > partial at that (to 673 days). Moreover, maximum LS was unaffected.
>
> > > This, of course, tells us no more about the benefits of hormesis to a
> > > healthy mouse -- let alone a healthy human -- than does a trial
> > > showing extended lifespan in people given succimer after a mercury
> > > spill.
> >
> > Ok, so you don't like that study (what a surprise!). How about some
> > studies involving humans; would that suit your fancy?
>
>
> The studies you cite show reduced risk of cancer, primarily, which I
> don't dispute.
The one radon study (Cohen) did, yes, and I included it to help
establish context. The others show reduced all-cause mortality, which
implies an antiaging effect, presumably from whole-body gamma
irradiation, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. As I
mentioned, there are other papers which I do not have access to that
also ostensibly show an antiaging effect in humans from low-dose gamma
radiation. That the mechanism of hormesis exists and that it can
modulate aging, are not debatable, IMO.
I specified that I was addressing the idea that EOD or
> hormesis would work as anti-aging interventions per se.
You labeled the first radiation hormesis paper I cited, Caratero et.
al., "nonsense". You stated: "let me note that this study:...... is
just "the usual nonsense," as in B vitamins, antioxidants tested to
date, nucleic acids, etc.
Apparently, to you, that study is a metaphor for all potential
antiaging interventions you dispute, e.g., B vitamins.
I'm sorry if
> it wasn't clear to you what I meant,
You came across as taking that one study as representative of all the
evidence,
and generally disparaging hormesis as well as other potential
antiaging interventions you don't personally find appealing.
but having just spelled out the
> observation that the mice in the Caratero study did not show
> extensions of the optimized survival curve, and having hammered this
> criterion out repeatedly in past posts, I would've thought that the
> standard of evidence I require is pretty clear.
I wasn't previously having this (or any similar discussion, as far as
I can remember) with you. I was disputing Micky Snir's statement that
"no other stress response has been show to slow aging"; I included the
study as a representative example, and didn't have access to the full
paper.
>
> To show an anti-aging effect per se requires a rightward shift of the
> characteristic survivorship curve of teh species, leading to a
> statistically-significant increase in both mean and maximal (10th
> decile) survivorship relative to an optimized control population: in
> mice, the key figures are (again) ~900 and ~1200 days, respectively.
> And to be confident that the result was not just crypto-CR, one would
> additionally need evidence that it was not the result of reduced
> Caloric intake or absorption: ie, no difference in food intake nor
> body weight relative to controls (unless there are data to show that
> the reduction in BW was explicable in terms of eg increased activity).
>
> > (Actually, as I
> > stated earlier, I know you well enough to believe that there is no
> > study and no data that could ever be presented to you that would cause
> > you to publicly question your apparent long-held views.
>
> I think I've made the standard of evidence required clear in the past;
> I hope the above is clear enough to avoid confusioin in the future.
Frankly, I have no desire to discuss aging or antiaging interventions
with you in the future. Our viewpoints on many issues are simply too
far apart.
In the sense that your statement is controversial. Obviously, if you
were to state for example that 2 + 2 = 4, a generally accepted,
"provable" fact, it would be rather meaningless to construe that
statement as an "opinion", no?
In my opinion, spinach is green, Tony Blair is the PM of
> Great Britain, and CR is, at present, the only intervention available
> which is proven to retard aging in mammals -- and which a large body
> of evidence strongly suggests will so in humans as well.
Using your previously stated criteria, CR has not been shown to have
an "antiaging effect per se" in humans.
Ok, I'll cede that point to you on a technicality (with one potential
mitigating factor I'll explain later). It shows an antiaging effect
without a decrease in body weight relative to controls. There is
insufficient information in the abstract however to decide whether or
not the antiaging effect is "comparable" to conventional CR.
(The reference, in relevant part reads:
"Among A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body weight
relative to ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10 months of
age; however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum life span
when begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and maximum life
span when begun at 10 months").
More importantly, it is a
> large jump to argue from a single endocrine marker to the retardatioin
> of biological aging. I certainly would not gamble life extension
> benefits on a mechanistic speculation -- esp when (as noted) there is
> actual lifespan data which suggests the reverse (my original post's
> references 5, 8-10).
If we were talking about two fundamentally different approaches to
slow aging, I could see your point. The way I see it, we are not; we
are talking about the difference between continuous or pulsatile
"metabolic stress".
>
> Indeed, if I WERE inclined to make such a gamble, I would bet AGAINST
> EOD on the basis of the higher IGF1 levels under EOD. IGF1 is a much
> better-documented accelerator of aging in mammals (Ames dwarf mouse,
> Snell mouse, IGF1-R heterozygotes, etc). I'm glad that we seem to
> agree on THIS, at least:
>
> > (Actually you do raise
> > one valid or at least potentially valid point - the IGF-1 issue -
> > which, as minor as I think it is, is certainly worthy of further
> > investigation and discussion, IMO).
In my view, the IGF-1 issue is controversial and generally not well
understood.
There seem to be some benefits associated with higher IGF1 (or at
least negative consequences associated with lower IGF1).
Let's face it, it's possible that the somewhat higher levels of IGF1
associated with IF are beneficial. It's also possible in my view that
some of the antiaging benefit of conventional CR is mediated by
decreased IGF-1.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 May;88(5):2019-25. Related Articles,
Links
Insulin-like growth factor I and interleukin-6 contribute
synergistically to disability and mortality in older women.
Cappola AR, Xue QL, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Volpato S, Fried LP.
Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
21201, USA. acap...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
The physiology of age-related functional decline is poorly understood,
but may involve hormones and inflammation. We hypothesized that older
women with both low IGF-I and high IL-6 levels are at high risk for
disability and death. We assessed walking speed and disability in 718
women enrolled in the Women's Health and Aging Study I, a 3-yr cohort
study with 5-yr mortality follow-up. Women with IGF-I levels in the
lowest quartile and IL-6 levels in the highest quartile had
significantly greater limitation in walking and disability in mobility
tasks and instrumental activities of daily living than those with
neither risk factor (adjusted odds ratios, 10.77, 5.14, and 3.66).
Women with both risk factors were at greater risk for death (adjusted
relative risk, 2.10) as well as incident walking limitation, mobility
disability, and disability in activities of daily living compared with
those with high IGF-I and low IL-6 levels. The combination of low
IGF-I and high IL-6 levels confers a high risk for progressive
disability and death in older women, suggesting an aggregate effect of
dysregulation in endocrine and immune systems. The joint effects of
IGF-I and IL-6 may be important targets for treatments to prevent or
minimize disability associated with aging.
PMID: 12727948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Neurobiol Aging. 2003 Jul-Aug;24(4):573-81. Related Articles, Links
Erratum in:
Neurobiol Aging. 2004 Feb;25(2):271.
Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and cognitive decline in older
persons.
Dik MG, Pluijm SM, Jonker C, Deeg DJ, Lomecky MZ, Lips P.
Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO Institute), VU
University Medical Center, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
mg.di...@med.vu.nl
Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) deficiency may be involved in
cognitive deficits seen with aging, and in neurodegenerative diseases
such as Alzheimer's disease. The objective of this study was to
investigate whether IGF-I is associated with cognitive performance and
3-year cognitive decline in 1318 subjects, aged 65-88 years.
Cross-sectionally, IGF-I was directly related to information
processing speed, memory, fluid intelligence, and Mini-Mental State
Examination (MMSE) score, but these associations did not remain
significant after adjustment for age and other factors. Analysis in
quintiles of IGF-I revealed a threshold effect of low IGF-I on
information processing speed, with lower speed in subjects in the
lowest quintile of IGF-I (<9.4 nmol/l)(1) versus those in the other
four quintiles (fully adjusted B=-0.89; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.05). This
threshold of low IGF-I was also observed for 3-year decline in
information processing speed (adjusted RR=1.78; 95% CI, 1.19-2.68). In
summary, this study suggests that IGF-I levels below 9.4 nmol/l are
negatively associated with both the level and decline of information
processing speed.
PMID: 12714114 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>
> > > Many studies in which EOD has been implemented in juvenile animals
> > > have demonstrated LS extension (3-7) (most of them coauthored by
> > > Ingram (a coauthor of (2)) -- but in all of these studies, EOD animals
> > > have undergone decreases in the ballpark of ~30% in body weight in
> > > response to EOD feeding, which suggests that their overall Caloric
> > > intake has indeed been reduced -- an inference which (when measured)
> > > has been confirmed. (NB that (1), unlike (2), reported just this
> > > change).
> >
> > First, that's not true as stated, as per your reference #5.
>
> But (a) this still leaves the weight of evidence against EOD per se,
Weight of evidence "against EOD per se" in what sense? The point is
that IF is validated as a potential antiaging intervention. It has
been shown that the rate of aging has been slowed in mice by a method
that does not require the restriction of calories. Period.
In mice, the results of both conventional CR and EOD diets seem to
depend on the age and the genotype of the subjects. As far as I know,
there is no experimental data to the effect that EOD would be less or
more effective than conventional CR in humans...the long term effects
of both conventional CR, and EOD with no net CR dieting in humans are
unknown.
Since it is unknown how either diet will affect you or I, it is
completely pointless, in my view, to try to qualify it the way you
are...all we really have is a mechanism.
> (b) (5) doesn't actually show a robust CR-type response in any case,
> as noted ("Robust" as defined by criteria outlined above), and (c):
>
> > Second, if
> > you were interested in honest discussion, you would at least
> > acknowledge that this, even if were true, hardly proves that CR per se
> > is necessary for an antiaging effect.
>
> The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
What I claimed (by statement or implication) was that: to the extent
conventional CR was ever a practical antiaging intervention in the
first place (for humans) it may be obsolete because of IF dieting,
which may be better (in that no net calorie restriction is required,
giving the subject control over bodyweight). I also stated or implied
that both types of interventions are a "stress response". (Obviously,
neither one of us can "prove" what the long term effect of either diet
would be in humans).
You appear to be challenging my statements by claiming (1) that there
is no such thing as an EOD diet that can slow aging without net
calorie restriction; there is only net calorie restriction; and, (2)
to the extent that an EOD diet does slow aging without net calorie
restriction, it is not as effective or "robust" as conventional CR.
As far as I'm concerned, all I need to prove you wrong on your first
point is one case where median and max life span was increased in some
animal with no net calorie restriction relative to controls; and I
think we agree that your reference #5 provides such an example.
With regard to your second point, the point is moot, in my view,
because we have no way to know the long term effects of either diet in
humans.
I have
> yet to see a study in which EOD, WITHOUT concomitant CR, clearly
> produces a clear anti-aging life extension effect, and there is plenty
> of evidence to the contrary ((5), 8-10).
First of all, it's not clear that to me that the loss of body weight
in IF animals *relative to controls* in the studies you've cited are
due to a reduction in overall calorie intake. You know and I know that
subjects with higher insulin sensitivity, that are physiologically
younger and accordingly in better overall health, are likely to be
leaner. (In fact I'm surprised some studies seem to show no bodyweight
difference between subjects and controls). So I can't accept at face
value your statement that bodyweight differences in some strains are
due to net CR.
<snip>
Whew. This is too long. More later if and when I get a chance.
Tim Tyler
> > > But they do provide data showing that glucose and insulin levels in
> > > the IF animals were actually somewhat lower than the those of CR
> > > animals; which to a reasonable person familiar with the subject matter
> > > imply that the life extension results for IF would be comparable to
> > > CR, as your reference #5 for example, shows.
> >
> > First, my reference (5) doesn't show that.
>
> Ok, I'll cede that point to you on a technicality (with one potential
> mitigating factor I'll explain later). It shows an antiaging effect
> without a decrease in body weight relative to controls. There is
> insufficient information in the abstract however to decide whether or
> not the antiaging effect is "comparable" to conventional CR.
Some more details from the abstract:
``Relative to estimates for ad libitum controls, the body weights of the
intermittently-fed restricted C57BL/6J and hybrid mice were reduced and
mean and maximum life span were incremented when the every-other-day
regimen was initiated at 1.5 or 6 months of age. When every-other-day
feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both these genotypes
lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean life span was not
significantly affected although maximum life span was increased. Among
A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body weight relative to
ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10 months of age;
however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum life span when
begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and maximum life span when
begun at 10 months. When restricted feeding was introduced to this
genotype at 6 months of age, body weight reduction compared to control
values was apparent at some ages, but the treatment had no significant
effects on mean or maximum life span.''
- http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=2402168
The study was not isocaloric - so the only way to rule out crypto-CR
is by examining body weight - and that's not a very reliable method
as ob/ob mice illustrate.
It appears that *most* of the animals lost weight on the EOD diet -
strongly suggesting that they ate fewer calories.
> Weight of evidence "against EOD per se" in what sense? The point is
> that IF is validated as a potential antiaging intervention. It has
> been shown that the rate of aging has been slowed in mice by a method
> that does not require the restriction of calories. Period.
If this is your conclusion from the above study, I don't see how
you are drawing the conclusion. How do you know how many calories
the EOD animals ate. Are you sure it was not fewer than the controls?
It appears that *most* of them lost weight on EOD feeding - and only one
strain at one age escaped the EOD weight loss - and that need not
necessairly have been because they ate more calories.
> What I claimed (by statement or implication) was that: to the extent
> conventional CR was ever a practical antiaging intervention in the
> first place (for humans) it may be obsolete because of IF dieting [...]
For which the evidence is extremely flimsy - compared to the evidence
supporting CR.
> > I have yet to see a study in which EOD, WITHOUT concomitant CR,
> > clearly produces a clear anti-aging life extension effect, and there
> > is plenty of evidence to the contrary ((5), 8-10).
>
> First of all, it's not clear that to me that the loss of body weight
> in IF animals *relative to controls* in the studies you've cited are
> due to a reduction in overall calorie intake. You know and I know that
> subjects with higher insulin sensitivity, that are physiologically
> younger and accordingly in better overall health, are likely to be
> leaner. (In fact I'm surprised some studies seem to show no bodyweight
> difference between subjects and controls). So I can't accept at face
> value your statement that bodyweight differences in some strains are
> due to net CR.
From this, it looks like you agree that body weight is a poor proxy for
calorie intake.
So where's the evidence for the claim that:
``the rate of aging has been slowed in mice by a method
that does not require the restriction of calories.''
...?
Are you suggesting that ad-lib EOD feeding does not usually
result in a degree of calorie restriction?
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>>>b) and you say: "existents can never be identical"
>>>I can think of a counter-example: all the particles in a superfluid
>>>are identical.
>>
>>No. Their attributes of spatial *position* are still different.
>>Otherwise they would be precisely the same particle, not merely
>>being the same in all other attributes.
>
>
> They all occupy the same energy level, usually the lowest energy level
> defined by the system. Therefore they have the same position
> distribution as well. That's what I was referring to when I said they
> were all delocalised. It's just that the occupation number is up in the
> millions or billions or more for a macroscopic amount of superfluid.
> It's what defines a bose-einstein condensate.
Then it might be better in this case to say that a bose-einstein
condensate is not composed of individual existents at all, but is a
single existent that cannot be broken down into sub-existents in its
current form - ie. the atoms that were originally non-identical and
separate have become non-existent (as atoms) and have joined to form the
bose-einstein condensate. This is fully consistent with my view of ever
changing reality - of nothing remaining the same during the passage of time.
>
> As an analogy think of the two electrons in the lowest energy state
> around a nucleus. They differ only in their spin, which is okay since
> they are fermions. If they were bosons even their spins could be
> aligned, in which case we would have an occupation number of 2 for
> the lowest electron energy state. A superfluid is like the two
> electrons in a helium atom, except that
> 1) there are many more of them
> 2) it's composed of bosons (helium4 atoms), not fermions (electrons)
> 3) the energy level has a wider spatial spread (defined by the
> size of the container in my example, rather than the size of
> an atom.
>
> So I think existents can be identical, but I don't think it invalidates
> your thesis, it just needs bit of trimming.
Perhaps. I will have to think about it. However, I currently think that
any consistent definition of an existent will need to have no two
existents be identical. They can't be both different or separate, and
identical at the same time.
> The metaphysics is not dependent on the physics.
Agreed.
Bear in mind that I don't agree with the *interpretation* of quantum
mechanics held by most physicists.
In a much more important and longer essay:
Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
that serves as the basis for my proposal for an optimizing social
structure, I wrote:
"It is a primary fact of reality that all existents(6) and their
environments are in a constant state of change. On the other hand, since
all attributes of all existents are ultimately measurable(7) (otherwise
the word "existent" would have no consistent meaning), it is clear that
a determination of the rate of change of any such attribute is also
ultimately possible.(8)"
Where Footnotes 6,7,8 stated:
6. By "existent", I mean anything which exists. For more detail see
"Essential Collectivism in Language: its Effects on Rational Thinking"
by Paul Wakfer"
7. Whether or not this is true on the quantum scale of matter is still
an open question. However, to the extent it is not, one must question
whether the non-measurable parameter involved is actually an attribute
of the existent in question at all.
8. Thus the rate of change of any attribute of an existent is
philosophically supportable as also being an existent, and this is true
even if it is not possible currently to measure that attribute and thus
to know the value of its rate of change.
----------------------------------
I have no desire to discuss quantum mechanics and its interpretation at
this time, because I am not currently competent to do so. I also doubt
very much that anyone on this group is fully competent to do so.
I also have no time to become more competent at this time, even though
clarifying the philosophic basis of reality including quantum mechanics
is certainly a goal of my life. This is because I am convinced that my
first priority (after maintaining my own life) is to try to modify the
current abysmal state of human social interactions in a positive manner.
Therefore, my definitions, including that of "existent" are mainly
intended only for the macroscopic world in which such social
interactions take place.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> A follow-up:
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bose-Einstein%20condensate
> "This causes their positions to "smear out," effectively causing the
> individual atoms to overlap each other. In a Bose-Einstein condensate, the
> many overlapping atoms can be considered to be a single super-atom, with all
> of its constituent atoms sharing a single quantum state."
>
> To anticipate: if you would argue that the superfluid forms a single
> existent because all its components' attributes are identical then the
> statement "existents can never be identical" becomes a circular,
> tautological proposition: existents with identical attributes are defined
> away. It is wiser not to rest a system of metaphysics on such a
> vacuous foundation. This is general problem I find with metaphysical
> frameworks that are overly dependent on the fine details of physics;
> they are too prone to toppling when new physics is discovered or
> existing physics is re-evaluated.
I agree, but as you can see from my last post, I did not quite do that.
Instead I think it makes more sense to say that the individual atoms no
longer exist although they did in the past and they may in the future.
Think of the atom's attributes as like the "life" or "animation"
attribute of a cryonics patient.
However, as stated before my current metaphysics should be taken as
merely partial and sufficient to deal with macroscopic reality rather
than complete enough to deal with all of reality. In this sense I am
taking a "spiraling in" approach to reality - as all scientific
approaches necessarily must do.
Nelson J. Navarro
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. Good point.
If we go from continuous to pulsatile "metabolic stress", then it
seems metabolic rate would certainly become a factor in properly
implementing it.
On that basis I think I have to admit I was wrong, or at least
premature, to suggest that Intermittent Fasting with little or no net
calorie restriction has made conventional CR obsolete (aggressive CR,
that is)...I think we need some data to see what happens in humans.
I also agree completely with your view regarding CR.
Regards,
Nelson
Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote in message news:<412FFD19...@morelife.org>...
Michael C Price
> Then it might be better in this case to say that a bose-einstein
> condensate is not composed of individual existents at all, but is
> a single existent that cannot be broken down into sub-existents
> in its current form - ie. the atoms that were originally non-
> identical and separate have become non-existent (as atoms) and
> have joined to form the bose-einstein condensate.
The problem with this is that the He4 atoms forming the superfluid
/ Bose-Einstein condensate have not joined together - there are
negligible forces between them. If your metaphysics requires that
they be described as a collective rather than individual atoms
(an usual stance, given your reluctance to use the group pronoun
for humans), then it indicates a failure of your metaphysics.
[...]
> Bear in mind that I don't agree with the *interpretation* of
> quantum mechanics held by most physicists.
Neither to do I, although what "most" physicists believe
is unclear - depends on how you categorise them, I guess.
I follow the Everett or many-worlds interpretation of QM,
which is apparently the majority view amongst quantum
cosmologists.
But the behaviour of superfluids is independent of the
interpretation of QM.
[....]
> I have no desire to discuss quantum mechanics and its
> interpretation at this time, because I am not currently
> competent to do so. I also doubt very much that anyone
> on this group is fully competent to do so.
Interpreting quantum mechanics is not very
complicated, provided one can think clearly and put
any egocentric delusions aside. I see no reason for
assuming that everyone on this group is lacks these
abilities. See http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
> I also have no time to become more competent at this time,
> even though clarifying the philosophic basis of reality
> including quantum mechanics is certainly a goal of my life.
Yes, I have a number of goals which I am deferring until
after taking a Forbidden Planet style "brain boost". Such
reading Homer in the original ancient Greek and understanding
the technicalities of string theory.
> This is because I am convinced that my first priority (after
> maintaining my own life) is to try to modify the current
> abysmal state of human social interactions in a positive
> manner.
A doomed cause, IMO, due to the hard-wiring people come
built with. I was never keen on changing the world. See
Harry S Browne's "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World".
> Therefore, my definitions, including that of "existent" are mainly
> intended only for the macroscopic world in which such social
> interactions take place.
Fair enough.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote
>
>>Then it might be better in this case to say that a bose-einstein
>>condensate is not composed of individual existents at all, but is
>>a single existent that cannot be broken down into sub-existents
>>in its current form - ie. the atoms that were originally non-
>>identical and separate have become non-existent (as atoms) and
>>have joined to form the bose-einstein condensate.
>
>
> The problem with this is that the He4 atoms forming the superfluid
> / Bose-Einstein condensate have not joined together - there are
> negligible forces between them. If your metaphysics requires that
> they be described as a collective rather than individual atoms
> (an usual stance, given your reluctance to use the group pronoun
> for humans), then it indicates a failure of your metaphysics.
Not at all, as I described later. I meant "joined" as merely "altered
their existence to become a whole". The atoms need not be "joined" in
any standard physical manner in order to cease to exist. All that is
required is that they are no longer capable of being discerned as
individuals with individual attributes, and that appears to be true for
a Bose-Einstein concentrate.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Bear in mind that I don't agree with the *interpretation* of
>>quantum mechanics held by most physicists.
>
>
> Neither to do I, although what "most" physicists believe
> is unclear - depends on how you categorise them, I guess.
I refer mainly to the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern
extensions, but I really don't currently know enough detail sufficiently
well to say more.
> I follow the Everett or many-worlds interpretation of QM,
> which is apparently the majority view amongst quantum
> cosmologists.
Yes, and also not something that I agree with (but I don't consider
worth the time to discuss).
>
> But the behaviour of superfluids is independent of the
> interpretation of QM.
> [....]
>
>>I have no desire to discuss quantum mechanics and its
>>interpretation at this time, because I am not currently
>>competent to do so. I also doubt very much that anyone
>>on this group is fully competent to do so.
>
>
> Interpreting quantum mechanics is not very
> complicated, provided one can think clearly and put
> any egocentric delusions aside. I see no reason for
> assuming that everyone on this group is lacks these
> abilities. See http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
Obviously I disagree.
>
>>I also have no time to become more competent at this time,
>>even though clarifying the philosophic basis of reality
>>including quantum mechanics is certainly a goal of my life.
>
>
> Yes, I have a number of goals which I am deferring until
> after taking a Forbidden Planet style "brain boost". Such
> reading Homer in the original ancient Greek and understanding
> the technicalities of string theory.
I don't think that I need a brain "boost", just more time.
>
>>This is because I am convinced that my first priority (after
>>maintaining my own life) is to try to modify the current
>>abysmal state of human social interactions in a positive
>>manner.
>
>
> A doomed cause, IMO, due to the hard-wiring people come
> built with.
Then I am not very likely to ever get to my other desires and neither
are you. People can change and they must be if a desirable society is to
emerge (one far more effective and happy than now) and technical
progress is to continue. What I seek is a social evolution of human
social actions. I seek it because I am convinced that it is needed for
my other desires to be satisfied.
> I was never keen on changing the world.
> See Harry S Browne's "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World".
I read it about 27 years ago. I had already come to the same
conclusions, but that book was an excellent statement and description of
them. It is a shame that the author has reverted from and betrayed many
of his earlier principles of life. I also am not "keen on changing the
world", but I am convinced that what I want cannot happen without
significant numbers of people changing so that they operate more
effectively with each other.
Michael C Price
> The atoms [in a Bose-Einstien superfluid] need not be "joined"
> in any standard physical manner in order to cease to exist. All
> that is required is that they are no longer capable of being
> discerned as individuals with individual attributes, and that
> appears to be true for a Bose-Einstein concentrate.
You can call them joined and I'll call them separate. I don't
think any operational test could distinguish between the different
ways we are describing the same situation, so it is a meaningless
debate.
[....]
>>>I have no desire to discuss quantum mechanics and its
>>>interpretation at this time, because I am not currently
>>>competent to do so. I also doubt very much that anyone
>>>on this group is fully competent to do so.
>>
>>
>> Interpreting quantum mechanics is not very
>> complicated, provided one can think clearly and put
>> any egocentric delusions aside. I see no reason for
>> assuming that everyone on this group is lacks these
>> abilities. See http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
>
> Obviously I disagree.
>
>>> I also have no time to become more competent at this
>>> time, even though clarifying the philosophic basis of
>>> reality including quantum mechanics is certainly a goal
>>> of my life.
>>
>> Yes, I have a number of goals which I am deferring until
>> after taking a Forbidden Planet style "brain boost". Such
>> [as] reading Homer in the original ancient Greek and
>> understanding the technicalities of string theory.
>
> I don't think that I need a brain "boost", just more time.
A rather odd comment since you apparently consider
the interpretation of QM a "hard" problem beyond the
capacity of anyone here to competently discuss.
More generally, anyone who thinks they don't need a
brain boost needs one.
>>> This is because I am convinced that my first priority (after
>>> maintaining my own life) is to try to modify the current
>>> abysmal state of human social interactions in a positive
>>> manner.
>>
>>
>> A doomed cause, IMO, due to the hard-wiring people
>> come built with.
>
> Then I am not very likely to ever get to my other desires
> and neither are you. People can change and they must be if
> a desirable society is to emerge (one far more effective and
> happy than now) and technical progress is to continue. What
> I seek is a social evolution of human social actions. I seek it
> because I am convinced that it is needed for my other
> desires to be satisfied.
[.....]
> I am convinced that what I want cannot happen without
> significant numbers of people changing so that they operate
> more effectively with each other.
The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
Michael C Price
During the 19/20th century "you" has became a confused
pronoun. It used to be plural, but somehow has become
ambiguous. We can say "you are an idiot" to single person
or "you are idiots" to a group. If avoiding the group-trap is
so important perhaps we should revert to the more precise
use of "thou" as the singular 2nd person.
i.e. "thou art an idiot" :-)
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>>The atoms [in a Bose-Einstien superfluid] need not be "joined"
>>in any standard physical manner in order to cease to exist. All
>>that is required is that they are no longer capable of being
>>discerned as individuals with individual attributes, and that
>>appears to be true for a Bose-Einstein concentrate.
>
>
> You can call them joined and I'll call them separate. I don't
> think any operational test could distinguish between the different
> ways we are describing the same situation, so it is a meaningless
> debate.
Perhaps it is just semantics, but I failed to understand how you can use
the word "separate" for what you cannot measure any parameters of - not
even a location - a parameter that is the very essence of the meaning of
"separate". If one cannot measure *anything* about some putative
existent, the only logical thing to say is that the putative existent is
not one! Ie. there is no such existent!
>>I don't think that I need a brain "boost", just more time.
>
>
> A rather odd comment since you apparently consider
> the interpretation of QM a "hard" problem beyond the
> capacity of anyone here to competently discuss.
I did not say that it was beyond the capacity of anyone here. I merely
doubt that anyone on this group has spent sufficient time on it. Now if
we were posting on sci.physics, then I would never have made that statement.
>
> More generally, anyone who thinks they don't need a
> brain boost needs one.
Certainly someone who talks about it so glibly does :)
I suppose this depends what precisely you mean by a "brain boost". I am
very happy with the current competence of my thinking abilities. I would
be hesitant to do anything radical for fear I would lose something even
though I might gain other things. Yes, if I could have all the same
mental abilities at a higher rate of speed then of course, I would go
for it. However I don't think that decision is likely to be that simple.
Right now, all I need is more time since I believe my thought and
analysis capabilities are sufficient given more time.
>
>>>>This is because I am convinced that my first priority (after
>>>>maintaining my own life) is to try to modify the current
>>>>abysmal state of human social interactions in a positive
>>>>manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>A doomed cause, IMO, due to the hard-wiring people
>>>come built with.
>>
>>Then I am not very likely to ever get to my other desires
>>and neither are you. People can change and they must be if
>>a desirable society is to emerge (one far more effective and
>>happy than now) and technical progress is to continue. What
>>I seek is a social evolution of human social actions. I seek it
>>because I am convinced that it is needed for my other
>>desires to be satisfied.
>
> [.....]
>
>>I am convinced that what I want cannot happen without
>>significant numbers of people changing so that they operate
>>more effectively with each other.
>
>
> The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
> such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
> of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
> technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
> cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
> current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
> bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
I did not know that you were a believer in the gods of Singularity and
Nano.
My view is that there is virtually no chance of either of these things
coming to pass in the way they are currently imagined by their fans. If
it happens, great. I will still be here and make use of it. But I am
sure not going to count on it for anything. Furthermore, if it happens
on that time-scale I am convince the the present social attitudes and
methods of interaction are such that the power available would cause a
chaotic end to civilization. This is because it is very clear from
simply examining countries where there is virtually no need for anyone
to lack the necessities of life (eg the USA), that insufficient "wealth"
is not the major factor behind the problems of society. However, I am
not much worried about the possibility that what you describe will
happen anytime soon.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Warning: this post has nothing to do with life extension!
>
> During the 19/20th century "you" has became a confused
> pronoun. It used to be plural, but somehow has become
> ambiguous. We can say "you are an idiot" to single person
> or "you are idiots" to a group.
French is better that way. Although even there, the singular "tu" is
only used for those with whom one is "familiar".
> If avoiding the group-trap is
> so important perhaps we should revert to the more precise
> use of "thou" as the singular 2nd person.
> i.e. "thou art an idiot" :-)
Generally, "you" does not have the same philosophically incorrect and
highly negative usages that "we", "us", "our", have. Whether it is
singular or plural is generally derivable from the context. In addition,
one should always use the 3rd person singular "one" as a replacement for
"you" in all places where one is really meaning "a person in general".
I would much rather reserve "thou" for more pleasant phrases such as the
old Roger's and Hart song:
"Thou swell, thou witty Thou sweet, thou grand,
Wouldst kiss me pretty? wouldst hold my hand?"
Michael C Price
> and highly negative usages that "we", "us", "our", have. Whether it is
> singular or plural is generally derivable from the context. In addition,
> one should always use the 3rd person singular "one" as a replacement
> for "you" in all places where one is really meaning "a person in general".
I agree. Usage of "one" is a good idea.
Michael C Price
>>
>>>The atoms [in a Bose-Einstein superfluid] need not be "joined"
>>>in any standard physical manner in order to cease to exist. All
>>>that is required is that they are no longer capable of being
>>>discerned as individuals with individual attributes, and that
>>>appears to be true for a Bose-Einstein concentrate.
>>
>>
>> You can call them joined and I'll call them separate. I don't
>> think any operational test could distinguish between the different
>> ways we are describing the same situation, so it is a meaningless
>> debate.
>
> Perhaps it is just semantics, but I failed to understand how you
> can use the word "separate" for what you cannot measure any
> parameters of - not even a location - a parameter that is the very
> essence of the meaning of "separate". If one cannot measure
> *anything* about some putative existent
? Clearly one can measure things about superfluids (they have
mass, for instance). Whether they're composite objects is another
matter altogether.
> , the only logical thing to
> say is that the putative existent is not one! Ie. there is no such
> existent!
>
>>>I don't think that I need a brain "boost", just more time.
>>
>>
>> A rather odd comment since you apparently consider
>> the interpretation of QM a "hard" problem beyond the
>> capacity of anyone here to competently discuss.
>
> I did not say that it was beyond the capacity of anyone here. I
> merely doubt that anyone on this group has spent sufficient time
> on it. Now if we were posting on sci.physics, then I would never
> have made that statement.
I have spent much time studying it (and debating it in sci.physics,
about 10+ years ago). My many-worlds interpretation FAQ grew
out of that experience.
Doesn't prove I understand it, although I think I do.
>> The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>> such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>> of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>> technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>> cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>> current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>> bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
>
> I did not know that you were a believer in the gods of Singularity
Gods? Imprecise language!! Really, I'm surprised at thee!
I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as big
a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to the
industrial revolution.
Clearly thou find something about the above scenario improbable.
What? The development of machine intelligence itself, or the
subsequent wealth creation via increased efficiency of production?
Or the development of new scientific advances by ultra-human
intelligences?
> and Nano.
Nano' does not impress me at all -its just micro' and more.
Please do not lump me with the nano-maniacs. It's way
over-hyped.
> My view is that there is virtually no chance of either of these things
> coming to pass in the way they are currently imagined by their fans. If
> it happens, great. I will still be here and make use of it. But I am
> sure not going to count on it for anything. Furthermore, if it happens
> on that time-scale I am convince the present social attitudes and
> methods of interaction are such that the power available would cause a
> chaotic end to civilization. This is because it is very clear from
> simply examining countries where there is virtually no need for anyone
> to lack the necessities of life (eg the USA), that insufficient "wealth"
> is not the major factor behind the problems of society.
But the USA's wealth does not seem to be terminating its existence.
> However, I am not much worried about the possibility that what
> you describe will happen anytime soon.
Worried? No. Hopeful and excited? Yes.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>>>>The atoms [in a Bose-Einstein superfluid] need not be "joined"
>>>>in any standard physical manner in order to cease to exist. All
>>>>that is required is that they are no longer capable of being
>>>>discerned as individuals with individual attributes, and that
>>>>appears to be true for a Bose-Einstein concentrate.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can call them joined and I'll call them separate. I don't
>>>think any operational test could distinguish between the different
>>>ways we are describing the same situation, so it is a meaningless
>>>debate.
>>
>>Perhaps it is just semantics, but I failed to understand how you
>>can use the word "separate" for what you cannot measure any
>>parameters of - not even a location - a parameter that is the very
>>essence of the meaning of "separate". If one cannot measure
>>*anything* about some putative existent
>
>
> ? Clearly one can measure things about superfluids (they have
> mass, for instance). Whether they're composite objects is another
> matter altogether.
I have no idea why we continued to talk at cross purposes. It should
have been totally clear that when saying of "no measurable attributes" I
was speaking of the individual atoms themselves. Of course, the
condensate itself has measurable attributes and is therefore a (real)
existent. What I am saying is that the meanings which one would like to
attach to the words "join" and "composite" are different between the
quantum and macroscopic worlds. But then so are many other concepts in
the quantum world, so this should come as no surprise.
>
>>, the only logical thing to
>>say is that the putative existent is not one! Ie. there is no such
>>existent!
>>
>>
>>>>I don't think that I need a brain "boost", just more time.
>>>
>>>
>>>A rather odd comment since you apparently consider
>>>the interpretation of QM a "hard" problem beyond the
>>>capacity of anyone here to competently discuss.
>>
>>I did not say that it was beyond the capacity of anyone here. I
>>merely doubt that anyone on this group has spent sufficient time
>>on it. Now if we were posting on sci.physics, then I would never
>>have made that statement.
>
>
> I have spent much time studying it (and debating it in sci.physics,
> about 10+ years ago). My many-worlds interpretation FAQ grew
> out of that experience.
My problem with it is that I see no value to it. Whether there are other
realities splitting off with each quantum possibility, if none of them
can effect the one that I am in, then they are effectively non-existent
to me by any reasonable meaning of the word "existence".
>
> Doesn't prove I understand it, although I think I do.
If is it unprovable then it is irrelevant (ie. non-existent).
>
>>>The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>>>such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>>>of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>>>technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>>>cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>>>current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>>>bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
>>
>>I did not know that you were a believer in the gods of Singularity
>
>
> Gods? Imprecise language!! Really, I'm surprised at thee!
It was not imprecise. the capitalized "S" and "N" implied a
personification. Many people think of them as all-powerful and
unfathomable, ie god-like.
>
> I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as big
> a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to the
> industrial revolution.
Alright, now you are describing it in a manner with which I can deal and
even have some agreement. However I am convinced it will also take
almost as long to have such a large effect as those did (likely longer
than the industrial revolution, IMO).
>
> Clearly thou find something about the above scenario improbable.
> What?
Only the time-scale that the "fans" all propose, and perhaps even the
possibility of some of their conjectures (for example, non-destructive
brain-scans and uploads).
> The development of machine intelligence itself, or the
> subsequent wealth creation via increased efficiency of production?
I am not convinced of the possibility of the former being anything like
a human intelligence and/or being available within the next 100 years say.
I don't think the latter will be nearly as easy or quick as it is
portrayed by the true believers.
> Or the development of new scientific advances by ultra-human
> intelligences?
I think this is quite unlikely in anything but the simplest of things
(anywhere that speed alone can help). Until people understand better how
human intelligence accomplishes what it does (and science is still a
long way from that), machines cannot be made to do the same.
>
>>and Nano.
>
>
> Nano' does not impress me at all -its just micro' and more.
> Please do not lump me with the nano-maniacs. It's way
> over-hyped.
Okay, at least we agree to that. But then I don't quite see where all
this wealth that you expect within 50 years is supposed to come from.
>
>
>>My view is that there is virtually no chance of either of these things
>>coming to pass in the way they are currently imagined by their fans. If
>>it happens, great. I will still be here and make use of it. But I am
>>sure not going to count on it for anything. Furthermore, if it happens
>>on that time-scale I am convince the present social attitudes and
>>methods of interaction are such that the power available would cause a
>>chaotic end to civilization. This is because it is very clear from
>>simply examining countries where there is virtually no need for anyone
>>to lack the necessities of life (eg the USA), that insufficient "wealth"
>>is not the major factor behind the problems of society.
>
>
> But the USA's wealth does not seem to be terminating its existence.
I think it is fast going in that direction.
>
>>However, I am not much worried about the possibility that what
>>you describe will happen anytime soon.
>
>
> Worried? No. Hopeful and excited? Yes.
If it could be positive then I would be excited.
One part of me is excited for what could be accomplished, but the other
part of me is concerned for what the overall result will be (chaos). To
prevent that chaos will require humans to change their social
interactions methods.
Michael C Price
>>>merely doubt that anyone on this group has spent sufficient time
>>>on it. Now if we were posting on sci.physics, then I would never
>>>have made that statement.
>>
>>
>> I have spent much time studying it (and debating it in sci.physics,
>> about 10+ years ago). My many-worlds interpretation FAQ
>> grew out of that experience.
>
> My problem with it is that I see no value to it.
I am concerned primarily about its truth, only secondarily with
its value.
> Whether there are
> other realities splitting off with each quantum possibility, if none
> of them can effect the one that I am in, then they are effectively
> non-existent to me by any reasonable meaning of the word
> "existence".
But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW does
have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism that ensures
that copies of you are always revived somewhere, even if the cryo-
organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
(This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic suspension
since their identities are continually changing.)
>> Doesn't prove I understand it, although I think I do.
>
> If is it unprovable then it is irrelevant (ie. non-existent).
To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
theories to compare experimental results against. But there
no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
"scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
MW is also falsifiable since it relies on the validity of various
wave equations.
The only scientific alternative to MW is to take the position that
it will be superseded by some grander Theory Of Everything one
day that will provide an alternative explanation for the uncertainty
relations etc. I have no problems believing in a TOE, but I think
it unlikely it will provide a different explanation for quantum effects.
>>>>The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>>>>such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>>>>of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>>>>technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>>>>cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>>>>current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>>>>bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
[...]
>>
>> I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as
>> big a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to
>> the industrial revolution.
>
> Alright, now you are describing it in a manner with which I can deal
> and even have some agreement. However I am convinced it will also
> take almost as long to have such a large effect as those did (likely
> longer than the industrial revolution, IMO).
The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
>[.....] Until people understand better how human
> intelligence accomplishes what it does (and science is still
> a long way from that), machines cannot be made to do the same.
But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
networks and scale up. (And then train the networks to be obedient to
their human masters to avoid a SkyNet-scale catastrophe: i.e. make
their arrational goals subservient to our arrational goals.)
>>>and Nano.
>>
>>
>> Nano' does not impress me at all -its just micro' and more.
>> Please do not lump me with the nano-maniacs. It's way
>> over-hyped.
>
> Okay, at least we agree to that. But then I don't quite see where
> all this wealth that you expect within 50 years is supposed to
> come from.
With just human machine intelligence the cost of labour would
decrease in the richer, hi-tech areas, causing a major enhancement
of the world's current economic geography, where currently low
labour costs are only associated with poorer, low-tech areas. The
cost of space exploration would decrease, making extraterrestrial
resources available, since machines don't need heavy, expensive
bio-life-support systems to cart around up there.
With super-human machine intelligence the development of
new processes would create wealth (e.g. commercial fusion
power. Cheap antimatter?). And other stuff we would not be
expected to comprehend. Yes, in that sense it is "god-like".
To not expect the unexpected would be irrational.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <t...@morelife.org> wrote in message
>
>>>>I did not say that it was beyond the capacity of anyone here. I
>>>>merely doubt that anyone on this group has spent sufficient time
>>>>on it. Now if we were posting on sci.physics, then I would never
>>>>have made that statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have spent much time studying it (and debating it in sci.physics,
>>>about 10+ years ago). My many-worlds interpretation FAQ
>>>grew out of that experience.
>>
>>My problem with it is that I see no value to it.
>
>
> I am concerned primarily about its truth, only secondarily with
> its value.
Metaphysically, I don't distinguish between the two except in degree of
value of truth. *Any* knowledge of *reality* is valuable. I explained
just why it is of no value below - essentially because it is not part of
"reality" - ie. all things which can affect me.
>
>>Whether there are
>>other realities splitting off with each quantum possibility, if none
>>of them can effect the one that I am in, then they are effectively
>>non-existent to me by any reasonable meaning of the word
>>"existence".
>
>
> But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW does
> have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism that ensures
> that copies of you are always revived somewhere, even if the cryo-
> organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
> (This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic suspension
> since their identities are continually changing.)
But I see no reason to care about *anything* which is not part of *my*
reality - ie. the only one which exists for me and the one in which I
may die. If I die anywhere it is precisely the same as everywhere. In
fact, I reject the entire use of the word *where* here, because nothing
exists but that which can affect me - ie. the events of which I can
measure in one way or another.
>
>>>Doesn't prove I understand it, although I think I do.
>>
>>If is it unprovable then it is irrelevant (ie. non-existent).
>
>
> To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
> theories to compare experimental results against. But there
> no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
> "scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
> are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
Not so. Most definitely all possible alternatives have not yet been
thought of.
> MW is also falsifiable since it relies on the validity of various
> wave equations.
If it is falsifiable, then it can affect reality and is part of it.
> The only scientific alternative to MW is to take the position that
> it will be superseded by some grander Theory Of Everything one
> day that will provide an alternative explanation for the uncertainty
> relations etc. I have no problems believing in a TOE, but I think
> it unlikely it will provide a different explanation for quantum effects.
I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
>
>>>>>The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>>>>>such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>>>>>of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>>>>>technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>>>>>cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>>>>>current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>>>>>bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
>>>>
> [...]
>
>>>I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as
>>>big a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to
>>>the industrial revolution.
>>
>>Alright, now you are describing it in a manner with which I can deal
>>and even have some agreement. However I am convinced it will also
>>take almost as long to have such a large effect as those did (likely
>>longer than the industrial revolution, IMO).
>
>
> The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
> industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
> intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
> be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
One has to *have* machine intelligence before it can be adopted. Moore's
Law will not go on forever. It is not a physical law. And speed and
memory capacity cannot automatically generate machine intelligence.
>
>>[.....] Until people understand better how human
>>intelligence accomplishes what it does (and science is still
>>a long way from that), machines cannot be made to do the same.
>
>
> But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
> hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
> then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
But the speed up may still be quite insignificant because it depends on
humans who are not getting any faster or smarter.
> Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
> resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
> do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
> networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
> networks and scale up. (And then train the networks to be obedient to
> their human masters to avoid a SkyNet-scale catastrophe: i.e. make
> their arrational goals subservient to our arrational goals.)
:-) You have been doing too much dreaming and perhaps reading too much
science fiction. If only it were that easy!
>
>>>>and Nano.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nano' does not impress me at all -its just micro' and more.
>>>Please do not lump me with the nano-maniacs. It's way
>>>over-hyped.
>>
>>Okay, at least we agree to that. But then I don't quite see where
>>all this wealth that you expect within 50 years is supposed to
>>come from.
>
>
> With just human machine intelligence the cost of labour would
> decrease in the richer, hi-tech areas, causing a major enhancement
> of the world's current economic geography, where currently low
> labour costs are only associated with poorer, low-tech areas. The
> cost of space exploration would decrease, making extraterrestrial
> resources available, since machines don't need heavy, expensive
> bio-life-support systems to cart around up there.
>
> With super-human machine intelligence the development of
> new processes would create wealth (e.g. commercial fusion
> power. Cheap antimatter?). And other stuff we would not be
> expected to comprehend. Yes, in that sense it is "god-like".
> To not expect the unexpected would be irrational.
Of course I agree with the last sentence, but for the rest, I remain
much more skeptical than you.
Michael C Price
>> But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW
>> does have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism
>> that ensures that copies of you are always revived somewhere,
>> (This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic
>> suspension since their identities are continually changing.)
>
> But I see no reason to care about *anything* which is not part of
> *my* reality - ie. the only one which exists for me and the one in
> which I may die.
But all the futures that diverge from each other *after* you are
frozen are all part of *your* reality. If in some futures you are
not revived then is like some, but not all, backup copies of data
being lost - ie. of no consequence at all to the survival of the
data (i.e. *you*).
>>>If is it unprovable then it is irrelevant (ie. non-existent).
>>
>>
>> To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
>> theories to compare experimental results against. But there
>> no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
>> "scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
>> are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
>
> Not so. Most definitely all possible alternatives have not yet
> been thought of.
A hope for which there is no evidence. It's been nearly 80
years since QM was formulated and no one has found an
interpretation that didn't suffer from the above defects,
except Everett back in 1957, and the only reason why his
many-worlds or many-histories solution is not universally accepted
is that his solution unseats deeply ingrained egocentric delusions.
>> MW is also falsifiable since it relies on the validity of various
>> wave equations.
>
> If it is falsifiable, then it can affect reality and is part of it.
Exactly.
[.....]
>>
>>>>>>The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>>>>>>such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>>>>>>of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>>>>>>technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>>>>>>cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>>>>>>current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>>>>>>bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
>>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as
>>>>big a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to
>>>>the industrial revolution.
>>>
>>>Alright, now you are describing it in a manner with which I can deal
>>>and even have some agreement. However I am convinced it will also
>>>take almost as long to have such a large effect as those did (likely
>>>longer than the industrial revolution, IMO).
>>
>>
>> The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
>> industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
>> intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
>> be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
>
> One has to *have* machine intelligence before it can be adopted.
> Moore's Law will not go on forever.
It only needs to go on for another 30 years to get human-equivalent
processing to cost much less than the wages of a human.
> It is not a physical law.
But since we are nowhere near the fundamental limits of computation
I don't think this is relevant. Moore's Law is a consequence of
supply and demand and the resulting investment in technology.
> And speed and memory capacity cannot automatically generate
> machine intelligence.
Of course. You also need a general learning algorithm for neural
networks.
>>>[.....] Until people understand better how human
>>>intelligence accomplishes what it does (and science is still
>>>a long way from that), machines cannot be made to do the same.
>>
>>
>> But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
>> hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
>> then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
>
> But the speed up may still be quite insignificant because it depends on
> humans who are not getting any faster or smarter.
Maybe and maybe not. Perhaps the bulk of the work left is simply to
scale neural networks up, which may not require super-human
intelligence, just more cheaper hardware.
>> Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
>> resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
>> do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
>> networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
>> networks and scale up. (And then train the networks to be obedient to
>> their human masters to avoid a SkyNet-scale catastrophe: i.e. make
>> their arrational goals subservient to our arrational goals.)
>
> :-) You have been doing too much dreaming and perhaps reading
> too much science fiction.
Guilty on both counts :-)
> If only it were that easy!
How do you know it isn't? We won't be able to test this until hardware
is about a millionfold cheaper/faster (i.e. 20 doublings = 30 years, perhaps
40). Training the networks is likely to be a time-labour-intensive
bottleneck, although once one is trained to a certain level it can be copied
ad infinitum and amortised costs rapidly drop towards zero.
Tim Tyler
> >> To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
> >> theories to compare experimental results against. But there
> >> no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
> >> "scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
> >> are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
> >
> > Not so. Most definitely all possible alternatives have not yet
> > been thought of.
>
> A hope for which there is no evidence. It's been nearly 80
> years since QM was formulated and no one has found an
> interpretation that didn't suffer from the above defects,
> except Everett back in 1957, and the only reason why his
> many-worlds or many-histories solution is not universally accepted
> is that his solution unseats deeply ingrained egocentric delusions.
The main alternative I encounter when I promote the MWI is the idea
that worlds that are "distant" from our own cease to exist - and drop
out of existence.
Of course, there's no evidence to support this - any more than there is
for a hypothetical wave function collapse.
As far as I can tell, the main motivation for such an interpretation
is economising not on hypotheses (which would be the MWI) but
economy on physical resources.
The intuition seems to be that the MWI just has too many "unnecessary"
worlds - and that if they existed, they must be running up a huge bill
somewhere - so therefore, fewer worlds are to be preferred.
Unlike the MWI multiverse, such theories nominate one world as the
"chosen" world line. Worlds divide and interefere with each other -
but drop out of existence after a while (if they are not the chosen
world).
I don't think such theories are correct - but - IMO - they are
scientific, consistent, and don't necessarily involve vitalism,
mentalism, or wooliness.
Tim Tyler
[Life extension in other universes?]
> But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW does
> have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism that ensures
> that copies of you are always revived somewhere, even if the cryo-
> organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
> (This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic suspension
> since their identities are continually changing.)
It seems as though this is a general argument for risk taking
- of the form:
If you gamble, then someone somewhere will win the payoff.
It seems to me you would have to count the winners - and weigh
their number against the cost of the gamble in the first place -
if you wanted to know whether the risk was worth taking.
That's the same process you have to go through if there's
only one world.
In other words, I'm not sure the MWI makes any odds in this case.
As with deciding on any other gamble, a cryonics decision is
a case of weighting the value of the payoff by the estimated
chance of winning, and comparing the resulting cost to the
cost of playing.
Tim Tyler
> The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
> industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
> intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
> be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
Doom is widely prophesised for Moore's law.
It depends on size reductions - and while we haven't reached the bottom
yet, it does seem to be rapidly approaching.
> But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
> hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
> then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
> Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
> resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
> do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
> networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
> networks and scale up. [...]
The biggest step forwards on this front was probably the internet.
Millions of humans and machine brains all connected together on
the same high-speed network. The results so far have been quite
impressive - and it's been a great thing to watch materialise.
Incidentally, I should add that the internet is probably the
thing that has had the biggest positive impact on my health in
recent years.
Tim Tyler
> I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
> reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
It's /possible/ that the laws of physics are not subject to human
formulation (due to being infinite in extent).
Nobody really knows, though - so any definite view on the subject
would be a statement of faith at this point.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>
>>>But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW
>>>does have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism
>>>that ensures that copies of you are always revived somewhere,
>>>even if the cryo-organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
>>>(This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic
>>>suspension since their identities are continually changing.)
>>
>>But I see no reason to care about *anything* which is not part of
>>*my* reality - ie. the only one which exists for me and the one in
>>which I may die.
>
>
> But all the futures that diverge from each other *after* you are
> frozen are all part of *your* reality. If in some futures you are
> not revived then is like some, but not all, backup copies of data
> being lost - ie. of no consequence at all to the survival of the
> data (i.e. *you*).
Michael, this makes no sense at all. They are *not* part of the reality
that the "me" of one instant from now is in (not once I get there and am
sitting in only one of them)! The others are then other people in other
realities. Only if there is some manner in which these other realities
can affect me will I reasonably care about them (because then they will
actually be part of my reality).
In addition, if you follow your idea logically and consistently, you
would also have to say that there have been so many splittings already
and so may continuers of past "yous" are already in other realities,
that it is virtually certain that one of them will never die (ie. in his
reality immortality will actually be achieved). Therefore, why should
the present you bother working so hard to achieve an unbounded lifespan.
Also again following your idea logically and consistently, it should not
matter to you *ever* if you are killed, since at the very instant of
your death (just prior) zillions of realities split off in which you
survived. It is only we in this one where your death is actually
detected who are affected by it and care about it.
>
>>>>If is it unprovable then it is irrelevant (ie. non-existent).
>>>
>>>
>>>To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
>>>theories to compare experimental results against. But there
>>>no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
>>>"scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
>>>are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
>>
>>Not so. Most definitely all possible alternatives have not yet
>>been thought of.
>
>
> A hope for which there is no evidence. It's been nearly 80
> years since QM was formulated and no one has found an
> interpretation that didn't suffer from the above defects,
Which means absolutely nothing. Complex problems can take a very long
time to solve. New physical experimental results that have been
unattainable could well have effects on the solution. Look how long it
took to get from Newtonian mechanics to GR and QM.
After hundreds of years there has still been no human social theory to
displace the ideas of natural rights in spite of the clear
inconsistencies of that theory. (I think that my social meta-needs
theory - http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html - does
accomplish that task, but few others yet understand or accept that.)
> except Everett back in 1957, and the only reason why his
> many-worlds or many-histories solution is not universally accepted
> is that his solution unseats deeply ingrained egocentric delusions.
I am not saying such an interpretation is invalid. I merely say that if
it has no value - ie. if it will make no difference to any practical
result, then the principle of Ockham's razor implies that it should be
ignored.
>
>>>MW is also falsifiable since it relies on the validity of various
>>>wave equations.
>>
>>If it is falsifiable, then it can affect reality and is part of it.
>
>
> Exactly.
But then it is not something to be *accepted* until is is thus verified.
>
> [.....]
>
>>>>>>>The emergence of machine intelligence will (I hope) render all
>>>>>>>such human-social engineering superfluous, through the creation
>>>>>>>of extra wealth via cheap machine labour and advanced science,
>>>>>>>technology & industry. More wealth implies more niches and
>>>>>>>cultural diversity. The way I see it is that by 2030-2050 all
>>>>>>>current bets are off. All I have to do is stay alive until then (to
>>>>>>>bring the thread back to s.l-e relevance).
>>>>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I think the shift to a machine-intelligence based society will be as
>>>>>big a shift as from hunter-gathering to farming or from farming to
>>>>>the industrial revolution.
>>>>
>>>>Alright, now you are describing it in a manner with which I can deal
>>>>and even have some agreement. However I am convinced it will also
>>>>take almost as long to have such a large effect as those did (likely
>>>>longer than the industrial revolution, IMO).
>>>
>>>
>>>The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
>>>industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
>>>intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
>>>be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
>>
>>One has to *have* machine intelligence before it can be adopted.
>>Moore's Law will not go on forever.
>
>
> It only needs to go on for another 30 years to get human-equivalent
> processing to cost much less than the wages of a human.
No. Human equivalent processing requires far more than mere high speed
and large memory.
>
>>It is not a physical law.
>
>
> But since we are nowhere near the fundamental limits of computation
> I don't think this is relevant. Moore's Law is a consequence of
> supply and demand and the resulting investment in technology.
No. It is purely a statement of what has occurred and might continue to
occur. It is not formally derivable from fundamental principles of
reality. That is what I meant when I said it it not a physical law.
The fact that something is not known to be physically impossible does
not generate any upper bound on the time which might transpire before it
is accomplished.
>
>>And speed and memory capacity cannot automatically generate
>>machine intelligence.
>
>
> Of course. You also need a general learning algorithm for neural
> networks.
So simply stated and so difficult to produce.
Of course the reason for that is because any such simple statement is
really a facade or sham. Reality is not so simple. If you start trying
to fully define the words that you have used, you will immediately see that.
Anything real is so complex that it requires enormous work merely to
describe it to any reasonably significant degree. And even then one
continually finds aspects for which such a model is not significant enough.
>
>
>>>>[.....] Until people understand better how human
>>>>intelligence accomplishes what it does (and science is still
>>>>a long way from that), machines cannot be made to do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
>>>hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
>>>then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
>>
>>But the speed up may still be quite insignificant because it depends on
>>humans who are not getting any faster or smarter.
>
>
> Maybe and maybe not. Perhaps the bulk of the work left is simply to
> scale neural networks up, which may not require super-human
> intelligence, just more cheaper hardware.
I am convinced that such a simplistic view of the depth of human
intelligence, including evaluative and creative brain processes is
insupportable.
>
>>>Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
>>>resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
>>>do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
>>>networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
>>>networks and scale up. (And then train the networks to be obedient to
>>>their human masters to avoid a SkyNet-scale catastrophe: i.e. make
>>>their arrational goals subservient to our arrational goals.)
>>
>>:-) You have been doing too much dreaming and perhaps reading
>>too much science fiction.
>
>
> Guilty on both counts :-)
I used to love sci-fi, but I find anymore that I cannot read it because
I cannot accept the premises of most of the plots. I want to rewrite the
stories as I read them. Since I cannot accept the basis for the story,
the details of the remainder lose any interest or credibility for me.
With movies I am still okay because they go so much faster there is not
enough time to question the ideas until they are over.
>
>>If only it were that easy!
>
>
> How do you know it isn't?
I did not say I *know* it isn't. It is merely that all reasonable
evidence from the past convinces me that it isn't that easy.
If it is that easy, I will be the first to admit it and work to deal
with it (which I don't think would be as problem free and wholly
positive as you appear to think). Is it only because I estimate the
chances of it being so easy as very small, that I am not bothering to
put any thought or effort into the consequences of my being wrong.
> We won't be able to test this until hardware
> is about a millionfold cheaper/faster (i.e. 20 doublings = 30 years, perhaps
> 40). Training the networks is likely to be a time-labour-intensive
> bottleneck, although once one is trained to a certain level it can be copied
> ad infinitum and amortised costs rapidly drop towards zero.
I am content to wait and see in this regard. Whatever our differences
here, I do agree that faster and more intelligent computers are certain
in the future (as long as technological society continues) and will be
of great benefit to humans. But I have no desire at the present time to
contribute or support these developments, since I am convinced that
other things are more important to be done first and by being done will
greatly increase the speed of advance of all science and technology.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
>
>
>>I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
>>reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
>
>
> It's /possible/ that the laws of physics are not subject to human
> formulation (due to being infinite in extent).
The difference between (actually) infinite and merely unbounded is very
important here. Something can be unbounded and describable to any degree
of accuracy desired (as I think may be the case for the complexity of
physical reality) without being "not subject to human formulation (due
to being infinite in extent)."
>
> Nobody really knows, though - so any definite view on the subject
> would be a statement of faith at this point.
That is precisely why I wrote "I think", rather than "I believe".
Manfred Bartz
> Michael C Price <michaelEXCI...@ntlworld.com> wrote or quoted:
>
>> The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
>> industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of
>> machine intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural
>> time scale would be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of
>> years!
>
> Doom is widely prophesised for Moore's law.
>
> It depends on size reductions - and while we haven't reached the
> bottom yet, it does seem to be rapidly approaching.
In terms of computing power, I think there are at least two
decades of Moore's law left, maybe even three decades.
Better fabrication techniques will allow larger chips
(the equivalent of a present-day-PC on a single chip).
New packaging technologies will allow much denser packing of
components. (Clusters of PC-equivalents on a single assembly.)
Smaller design rules, denser packaging and improved power
management will allow clock speeds to increase further.
The 3rd dimension (height) will increasingly be used to pack
more functionality into a given volume. Nanotech could open
up the 3rd dimension in a big way.
<BIG SNIP>
> Incidentally, I should add that the internet is probably the
> thing that has had the biggest positive impact on my health in
> recent years.
Interesting observation. ... would be true for me too. :)
--
Manfred
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
> >>I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
> >>reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
> >
> > It's /possible/ that the laws of physics are not subject to human
> > formulation (due to being infinite in extent).
>
> The difference between (actually) infinite and merely unbounded is very
> important here. Something can be unbounded and describable to any degree
> of accuracy desired (as I think may be the case for the complexity of
> physical reality) without being "not subject to human formulation (due
> to being infinite in extent)."
I meant exact formulation.
Obviously we can approximate the laws nature follows.
Michael C Price
>>
>>>>But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW
>>>>does have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism
>>>>that ensures that copies of you are always revived somewhere,
>>>>even if the cryo-organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
>>>>(This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic
>>>>suspension since their identities are continually changing.)
>>>
>>>But I see no reason to care about *anything* which is not part
>>>of *my* reality - ie. the only one which exists for me and the
>>>one in which I may die.
>>
>>
>> But all the futures that diverge from each other *after* you are
>> frozen are all part of *your* reality. If in some futures you are
>> not revived then is like some, but not all, backup copies of data
>> being lost - ie. of no consequence at all to the survival of the
>> data (i.e. *you*).
>
> Michael, this makes no sense at all. They are *not* part of the
> reality that the "me" of one instant from now is in (not once I get
> there and am sitting in only one of them)! The others are then
> other people in other realities.
The situation you are describing relates to the common occurrence
where/when all the different versions of yourself are continuously
differentiating from each other. Whilst in stasis you share your
identity with other identical versions of yourself and my original
argument holds.
[...]
> Also again following your idea logically and consistently, it should
> not matter to you *ever* if you are killed, since at the very instant
> of your death (just prior) zillions of realities split off in which you
> survived. It is only we in this one where your death is actually
> detected who are affected by it and care about it.
Yes, this idea is known as "quantum immortality", which is the flipside
of "quantum suicide". It fails to consider the spectrum between
full life and death (such as being mangled and left half-brain dead in
an accident) and so must be treated with caution. Avoiding danger
will reduce the number of undesirable conscious outcomes. On some
occasions, though, it is clearly a valid concept and would affect how
I behaved in some life-threatening situations.
[....]
>>
>>>>MW is also falsifiable since it relies on the validity of various
>>>>wave equations.
>>>
>>>If it is falsifiable, then it can affect reality and is part of it.
>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> But then it is not something to be *accepted* until it is thus
> verified.
But the irony is that the wave-equations *are* accepted, yet
their consequence, many-worlds, is not because it makes
most people uncomfortable.
>> [.....]
>> [Moore's Law] only needs to go on for another 30 years to get
>> human-equivalent processing to cost much less than the wages
>> of a human.
>
> No. Human equivalent processing requires far more than mere
> high speed and large memory.
By "human-equivalent processing" I meant comparable in raw bit/sec
terms.
>
>>
>>>It is not a physical law.
>>
>>
>> But since we are nowhere near the fundamental limits of computation
>> I don't think this is relevant. Moore's Law is a consequence of
>> supply and demand and the resulting investment in technology.
>
> No. It is purely a statement of what has occurred and might continue
> to occur. It is not formally derivable from fundamental principles of
> reality. That is what I meant when I said it is not a physical law.
Me too. I agree.
> The fact that something is not known to be physically impossible
> does not generate any upper bound on the time which might
> transpire before it is accomplished.
Nevertheless past trends are a good zeroeth-order guide to the
future. And the cost of computing (super-Moore's Law) has
declined exponentially for about a hundred years.
>>
>>>And speed and memory capacity cannot automatically generate
>>>machine intelligence.
>>
>>
>> Of course. You also need a general learning algorithm for neural
>> networks.
>
> So simply stated and so difficult to produce.
> Of course the reason for that is because any such simple statement
> is really a facade or sham. Reality is not so simple. If you start trying
> to fully define the words that you have used, you will immediately
> see that.
I don't agree in general or on this specific, but I can't be bothered to
have a sterile argument over semantics and terminology.
> Anything real is so complex that it requires enormous work merely
> to describe it to any reasonably significant degree. And even then
> one continually finds aspects for which such a model is not
> significant enough.
Ditto.
>>>>
>>>>But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
>>>>hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
>>>>then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
>>>
>>>But the speed up may still be quite insignificant because it depends on
>>>humans who are not getting any faster or smarter.
>>
>>
>> Maybe and maybe not. Perhaps the bulk of the work left is simply
>> to scale neural networks up, which may not require super-human
>> intelligence, just more cheaper hardware.
>
> I am convinced that such a simplistic view of the depth of human
> intelligence, including evaluative and creative brain processes is
> insupportable.
I am convinced they are emergent properties of neural networks.
>>>>Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
>>>>resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
>>>>do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
>>>>networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
>>>>networks and scale up. (And then train the networks to be obedient to
>>>>their human masters to avoid a SkyNet-scale catastrophe: i.e. make
>>>>their arrational goals subservient to our arrational goals.)
>>>
>>>:-) You have been doing too much dreaming and perhaps reading
>>>too much science fiction.
>>
>>
>> Guilty on both counts :-)
>
> I used to love sci-fi, but I find anymore that I cannot read it because
> I cannot accept the premises of most of the plots. I want to rewrite
> the stories as I read them. Since I cannot accept the basis for the
> story, the details of the remainder lose any interest or credibility for
> me. With movies I am still okay because they go so much faster there
> is not enough time to question the ideas until they are over.
Same for me; the bulk of my SF was read in my more formative
years. An inoculation against future shock. Vernor Vinge makes
a good attempt to write plausible stuff (or implausible but logically
consistent!) which I still enjoy.
>>>If only it were that easy!
>>
>>
>> How do you know it isn't?
>
> I did not say I *know* it isn't. It is merely that all reasonable
> evidence from the past convinces me that it isn't that easy.
> If it is that easy, I will be the first to admit it and work to deal
> with it (which I don't think would be as problem free and wholly
> positive as you appear to think). Is it only because I estimate the
> chances of it being so easy as very small, that I am not bothering
> to put any thought or effort into the consequences of my being
> wrong.
I am also not putting any effort into it, but for the opposite reason,
viz, the world seems to be progressing very nicely along the path
to AI without needing any help from me.
>
>> We won't be able to test this until hardware is about a
>> millionfold cheaper/faster (i.e. 20 doublings = 30 years,
>> perhaps 40). Training the networks is likely to be a time-
>> labour-intensive bottleneck, although once one is trained
>> to a certain level it can be copied ad infinitum and amortised
>> costs rapidly drop towards zero.
>
> I am content to wait and see in this regard. Whatever our differences
> here, I do agree that faster and more intelligent computers are certain
> in the future (as long as technological society continues) and will be
> of great benefit to humans. But I have no desire at the present time to
> contribute or support these developments, since I am convinced that
> other things are more important to be done first and by being done will
> greatly increase the speed of advance of all science and technology.
Although my reasons and reasoning differs, I agree with your
conclusions. Life-extension is my immediate and long-term
objective and the focus of my efforts.
Michael C Price
>>>> To say something is unproven there must at least be alternative
>>>> theories to compare experimental results against. But there
>>>> no alternative theories to many-worlds that are coherent or
>>>> "scientific" - they are either some mix of vitalism / mentalism,
>>>> are internally inconsistent or are impossibly vague and woolly.
>>>
>>> Not so. Most definitely all possible alternatives have not yet
>>> been thought of.
>>
>> A hope for which there is no evidence. It's been nearly 80
>> years since QM was formulated and no one has found an
>> interpretation that didn't suffer from the above defects,
>> except Everett back in 1957, and the only reason why his
>> many-worlds or many-histories solution is not universally
>> accepted is that his solution unseats deeply ingrained
>> egocentric delusions.
>
> The main alternative I encounter when I promote the MWI is
> the idea that worlds that are "distant" from our own cease to
> exist - and drop out of existence.
It sounds the same as wavefunction collapse, except that we are
being explicit about the scope of the wavefunction encompassing
the entire universe, rather than just the contents of a cloud chamber
or some other object under observation.
> Of course, there's no evidence to support this - any more than
> there is for a hypothetical wave function collapse.
My problem with this approach is not that there's no evidence for
it (although there isn't), but that there have to be some precise rules
for dictating how & when the wavefunction collapses, causing the
other universes to drop out of existence.
No one has ever been able to formulate such a set of rules.
> As far as I can tell, the main motivation for such an interpretation
> is economising not on hypotheses (which would be the MWI) but
> economy on physical resources.
Yes, I'm sure this is one reason. Another, almost certainty, is the
unease most people feel with the notion that they are continually
splitting into zillions of copies.
> The intuition seems to be that the MWI just has too many
> "unnecessary" worlds - and that if they existed, they must be
> running up a huge bill somewhere - so therefore, fewer worlds
> are to be preferred.
>
> Unlike the MWI multiverse, such theories nominate one world as the
> "chosen" world line. Worlds divide and interfere with each other -
> but drop out of existence after a while (if they are not the chosen
> world).
But how is the "chosen" world chosen?
> I don't think such theories are correct - but - IMO - they are
> scientific, consistent, and don't necessarily involve vitalism,
> mentalism, or wooliness.
I think they do. For example, one proposal, favoured by Wheeler,
is that entropy release causes w-f collapse or world / time-line
selection. But entropy is at root an informational concept. It is
a convenient way of labelling or categorising things according to our
ignorance of them, but it doesn't have any *physical* existence, so
it cannot trigger anything physical, such w-f collapse. Wheeler is
hoping to demonstrate that entropy *is* physical (hence his slogan
"it from bit"), but until then it remains a dream with no physical basis.
I would classify his dream as a mixture of mentalism and wooliness.
And Wheeler's approach is probably the most coherent of all the
collapse approaches. The others..... urgh.
Another approach that can be interpreted as choosing one
preferred world is Bohm's "hidden variables". The problem there
is that Bohm, in addition to a particles, retains the full wavefunction
(which is required to drive the particles' motion) and since,
presumably, the wavefunction can carry information like any other
existent ("bit from it"!), then the other worlds or histories that
compose the multiverse are not destroyed but continue to exist.
Michael C Price
>
> [Life extension in other universes?]
>
>> But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW does
>> have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism that ensures
>> that copies of you are always revived somewhere, even if the cryo-
>> organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
>> (This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic suspension
>> since their identities are continually changing.)
>
> It seems as though this is a general argument for risk taking
> - of the form:
>
> If you gamble, then someone somewhere will win the payoff.
>
> It seems to me you would have to count the winners - and weigh
> their number against the cost of the gamble in the first place -
> if you wanted to know whether the risk was worth taking.
>
> That's the same process you have to go through if there's
> only one world.
>
> In other words, I'm not sure the MWI makes any odds in this
> case.
Consider a quantum suicide arrangement where you are
gambling on a lottery win. (You arrange to be woken from a
terminal deep coma only if you win.) This would never be
rational without many-worlds (expected Bayesian return almost
zero), but with it, provided you don't care about the effect on other
people, it makes sense since your expected result is only averaged
over the survivors.
Michael C Price
>
>> The wide-spread adoption of farming took thousands of years, the
>> industrial revolution took only centuries. Perhaps adoption of machine
>> intelligence will take only decades or less. A natural time scale would
>> be the doubling period of Moore's Law: a couple of years!
>
> Doom is widely prophesised for Moore's law.
>
> It depends on size reductions - and while we haven't reached the
> bottom yet, it does seem to be rapidly approaching.
But super-Moore's Law, which relates only to the *cost* of computing,
has been exponentially declining for the last century. During this time
it has encompassed 4 or 5 technology shifts (e.g. diode valves, ICs),
so even if size reductions run out soon (which I doubt) other
technologies (quantum dots, 3-D chips) are likely to rescue it --
if the past is any guide to the future.
>> But, as Hans Moravec has pointed out, as AI researchers get more
>> hardware available (assuming Moore's Law carries on delivering)
>> then progress in understanding intelligence should to speed up.
>> Work in neural networks, for instance, is hampered by the computing
>> resources required to run decent-sized simulations. "All" we have to
>> do is apply the back-propagation learning algorithm from feed-forward
>> networks currently used in pattern recognition to randomly connected
>> networks and scale up. [...]
>
> The biggest step forwards on this front was probably the internet.
> Millions of humans and machine brains all connected together on
> the same high-speed network. The results so far have been quite
> impressive - and it's been a great thing to watch materialise.
Yes, amazing. Business and academia has been transformed.
Have you read "The Victorian Internet" ? It compares the
internet to the telegraph, which similarly transformed 19C life.
http://mappa.mundi.net/reviews/victorian/
> Incidentally, I should add that the internet is probably the
> thing that has had the biggest positive impact on my health in
> recent years.
Yes, research is much, much easier. And ordering on-line...
Paul Antonik Wakfer
It is clear that Michael and I disagree on certain subjective
evaluations. Most importantly I do not see any reason to alter my life
decisions because some continuers of me in some realities may live while
others may die (ie. to place value on the continuation of some of my
copies even if some of them die). Perhaps this is because Michael and I
have a different view of the desire to live.
I have absolutely no fear of death or concern about it. I view this as
entirely separate and unrelated to my desire to live. This difference is
a very hard notion which I have never been able to explain to anyone,
but it is very clear in my mind and seems totally rational to me. My
desire to live is *not* a result of my concern about dying!
From a many-worlds point of view, the death of any of my next instant
zillions of copies would be completely equivalent in value to me, at the
present instant, to the death of all of them. Michael appears not to
agree with this latter statement. But that is simply his personal
prerogative. I have no desire to attempt to alter his subjective
valuations as long as they do not directly harm me, or decrease my
potential for lifetime happiness.
I will therefore only comment on one additional point below.
Michael C Price wrote:
> Paul Antonik Wakfer writes:
>>>>And speed and memory capacity cannot automatically generate
>>>>machine intelligence.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course. You also need a general learning algorithm for neural
>>>networks.
>>
>>So simply stated and so difficult to produce.
>>Of course the reason for that is because any such simple statement
>>is really a facade or sham. Reality is not so simple. If you start trying
>>to fully define the words that you have used, you will immediately
>>see that.
>
>
> I don't agree in general or on this specific, but I can't be bothered to
> have a sterile argument over semantics and terminology.
My point does not relate to either semantics or terminology as I thought
I made clear before, but will try again below.
>
>>Anything real is so complex that it requires enormous work merely
>>to describe it to any reasonably significant degree. And even then
>>one continually finds aspects for which such a model is not
>>significant enough.
>
>
> Ditto.
Ditto to you.
My point relates to the unbounded complexity of anything real as
distinct from the finiteness of all models of real things. Any attempt
to describe something real (an existent) ends up being an unbounded
process and can only be accomplished relative to some definition of
significance.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
>
>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
>>
>
>>>>I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
>>>>reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
>>>
>>>It's /possible/ that the laws of physics are not subject to human
>>>formulation (due to being infinite in extent).
>>
>>The difference between (actually) infinite and merely unbounded is very
>>important here. Something can be unbounded and describable to any degree
>>of accuracy desired (as I think may be the case for the complexity of
>>physical reality) without being "not subject to human formulation (due
>>to being infinite in extent)."
>
>
> I meant exact formulation.
>
> Obviously we can approximate the laws nature follows.
My point (as I just made in my reply to Michael) is that anything real
is not capable of finite description. "Exact formulation" is only
applicable to finite models, never to reality itself.
Michael C Price
> My point (as I just made in my reply to Michael) is that
> anything real is not capable of finite description.
> "Exact formulation" is only applicable to finite models,
> never to reality itself.
Actually not only are some things capable of a finite
description but most likely *everything* is capable of a
finite description. There is an upper limit to the
information required to describe any system, known as
the "Bekenstein Bound". For a system of energy E
and confined to radius R in a flat(ish) space-time the
number of bits I required to completely describe it is
of the order ER/(hc)
c = speed of light
h = planck's constant
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2004/02/025
This also relates the Holographic Bound that physicists
get very excited about nowadays although, AFAICS,
the Bekenstein Bound is more general.
Lee Smolin on both from
http://www.edge.org/documents/day/day_smolin.html
"One piece of evidence that nature is discrete is something called the
holographic principle. This leads some of us physicists to use the word
information even when we don't really know what we're talking about but it
is interesting and worth exposing. It comes from an idea called the
Bekenstein Bound, a conjecture of Jacob Bekenstein that there is more and
more theoretical evidence for. The Bekenstein Bound says that if I have a
surface and I'm making observations on that surface -that surface could be
my retina, or it could be some screen in front of me - I observe the world
through the screen, at any one moment there's a limitation to the amount of
information that could be observed on that screen.
First of all that amount of information is finite, and it's four bits of
information per Planck area of the screen, where a Planck area is 10 to the
minus 66 centimeters squared. And there are various arguments that if that
bound were to be exceeded, in a world where there is relativity and black
holes, then we would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since
none of us wants to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I think
it's an important clue, and it says something important about the
underlying discreteness of nature."
Paul Antonik Wakfer
important usages of my time.
Michael does also. It is a pity that he doesn't recognize that.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
Tim Tyler
[Life extension in other worlds?]
> >> But for cryonauts with an informational view of identity, MW does
> >> have value, since this is an natural copying mechanism that ensures
> >> that copies of you are always revived somewhere, even if the cryo-
> >> organisation goes belly-up in some futures.
> >> (This argument applies less to people not in cryogenic suspension
> >> since their identities are continually changing.)
[snip my doubts]
> Consider a quantum suicide arrangement where you are
> gambling on a lottery win. (You arrange to be woken from a
> terminal deep coma only if you win.) This would never be
> rational without many-worlds (expected Bayesian return almost
> zero), but with it, provided you don't care about the effect on other
> people, it makes sense since your expected result is only averaged
> over the survivors.
It seems we differ on whether all the dead lottery-losers
should be counted. I think they matter - but you seem to
be arguing that they don't.
Maybe we differ on the goal we are considering.
If you wanted to maximise the proportion of rich copies of yourself
in the multiverse, your position would make sense.
However evolved organisms are /supposed/ to want to maximise their
genetic contribution to future generations. If /that/ is the goal,
the dead individuals appear to drag the average down - and mean the
sort of behaviour you are describing is unlikely to be observed.
Michael C Price
>> Consider a quantum suicide arrangement where you are
>> gambling on a lottery win. (You arrange to be woken from a
>> terminal deep coma only if you win.) This would never be
>> rational without many-worlds (expected Bayesian return almost
>> zero), but with it, provided you don't care about the effect on
>> other people, it makes sense since your expected result is only
>> averaged over the survivors.
>
> It seems we differ on whether all the dead lottery-losers
> should be counted. I think they matter - but you seem to
> be arguing that they don't.
>
> Maybe we differ on the goal we are considering.
>
> If you wanted to maximise the proportion of rich copies of
> yourself in the multiverse, your position would make sense.
And provided no distinct pattern of consciousness is
terminated, yes.
> However evolved organisms are /supposed/ to want to maximise
> their genetic contribution to future generations. If /that/ is the
> goal, the dead individuals appear to drag the average down - and
> mean the sort of behaviour you are describing is unlikely to be
> observed.
Yes, quantum suicide is not a strategy that would evolve by
Darwinian selection! But why should matter to us? Evolution
says I should care more about my genes than my soma (brain
in particular), but I don't.
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
> >>Tim Tyler wrote:
> >>>Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org> wrote or quoted:
> >>>>I do not agree with the concept of a TOE. I think the complexity of
> >>>>reality is more like an spiral layered onion.
> >>>
> >>>It's /possible/ that the laws of physics are not subject to human
> >>>formulation (due to being infinite in extent).
> >>
> >>The difference between (actually) infinite and merely unbounded is very
> >>important here. Something can be unbounded and describable to any degree
> >>of accuracy desired (as I think may be the case for the complexity of
> >>physical reality) without being "not subject to human formulation (due
> >>to being infinite in extent)."
> >
> > I meant exact formulation.
> >
> > Obviously we can approximate the laws nature follows.
>
> My point (as I just made in my reply to Michael) is that anything real
> is not capable of finite description. "Exact formulation" is only
> applicable to finite models, never to reality itself.
That's something else which nobody knows.
If anything, my intuition is the opposite of yours - I suspect
that the universe (and its laws) are finite.
I have a web site on the subject: http://finitenature.com/
Tim Tyler
[Off-topic physics ramble]
> > Of course, there's no evidence to support this - any more than
> > there is for a hypothetical wave function collapse.
>
> My problem with this approach is not that there's no evidence for
> it (although there isn't), but that there have to be some precise rules
> for dictating how & when the wavefunction collapses, causing the
> other universes to drop out of existence.
>
> No one has ever been able to formulate such a set of rules.
AFAICT, there's no shortage of possibilites on this front.
Perhaps most obvious is that the worlds are time-bombed - to
self-destruct - after parting ways with the one true world line
after a specified time.
Make the time long enough and all the resulting interference
patterns observed would be almost exactly the same as if the
MWI were true.
> > As far as I can tell, the main motivation for such an interpretation
> > is economising not on hypotheses (which would be the MWI) but
> > economy on physical resources.
>
> Yes, I'm sure this is one reason. Another, almost certainty, is the
> unease most people feel with the notion that they are continually
> splitting into zillions of copies.
The idea I'm talking about doesn't really avoid that. The splitting
is still going on all the time - and at any instant an observer has
little idea if they are on the "real" world line - or are about to
witness their interference experiments suddenly going wonky -
followed rapidly by the abrupt end of their world line.
> > The intuition seems to be that the MWI just has too many
> > "unnecessary" worlds - and that if they existed, they must be
> > running up a huge bill somewhere - so therefore, fewer worlds
> > are to be preferred.
> >
> > Unlike the MWI multiverse, such theories nominate one world as the
> > "chosen" world line. Worlds divide and interfere with each other -
> > but drop out of existence after a while (if they are not the chosen
> > world).
>
> But how is the "chosen" world chosen?
God's PRNG, perhaps - via local chaotic interactions.
It doesn't really matter.
That's roughly the equivalent question to why do "I" see this world (from
all the possibilities in the multiverse). The most basic answer is: no
good reason.
> > I don't think such theories are correct - but - IMO - they are
> > scientific, consistent, and don't necessarily involve vitalism,
> > mentalism, or wooliness.
>
> I think they do. For example, one proposal, favoured by Wheeler,
> is that entropy release causes w-f collapse or world / time-line
> selection. But entropy is at root an informational concept. It is
> a convenient way of labelling or categorising things according to our
> ignorance of them, but it doesn't have any *physical* existence, so
> it cannot trigger anything physical, such w-f collapse. Wheeler is
> hoping to demonstrate that entropy *is* physical (hence his slogan
> "it from bit"), but until then it remains a dream with no physical basis.
> I would classify his dream as a mixture of mentalism and wooliness.
>
> And Wheeler's approach is probably the most coherent of all the
> collapse approaches. The others..... urgh.
The CI (and Penrose) are indeed further off the rails ;-)
However, AFAICS, nothing very mystical is required. A simple time-
bomb set ticking the momnet the world divides from the real one would
suffice to destroy worlds "distant" from the real world line.
The resulting theory falls to Occam's razor - IMO - but I don't
really see anything else wrong with it.
Of course, I approve of the "it from bit" slogan ;-)
Tim Tyler
That's fine - but you were presenting the decision as rational.
Surely most of the time, rational organsms can be expected
to be the product of an evolutionary process - and can be
broadly expected to behave in the interest of their genes.
Inevitably there will always be /some/ who choose not to do so -
but the Darwinian process dictates that they will not be ancestral
to future lifeforms. At any time most of the rational organisms
that exist will be descended from an unbroken line of individuals
that successfully passed on their genes - and so can reasonably be
expected to strive to do likewise.
I don't think attempting to persuade organisms that it is
rational to participate in such a lottery would result in
many converts. Typically, I suspect most rational organisms
would regard such behaviour as a type of suicidal malfunction.
Michael C Price
>>> Of course, there's no evidence to support this - any more
>>> than there is for a hypothetical wave function collapse.
>>
>> My problem with this approach is not that there's no evidence
>> for it (although there isn't), but that there have to be some precise
>> rules for dictating how & when the wavefunction collapses,
>> causing the other universes to drop out of existence.
>>
>> No one has ever been able to formulate such a set of rules.
>
> AFAICT, there's no shortage of possibilities on this front.
>
> Perhaps most obvious is that the worlds are time-bombed - to
> self-destruct - after parting ways with the one true world line
> after a specified time.
>
> Make the time long enough and all the resulting interference
> patterns observed would be almost exactly the same as if the
> MWI were true. [...] The splitting
> is still going on all the time - and at any instant an observer has
> little idea if they are on the "real" world line - or are about to
> witness their interference experiments suddenly going wonky -
> followed rapidly by the abrupt end of their world line.
I was unclear; what I meant was that it was not possible to
formulate such a set of rules for selecting just "one true world"
and zapping the rest because the definition of what a world
is is to some extent an arbitrary matter, like drawing lines on
a map. "World" is a fuzzy concept (like entropy) and
it is quite hard to zap all but one since it depends on how we
sort and classify them, which doesn't relate the physics at all.
It seems to me time-bombing the other worlds is just the
same, ultimately, as collapsing the wavefunction, except
that you seem to be saying the collapse occurs some time
*after* observation -- an idea I had not heard of before --
but it would fail for the same reasons as all collapse theories
do, viz the impossibility of making the collapse a physical thing.
(We can see the problems people have in making collapse
a physical thing because the standard Copenhagen interpretation
attempts to get around this (in some versions) by saying that
w-f collapse is *not* a physical thing, but merely an alteration
in our knowledge of the world/universe/multiverse. Why
this doesn't work is another story, but essentially this leaves
us with no model of reality.)
Michael C Price
> I really have no desire to continue this very off-topic
> discussion.
It isn't off-topic since Moore's Law arguably dictates the timescale
of the transition to machine intelligence, utopia and immortality
and quantum many-worlds implies quantum immortality -- all
topics very relevant to life-extension. It sounds more like
Paul doesn't like the answers he's hearing and the usual denial
mechanisms have kicked in.
> It is clear that Michael and I disagree on certain subjective
> evaluations. Most importantly I do not see any reason to alter
> my life decisions because some continuers of me in some realities
> may live while others may die (ie. to place value on the continuation
> of some of my copies even if some of them die). Perhaps this is
> because Michael and I have a different view of the desire to live.
>
> I have absolutely no fear of death or concern about it. I view this
> as entirely separate and unrelated to my desire to live. This
> difference is a very hard notion which I have never been able to
> explain to anyone, but it is very clear in my mind and seems totally
> rational to me. My desire to live is *not* a result of my concern
> about dying!
For the record I am scared of dying *and* I want to live forever,
but I don't see the connection to ideas such as quantum
immortality.
> From a many-worlds point of view, the death of any of my next
> instant zillions of copies would be completely equivalent in value
> to me, at the present instant, to the death of all of them.
? So the death of one out of zillions of near-copies of you
is as bad as the death of *all*of them? Do you really mean
that?
> Michael appears not to agree with this latter statement. But that
> is simply his personal prerogative.
I question whether you have expressed yourself accurately.
If you have, fair enough. As you say, that's your personal
prerogative.
Michael C Price
>>>> Consider a quantum suicide arrangement where you are
Rationality --as you allude -- can only be defined relative to
arrational goals and sub-goals. If I have a high priority goal to
preserve distinct patterns of consciousness and I lack strong
goals that relate to preserving genes (or caring about the effects
of my death on friends and relatives) then quantum suicide is a
rational course of behaviour.
> Surely most of the time, rational organisms can be expected
> to be the product of an evolutionary process - and can be
> broadly expected to behave in the interest of their genes.
Yes -- most of the time, which is why so few take the prospect
of death and immortality seriously. I confess I find the idea
of quantum suicide abhorrent, but it doesn't seem irrational
to me. I have always thought of the desire for personal
immortality as anti-evolutionary, but that doesn't seem irrational
either, but highly desirable.
> Inevitably there will always be /some/ who choose not to do so -
> but the Darwinian process dictates that they will not be ancestral
> to future lifeforms. At any time most of the rational organisms
> that exist will be descended from an unbroken line of individuals
> that successfully passed on their genes - and so can reasonably
> be expected to strive to do likewise.
So the question becomes, how come anti-evolutionary goals
and sub-goals have evolved? Probably because of the rate of
change of culture and memetic influences in general - evolution
simply hasn't had time to eliminate them all. Perhaps in a few
thousand years our hard-wired revulsions will exclude more
technology-based behaviour:
A: "I hear Fred quantum suicided yesterday."
B: "How gross!"
> I don't think attempting to persuade organisms that it is rational
> to participate in such a lottery would result in many converts.
> Typically, I suspect most rational organisms would regard such
> behaviour as a type of suicidal malfunction.
Which is exactly how it appears to others, of course.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
quite another to make insulting and disparaging statements of those with
whom one disagrees, particularly about those who have earned respect
because of their many contributions to the field under consideration.
Here is an example of the type of statement continually coming from
Michael Price which torpedo any respect which this highly intelligent
man (Price) should command and would do so if he could only became more
psychologically mature.
About John Archibald Wheeler a 93 year old world famous physicist at the
Institute for Advanced Study, an associate of Albert Einstein who coined
the terms "black hole" and "worm holes" and who had Richard Feynman and
Kip Thorne among his students (Google his name for more details if
interested), Michael Price wrote:
"I would classify his [Wheeler's] dream as a mixture of mentalism and
wooliness."
Note that as I described above, it is one thing to disagree with
someone's ideas and describe that disagreement (which Price had
reasonably done in the message containing the above quote), but it is
another to continue on to insult the person as Michael did here and so
very often does.
And of course another example is his parting comment to me in the
message to which this is a response. I tried my best to break off this
discussion, for which I certainly have no time, when I realized I would
not get anywhere with Michael. I tried to break off without any insults,
by giving honest reasons for doing so, but no, Michael can't accept that
and has to end by insulting my character.
> It sounds more like
> Paul doesn't like the answers he's hearing and the usual denial
> mechanisms have kicked in.
If I don't "like" the answers, it is because I am certain they are
*wrong*. However, I cannot refute *all* the nonsense that is rife in the
minds of men at the same time and must necessarily use my scarce time as
*I* determine the priorities to be. There is no "denial" involved -
there is only lack of time for proper consideration and reasoned
argument. It is my fault. I should never have let myself get sucked into
a discussion of things which I have not had time to completely work out
yet, least of all not with a person such as Michael Price.
I have now tried several times to engage in some kind of respectful
friendly dialogue with Michael, but each one ends with a major insult
from him. He appears to be the very worst kind of narrowly selfish
egotistical individual which so many humans need to graduate from being.
I hereby give notice that I will not enter into any dialogue with
Michael Price from now on.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
Tim Tyler
> > Surely most of the time, rational organisms can be expected
> > to be the product of an evolutionary process - and can be
> > broadly expected to behave in the interest of their genes.
>
> Yes -- most of the time, which is why so few take the prospect
> of death and immortality seriously.
...any why they are instead interested in youth, beauty and sex.
> I have always thought of the desire for personal immortality as
> anti-evolutionary, but that doesn't seem irrational either, but
> highly desirable.
Near-future humans are likely to live even longer than us - and it
may well be that biasing resources a bit more than our ancestors
did towards education and longevity is what makes good evolutionary
sense.
I also think that "hardcore" longevity seeking
(i.e. strongly priorising longevity over reproduction)
makes little evolutionary sense at this stage.
The only realistic immortality is informational in nature:
Physical bodies are too subject to accidents and damage to
persist for very long.
Consequently, the main hope for "informational"
longevity consitsts of a process of making
many copies and distributing them widely.
Reproduction does this pretty effectively.
The next best thing is likely to be cloning.
Attempting to live for a long time has been
rather ineffective at producing any sort of
informational immortality in the past - and
it probably won't be very effective for some
time to come.
About the only thing that can be said for it
is that it preserves information in the brain
rather better than reproduction and eduction
typically manages.
However brain information has been transient
for most of the last few billion years - and
has had practically zero chance of attaining
immortality.
> So the question becomes, how come anti-evolutionary goals
> and sub-goals have evolved? Probably because of the rate of
> change of culture and memetic influences in general - evolution
> simply hasn't had time to eliminate them all. [...]
Quite possibly a factor: today organisms can become "infected"
with memes that cause them to act against the best interest of
their genes. As with most viral infections, such memes are hard
to stamp out - since the virus often reproduces and evolves faster
than the host can manage to keep up.
Self-preservation does /usually/ make sense -
and organisms are built to value it highly.
It's only valuing it *more* highly than reproduction
that evolution will raise its eyebrows at ;-)
Tim Tyler
It /is/ similar to collapsing the wave function - though the
"collapse" still leaves a lot of super-imposed worlds at any stage.
However all the previous ideas about observations collapsing wave
functions - or microscopic magnification collapsing wave functions all
seem totally screwy to me (as well as I expect to you).
As for how a world could be chosen - I don't have any strong views
on how it could be done - but I don't think it would be impossible.
If the multiverse is imagined as a 3D space, then selecting a world
would be like following a sheet in that space.
It's quite possible to imagine such a sheet - I reckon. There are
many such possible sheets, and which one you consider is somewhat
arbitrary. However arbirariness is not the end of the world.
The universe's initial conditions may have been somewhat arbitrary
as well.
> It seems to me time-bombing the other worlds is just the
> same, ultimately, as collapsing the wavefunction, except
> that you seem to be saying the collapse occurs some time
> *after* observation -- an idea I had not heard of before --
> but it would fail for the same reasons as all collapse theories
> do, viz the impossibility of making the collapse a physical thing.
Why won't a time bomb work as a "physical thing"? Set it ticking
when the world parts from the real world line. Explode it some
fixed time later - when it is too "far" away from the real world
for any interference patterns over there to be influenced very
much.
Timebombs are not observations, mystical mental constructs, quantum
gravity, entropy - or any of the other whacky things that have
been suggested in the past as causing wavefuction collapse -
and their concreteness - and the ease with which they could be
physically implemented - improves their plausibilty - IMO.
> (We can see the problems people have in making collapse
> a physical thing because the standard Copenhagen interpretation
> attempts to get around this (in some versions) by saying that
> w-f collapse is *not* a physical thing, but merely an alteration
> in our knowledge of the world/universe/multiverse. Why
> this doesn't work is another story, but essentially this leaves
> us with no model of reality.)
It sounds like such an interpretation still leaves us with the same
theory as the MWI.
If it isn't new physics, then the equations of quantum physics stand -
and they describe wavefunctions, but not their collapse - i.e. the MWI
multiverse.
Michael C Price
I agree with all your points, but just to be explicit:
> I also think that "hardcore" longevity seeking
> (i.e. strongly priorising longevity over reproduction)
> makes little evolutionary sense at this stage.
True, but that isn't going to stop me from trying!
> The only realistic immortality is informational in nature:
> Physical bodies are too subject to accidents and
> damage to persist for very long.
Absolutely.
> Consequently, the main hope for "informational"
> longevity consitsts of a process of making
> many copies and distributing them widely.
By "copies" do you mean "backup copies" or
independent, self-directed copies of ourselves?
Once we have digitalised ourselves then taking
frequent backups should ensure true immortality.
> Self-preservation does /usually/ make sense -
> and organisms are built to value it highly.
>
> It's only valuing it *more* highly than reproduction
> that evolution will raise its eyebrows at ;-)
Although when hardcore immortality becomes
possible then evolution might grudgingly accept
it as *a* survival strategy, even if copying remains
its preferred mechanism.
Michael C Price
such hypersensitivity would have more credibility if you
didn't routinely accuse people of being evil or stupid in
flamewars that frequently derail threads that you get
involved in, because of your rude and insulting behaviour.
Many people see *that* as psychologically immature.
You should try examining yourself in a more objective
fashion; so often criticism of others is unconscious
projection.
Yes, I criticised you for classifying the thread as
off-topic when it clearly wasn't. I gave my reasons
why you were wrong (which you haven't addressed
in your response) and provided an alternative, more
likely explanation for your behaviour.
BTW
> About John Archibald Wheeler a 93 year old world
> famous physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study,
> an associate of Albert Einstein who coined the terms
> "black hole" and "worm holes" and who had Richard
> Feynman and Kip Thorne among his students
Hugh Everett, who invented many-worlds, was also one
of Wheeler's students.
Cheers,
Michael C Price
----------------------------------------
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
"Paul Antonik Wakfer" <t...@morelife.org> wrote in message
news:413DBCB8...@morelife.org...
Tim Tyler
> > Consequently, the main hope for "informational"
> > longevity consitsts of a process of making
> > many copies and distributing them widely.
>
> By "copies" do you mean "backup copies" or
> independent, self-directed copies of ourselves?
I don't see that it matters very much - either
would preserve the information.
Nature tends to use self-directed copies - since
the copies actively copying themselves is also
considered desirable.
> Once we have digitalised ourselves then taking
> frequent backups should ensure true immortality.
Yes - though even well backed-up information can
get lost - if the information gets out of date
and nobody is interested in it any more. If that
happens, then maintenance funds can dwindle - and
the backup copies may get left to rot.
> > Self-preservation does /usually/ make sense -
> > and organisms are built to value it highly.
> >
> > It's only valuing it *more* highly than reproduction
> > that evolution will raise its eyebrows at ;-)
>
> Although when hardcore immortality becomes
> possible then evolution might grudgingly accept
> it as *a* survival strategy, even if copying remains
> its preferred mechanism.
Yes - this sounds about right.
The world's oldest plant is a sterile "immortal" -
who grows rather than reproduces.
However, it is not /that/ old - and I suspect its
long term prospects are not terribly rosy.
Michael C Price
quotes from before sounding forth on the motes he
sees so readily in his neighbours' eyes.
He quotes and states:
MCP:
>> "I would classify his [Wheeler's] dream
>> as a mixture of mentalism and wooliness."
PAW:
> Note that as I described above, it is one thing to disagree with
> someone's ideas and describe that disagreement (which Price
> had reasonably done in the message containing the above quote),
> but it is another to continue on to insult the person as Michael
> did here and so very often does.
An elementary parsing of my sentence shows that it was Wheeler's
"it-from-bit" *dream* I was criticising, not Wheeler himself.
Wheeler's idea is to reify entropy, which is an non-physical
informational concept (a measure of our ignorance of a system,
although many physicists get misled by this; entropy is at root
negative information) and notoriously hard to pin down.
Hence my categorisation (which is just a summary of the
proceeding paragraph that Paul seems to approve of) of
Wheeler's dream as "a mixture of mentalism and wooliness."
If Paul has any integrity and objectivity he would retract his
remarks and apologise.....
.... but I won't hold my breath. A leopard won't change its spots.
dan r.
> quite another to make insulting and disparaging statements of those with
> whom one disagrees,
Which is exactly what you are best at doing; what a hypocrite you
are...
> particularly about those who have earned respect
> because of their many contributions to the field under consideration.
>
> Here is an example of the type of statement continually coming from
> Michael Price which torpedo any respect which this highly intelligent
> man (Price) should command and would do so if he could only became more
> psychologically mature.
Actually, I think that criticism applies more to you than to anyone
else I know of. Your own sick delusions of having reached some vastly
higher realm of consciousness and spiritual enlightenment is a form of
psychological immaturity and/or neurosis.
>
> About John Archibald Wheeler a 93 year old world famous physicist at the
> Institute for Advanced Study, an associate of Albert Einstein who coined
> the terms "black hole" and "worm holes" and who had Richard Feynman and
> Kip Thorne among his students (Google his name for more details if
> interested), Michael Price wrote:
>
> "I would classify his [Wheeler's] dream as a mixture of mentalism and
> wooliness."
>
> Note that as I described above, it is one thing to disagree with
> someone's ideas and describe that disagreement (which Price had
> reasonably done in the message containing the above quote), but it is
> another to continue on to insult the person as Michael did here and so
> very often does.
That's ridiculous. People who publish in the first place do so with
the understanding that it opens up their work to criticism. If M.
Price wants to characterize someone's ideas as a "mixture of mentalism
and wooliness" he has every right to do so, and there is no breach of
etiquette.
> And of course another example is his parting comment to me in the
> message to which this is a response. I tried my best to break off this
> discussion,
You are the only reason why this discussion became what it did, and
why it continues to disintegrate. And the only reason why you want to
break it off is that you realize that you are in over your head in
discussing concepts for which you have very little understanding.
> for which I certainly have no time, when I realized I would
> not get anywhere with Michael. I tried to break off without any insults,
> by giving honest reasons for doing so, but no, Michael can't accept that
> and has to end by insulting my character.
No, Paul. You've quite simply just made an ass out of yourself through
your own puerile and inappropriate behavior. Don't try and blame
people like Ryan and Michael for the mess you've gotten yourself into
in multiple threads running on this newsgroup.
>
> > It sounds more like
> > Paul doesn't like the answers he's hearing and the usual denial
> > mechanisms have kicked in.
>
> If I don't "like" the answers, it is because I am certain they are
> *wrong*.
> However, I cannot refute *all* the nonsense that is rife in the
> minds of men at the same time and must necessarily use my scarce time as
> *I* determine the priorities to be.
That's pathetic. You really are delusional. You have to be the most
arrogant, self-serving person I have ever encountered. You are ALWAYS
exaggerating your own self-importance.
> There is no "denial" involved -
> there is only lack of time for proper consideration and reasoned
> argument.
You simply lack the requisite knowledge necessary to have been in such
a debate to begin with, and have embarrassed yourself and are looking
for a quick way out.
> It is my fault. I should never have let myself get sucked into
> a discussion of things which I have not had time to completely work out
> yet, least of all not with a person such as Michael Price.
>
> I have now tried several times to engage in some kind of respectful
> friendly dialogue with Michael,
You have done everything but.
> but each one ends with a major insult
> from him.
> He appears to be the very worst kind of narrowly selfish
> egotistical individual which so many humans need to graduate from being.
No, you're talking about yourself again.
> I hereby give notice that I will not enter into any dialogue with
> Michael Price from now on.
>
I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at this
point if you left the newsgroup altogether. Surely you are "too good"
for this place anyway. I really consider your contributions at this
point to be worthless due to your own egotistical, arrogant,
delusional, and judgmental comments. You lack the maturity, decency,
and sanity necessary to correspond with a general audience.
bkaz
> "it-from-bit" *dream* I was criticising, not Wheeler himself.
> Wheeler's idea is to reify entropy, which is an non-physical
> informational concept (a measure of our ignorance of a system,
> although many physicists get misled by this; entropy is at root
> negative information)
Sorry Michael, ignorance is an entropy between subject & object,
physicists use entropy as a measure of disorder within object. It's
also an information-theoretical concept, quantified as the
complimentary of compressibility of object's description, but this
doesn't make it subjective (except in a sense that it has to be
discovered by a subject).
Michael C Price
>> it was Wheeler's "it-from-bit" *dream* I was criticising,
>> not Wheeler himself. Wheeler's idea is to reify entropy,
>> which is an non-physical informational concept (a measure
>> of our ignorance of a system, although many physicists get
>> misled by this; entropy is at root negative information)
>
> Sorry Michael, ignorance is an entropy between subject &
> object,
Okay.
> physicists use entropy as a measure of disorder within
> [an] object.
Yes, in its physical manifestation, entropy is disordered
energy (heat) divided by temperature, but disorder is,
at root, a subjective concept. What's disordered to one
person may be ordered to another. All physicists currently
agree that a hot object is more disordered than a cooler
one because all physicists are more ignorant of the internal
microstate of a (large) hot object relative to the same object
in a cooler state. But this needn't always be the case and
probably won't be so when we have full-blown nanotech
and superbeing-physicists.
> It's also an information-theoretical concept, quantified
> as the complimentary of compressibility of [an] object's
> description, but this doesn't make it subjective
> (except in a sense that it has to be discovered by a
> subject).
I could be wrong, but I thought the entropy was associated
not with the object's description but with the subject's
ignorance of the description. And is compressibility of
description really an invariant objective quantity? If we
have two identical objects, which have, in total, twice the
entropy of each alone, can't I say of the second one, see
the description of the first? Yet from the ignorance POV,
the entropy would still sum additively.
bkaz
> energy (heat) divided by temperature, but disorder is,
> at root, a subjective concept. What's disordered to one
> person may be ordered to another.
It makes more sense to talk about positive side of the phenomenon:
order or patterns. Order is a compression/accumulated match within all
the patterns of an object. Just because an observer hasn't | even
theoretically can't discover all the patterns doesn't mean they don't
exist.
> All physicists currently
> agree that a hot object is more disordered than a cooler
> one because all physicists are more ignorant of the internal
> microstate of a (large) hot object relative to the same object
> in a cooler state.
No, because it takes more data to accurately describe hot object,
ignorance has nothing to do with it.
> > It's also an information-theoretical concept, quantified
> > as the complimentary of compressibility of [an] object's
> > description, but this doesn't make it subjective
> > (except in a sense that it has to be discovered by a
> > subject).
>
> I could be wrong, but I thought the entropy was associated
> not with the object's description but with the subject's
> ignorance of the description.
Again, it's an entropy of a different (subject-object) system.
> And is compressibility of
> description really an invariant objective quantity? If we
> have two identical objects, which have, in total, twice the
> entropy of each alone, can't I say of the second one, see
> the description of the first? Yet from the ignorance POV,
> the entropy would still sum additively.
You see, entropy here is a theoretical minimum of data necessary to
describe the objects, it assumes perfect knowledge, therefore is not
subjective.
Boris.
Tim Tyler
Compressibility, entropy and information are all often regarded
subjective measures.
Compressibility critically depends on the language used to perform
the description - and that can vary dramatically between observers.