[bh42222]

IMO, the absurd part is, how do you bring a 93 year old dead person back to life?

Or to put in another way, what is more likely: That the future can bring back a dead old and then frozen brain, or that they can reconstruct an individual just by brute force computer simulation, no need for anyone to be frozen?

If the later is as likely as the first, what exactly is the point of freezing?

Perhaps you might be better of trying to create interesting things which will make the distant future more likely to want to simulate you in high precision?

Or perhaps Aubrey DeGray would be much better off applying his impressive brains to getting an MD and going into basic research, instead of being a cheerleader for his ideas with only a Gerontology PhD.

[MikeCapone]

Aubrey's foundation funds tons of lab research that wouldn't be otherwise done, as well as editing a very well regarded journal about human aging (Rejuvenation Research). The fact that he isn't in a lab doesn't make him any less of a scientist; sometimes having the ideas and doing the high-level synthesis work is more valuable than doing lab work that any number of people can do.

I suggest you read his book (amazon: Ending Aging) and then make up your mind about his ideas, rather than after having only heard the soundbites.

[bh42222]

I have red his book, it's like nails on a chalkboard to my brain. My problem with it? I know too much. I am not an MD but I work with them, I write medical R&D software.

If you are passionate about the subject, step out of the Aubrey lake and dive into the huge ocean that is next to it. It's not nearly as optimistic, but is much more relevant.

[MikeCapone]

You've basically said nothing. Could you add some specifics to your criticism of Aubrey's thesis? And please don't assume that I don't know any biology.

[bh42222]

I can't get specific because De Gray's theories are either too general or so wrong as to not even be wrong.

So lets stick to fundamentals. His basic argument: ... the fundamental knowledge needed to develop effective anti-aging medicine mostly already exists, and that the science is ahead of the funding.

In other words, big pharma with all its money and all those huge profits coming form treating age related diseases, is just not interested in spending more to develop more such drugs? I mean the cure for agings is just sitting there, and all they have to do is put a few people to work on it, but nope, not interested.

All those scientists can't see the forest for the trees, but Aubrey does see it!

Does this give you any kind of a pause? I mean, sure he might be the visionary of our age, but how likely is that?

Imagine this was about algorithms. And someone claimed the basic theory to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time already exits, someone just needs to implement the algorithms. Would that person be taken seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that so many in the tech community are a buzz with his theories, but the life sciences community not so much? What's keeping Craig Venter from curing aging in a couple of weeks? Pro-aging and pro-death bias?

That is another one of Aubrey's claims, that a lot of his opponents are just hypnotized by our pro-aging and pro-death Stockholm syndrome culture.

Let me ask you this, can you provide me with specific evidence that Aubrey's main theories are NOT pure charlatanry?

Because the generic "We can like totally to do this, if we just try guys!" is not even wrong.

[MikeCapone]

I don't believe you've read his book. This isn't his argument at all, not even close. I'm not sure who you're attacking here, but it's not Aubrey or SENS.

[lsparrish]

"If the later is as likely as the first, what exactly is the point of freezing?"

More likely to happen if they have a frozen brain to scan?