Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ldmry wrote
Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354
What. I said we have a way to measure it.
a4mula t1_j3ldzc5 wrote
Wonderful. So that's led to the discovery of the mechanism that triggers age-related disease?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3le7xe wrote
DNA methylation produces senescent cells in which forget their role, the epigenome is tagged with new methyl groups that causes DNA transcription in the wrong places which leads to a lot of the damage we see in aging, I am not an expert in this field but I am only here to argue the hypocrisy we have towards other natural processes that kill us and not the one we don’t currently have a solution for and affects everyone.
a4mula t1_j3lexln wrote
Aging does not kill us. It's never killed anyone. Ever. Not once. In our entire history, not just ours. Of all living creatures. Ever.
Nothing has ever died from aging. Contrary to lazy doctors that have no problems at all writing it on death certificates.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lf5lk wrote
Right, and nobody has died of being shot in the head by a bullet, it was merely the loss of blood and brain tissue that causes the death.
a4mula t1_j3lf8a5 wrote
At least in that example you have a clear cause.
What's the clear cause with aging again? Get back to me. I'll wait.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lfjh8 wrote
If aging is a slow bullet then the loss of proper tissue function and role, exponential free radical damage, build up of protein in the wrong places, cellular degradation, probably some more I’m missing.
a4mula t1_j3lfwgq wrote
Tell me please. What is Alzheimer's? I know it's a disease. Is it a virus? Is it an infection?
Surely this is an easy answer right. We've been searching for a cure with billions in funding for at least as long as I've been alive, and that's no short time.
Easy questions, easy answers, right?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lg60h wrote
I’m not a biological text book, like I said I am here to argue about the hypocrisy of my original post. Everything is a cause and effect relationship so the protein buildup likely comes from some cell expressing some protein somewhere it shouldn’t be, go look it up.
a4mula t1_j3lgb0w wrote
I don't have to look it up. I rarely ask questions I don't already know the answers to.
Here's the answer.
Nobody fucking knows. Not a clue. So how are we searching for a cure, when we don't even know what the fucking disease is?
We attack the symptoms that's how.
Because that's sustainable.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lgff6 wrote
Well it’s a good thing this is a singularity sub, we as humans are limited in our intelligence, silicon isn’t, our premise appears to be that AGI will solve the problems much quicker than we can. Also asking questions is the point of learning something new, if not it isn’t a question.
a4mula t1_j3lgt5q wrote
I really hate not responding. I do. And I suspect this even counts. But I'm just going to fucking ignore your comment. I hope you don't mind. It's not going to go well for either of us if we continue down this line, and I'd like it if we could at least part friends. I'm an asshole, but it's not for the sake of such. It's because it's really fucking tough to gently walk people through how they have their thoughts fucked up.
But this is another one. Because machines, they aren't intelligent, they behave intelligently, on their good days.
I would have thought that by now most in this sub would have spent enough time with ChatGPT to have that shit hammered into them pretty deep.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lh5ch wrote
The laws of physics allows us to exist, the smartest of us are the known minimum of intelligence that can exist, combining those two it can be hypothesized that we can create intelligence, given the nature of our biology we cannot simply add more brain, but we can add more computer to a computer. Even without adding more computer or more intelligence, an isaac newton in a computer would run 300,000x faster than his human self and have access to the entire internet. 300,000x figure coming from speed of light vs axon btw. If you don’t want to respond, farewell.
a4mula t1_j3lhicc wrote
Sure. Define that word you're using so loosely. Intelligence. Where does it come from?
Dunno? Guess what. It's another one that nobody fucking does. There's zero evidence that we generate it.
If we don't?
What then?
That's right, you wasted 30 fucking years because you were too fucking stupid to define the words you're using.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lhpwp wrote
Whatever intelligence is, the laws of physics allow for it, meaning it can be replicated.
a4mula t1_j3li21y wrote
Yeah? Where's your evidence for that?
Is your consciousness allowed by the laws of physics too? What about Qualia? What about subjective experience in general?
Just show me the evidence bro, and I'll jump full steam ahead.
Don't dig too hard. Hell I'll help you out.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lit1b wrote
I could have a kid, is that not me creating intelligence? Consciousness is a completely subjective experience, we can make definitions of what it means to be conscious but a chat bot could pull off being conscious to you if it gave the right answers, IRL you could talk to me and It would be impossible to know if there is a self aware ‘conscious’ thinker within your head as I am not inside of it, all I’ll ever know is what is inside of my own head so it’s extremely subjective and so I don’t really think it matters all that much as long as whatever we create produces results.
a4mula t1_j3lj6iu wrote
You could have a kid. Certainly. I'd even agree that you'd be creating a physical body that comes fully equipped with a brain.
But you're clearly not creating intelligence. Intelligence isn't a brain. It's not a body. It's the interactions of those things with information.
I can make a CPU, doesn't mean I can play favorite video game on it.
And that's just a simple analogy. After all, intelligence isn't software or a motherboard or memory or a psu either.
It's not even the video game itself. Because those are all simple concepts. Very simple concepts next to what we're talking about.
Again, Just define that word Intelligence for me. It should be easy. Fuck we've all said the word a million times. Surely we know what it is. Right?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ljglu wrote
Defining intelligence to me is like defining consciousness to me and then trying to prove to me you’re conscious. As long as it produces results.
a4mula t1_j3ljt2h wrote
lol The Shut Up and Calculate method of AI. Sure. I like it. The difference is that the Copenhagen Interpretation produced results.
Funny how the concept of consciousness as a function of informational complexity has yet to.
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3othzr wrote
I think you are not an asshole at all, you just seem unhappy and a tad impolite. You probably lead a life in non-Reddit reality where you need to be polite all the time and are fed up. But OP is really not your enemy.
Stay safe. Btw I don’t hate you.
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3ot9k9 wrote
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3osx2k wrote
It’s a disease with mutlifactorial causes. There are many diseases out there that don’t have just ONE cause.
A good and pretty common example being cardiovascular conditions which have genetic, lifestyle and traumatic factors among others contributing to their manifestation.
If you want to work on a better definition of a disease like Alzheimer’s, join these guys who are working on the definitions of this disease:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/xwcq-7092/download
Or try and go into research of its treatment. But bashing OP for their quite knowledgeable approach isn’t polite. And shines bad light on you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments