Hi, Obviously this has little to do with AGI and was posted to this list by mistake, yet it is indirectly relevant to AGI. Because the reaction that many "mainstream" biological scientists have to Aubrey's work is typical of the reaction that many mainstream AI scientists have to any work that tries to seriously address general intelligence.
I have studied many of Aubrey's papers and have found them to include a lot of rigorous biological science. Of course, it's true that he's also made a lot of speculative conjectures that could be classified as "fanciful speculation" if one wanted to adopt a negative emotional tone. But the truth is that "fanciful speculation" of this sort is a necessary precondition to any kind of big scientific advance. Recall, for instance, Riemann's fanciful speculations that it might make sense to think about physical space as having more than three dimensions. Fanciful indeed, yet a while later Einstein built on those ideas to create General Relativity Theory, which is real science and predicts experimental results accurately. If Einstein had been unwilling to pay attention to "fanciful speculations" like Riemann's he would not have been able to come up with his new science. Aubrey has proposed a plausible research program that is aimed at rigorously validating or falsifying his hypotheses (i.e. "speculations") about the conquest of aging. He is trying to raise a large amount of funds to carry out this program -- and this may be part of the reason why folks in the mainstream of biology don't like him! They're afraid that he might succeed in raising money for his research, while will take money away from their (less risky, less adventurous, less exciting) research. In my own work on AGI I have found it necessary to mix up speculation with rigorous science pretty freely. It's true that this is different than the more down-to-earch scientific work one typically sees. But if one is trying to make a big leap ahead of the current state of knowledge, there's really no other way to do it. This kind of work is higher-risk and higher-reward than conventional scientific research, and it's only natural for the "little men" of conventional science to put it down. To hell with them. Aubrey de Grey may be wrong --- I think he's wrong on some things and right on others (for whatever my opinion on biology is worth). But he's no crank, and he's definitely not worthy of this kind of haughty dismissiveness from a massively lesser mind. -- Ben G > A 'Fantasy' of Immortality > The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5.12.2 > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i15/15a04302.htm > [This is completely negative, but I certainly can't judge the matter.] > > To the Editor: > > It is very sad to see The Chronicle featuring a story on Aubrey de > Grey, and compounding this mistake with an online chat with him > ([3]"The Man Who Would Murder Death," October 28). The Chronicle might > note that it is only one in a long list of publications that has > written about Mr. de Grey; unfortunately, the story is typically > uncritical of his ideas. For example, he is described as "a serious, > thoughtful, sincere, prolific, even brilliant researcher." How do you > know? ... Whose expertise was used to decide? > > In fact, much of what Aubrey de Grey has written is unscientific > speculation and outright fantasy; it should be obvious that this is > incompatible with the role of any legitimate researcher, much less a > serious or brilliant one. A few researchers, like Anthony Atala and > Graham Pawelec, appear to support de Grey's enthusiasm and his unusual > style, and possibly even his ideas. But style is not substance, and it > would be surprising if those few supporters in science had actually > read de Grey's writings. ... Those who have read and understood them > have passively allowed de Grey to peddle nonsense because, generally, > scientists do not respond to fanciful speculation. ... > > However, the situation with de Grey is reaching a turning point, and > in the next few months many scientists will be publicly expressing > their thoughts on him and his Strategies for Engineered Negligible > Senescence. The gist of these thoughts is that SENS is not science, or > legitimate scholarship of any kind. One letter along those lines, > signed by over 20 eminent scientists, has already appeared in EMBO > reports. ... > > Why are scientists taking this step with de Grey and not with most > cranks? Because of stories like the one in The Chronicle, which have > given him loads of publicity and a degree of respect that his > pseudoscientific prognostications cannot earn him. ... > > De Grey made a bet that all 13 mitochondrial proteins would have been > successfully moved to the nucleus by October 2005. It is now November > 2005, and this achievement has not been reported; in fact, virtually > no progress on this problem has been reported. > > What can de Grey do about this? What blame should he share, since he > does not do any actual research, and progress on this problem is in > the hands of actual scientists? He is just a cheerleader who doesn't > understand and cannot do the science, so we cannot blame him that real > scientists did not fulfill his expectations, right? > > But that is the primary problem with de Grey's speculations: Since he > neither understands how real scientific research is done nor does it > himself, he places the burden of scientific research and development > in the hands of people who are able to do these things, while he > simultaneously calls them ignorant and rejects their scientifically > sound belief that SENS is not legitimate science. ... > > The long-term interests of The Chronicle would be well served if you > interviewed some actual researchers in gerontological research or > related fields, who represent real science and its prospects. Sorry, > we can't promise imminent biological immortality -- or vacation trips > to Pluto or back into time. We're scientists, not gods or wizards. > > Preston (Pete) Estep III > President and Chief Executive Officer > Longenity Inc. > Waltham, Mass. > > References > > 3. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i10/10a01401.htm > > [sent earlier] > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDkGmbdbAkQ4sp9r4RAphxAJsHrnmZgsEuW3/W9TZenwMQ8/6u2wCgt3Ab > szAYSGx+j+uIMG0FgfeHzg0= > =veHA > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
