Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Technology doesn't work that way - SamuelA's Pit Thread (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=843654)

Sunny Daze 12-02-2017 06:52 PM

Technology doesn't work that way - SamuelA's Pit Thread
 
It has been noted on occasion that SamuelA has something of an obsession with technology, particularly nanotechnology. He has an interest in cryonics. He also gets belligerent if anyone questions him on the validity of any of his optimistic claims. See, things don't always work the way that SamuelA thinks they do.

Here's an example of Sammy-boy wandering into la-la land because he got questioned by another poster:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20638163)
Fuck you. You're the crackpot who equates nanotechnology with Faster than Light Travel and fucking antigravity.

I bet you work at Home Depot...you certainly don't have the education to do anything better. If you have an office job, you're one of those morons who maintains a fucking spreadsheet of contacts and wastes all my god-damn time at stupid meetings.

The difference between nanotechnology and FTL/antigravity is that the first technology is in the godamn hands and eyes you are using to type like a monkey on your god-damn keyboard. What do you think your fucking cells are made of, you imbecile! Individual fucking molecular chains put together one peptide at a godamn time, after being made one fucking molecule at a time in biological synthesis paths. But I bet you didn't fucking know that.

Nobody has ever, in all of humanity, found a way to even reduce gravity's pull that passed peer review. And fucking FTL travel means time travel which means paradoxes which means it is almost certainly fucking impossible. Fuck you, moron.

And as for your suggestion : normally, no. But if you were dying of cancer with a month left to live and it's the wintertime, the only fucking way you're going to even have a chance of seeing anything but nothing at all forever and and ever is if you get your moronic brain frozen and hope the future has enough pity on your to resurrect you. You're goddamn right the odds are slim, but they aren't fucking zero, so yeah, if you wanna see a green lawn again that's the only way it could ever happen, no matter how slim the odds are.

He also can't stop shitting all over another thread. Solution: he gets his very own shiny thread.

Welcome to your Pit thread SamuelA.

Morgenstern 12-02-2017 06:53 PM

He won't be here, he's looking for the ignore function.

Sunny Daze 12-02-2017 06:56 PM

Yes, but that's actual technology.

EinsteinsHund 12-02-2017 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20639590)
Yes, but that's actual technology.

HIGH technology, I tells ya. Not anybody can handle that so fast.

Nawth Chucka 12-02-2017 07:54 PM

From what I've observed, he'll posit something, fail to back it up and then go to extraordinary lengths to avoid using the phrase, 'I was wrong.' Maybe I'm biased, but his calling Tripler pretentious shows a lack of understanding to a great degree.
And the classist remark about Home Depot employees - that's some straight up bullshit I'd expect from someone not secure in their own field.

Mr. Nylock 12-02-2017 07:57 PM

The most clearly ignorant poster I have interacted with in a very long time. I don't like to shit on people, but the brief interactions I have had with this poster have lead me to no other conclusion.

Other than obvious trolls (I don't believe this poster is a troll), the last time I can remember a poster like him was someone who kept insisting that bicycle helmets actually made one less safe and kept backing it up by providing links to scientific studies and bicycle advocacy groups that clearly stated that helmets should always be worn. He was convinced, however, despite what his own cites were saying about the safety of helmets, that it was all big conspiracy by bicycle helmet manufacturers to make money.

And I'm one of the dumbest people to ever post with any regularity on these boards so that's saying something.

Darren Garrison 12-02-2017 08:07 PM

So that it doesn't get overlooked among all of SamuelA's technology ideas, I will point out his first post in the OTRS thread, which includes

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most smart kids are white or asian. Maybe it isn't genetics and maybe black people can perform in the right 1% of the bell curve...but they are vanishingly rare.


Sunny Daze 12-02-2017 08:28 PM

Yes, I forgot that bit. He's stupid and racist. What a charming package.

Nawth Chucka 12-02-2017 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20639699)
So that it doesn't get overlooked among all of SamuelA's technology ideas, I will point out his first post in the OTRS thread, which includes

What the fucking what? Racism is the icing on this shitcake.

Darren Garrison 12-02-2017 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20639734)
Yes, I forgot that bit. He's stupid and racist. What a charming package.

Which brings up a point--whenever he is talking about Artificial Intelligence, does he really mean Artificial White Intelligence?

EinsteinsHund 12-02-2017 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20639745)
Which brings up a point--whenever he is talking about Artificial Intelligence, does he really mean Artificial White Intelligence?

[sarcasm]Black AI would be...a step forward, but not the real thing, don't you think?[/s]

LSLGuy 12-02-2017 09:24 PM

The kid's still in college. Hell, he might even be a precocious high schooler, though I doubt that.

Yeah, he's got some really bad social skillz. And self-reported weight, body image, and food addiction problems. If he can learn to learn from the various grown-ups he might grow up to be worthwhile. If not; not.

We shall see. I honestly can't say whether I handicap this one optimistic or pessimistic. Yoda had some sage comment about "too close to call". Damn if I can remember what it was, but that's how I feel today on the topic. "Confused I am; uncertain the future is. Whether Jedi's food or Jedi SamuelA will one day be cannot say I."

Morgenstern 12-02-2017 10:22 PM

He should check out Scientology. I hear they can audit that shit right out of you for about 200 grand.

Chronos 12-02-2017 10:37 PM

Wait... So he knows that nanotechnology is basically just biology, and he still thinks that it's that magical? Dude, I hate to break it to you, but we already have biology, and have had it for billions of years, and it hasn't brought the marvels you describe yet. Maybe it will, eventually, but I don't want to wait billions more years to see it, if you get what I mean.

Ethilrist 12-02-2017 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSLGuy (Post 20639818)
The kid's still in college. Hell, he might even be a precocious high schooler, though I doubt that.

Yeah, he's got some really bad social skillz. And self-reported weight, body image, and food addiction problems. If he can learn to learn from the various grown-ups he might grow up to be worthwhile. If not; not.

We shall see. I honestly can't say whether I handicap this one optimistic or pessimistic. Yoda had some sage comment about "too close to call". Damn if I can remember what it was, but that's how I feel today on the topic. "Confused I am; uncertain the future is. Whether Jedi's food or Jedi SamuelA will one day be cannot say I."

"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future."

One of my favorite Yoda quotes.

AI Proofreader 12-02-2017 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EinsteinsHund (Post 20639781)
[sarcasm]Black AI would be...a step forward, but not the real thing, don't you think?[/s]

When they come up with genuine A.I., they absolutely have to allow us to interface with it while it uses the voices of people such as Samuel Jackson:

How did these motherfucking worms get in this motherfucking mainframe!

Or Immortal Technique, if you want less comedy and more a rap version of Noam Chomsky.

Mr. Nylock 12-02-2017 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSLGuy (Post 20639818)

Yeah, he's got some really bad social skillz. And self-reported weight, body image, and food addiction problems. If he can learn to learn from the various grown-ups he might grow up to be worthwhile. If not; not.

I always admire people for trying not to judge people too quickly and also take in the context of a whole person, but SamuelA is very aggressive in his behavior and very quick to hurl all sorts of insults and cast disparaging remarks at other people.

I'm actually getting very tired of people labeling everything as bad social skills with the implication that the problem is that someone is just awkward and doesn't pick up on social nuances. Those people deserve sympathy and understanding, aggressive assholes ready to tear into other people do not. And I don't really care about what other issues he has, most people have issues - people with more abusive personality types just use these various things to try to get a pass for their behavior.

LSLGuy 12-03-2017 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethilrist (Post 20639929)
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future."

One of my favorite Yoda quotes.

Thank you. I've written it down.



Quote:

Originally Posted by AI Proofreader (Post 20639948)
When they come up with genuine A.I., they absolutely have to allow us to interface with it while it uses the voices of people such as Samuel Jackson:

How did these motherfucking worms get in this motherfucking mainframe!
...

I think the master AI ought to have Mr. T's voice:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. T
I pity da foo who defies me. Die meatbags!!

That'll give the first (and last) Human / AI war the appropriate kind of narration.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock (Post 20639972)
...
but SamuelA is very aggressive in his behavior and very quick to hurl all sorts of insults and cast disparaging remarks at other people.
...
And I don't really care about what other issues he has, most people have issues - people with more abusive personality types just use these various things to try to get a pass for their behavior.

Agree. I'm not trying to give the kid (much of) a pass.

What I meant at the end was If he learns, and learns quickly, he'll be OK to have around. If he can't or won't, he'll be gone, and good riddance to the behavior. No skin off my nose either way.

And I agree that for the rest of us, there's no practical difference between can't or won't. Individually and collectively we're under no obligation to tolerate the handicapped just because they're handicapped. And we're definitely not obligated to tolerate jerks just because they enjoy acting like jerks.

As this thread amply demonstrates, he's on probation (at best) with a lot of the community members who matter. That's not a stable place for him to sit. Ask not for whom the clock is counting down; it counts down for SamuelA.

LSLGuy 12-03-2017 08:09 AM

I just found this post by SamuelA in the Omnibus troll thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4#post20639854. Plus another below that.

These are not the acts of somebody intending to have a long career here. The clock ticks louder.

Morgenstern 12-03-2017 08:46 AM

IF anyone, anywhere, ever says LSLGuy is not a gentleman and a scholar, I will personally email them a picture of BigT with that Yoda quote printed on it.

Sunny Daze 12-03-2017 11:06 AM

I'm tempted to do it, just to get the picture. :D

LSLGuy 12-03-2017 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20640275)
IF anyone, anywhere, ever says LSLGuy is not a gentleman and a scholar, I will personally email them a picture of BigT with that Yoda quote printed on it.

Where's that blushing smilie when I need it? You are too kind, Sir.

Do you mean Mr. T or our very own BigT?

Then again they might be the same person. Have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time? I sure haven't. :)

madsircool 12-03-2017 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20640516)
I'm tempted to do it, just to get the picture. :D

He looks like Chumlee from Pawn Stars.

Darren Garrison 12-03-2017 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20640275)
IF anyone, anywhere, ever says LSLGuy is not a gentleman and a scholar, I will personally email them a picture of BigT with that Yoda quote printed on it.

I'm thinking of a different Yoda photo (double-spoilered for strong adult content and possible triggering of a feeling of inadequacy.)

SPOILER:
SPOILER:
Link.

Helena330 12-03-2017 12:20 PM

SamuelA, you had some very good advice for me when I was looking for a used car. I really appreciated it. So I'm saying this kindly: You've got to dial it down. I know you can be a great poster, but sometimes you really go off the rails with anger and insults. When you get that pissed off, step back for a bit, or get away from the computer for a couple hours. I know you can do better.

zoid 12-03-2017 12:21 PM

The thing that irks me is that it's OK to be wrong if you have a bit of humility and can admit it, and you can get away with a bit of arrogance if you truly are a subject matter expert, but being consistently wrong AND arrogant is an insufferable combination.

LSLGuy 12-03-2017 12:40 PM

Now that's an excellent post + sig combo!

Dewey Finn 12-03-2017 12:48 PM

In this thread, he was absolutely convinced that it will soon be possible to scan a preserved human brain and then recover the personality and memories (the consciousness, in other words) and asked us what our excuse was. (He never did clarify why we needed to supply an excuse, or whether he was asking us why we're not lining up today to have our brains extracted for retrieval or why we're not throwing all our time and money at developing the technology.)

Morgenstern 12-03-2017 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn (Post 20640746)
In this thread, he was absolutely convinced that it will soon be possible to scan a preserved human brain and then recover the personality and memories (the consciousness, in other words) and asked us what our excuse was. (He never did clarify why we needed to supply an excuse, or whether he was asking us why we're not lining up today to have our brains extracted for retrieval or why we're not throwing all our time and money at developing the technology.)

Seriously, that is L. Ron Hubbard shit right there. Thetan fantasy. Our friend is a Scientologist whether he knows it or not.

running coach 12-03-2017 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn (Post 20640746)
In this thread, he was absolutely convinced that it will soon be possible to scan a preserved human brain and then recover the personality and memories (the consciousness, in other words) and asked us what our excuse was. (He never did clarify why we needed to supply an excuse, or whether he was asking us why we're not lining up today to have our brains extracted for retrieval or why we're not throwing all our time and money at developing the technology.)

You mean The Final Cut wasn't real?
Quote:

The film takes place in a setting where memory implants make it possible to record entire lives. (Robin) Williams plays a professional who specializes in editing the memories of unsavory people into uncritical memorials that are played at funerals.
;)

Darren Garrison 12-03-2017 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20640768)
You mean The Final Cut wasn't real?

I've seen that movie. It annoyed me. The editing deck wasn't just artificially intelligent--it was able to view all of the memories and observations of a person's lifetime, understand them, and index them by theme in a matter of minutes. That isn't just AI--that is Weakly Godlike intelligence orders of magnitude beyond human. If a Weakly Godlike AI is something desktop-portable and affordable by a modest freelance professional, then society would be changed in profound ways, and yet the world in the movie was almost exactly like the one we actually live in.

Razncain 12-03-2017 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn (Post 20640746)
In this thread, he was absolutely convinced that it will soon be possible to scan a preserved human brain and then recover the personality and memories (the consciousness, in other words) and asked us what our excuse was. (He never did clarify why we needed to supply an excuse, or whether he was asking us why we're not lining up today to have our brains extracted for retrieval or why we're not throwing all our time and money at developing the technology.)

I often have long absences from SD, so that thread, I believe was my first or second encounter with diaper stain. That wasn't enough for me to dignify the ire that many were posting to him in the OTRU thread, but I certainly see why they are treating him that way, and also why he's been pitted here.

Rarely look at the OTRU thread, but did find it worthwhile to read the last few pages, Tripler's retort (#5044) was exceptionally brilliant. Interesting also to note is how he is crawfishing trying not to piss him off any further, but Tripler isn't having it. Since he doesn't seem to respect civility, his threads and posts should just stay in BBQ Pit, that way one can return in kind the same kind of assholery he often displays.

Oh well, I read where he is young, so if he can live long enough without having the shit kicked out of him, he might just learn something yet, and some of it might be how to have a civil discourse in other threads.

Lemur866 12-03-2017 06:06 PM

Every time I read one of his threads, I think of this old sketch, How To Do It:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM

It's all so simple! To colonize the moon you just invent self-replicating factories, send one to the moon, and you're done. To solve immortality, you just invent a way to extract the complete personality, thoughts and memory from a frozen human brain, and you're done. To solve economics, just build solar panels everywhere, use the excess power to create methane which you store for later, and you're done. Now, do I even need to show you all how to cure cancer?

It's so simple, why am I even bothering to explain it? And yet they called me mad bacl at the Academy! Fools! I'll destroy them. I'll destroy them all.

running coach 12-03-2017 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20640839)
I've seen that movie. It annoyed me. The editing deck wasn't just artificially intelligent--it was able to view all of the memories and observations of a person's lifetime, understand them, and index them by theme in a matter of minutes. That isn't just AI--that is Weakly Godlike intelligence orders of magnitude beyond human. If a Weakly Godlike AI is something desktop-portable and affordable by a modest freelance professional, then society would be changed in profound ways, and yet the world in the movie was almost exactly like the one we actually live in.

I only saw it once. Is it possible the implants tagged the memories in real time and the editing deck just sorted through them?

Darren Garrison 12-03-2017 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20641284)
I only saw it once. Is it possible the implants tagged the memories in real time and the editing deck just sorted through them?

Maybe. But that isn't less bad. It wouldn't be a desktop device that can understand human feelings and interactions at thousands of times realtime, but it would be a chip small enough to implant and cheap enough to mass market that understands human feelings and interactions in real time and stores a lifetime worth of audio and video, which is still post-singularity level tech.

wolfpup 12-03-2017 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20640275)
IF anyone, anywhere, ever says LSLGuy is not a gentleman and a scholar, I will personally email them a picture of BigT with that Yoda quote printed on it.

I feel I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to say that I concur with this. I consider LSLGuy to be among the most valuable members of this community, and his posts are invariably respectful, insightful, and informative.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20641264)
Every time I read one of his threads, I think of this old sketch, How To Do It:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM

It's all so simple! To colonize the moon you just invent self-replicating factories, send one to the moon, and you're done. To solve immortality, you just invent a way to extract the complete personality, thoughts and memory from a frozen human brain, and you're done. To solve economics, just build solar panels everywhere, use the excess power to create methane which you store for later, and you're done. Now, do I even need to show you all how to cure cancer?

It's so simple, why am I even bothering to explain it? And yet they called me mad bacl at the Academy! Fools! I'll destroy them. I'll destroy them all.

Perfect! Throw in a Major Attitude Problem, and that sums up exactly why I find SamuelA so fucking annoying. But as I said to him in all sincerity in the Trolls R Us thread, we've had worse (although most of them are banned), so there may be hope for him yet if he can rapidly acquire some maturity and dial back the all-knowing obnoxiousness about 7000 degrees.

I haven't contributed to this thread because I pretty much said what I had to say back in the OTRS thread (#5041), and besides, as already noted, it was completely overshadowed by Tripler's masterful takedown in #5044 and later, but #5044 alone deserves some kind of plack. ;)

But since I'm here I'll just note my amusement at his claim that my criticism of his illiteracy was all over just a "minor typo", because "you can't argue with me on the points, so you hammer me because I missed a comma ...". And then the fuckwit had the audacity to claim:
I'm using tenet correctly in context. So which is it : I'm so illiterate I don't know the difference between a dude who lives in a rental property and a belief or principle, or I accidentally typed it wrong and spellcheck didn't warn me?
This after I did in fact criticize him on the points, notably his idiotic statement about capitalism and his racism, and more generally, I and many others have constantly hammered him on his useless oversimplifications of complex technologies and his cult-like belief in fantastical prognostications, as Lemur so succinctly summarized above.

And I would just note in passing, if only for my own entertainment, that he doesn't seem to know what a typo is. Writing "teh" instead of "the" is a typo. It means rapidly typing fingers got out of sync. Writing "their" instead of "they're" and similar mistakes with homographs can sometimes be just a mental slip, though sometimes an indicator of something more fundamental. But writing "tenant" instead of "tenet" in the same sentence that contains "per say" -- those are not typos. Those are indicators of ignorance. A normal person would admit the mistake and move on -- not really a huge deal in the larger scheme of things -- but not SamuelA. He has to "prove" that not only was it not a mistake, but it's his accuser who is mistaken.

Granted, those particular examples are very limited indicators of ignorance, but one makes assumptions, like one does when seeing a cockroach or two scurrying under the fridge when the light comes on. It may be just an unlikely happenstance, the entomological equivalent of a smart black person in SamuelA's racist world, but the smart money says that when you've seen two, the place is probably infested with them.

wolfpup 12-18-2017 01:38 PM

There was some discussion in this thread of whether SamuelA was likely to dial back his juvenile pomposity or continue to be a jerk and a pretentious laughingstock who was wrong about practically everything. Now we have the answer.

And that answer is: he's chosen to dial up the level of pretentious jerkness and take it to previously unimagined new heights. He got into an altercation with Stranger On A Train in this thread where the fucking douchebag's lack of knowledge gets him on the wrong side of the argument and smacked down for it, to which the ignorant fuck reacts with renewed arrogant pomposity: "I dismiss it cavalierly because I know what I'm talking about." Then he starts a whole new thread in GQ for the sole purpose of advertising the claim that he's right (he isn't) and that Stranger is wrong (he isn't).

The basis of his claim is the usual SamuelA douchebaggery. He thinks he understands something based on some simplistic idea he picked up in high school or thought up himself, so he's going to "prove" that Stranger -- who I understand works on rocket design for a living and has worked on studies of asteroid deflection -- doesn't understand how momentum works, but he, SamuelA, is going to set him straight, just like he sets everyone else straight, lifting them out of their poor abject ignorance when they disagree with him.

So he's now gone one better than the idea of threadshitting. SamuelA has invented the concept of forum-shitting, where he deposits his self-serving and incorrect bullshit like a giant steaming turd in the middle of GQ in order to prove how smart he is. Here's how he's doing so far:

- List of those who state that SamuelA is full of shit: Everyone. Including knowledgeable posters like Stranger On A Train and Francis Vaughan.

- List of those who agree with SamuelA: No one.

But he's still at it, apparently oblivious to making a complete ass of himself. This is actually now a kind of pathology, more than just a bloviating pompous jerk, this is more a symptom of someone afflicted by a genuinely diagnosable mental illness: a grossly distorted view of reality amplified by delusions of grandeur about his understanding of it.

I did previously address this in my humble understated way in the Omnibus thread where I made the case that SamuelA was a pompous ignorant douchebag, but Tripler pulled no punches in his masterful assessment of SamuelA that bears repeating:
I think you are a goddamned bloviated moron that speaks more out of an anal sphincter than any other orifice. I have argued with you on the points, but you deflected. I think you're so illiterate out of laziness. You, Sir, are the laziest bastard I have ever met.

You are a goddamned dogbreathed mother-(bless her soul for dealing with you)-loving fucktard. You make claims, provide a metric asston of bullshit, and provide absolutely zero proof. You grandstand from a position of opinion and not fact, and contribute nothing but wasted electrons to every online discussion you participate in.

I hadn't call you out as a troll in other threads because I could not determine if: A) you were just a fucking moron, and/or B) there was malice behind your opinions/posts for motive. I am now convinced you are a malicious, fucking moron (both A and B for your math, simplified for you).
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...postcount=5044

LSLGuy 12-18-2017 02:00 PM

I have nothing to add. You called it. I was wrong. Kid's wacko. At this point I don't know what to do except laugh and point.

On present trends soon he'll have every engineer, scientist, and computer guru on the board on "ignore". I suppose then he can consider the SDMB his private blog where he 'splains things to the unwashed masses.

The fools. The ignorant fools! They'll all pay for mocking me. Me! ME!

At least Trump's schtick would be funny if he was still only in real estate. This stuff is tiresome from the first twit.

wolfpup 12-18-2017 02:23 PM

You weren't "wrong", you were making the generous assumption that SamuelA might possibly possess some fragments of knowledge about something that could possibly result in useful posts if he could learn to act like some semblance of a decent human being. Turns out, he can't, and if he does actually possess any knowledge about anything it is still not in evidence. Unless you want to colonize the galaxy with an army of autonomous self-replicating robots. That one he's got perfectly figured out, and no one can touch him on that! :D

Dewey Finn 12-18-2017 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20641264)
It's all so simple! To colonize the moon you just invent self-replicating factories, send one to the moon, and you're done. To solve immortality, you just invent a way to extract the complete personality, thoughts and memory from a frozen human brain, and you're done. To solve economics, just build solar panels everywhere, use the excess power to create methane which you store for later, and you're done. Now, do I even need to show you all how to cure cancer?

I just want to say that this paragraph perfectly encapsulates SamuelA's entire schtick.

wolfpup 12-18-2017 02:47 PM

I should also point out, in all fairness, that colonizing the galaxy with autonomous self-replicating robots is a pretty simple task, so the fact that SamuelA can do it is not as much of a technological tour de force as it might seem. All you have to do is build one autonomous self-replicating robot, and send it off into space, and Bob's your uncle. That's it. The exponentially expanding legion of robots do all the rest.

And SamuelA knows exactly how to build one. We have the technology today to do it, and SamuelA has the know-how, as he has frequently (almost obsessively, in fact) informed us. So galactic colonization is upon us. The only mystery is why SamuelA hasn't done it. And the only plausible explanation I can venture is that his Mom won't let him.

But we're going to have to rethink this if the Earth is ever threatened by an asteroid. We can't leave this problem to scientists and engineers who obviously don't understand how momentum works. We're going to need SamuelA, and someone is going to have to get to his Mom to make it happen.

AI Proofreader 12-19-2017 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20673526)
I should also point out, in all fairness, that colonizing the galaxy with autonomous self-replicating robots is a pretty simple task, so the fact that SamuelA can do it is not as much of a technological tour de force as it might seem. All you have to do is build one autonomous self-replicating robot, and send it off into space, and Bob's your uncle. That's it. The exponentially expanding legion of robots do all the rest.

And SamuelA knows exactly how to build one. We have the technology today to do it, and SamuelA has the know-how, as he has frequently (almost obsessively, in fact) informed us. So galactic colonization is upon us. The only mystery is why SamuelA hasn't done it. And the only plausible explanation I can venture is that his Mom won't let him.

But we're going to have to rethink this if the Earth is ever threatened by an asteroid. We can't leave this problem to scientists and engineers who obviously don't understand how momentum works. We're going to need SamuelA, and someone is going to have to get to his Mom to make it happen.

Actually, given everything above, the solution is pretty simple.. send your one Von Neumann probe to the asteroid to make copies of itself out of the raw material.. two birds, one stone.

Darren Garrison 12-19-2017 04:12 AM

We could convert the asteroid to millions of copies if John von Neumann. Imagine the problems they could then solve! Of course errors would accumulate in the code leading some of the nanobots to produce copies of John Bon Jovi, and the world would be at risk of a new plague of hair bands.

wolfpup 12-19-2017 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AI Proofreader (Post 20674394)
Actually, given everything above, the solution is pretty simple.. send your one Von Neumann probe to the asteroid to make copies of itself out of the raw material.. two birds, one stone.

Brilliant! The self-replicating nanobots munch on the asteroid, self-replicating with furious abandon and humping like rabbits in heat, until there's nothing left of it. Then they all jet off to colonize distant parts of the galaxy, leaving nothing behind but empty space and a bit of nanobot poop.

This is such a simple and efficient means of dealing with an earth-bound asteroid that I'm sure that SamuelA has already thought of it. In fact it sounds exactly like one of his schemes. That's why SamuelA's head is shaped like a mutant rutabaga -- that great bulge at the back holds all the extra brain matter that lets him come up with this stuff, incorporating the physics of momentum conservation that is unknown to ordinary rocket scientists. They are only PhDs from places like MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics, whereas SamuelA actually went to high school (maybe), so he is a man to be reckoned with: according to his own estimation he knows what he is talking about.

Yllaria 12-19-2017 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20641264)
. . . It's all so simple! To colonize the moon you just invent self-replicating factories, send one to the moon, and you're done. To solve immortality, you just invent a way to extract the complete personality, thoughts and memory from a frozen human brain, and you're done. . . . .

Combine those two and you have the Bobiverse. But you have to find the right Bob.

Qadgop the Mercotan 12-19-2017 02:42 PM

Our pittee makes me think of this Dunning-Kruger effect graph.

Tripler 12-20-2017 03:38 AM

I'm reading through his asteroid redirectin' thread and have stumbled on a convincing explanation: Gene Ray never died, he just took a sock.

I see our favorite "Science Expert" is still basing his 'scientific expertise' on the hopes that an asteroid has tungsten in it.

Tripler
I had a post there, but it got eaten by the dog on 'Preview.'

Shodan 12-20-2017 07:26 AM

Yeah, I saw the tungsten reference in that thread, but I was afraid to ask what the hell it meant for fear he would explain and then my brains would melt out my ears.

We need to get SamuelA and that guy who did thought experiments on going faster than light into the same thread. Add some nanobots, a shaped nuclear charge, and some self-replicating solar panels, and then you got a thread.

Regards,
Shodan

Sunny Daze 12-20-2017 10:34 AM

Ka-boom. Earth-shattering ka-boom!

(na actual harm, real or imagined, to the subject of this thread)

Darren Garrison 12-20-2017 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20676567)
We need to get SamuelA and that guy who did thought experiments on going faster than light into the same thread.

Is that the guy who wanted to do some sort of experiment with spinning discs? I think that thread was before my time here, but I've read it in the archives.

gnoitall 12-20-2017 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripler (Post 20676462)
I'm reading through his asteroid redirectin' thread and have stumbled on a convincing explanation: Gene Ray never died, he just took a sock.

I see our favorite "Science Expert" is still basing his 'scientific expertise' on the hopes that an asteroid has tungsten in it.

Tripler
I had a post there, but it got eaten by the dog on 'Preview.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20676567)
Yeah, I saw the tungsten reference in that thread, but I was afraid to ask what the hell it meant for fear he would explain and then my brains would melt out my ears.

We need to get SamuelA and that guy who did thought experiments on going faster than light into the same thread. Add some nanobots, a shaped nuclear charge, and some self-replicating solar panels, and then you got a thread.

Regards,
Shodan

So, not only does the cow have to be spherical, it has to be made of high-sectional-density refractory metal?

This why wrestling with that pig is a bad idea. You get down to his level, and he covers you with his stupidity, and he enjoys it.

Shodan 12-20-2017 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20676941)
Is that the guy who wanted to do some sort of experiment with spinning discs? I think that thread was before my time here, but I've read it in the archives.

Yes, that guy. He apparently never heard of the Michaelson-Morley experiments.

Regards,
Shodan

Morgenstern 12-20-2017 12:07 PM

Someone ask him about String theory and if it make a difference if the string is really fishing line.

Tripler 12-20-2017 01:51 PM

The only man I would trust to tell me about string theory is Brian May, PhD. He has both bases covered: A PhD in Astrophysics, and a Rhapsody Bohemian.

Tripler
Scaramouche scaramouche SamuelA loves his fandango!

Pantastic 12-20-2017 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20677096)
Yes, that guy. He apparently never heard of the Michaelson-Morley experiments.

So he's an aetheist?

Yllaria 12-20-2017 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantastic (Post 20677270)
So he's an aetheist?

OUCH!

wolfpup 12-21-2017 01:20 PM

It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.

Morgenstern 12-21-2017 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20678940)
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.



403 - Forbidden Error

You are not allowed to access this address.
If the error persists, please contact the website webmaster.

Sammy got to them too.

wolfpup 12-21-2017 01:40 PM

Strange, works for me. But Sammy is so modest, he probably just doesn't want the international acclaim. Try this one -- he's honored here, too.

Sunny Daze 12-26-2017 01:15 AM

SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.

LSLGuy 12-26-2017 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20678940)
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20678955)
403 - Forbidden Error

You are not allowed to access this address.
If the error persists, please contact the website webmaster.

Sammy got to them too.

Poster wolfpup linked directly to an image and the site doesn't allow hot-linking. Here's the page the image is on: http://www.greatlakesbeer.com/beer/pompous-ass/

I like the name they chose for their character: "Fuggled Doublebottom". I'm sure we can make that into some kind of in-joke insult if we try.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20685683)
SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.


I'm afraid he may have banned you from forever having a dialog with him. It's really simple, put everyone on ignore and all your thread will be like blogs. No one will ever disagree with you. He figured this out before any of us, so...he wins.


BTW, you just got my 10,000 post. You are now part of history. (and I never even asked what a trogolodyte was., or whether it had plack on its back) :D

Darren Garrison 12-26-2017 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20685885)
You are now part of history. (and I never even asked what a trogolodyte was., or whether it had plack on its back) :D

Trogolodyte is a fragment of the doomed planet Trogolodo. The one weakness of Surpeman.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 09:34 AM

Ah, SuperSammy is from Trogolodo? I sort of suspected that.

jz78817 12-26-2017 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20678940)
It was bound to happen! In public recognition of the awesomeness of SamuelA, the Great Lakes Brewing company has named a craft beer after him.

beaten to the punch

LSLGuy 12-26-2017 09:51 AM

Yes, but wolfpup's find has a much more fitting picture. :)

SamuelA 12-26-2017 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20685683)
SamuelA is a twit. In his latest thread, he'd like to know whether those who dare to question him have actually gone to college, or passed classes while there. Yes, you've busted us. We're not worthy, you mouth-breathing trogolodyte.

What irritated me was that we were talking about a very simple subject. From the reference frame of an asteroid, any mass * velocity gained or lost from the asteroid, whether it be from new material added or lost, with a velocity vector, affects the course of the asteroid.

So here Tripler jumps in and wants to know if I am one of 'dem foreigners' who doesn't even understand English.

This irritated me because the topic is literally freshman year physics.

And it also doubly irritates me because topics like physics and math, there are a small number of ideas that everyone with any credibility agrees on, 100% of the time. One of which is conservation of momentum.

So if tomorrow, the most credible physicist alive gets senile and starts making public statements where conservation of momentum is violated (such as a nuke "pushing" an asteroid but the asteroid is "squishy" and so the push "doesn't count")...even a mere high school student would be right to challenge him. And that high school student would be right. And other people would be idiots if they didn't read the argument, no matter who wrote it, and at least consider the argument in the context of invariant physical laws, not the "authority" of the speaker.

As it so happens, I have a college degree and I have mentioned this in other threads if you had stalked me enough. It's a mere computer engineering degree and I'm about halfway done with a master's in computer science. So my knowledge of the matter is rudimentary and I don't claim otherwise. At no point do I cite anything but well established physical laws.

As a side note, the main topic you guys have slammed me for, cryogenic preserving of recently deceased humans, also depends on invariant physical laws regarding conservation of information. If the process of freezing leaves the information intact for the synaptic connections - both topology and approximate weight - you could probably recover a lot of a person's memories and personality if you took apart the frozen brain basically molecule by molecule. The brain is very complex and maybe there's some super-secret unknown mechanism of information storage that gets destroyed by freezing, but my point is that if we could recover even some of what makes up deceased individuals, that's better than what we have now.

Again, this argument shouldn't depend on the identity of the person making the argument. Obviously the medical doctor of, say, an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".

But it's true. Actual physical reality says it's true. (that if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it)

No doubt you're going to slam me over and over and claim I'm not credible enough to make claims about reality...but you'd still be wrong. The paragraph above is based on solid, invariant ideas that you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 01:07 PM

And now, a message from our sponsors. We'll be right back.

Skywatcher 12-26-2017 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686219)
you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.

True, but the identity of the speaker is that such merits only exist in his head.

Darren Garrison 12-26-2017 01:15 PM

I'll just leave this here.

SamuelA 12-26-2017 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skywatcher (Post 20686243)
True, but the identity of the speaker is that such merits only exist in his head.

Ok, maybe I should have said "you should examine the merits of the idea even if you start with the belief that the speaker is not credible".

If a homeless man starts ranting about his proof to a famous unsolved problem in math, and you happen to be a world class mathematician yourself and able to at least parse what he's talking about, maybe you should look at the first few lines he scrawled on the side of his box. You know, just in case.

I mean even if you immediately find an error, you'd do the bum a solid to mention your criticism.

Your post is the equivalent of saying "I'm not even going to look."

The timecube guy had a whole website if I recall full of his rantings. So maybe it's going to take too long. But if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it...are you just not able to read that sentence fast enough? What's the problem here?

You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686262)
... maybe you should look at the first few lines he scrawled on the side of his box. You know, just in case.

...

Will work for food?

SamuelA 12-26-2017 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20686256)

Dealt with above. Using my "bum" analogy, your argument (if you were the world class mathematician) is saying "it smells like pee over here, I'm just not even going to read what is scrawled on this here box"

Sunny Daze 12-26-2017 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686219)
As a side note, the main topic you guys have slammed me for, cryogenic preserving of recently deceased humans, also depends on invariant physical laws regarding conservation of information. If the process of freezing leaves the information intact for the synaptic connections - both topology and approximate weight - you could probably recover a lot of a person's memories and personality if you took apart the frozen brain basically molecule by molecule. The brain is very complex and maybe there's some super-secret unknown mechanism of information storage that gets destroyed by freezing, but my point is that if we could recover even some of what makes up deceased individuals, that's better than what we have now.

Again, this argument shouldn't depend on the identity of the person making the argument. Obviously the medical doctor of, say, an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".

But it's true. Actual physical reality says it's true. (that if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it)

I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:
Quote:

an Alzheimer's long term care facility is under several incentives not to publicly say "well since all my patients degrade and die anyway, and since cryogenic freezing probably retains more data than letting them slowly rot, freezing is better than "memory care" that doesn't work".
By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 01:51 PM

Remember Samuel, Galileo was interrogated while threatened with physical torture for his theories. They didn't believe him either. Be strong.

Shodan 12-26-2017 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Einstein.

Of course, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan

Penfeather 12-26-2017 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686262)
You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.

You do the bum's calligraphy a disservice.

k9bfriender 12-26-2017 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20686370)
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan

This is NOT a thread about DGU's.

:)

SamuelA 12-26-2017 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20686308)
I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:


By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.

Nothing in your post can be considered a rational thought. You're starting with the preconceived notion that death is absolute, not relative, and working from there. Freezing a person who is certain to rot into a corpse later is in fact better than the alternative. The freezing does less damage than the death + rotting, so...

I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.

There will be an era of human history where preservation of the terminally ill is practiced on a large scale. I may or may not personally live to see it, but this is the obvious thing to do for non-idiots. Our current methods (freezing in liquid nitrogen + injected chemicals to reduce frost damage) are basically shit. They are only a little better than the alternative. We should be pouring money into making the preservation better. Perhaps half of all medical research money, since it obviously treats all diseases, while any given research can at best delay death from a single class of disease.

By my perspective, the weighting I am mentally performing is as follows :

Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.

A rational person multiplies. A person who believes in woo does not. Unfortunately, a lot of people...even well educated doctors...believe in woo.

Of course we should research new treatments for disease, but for a person that is terminally ill, the odds are about 99.9% they are just going to die. It is very rare for clinical trials to work, most people don't even get them or get put in the control group, and so on.

Ramira 12-26-2017 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20686370)
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan

You just need the nano-bots to go with the bullets....

SamuelA 12-26-2017 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20686370)
SamuelA, if conservation of momentum is all you need to know about deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons, why can't you move a fog bank with a bullet?

Regards,
Shodan

If the bullets are on the scale of the droplets of fog, and the fog bank is in a vacuum and not being pushed by wind, you can. You can also move a 10 kilometer diffuse collection of rocks with a really big bullet.

The reason the bullet passes through the fog bank is that it weighs a lot more and is a lot more dense than the droplets. A 10 kilometer asteroid with the gas pushed by a few megatons of nuclear warhead is nothing like your analogy.

Ramira 12-26-2017 03:17 PM

Et voila.

k9bfriender 12-26-2017 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686447)
Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.

Does the patient get any say in this?

If someone wants to be frozen, I'm fine with that. If someone wants to freeze me after I've finished using this body, I have no objection.

I do have an extreme objection to you judging that me losing the last month of my life is worth having a 50% chance of coming back with only half my mind intact.

And I am more than a bit skeptical of your optimism on those odds.

SamuelA 12-26-2017 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramira (Post 20686463)
Et voila.

A shotgun round loaded with dust will push a fog bank. So will a fan. No nanobots required.

Czarcasm 12-26-2017 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686470)
A shotgun round loaded with dust will push a fog bank.

No, it won't.

Chefguy 12-26-2017 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20686308)
I worked in Alzheimer's research at Stanford University. I'll try to keep up with your stupendous string of blathering nonsense.

I take issue in particular with this:


By several incentives, you mean health professionals prefer not to get charged for murder in order to "preserve" memories via a method which has never been shown to be effective at doing that. Oddly, healthcare professional prefer to provide quality care, and on the research side, we amused ourselves by trying to find an actual cure. Quaintly, we could do this without killing our patients and freezing their brains, and then waiting an unknown time for technology to be invented to see if there is anything left to be salvaged.

Really, why stop with Alzheimer's, you could expand to any terminal illness. They're all going to die anyway, amirite? Kill them now, while their brains are "fresh". No point in wasting medical care on anyone.

You are someone I would characterize as evil. You casually throw around the idea that early death for people whose lives have no meaning for you is reasonable. Their death is a worthwhile thing because it will help you pursue your dream of cryo. The idea that human death is a reasonable course of action to support Cryo is monstrous.

If only eugenics had caught on, we wouldn't have to kill and freeze people. But no-o-o-o-o.

wolfpup 12-26-2017 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSLGuy (Post 20685940)
Yes, but wolfpup's find has a much more fitting picture. :)

Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686219)
What irritated me was that we were talking about a very simple subject. From the reference frame of an asteroid, any mass * velocity gained or lost from the asteroid, whether it be from new material added or lost, with a velocity vector, affects the course of the asteroid ...

... No doubt you're going to slam me over and over and claim I'm not credible enough to make claims about reality...but you'd still be wrong. The paragraph above is based on solid, invariant ideas that you should be evaluating on the merits, not the identity of the speaker.

The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! :D Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.

Morgenstern 12-26-2017 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686457)
If the bullets are on the scale of the droplets of fog, and the fog bank is in a vacuum and not being pushed by wind, you can. You can also move a 10 kilometer diffuse collection of rocks with a really big bullet.

The reason the bullet passes through the fog bank is that it weighs a lot more and is a lot more dense than the droplets. A 10 kilometer asteroid with the gas pushed by a few megatons of nuclear warhead is nothing like your analogy.

This guy is brilliant, why are any of you even arguing with him? Not one of you thought about the fog bank being in a vacuum. Admit it, ya didn't, did ya?

SamuelA 12-26-2017 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20686500)
Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.

The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! :D Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.

Wolfpup, you say in your insult filled tirade that my computational thoery of the mind is too simple to work. Even though actual world class researchers have gotten superhuman performance from very simple models, simpler than mine. So I must ask : what do you know about it? Why should I assume that you are any more than a mouth breather yourself?

SamuelA 12-26-2017 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 20686484)
No, it won't.

Citation needed. I actually have seen shotguns fired in fog and it does move the part that is hit. It gets pushed back by wind, and there is no wind in space.

Ramira 12-26-2017 04:10 PM

He has no self awareness it is clear. It is amusing in a way.

Czarcasm 12-26-2017 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686549)
Citation needed. I actually have seen shotguns fired in fog and it does move the part that is hit. It gets pushed back by wind, and there is no wind in space.

My citations are thus:
1. My I.Q. has three digits, not two.
2. Reality
3. "Fog in a vacuum"......riiiight

k9bfriender 12-26-2017 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686544)
Wolfpup, you say in your insult filled tirade that my computational thoery of the mind is too simple to work. Even though actual world class researchers have gotten superhuman performance from very simple models, simpler than mine. So I must ask : what do you know about it? Why should I assume that you are any more than a mouth breather yourself?

Please cite a researcher who has gotten mere human performance out of a computational model, much less superhuman.

BTW, your statement "thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively." is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

jz78817 12-26-2017 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686447)
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.

So?

the point of life is to reproduce and then die. who is so damn important that they need to be "preserved?"

this world would be uninhabitable if living things didn't eventually die.

Darren Garrison 12-26-2017 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jz78817 (Post 20686667)
the point of life is to reproduce and then die. who is so damn important that they need to be "preserved?"

this world would be uninhabitable if living things didn't eventually die.

Right. One must realize that you are a note, not the song.

Sunny Daze 12-26-2017 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 20686500)
Yes, though I wonder now if the bowler hat is entirely appropriate. In some ways it is, but most of his posts make me picture SamuelA as having a propeller beanie on his head, the propeller slowly rotating as he holds forth with his simplistic and almost amazingly always-wrong pontifications. The other thing wrong with that picture is that the jaw needs to be slack, with a thin stream of drool running down it, in order to properly represent the unique combination of bloviating pomposity and complete cluelessness that is our wondrous SamuelA.

The thing is, SamuelA, that many, many of us have, in fact, responded to your idiotic pontifications on their merits. This included the spacecraft engineer with whom you argued about propulsion and the neuroscientist with whom you argued about neuroscience, not only claiming that they were wrong and you, as always, were of course exactly correct, but insulting them in the process, as you do with almost everyone you converse with. There are plenty of examples in the asteroid thread in GQ that you started solely for the purpose of grandstanding (and succeeded only in getting your ass handed to you, because you didn't even understand the basics of what Stranger On A Train was saying), or in this thread about the mind and mind transfer -- a thread in which I, too, was sucked in to wasting my time because of your inane posts. They included gems like these:
Well, we have an established model that the brain is the effect of thousands of physical computational circuits ... We do know for a fact that consciousness most likely requires the collective activity of millions of neurons working collectively.
I happen to believe that the computational theory of mind is an important precept in cognitive science, but your type of pontification is an embarrassment to CTM. You don't even have the vaguest understanding of what CTM is. All an opponent of CTM would need to do to discredit it is get a nitwit like you to support it. Right, the mind is just a collective bunch of computational circuits working collectively! :D Problem solved! Now we move on the problem of emulating the body ... from that same thread, by you:
You could simulate the body by a very simple machine learning algorithm, and an implanted sensor in a volunteer that can measure the signaling molecules.
Problem solved again! We've now emulated both the brain and the body! This is how things get done when one is lucky enough to have a genius brain like yours at work on the problem!

Next, we move on to creating a vast army of autonomous self-replicating nanobots to populate the galaxy, also quite trivial once one understands the basic principles, which of course you do. Indeed, you know what you're talking about, and you're always right. At least according to you. You're an obnoxious fucking moron.

NM

Sunny Daze 12-26-2017 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686447)
Nothing in your post can be considered a rational thought.

Right back atcha.

Quote:

You're starting with the preconceived notion that death is absolute, not relative, and working from there.
Yes, death tends to be absolute not relative, short of religious discussions.

Quote:

Freezing a person who is certain to rot into a corpse later is in fact better than the alternative. The freezing does less damage than the death + rotting, so...
The alternative that they will now be a rotting corpse with a frozen brain? The improvement is where exactly? The only thing that has changed factually is that you have removed time that person might have spent with their family.

Quote:

I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.
I am more than ok with not killing people to satisfy your odd need to complete failed technology in order to save memories. There are other ways to chase your dream.

Quote:

There will be an era of human history where preservation of the terminally ill is practiced on a large scale.
Indeed, assuming you mean that humanity will try to end illness. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean.

Quote:

I may or may not personally live to see it, but this is the obvious thing to do for non-idiots. Our current methods (freezing in liquid nitrogen + injected chemicals to reduce frost damage) are basically shit. They are only a little better than the alternative.
They are better in no conceivable way than the alternative, assuming death is the alternative. I suppose someone is making money on it.

Quote:

We should be pouring money into making the preservation better. Perhaps half of all medical research money, since it obviously treats all diseases, while any given research can at best delay death from a single class of disease.
Preservation treats nothing. How will it treat half of all medical diseases? Why half? If it's half, why isn't it all?

Quote:

By my perspective, the weighting I am mentally performing is as follows :

Suppose a person has a month left to live. You are very certain of this - you have a laboratory confirmed diagnosis and statistically, 99.9% of the patients in this pool die within 30 days. (we can discuss greater uncertainty at a later time). You could either get at most 30 days of interaction with that human being, or freeze them. Let's saying freezing them preserves only 50% of their mind, the other half is lost. But if you do potentially revive them in the future, and you think there's a 50% chance that will happen (so down to net '25% of them is left'), you get 25% of them for 1000 years.
There is no person there anymore. Most people expect to be "there" when they "wake up" from this horse shit cryo. There is no 25% of "them" when they wake up. There is 25% of their brain, whatever that 25% happens to be. You clearly envision a specularly failed data backup, no doubt an expensive one. Fuck that shit.

Quote:

A rational person multiplies. A person who believes in woo does not. Unfortunately, a lot of people...even well educated doctors...believe in woo.
Multiples what? A minuscule chance of getting 20% of Uncle John's memories of studying grammar in 7th grade, in 200 years when the tech is finally, sort of, ready?

Where's the woo here? The medical care teams who provide end of life treatment or fight disease or do research? Or is the individuals who think we should freeze individuals who are NOT YET DEAD so that they can be woken on some future date, using some unknown technology, to recover some unknown brain function. I'll give you a hint. The conventional medical folks aren't practicing woo in this situation. Maybe we can all chip in and get you a "woo practitioner" title on the Dope.

Quote:

Of course we should research new treatments for disease, but for a person that is terminally ill, the odds are about 99.9% they are just going to die. It is very rare for clinical trials to work, most people don't even get them or get put in the control group, and so on.
Newsflash - we are all going to die. It may be 99.9% with research studies (I haven't checked that number) but if the disease doesn't get them, life will. Your method will 100% get your "study group". No one is getting out alive.

Penfeather 12-26-2017 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686447)
I would characterize you as the evil one, and history will prove me right. As a result of the dominant beliefs that you and your peers hold, we send over a million people to the ground, every year, without even attempting to preserve some of them.

And they call themselves scientists, the purblind fools!

AI Proofreader 12-26-2017 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20686262)
The timecube guy had a whole website if I recall full of his rantings. So maybe it's going to take too long. But if you have a pattern of information preserved in low temperature ice, you can potentially recover that pattern, and if that pattern is the plan for a computing system, you can build an equivalent emulator of that computing system and get similar outputs from any inputs you feed it...are you just not able to read that sentence fast enough? What's the problem here?

You obviously think that what I wrote is about the equivalent of that bum writing on the side of a cardboard box in crayon, but for god sakes, you're being an asshole.

Out of curiosity and boredom, I read both (extremely long and horribly formatted) pages of his 90's-era webpage. The crayon scribbling on a cardboard box would have been more enlightening.

It was basically 25 minutes worth of angry rantings about how everyone else are idiots, especially academia and established science, how he's been horribly abused, and reality is a big illusion, you're all being brainwashed into thinking Earth has 24-hour days!

...with some random racism and sexism thrown in for good measure. But it's not every day you get to read the wisdom of a man who admits on his Wikipedia page that a psychiatrist diagnosed him with schizophrenia, but only because his own wisdom "so antiquates known knowledge."

His rambling, useless text stripped of all the "they're all out to get me!" "everyone is stupid!" and "the races weren't meant to be mixed" type stuff could be summarized in three sentences:

The Earth doesn't rotate the way everyone knows it does. One hemisphere rotates one direction, the other one rotates the other way. You can think of the Earth being divided into four quadrants, 2 in each hemisphere, and because the Earth isn't actually completing one full rotation per 24 hours with the whole sphere rotating in the same direction (LIKE THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!) there are actually 96 hours in a day.

Anyway, I'd like to say SamuelIA that I find most of your ideas plausible - probably inevitable - BUT you are way, way too early with them. Barring some unforeseen circumstances most of the technologies your posts describe will not be available for use within our lifetimes. Having moral outrage about not using them or planning for the use of them, now, is kind of like Leonardi da Vinci getting into a huff about no one considering seat belts for the flying machines that are going to be filling the skies ANY DAY NOW. Why are you risking people's lives by not making seat belts for passenger jets? I know we're talking about this by candlelight but I swear my one-man glider proves 200-person jet airplanes will be filling the skies by the the millions within a few years.

Sunny Daze 12-26-2017 11:01 PM

You are way too kind. He's a deranged loon. I can see the spittle hitting the screen while he's typing, and screaming "why can't you sheeple see the truth? It's SO OBVIOUS."

jz78817 12-27-2017 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20686677)
Right. One must realize that you are a note, not the song.

only human arrogance (which the subject of this thread possesses a surfeit of) would lead one to think we're entitled to immortality of any kind.

it's a religion unto itself.

k9bfriender 12-27-2017 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jz78817 (Post 20687174)
only human arrogance (which the subject of this thread possesses a surfeit of) would lead one to think we're entitled to immortality of any kind.

it's a religion unto itself.

Human arrogance is actually what led us to think that we were entitled to control fire and everything that came after that. I am nowhere as optimistic as the subject of the thread on the matter, but the steady march of progress and technology should lead to extending our* life spans by substantial, maybe even indefinite amounts.


*by "our" I mean humans as a species, I am not all that optimistic that we will live to see it, maybe our kids or grandkids.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 08:51 AM

I'm afraid most of you will drive SamuelA off if you don't stop being so mean to him. He's Gulliver and we're all little Lilliputian brained players shaking sticks at modern technology. All he wants you to do is listen and learn.

A scientific renaissance is upon you and you mock him. No wonder the last one took 300 years to complete.

k9bfriender 12-27-2017 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20687353)
I'm afraid most of you will drive SamuelA off if you don't stop being so mean to him. He's Gulliver and we're all little Lilliputian brained players shaking sticks at modern technology. All he wants you to do is listen and learn.

A scientific renaissance is upon you and you mock him. No wonder the last one took 300 years to complete.

It's actually a bit annoying, as I am a fan of futurism, I like to think about what may lay down the road for our children, and maybe even ourselves.

The problem is is that there are two issues there, timeline and actual feasibility. Some of the technologies expressed may end up working out, some of them may not. We will not know until we try. And we will not know how long it will take for us to get to the point of trying until we get there.

The issue I have with Sammy here is not that he is a fan of future technologies, most of what he has predicted is conceivably possible, it is that he is very adamant that those technologies will emerge in the time and manner in which he states that makes his posts a bit on the insufferable side.

Well, that and the reliance on nanobots to fix everything.

LSLGuy 12-27-2017 09:07 AM

This^^. He seems to assume the simple exponential growth curve with no hiccups or obstacles or human objections along the way. And a short time constant.

In a few posts he's acknowledged that he's ignoring all that stuff, but recognizes it's an intractable drag on adoption.

Then comes the next post blithely predicting a Singularity on Tuesday and the rest of us go :smack: and wonder if we're talking to a teenager.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 10:01 AM

Wait until you find out he was one of Kelly Johnson's senior project engineers.

Then you'll be sorry. All of you. :D

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 12:24 PM

For your reading pleasure, Sammy will tell you how to get bad guys out of a building.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...0&postcount=14

No, no shaped nuclear charges yet.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20687845)
For your reading pleasure, Sammy will tell you how to get bad guys out of a building.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...0&postcount=14

No, no shaped nuclear charges yet.

I cited my sources. I also have personal experience I didn't mention. I didn't say how to do it. I said from the sources I have seen, generally the commander on the ground is going to want to blow the bad guy's fortress to rubble. This is reasonable and you end up with this if the fighting goes on long enough. (image from ww2)

Modern weapons do not change much other than making it possible to be a little more selective on what you blow up. We don't have the hunter-killer nanobot fogs yet, and I don't think they'll be ready by next Tuesday...might take a little longer...

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687888)
I cited my sources. I also have personal experience I didn't mention. I didn't say how to do it. I said from the sources I have seen, generally the commander on the ground is going to want to blow the bad guy's fortress to rubble. This is reasonable and you end up with this if the fighting goes on long enough. (image from ww2)

...


No, no. I'm with you here. Blowing fortresses to rubble with nanobot frogs would be so effing cool.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20686721)
Right back atcha.

Yes, death tends to be absolute not relative, short of religious discussions.



The alternative that they will now be a rotting corpse with a frozen brain? The improvement is where exactly? The only thing that has changed factually is that you have removed time that person might have spent with their family.


Newsflash - we are all going to die. It may be 99.9% with research studies (I haven't checked that number) but if the disease doesn't get them, life will. Your method will 100% get your "study group". No one is getting out alive.

Obviously we're not having a productive back and forth here. It doesn't appear that either of us can ever change the other's mind no matter what facts or logic is brought in.

With that said, I'm going to just point out 3 reasoning errors you have made here :

a. Have you ever seen a severely demented patient? Death is relative, not absolute. I would argue that a human being that only has enough brain function left that they continue to breathe is about 99% dead. If they barely remember their own name, but not their present time, place, any recent events, or how to speak many other words, they are somewhere around 90% dead. These percentages are estimates but if we could objectively measure how many neurons are left functioning we could probably actually come up with a measurable scale for this.

Even if you disagree with me on everything else, if you really work at Stanford, you must be smart enough to see that you're incorrect about this. Your worldview just doesn't fit what actually happens. What makes a person more than a sack of meat with a pulse is their mind, and if their mind is mostly destroyed, they are mostly dead.

I am aware that our brains have redundant neural pathways, so you could not use a linear percentage. If a person lost exactly 50% of their neurons but the losses were smoothly distributed throughout, they might seem almost normal because of the backup neural paths.

b. What I was trying to express when I compared the two cases was information transfer.

case 1 : the person says a few last words to their family. Basic concepts like "I love you, Steve is a murderer", touching stuff. How many bytes of information is that? Not many.

case 2 : the very last-last words are missed, but their brain is frozen. It will later be sliced and destructively scanned, 50 years hence. Petabytes of data are recovered from it.

The person's descendants will know far more about their relatives than you or I ever do. All I have are vague stories, heavily distorted from retelling. I know my grandaddy saw ww2 but don't know if he saw combat. I suspect an enormous amount could be recovered. Maybe not enough to actually 'bring them back to life', but vast amounts of data.

So from my worldview, my instinct says that case 2 is better. I am not saying we should force this on people without their consent...though for small children, it should be subject to the same laws we have regarding withholding of medical care...but you, if you are really Stanford material, should at least be able to see why I have this view and how it is a reasonable view to have.

c. We are all going to die, yes. Would you agree there's a significant difference between dying at 30 and dying at 75? Because if we applied your defeatist logic to this, we should go back and time and tell Alexander Fleming to put away his tools, there's no point, even if he invents a treatment for bacterial infection, everyone thus treated is still going to eventually die.

I'd say there's a similar difference between dying at 75 and possibly surviving for centuries or longer. Maybe it isn't possible to achieve that...but if it were possible, does your top of the line education give you the reasoning ability to see how it would be worth pursuing if you thought it was feasible?

SamuelA 12-27-2017 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20687905)
No, no. I'm with you here. Blowing fortresses to rubble with nanobot frogs would be so effing cool.

So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?

Mr. Nylock 12-27-2017 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687929)
So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?

Because Trump has small hands and the frog robots will frighten him.

Darren Garrison 12-27-2017 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687924)
if you really work at Stanford, you must be smart enough to see that you're incorrect about this. Your worldview just doesn't fit what actually happens. What makes a person more than a sack of meat with a pulse

On the other hand, some people are just a sack of shit with a pulse.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687929)
So why not just embed explosives in regular frogs or frog-robots and skip the nanobots?

They would need to be flying frogs for this to really work. Radar guided flying frogs with special stealth skins and vertical thrusting nanojets in their nanoasses.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20687955)
On the other hand, some people are just a sack of shit with a pulse.

This is why you're on my ignore list. What are you contributing here?

SamuelA 12-27-2017 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20687273)
Human arrogance is actually what led us to think that we were entitled to control fire and everything that came after that. I am nowhere as optimistic as the subject of the thread on the matter, but the steady march of progress and technology should lead to extending our* life spans by substantial, maybe even indefinite amounts.


*by "our" I mean humans as a species, I am not all that optimistic that we will live to see it, maybe our kids or grandkids.

Right, and the logical step to take after that is to ask "is there any way with the technology we have now to do something so we don't have to be the last (or second to last) generation to die? Because if you concede that it's inevitable that human ingenuity will find a way to defeat aging and certain death, and then in such a society, take many safety measures to reduce to near zero most homicides and accidental deaths, it makes you feel really shitty if you think you'll end up dying 10 years before there's a treatment for aging.

And then you realize that it just might be possible to solve the problem now. Maybe. To reuse your fire analogy, maybe you don't need a complete theory of lightning and spontaneous combustion. Maybe you can just rub 2 sticks together really fast. Maybe, since liquid nitrogen seems to preserve every other living thing, if it's real small and frozen really fast, maybe there's a way to preserve your whole brain well enough that you could fix the damage done later. Maybe we as a society could be researching this on a large scale instead of giving tax cuts to the rich*.

*Which I find obscenely short sighted. Who benefits most from reliable medical care that allows for indefinite lifespans? Rich billionaires, of course. Aging and death is the only thing that threatens them and their lavish existence. So why aren't there foundations with a trillion dollars of donated money working round the clock on every promising avenue of human life extension?

If every billionaire was long-sighted enough to donate half their fortune to longevity research, each one individually would face no discernible degradation of their lavish lifestyle. Even being a 500-millionaire is pretty damn nice. And they might make progress. It's a bet that might not pay off - but they shouldn't be defeatist about it. Even if it's just a pill + immune cell transplants that gets them to 110, that's a very large, personal reward for their investment.

k9bfriender 12-27-2017 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687984)
Right, and the logical step to take after that is to ask "is there any way with the technology we have now to do something so we don't have to be the last (or second to last) generation to die? Because if you concede that it's inevitable that human ingenuity will find a way to defeat aging and certain death, and then in such a society, take many safety measures to reduce to near zero most homicides and accidental deaths, it makes you feel really shitty if you think you'll end up dying 10 years before there's a treatment for aging.

I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

There are some other medical concerns that may not be so easily waved away. Pushing past 150 is going to require more than just simple advances in medicine, it's going to need complete retooling of our cellular machinery.

Is dying 10 years before immortality comes about any shittier than your parents dying 10 years before it comes out either? Or how shitty is it if we can create new humans with aging "removed" from their DNA, but that treatment doesn't work on already living people?

Someone always has to be the last one to die for any cause.

And I don't know that it is inevitable that humanity itself will make it another 3 years, much less with the growing technology that is required to make any sort of increased lifespan.

Quote:

And then you realize that it just might be possible to solve the problem now. Maybe. To reuse your fire analogy, maybe you don't need a complete theory of lightning and spontaneous combustion. Maybe you can just rub 2 sticks together really fast. Maybe, since liquid nitrogen seems to preserve every other living thing, if it's real small and frozen really fast, maybe there's a way to preserve your whole brain well enough that you could fix the damage done later. Maybe we as a society could be researching this on a large scale instead of giving tax cuts to the rich*.
What research? Dropping things into a cold dewar doesn't need much practice.

I might suggest that we try liquid helium, at least for initial freezing, as that would make it freeze faster and lead to less crystallization, but that's pretty much it, research done.

Without the technology to revive such a person, we will not know how well we did, so there literally is no point to research, as there is no way to check the results of the experiments.

Quote:

*Which I find obscenely short sighted. Who benefits most from reliable medical care that allows for indefinite lifespans? Rich billionaires, of course. Aging and death is the only thing that threatens them and their lavish existence. So why aren't there foundations with a trillion dollars of donated money working round the clock on every promising avenue of human life extension?
Good point, if life extension was so easy, then why do the ultra-wealthy not pursue it?

Maybe because it is not all that feasible, even with nearly unlimited resources for research. That alone should tell you something, that those with the resources to do what you are saying aren't doing it. That may just mean that all the wealthy and ultra wealthy people are stupid.

I have many questions about the ethics of some of our wealthiest citizens, but I do not ever think that they are stupid.
Quote:

If every billionaire was long-sighted enough to donate half their fortune to longevity research, each one individually would face no discernible degradation of their lavish lifestyle. Even being a 500-millionaire is pretty damn nice. And they might make progress. It's a bet that might not pay off - but they shouldn't be defeatist about it. Even if it's just a pill + immune cell transplants that gets them to 110, that's a very large, personal reward for their investment.
Somehow I think that it's gonna be a bit more invasive than a pill and immune cell transplants.

Czarcasm 12-27-2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687968)
This is why you're on my ignore list. What are you contributing here?

Can't get much stupider than this, folks. :rolleyes:

Darren Garrison 12-27-2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20688073)
I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

I would.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20688073)
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

There are some other medical concerns that may not be so easily waved away. Pushing past 150 is going to require more than just simple advances in medicine, it's going to need complete retooling of our cellular machinery.

I'm implicitly assuming we'll develop a form of superhuman intelligence, whether that be actual "conscious" machines like the popular conception or just really amazing data analysis software that is capable of active design and control of robotic systems. The software doesn't just sit there and make recommendations, it can issue commands to massive arrays of robotic waldos to order prototypes constructed, experiments performed, and so forth. Humans oversee but their efforts are incredibly amplified.

Since this stuff actually is starting to work, and I genuinely think we'll go from solvers that can approximate animal motion badly (like the stuff at Boston Dynamics) to superhuman motion control (robotic systems that can move more efficiently and correctly, given the same joints and actuator specs as the animal they are modeled on, than the actual animal or human can) in a decade*. A little after that we'll have robotic systems that can look at a tray of parts in a factory and put together most objects better than human technicians. *maybe a lot less, this is a planning problem that new research has hit superhuman levels very rapidly on a number of problems.

I feel my assumptions are quite grounded, I am not talking about anything that you wouldn't know about if you were paying attention.

We don't need actual sentient AI to revolutionize our study of biology. What you would need to do to crack this problem is perform experiments on a colossal scale, with all the data feeding into an increasingly accurate predictive model. To summarize the way I'm picturing it, there's a factory full of hundreds of thousands of individual robot cells. Each one has a cell culture or a sample of a biological protein or a tissue sample, etc. Each machine is performing a specific experiment to reduce the machine's uncertainty about how that biological particular component works. All this data is going into a predictive model, which is really just a very large array of neural network weights, and each experiment's results change the weights. So if then query the model "what happens if this drug is given to patients with this genetic profile" it can actually give an accurate answer. Other solvers which act as planners are trying to design new drugs. They query the model to find out what the model thinks the proposed molecule will do, and winnow down the drug candidates to ones that have a reasonable chance of working. (then there is the usual escalation to trials in cell cultures, then animals, then maybe mockups of human beings which are separate containers of living tissues made of cloned organs, then finally actual living human trials)

I do not know what the end findings of this kind of effort would be, but it does seem plausible that eventually all the organs of the human body could probably be replicated and transplanted. At that point, the only reason you'd die of old age is your brain itself was failing, and with drugs you could probably block at least all the mechanisms that cause dementia and make it to at least 120 in your Frankenstein body of replacement parts.

Humans are overseeing but the actual lab experiments are all robotic, since you can record an exact sequence of the actions taken from the robot's telemetry and replicate it autonomously elsewhere, in a different facility, to confirm.

This is the kind of effort you would need to make real progress. In a rational civilization, since the same technology would have also automated all the farms, mines, factories, stores, and transportation, our civilization would have the spare human capital to do something like this.

You know, if we were rational beings who did what was best for us personally and our peers*. Everything I talk about is technically feasible...but like LSLguy points out, I can't even attempt to model what stupid thing our civilization would do instead.

*since if all the essentials for human life can be produced without more than a tiny amount of human labor, what other topic is worth cracking besides aging and death? Every other topic can wait until you have centuries to spare. But INSTEAD, we might use all that spare production capacity to elevate 0.1% of our population to Feudal lords, protected by armies of robotic private security and living in vast palaces built autonomously, while the majority of the population starves or lives in extreme poverty...

And those same Feudal lords might decide to, instead of investing resources in making sure they at least personally get to live in their palaces to the age of 120, they might instead invest all their resources into more physical security...

k9bfriender 12-27-2017 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20688130)

I meant hundreds like 100-109, not hundreds like 100-999.

Inartfully phrased on my part, apologies.

Though I did say later in the post that reaching and passing 150 is going to require more than just medical advance, but retooling of our cellular machinery, specifically because I am aware of those limits on human lifespan.

DrFidelius 12-27-2017 03:22 PM

I can think of few punishments more horrific than immortality.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 03:27 PM

I thought we were talking about armed frogs and battlefield commanders?

SamuelA 12-27-2017 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 20688194)
I can think of few punishments more horrific than immortality.

If you can't experience anything at all, you can't experience horror, but you also can't experience anything good, either. I don't think your 'belief' is well grounded, I think you are typing this because you were taught this idea by someone else and you haven't really thought it through.

I mean, most religious people also believe in some nonsense they shouldn't if they actually thought it through, so don't feel singled out. It's normal for most humans to be like this, and I am not perfect either.

LSLGuy 12-27-2017 03:29 PM

Consider compound interest. Over a long period of time it's more powerful than gravity.

If only those people in 1400AD & 1500AD had invested all their ducats in the future instead of consuming their pitiful ration of moldy meat we'd have easily double the standard of living today.

Given all we really do have here in 2017, it seems rather churlish to sentence the ancients to an even more deprived existence than they had for our benefit.

IMO the world's billionaires, at least the techies, ARE looking towards inventing immortality. Given the lack of a full court press on the project, I conclude that they've decided, based on good advice from folks more expert than me, that the time is not yet ripe.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSLGuy (Post 20688207)
IMO the world's billionaires, at least the techies, ARE looking towards inventing immortality. Given the lack of a full court press on the project, I conclude that they've decided, based on good advice from folks more expert than me, that the time is not yet ripe.

This is true, and we may not have the pre-requisites. The prerequisite for rockets that could reach the Moon was large scale manufacturing, large military industrial complex, reliable digital computers, liquid cryogenic fueled engines, and so forth. You might note that a bunch of that was rush-developed during ww2, if ww2 had not happened, the Apollo landings might have been 20 years later if ever.

It's quite possible that no amount of small scale graduate student + professor biomedical research will ever develop the understanding needed for this kind of manipulation of biology. Any more than a village full of blacksmiths can make the components for the Golden Gate Bridge...no matter how many years they have.

The reason is that all the findings are being made by separate human hands, each of whom sometimes screws up and thus creates false data. Different equipment and techniques. Then the data is published in basically a cryptographic code of a scientific paper, yet due to journal publication length requirements, critical information is often missing. Then you don't publish "negative" findings (even though such findings would reduce the uncertainty bands on a large scale machine learning system)

My above post proposes replacing all of it with machines and large scale, integrated efforts.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 04:22 PM

After you invent immortality, you need to invent a way to stop the universe from burning out. I'm thinking a reverse osmosis solar filter with brass fittings would create about 12 x 10 to the 24th megaplacks of matter per hour. If we only made hydrogen from that matter and we superheated it with leftover spaceship exhaust we could create our own sun, and make that sun immortal with mirrors. We could also program it to turn off at night to save energy, or have it switch to battery backup if it's stormy or something. It's easy really.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20688073)
What research? Dropping things into a cold dewar doesn't need much practice.

I might suggest that we try liquid helium, at least for initial freezing, as that would make it freeze faster and lead to less crystallization, but that's pretty much it, research done.

Rapid freezes preserves living things. But it has to be rapid - slow freezing allows ice crystals to damage them.

So the thing to be researched is how to rapidly freeze a volumetric object like a brain. You cannot just dunk it into liquid nitrogen or helium - only the outer part will freeze rapidly, the inner parts will be crushed by expanding ice crystals and the data you are trying to preserve is damaged* or lost.

One promising method is magnetic refrigeration. You would run oxygenated cold fluid through a brain, with drugs to force the arterioles to stay open. Similar to conditions for bloodless surgery, where patients can be revived. You prevent the ice from forming with very powerful magnetic fields that are oscillating - the oscillating heats the liquid, keeping the water a liquid, even though the supply liquid would be below freezing.

Turn off the magnet (send the current to resistors) and you should get immediate, rapid, demolition-man style instant freezing.

Revival has to be done a similar tricky way. You would have had to leave metal containing nanoparticles that are non-toxic inside all these blood vessels. Then through magnetic induction, evenly heat the whole volume.

If you don't heat quickly enough, the same problem with ice crystals happens when you rewarm.

As you can imagine, actually doing this physically and getting someone to wake up with enough intact tissue to prove they lived through the experience would be a colossal, multi-billion dollar effort. But you only need do it a few times. Then you could start a mass freezing program for all patients, not reviving them (since revival is going to do a lot of damage) until some future date when you can also treat all their diseases and replace their missing body.

And if you're wondering, this basic idea is mine, but the proof that it might work is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cells_Alive_System

Here's a video of it working :
https://youtu.be/fehdWAefXWw

*you might be able to recover the original synaptic states computationally if you had an atom by atom scan of the whole thing, but the original person is dead.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20688284)
After you invent immortality, you need to invent a way to stop the universe from burning out. I'm thinking a reverse osmosis solar filter with brass fittings would create about 12 x 10 to the 24th megaplacks of matter per hour. If we only made hydrogen from that matter and we superheated it with leftover spaceship exhaust we could create our own sun, and make that sun immortal with mirrors. We could also program it to turn off at night to save energy, or have it switch to battery backup if it's stormy or something. It's easy really.

I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688297)
I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.

Me trolling? No way. This shit is way to serious to mess with. I could accidentally open some kind of portal and be swept away to some fucking red state, or even worse, Florida. I'd never mess with a portal.

Anyway, this trillions of year things. I think our sun goes to sleep in about 5 billion, so I'll have to have it done by then.

k9bfriender 12-27-2017 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688297)
I know you're trolling, but something created the universe. If it wasn't a "god" and it isn't a simulation, that something might be replicable using resources we have in this universe. Even I think this is far fetched, I'm just saying, if you have trillions of years to work on the problem, it might not be as intractable as we humans think it is.

Please don't try to create a new universe until we are done with this one.

ETA: I'm pretty sure I know how to do it, it's just that it would replace this one, and we are all having such a wonderful time.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20688308)
Me trolling? No way. This shit is way to serious to mess with. I could accidentally open some kind of portal and be swept away to some fucking red state, or even worse, Florida. I'd never mess with a portal.

Anyway, this trillions of year things. I think our sun goes to sleep in about 5 billion, so I'll have to have it done by then.

No worries. Just combine enough laser beams and you'll create a synthetic black hole. Easy peasy.

I mean, once you have self replicating robots, just send some to the Moon, wait a decade or 2, then order the super-swarm to make your laser apparatus.

Don't know how to make the lasers yet? Have some of the super-swarm make prototypes using an evolutionary algorithm to find the best laser design.

Should just be a few mouse clicks, really, anyone armed with post singularity tech could do it.

*Now I am somewhat trolling myself here but if you did have self replicating robots and very powerful AI, this would be technically possible. Maybe not the harnessing a black hole part, but the apparatus to build a small one to see if you can harness it would be.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 05:20 PM

No, I don't know how to make a laser. But I helped invent the electric sextant for a submerged nuclear submarine.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20688365)
No, I don't know how to make a laser. But I helped invent the electric sextant for a submerged nuclear submarine.

Really? I mean you had to ascend to periscope depth, right?

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688385)
Really? I mean you had to ascend to periscope depth, right?

That was the problem, the subs had to take their noontime sightings 2 hours after sunset to avoid detection on the surface. But for those times the exec is playing Call of Duty on the GPS computer, you have no other choice. It's a back up.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20688424)
That was the problem, the subs had to take their noontime sightings 2 hours after sunset to avoid detection on the surface. But for those times the exec is playing Call of Duty on the GPS computer, you have no other choice. It's a back up.

Ok. So you didn't find a way to solve that problem. By like a mixture of very sensitive magnetic field detectors and gravitational field detectors or something. (since both the earth's magnetic field and the strength of gravity vary very very very slightly depending on where you are on Earth, if you had sensitive enough detectors and a big table of values for every location, you could determine your position that way...)

Or releasing a drone sub to go check the starfield while the mothership hides safe in the depth.

You know, something else.

running coach 12-27-2017 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688503)
Ok. So you didn't find a way to solve that problem. By like a mixture of very sensitive magnetic field detectors and gravitational field detectors or something. (since both the earth's magnetic field and the strength of gravity vary very very very slightly depending on where you are on Earth, if you had sensitive enough detectors and a big table of values for every location, you could determine your position that way...)

Or releasing a drone sub to go check the starfield while the mothership hides safe in the depth.

You know, something else.

Like something that exists?

SamuelA 12-27-2017 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20688513)
Like something that exists?

Yeah I thought there was a way to determine your position that way, not sure if it's very accurate. And the drone sub obviously works perfectly as a concept, it's just tough to execute since it's a separate vehicle that has to work reliably in the sea, which is extremely cruel to all machinery.

running coach 12-27-2017 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688516)
Yeah I thought there was a way to determine your position that way, not sure if it's very accurate. And the drone sub obviously works perfectly as a concept, it's just tough to execute since it's a separate vehicle that has to work reliably in the sea, which is extremely cruel to all machinery.

Isn't accuracy the important part?

Everything works perfectly as a concept. But there's this pesky thing called reality that keeps rearing it's ugly head.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 07:08 PM

Detection? This isn't classified anymore, but they use compressed steam balls for that. So totally simple. That came with the 688 subs.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20688522)
Isn't accuracy the important part?

Everything works perfectly as a concept. But there's this pesky thing called reality that keeps rearing it's ugly head.

Well, yeah. Technically though even fuzzy measurements can be used to reduce the drift from dead reckoning through, using some fairly complex to work through math. And obviously a satellite fix from a drone sub would be quite accurate and torpedoes work and are basically guided drone subs, so I wouldn't want to sit here and claim "reality" is in the way. It's just too expensive.

And no, lots of things don't work as a concept. Faster than light travel doesn't work. No known mechanism of physics lets you do it, and if it were possible, time travel would be, and that also doesn't work out conceptually or otherwise. And even then, if you take it a step further, if FTL travel were possible and there was no true upper speed limit, we should be up to our necks wading through all the alien tourists who have filled our skies with self replicating machinery.

QuickSilver 12-27-2017 07:19 PM

Consistently wrong but never in doubt, eh Sam?

JFC, you are one seriously boring asshole.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688534)
...

all the alien tourists who have filled our skies with self replicating machinery.

That's how the friendly skies filled up with all those damn RJs? I knew those RJs were alien bots.

jz78817 12-27-2017 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20688073)
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

why would anyone want that?

seriously?

you can't stop senescence. you might extend your lifespan via various means, but you're still going to end up feeble and demented.

I would much rather drop dead cleanly at 60 than live to 100 after 30 years unable to care for myself.

and I'm not really interested in these bullshit wishy-washy mealy mouthed "discussions" about how immortality is possible so long as we ignore all of those impossible things immortality relies upon.

it ain't gonna happen, and there ain't one damn person on this planet important enough to deserve it.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jz78817 (Post 20688626)
why would anyone want that?

seriously?

you can't stop senescence. you might extend your lifespan via various means, but you're still going to end up feeble and demented.

I would much rather drop dead cleanly at 60 than live to 100 after 30 years unable to care for myself.

and I'm not really interested in these bullshit wishy-washy mealy mouthed "discussions" about how immortality is possible so long as we ignore all of those impossible things immortality relies upon.

it ain't gonna happen, and there ain't one damn person on this planet important enough to deserve it.

You old man. You past 50 winters. You all washed up, never be a hunter again. Don't tell me about things like "glasses" and "anabolic steroids", it's impossible. Me certain, me village chief, me live many seasons.

SamuelA 12-27-2017 08:43 PM

And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.

running coach 12-27-2017 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688666)
And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.

How is it any more impossible than the crap you've been peddling?

Chimera 12-27-2017 09:45 PM

Ah, makes me remember a The Futurist Magazine I read back in the late 80's that was insisting that all heavy manufacturing would move to Earth Orbit by the year 2000.

Seriously.

Like, "Wow, you really didn't think that through, did you. Millions of tons of materials have to go to orbit - along with millions of workers - everyday? And then back down?

And we'll have this in less than 15 years?"

SamuelA 12-27-2017 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20688675)
How is it any more impossible than the crap you've been peddling?

Because it's real? Google it. Of course it's not ready for prime time, like any really promising biomed, but the idea works. Hundreds of experiments have been performed where it has been shown you can reset adult, "senescent" cells back to past states. If you get the growth factors right, you can move them forward down a particular differentiation path.

Your cells that are "old" are only old because a computer program written in base-4 (with some extra tags and forms of memory) has a high value in a counter*. If you set that counter to zero again, the cells will act "young" again. It's damn hard to do this for a lot of reasons, but this is essentially our best hypothesis about reality. The reason you age and die isn't because your cells are doing their best, it's because they are sabotaged right in their source code.

Why the fuck do you think dogs and cats get basically the same diseases as humans in a mere decade or 2 instead of needing 60-80 years to hit that point? Moron.

And to the mouth breather above : I have never said anything about any of this shit happening in "15 years" or any of that bullshit. I mentioned robotic movement maybe being superhuman in 10 years...it's basically superhuman already. All I have ever said is that this is where the trends are going and we really should be actively pushing them harder.

*it's not 1 counter, that hypothesis has been disproven, but the cells do have a state and that state can be reset.

running coach 12-27-2017 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688666)
And senescence? It is a property of the universe set by sky daddy. Don't tell me you could just culture my cells, reset their clocks back to zero, then grow them back into functional organs. That is impossible, space wizard stuff. Wake Forest Medical school hasn't gotten prototype printed organs to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20688725)
Because it's real? Google it. Of course it's not ready for prime time, like any really promising biomed, but the idea works.

You said it doesn't work and it won't work.
Such a turnaround in an hour.

LSLGuy 12-27-2017 09:56 PM

Sam, what follows is a serious suggestion.

I was a CS major too. Although my Masters was in business, not more CS.

CS is probably the most artificial form of engineering. The systems we rely upon, our raw materials if you will, have their challenges. But they don't have nearly the complexities and inhomogeneities of things like actual steel beams or actual concrete. Which differ significantly from idealized beams of idealized steel.

To a CS-trained mind, the world is not only more complex than we understand, it's more complex than we can understand. We, the CS gurus, lose our ability to recognize all the ways in which the messy substrates of the real world are not nearly so tractable as the clean, simple, and manmade substrate of pure math & logic. We spend so much time succeeding at managing spherical cows to good effect that we forget about the messy reality of real flesh-and-blood cows.

It's a common failing of CS people. But it can be worked past.

I have no real education in biology or chemistry beyond 101-level classes. I've read a lot of layman's materials and people tell my I've got a hell of a memory, but I don't have any real expertise in these areas.

Some years ago I stumbled on this blog. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline...l-all-the-time

Turns out the guy is real famous in his field as the elder statesman of bloggers who've got something smart to say about a pretty deep topic. He's a medicinal chemist, a guy who searches for and perfects medicines. I've read every post of his for the last 8 years. Along the way I've learned a great deal about the big picture of chemistry, biochemistry, cellular biology and organism biology.

He has slowly taught me that our current understanding of cellular & organism-level biology is on a par with primitive tribes' understanding of physics. It's not dead wrong, but there's vast tracts of pure guesswork and areas where we can't tell first order effects from 4th order effects. As well as vast areas we don't even know exist.

What makes him magic is that beyond his PhD and his 30+ years in the industry doing cutting edge stuff there's a deep-seated humility and a total absence of boosterism and hucksterism. We know more than did the witch doctors baying at the Moon. But not that much more versus how deep this stuff really is. We've barely scratched the surface of understanding how any of this stuff really works.

Try reading him for a bit. Follow the links back to earlier articles. Learn how much we know that we don't know. Which supports the reasonable estimate that the unknown unknowns are far larger yet.


IMO there's not much difference between something that's impossible as a matter of physics and something that's impossible as a matter of engineering we won't have for another 5000 years. I recognize that logically those are polar opposites: one impossible, the other possible. But practically they amount to the same thing. 100% of any effort spent today in that direction is waste and distraction from more practical things that are just beyond our grasp. That's where scientists and engineers live and work: just beyond our current grasp.

Ultimately, thinking and debating about humanities' tech in 5000 years is sterile. The noise so far outweighs the signal as to be pointless. All it leads to is people pointing fingers and stamping their feet.


As you almost said, the Universe is an existence proof for a way to make a universe. And biology is an existence proof for nanotech. But to jump from there to a) humans will master that tech; and further that b) we, or one of our AI tools, will do it soon is hubris. Nothing but hubris.

Dunning-Kruger is real. The greater one's expertise, the more they recognize the limitations to their knowledge and skill. Their awareness of those unknown unknowns grows ever larger. There is wisdom in the intellectual humility that flows from that understanding. Reductionism is the blithe statement that either there are no unknown unknowns, or they don't matter. Either of those POVs are foolish.

I think you're probably smarter than that. What you are not yet, is disciplined enough to act on those smarts.

Morgenstern 12-27-2017 10:20 PM

He's got a great imagination, and with a little work, and some research, he could end up being a great Sci-Fi writer. Seriously Sam, go take some writing classes, a little effort here and you might do it.

Chimera 12-27-2017 11:23 PM

Izzat what we got here, some young punk with a brain who thinks he's accumulated all the knowledge and knows everything while the rest of us who may have passed through that brief stage in high school or college as well are morons to the last man?

Take a number kid, you ain't all that.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20688732)
You said it doesn't work and it won't work.
Such a turnaround in an hour.

One post is sarcasm. Tell me which one if you want me to continue reading your posts.

Darren Garrison 12-28-2017 10:38 AM

Choose carefully, running coach. The stakes are high.

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689368)
One post is sarcasm. Tell me which one if you want me to continue reading your posts.

Do you need help figuring out how the "Ignore" function works?
Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20687968)
This is why you're on my ignore list. What are you contributing here?


SamuelA 12-28-2017 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSLGuy (Post 20688734)
As you almost said, the Universe is an existence proof for a way to make a universe. And biology is an existence proof for nanotech. But to jump from there to a) humans will master that tech; and further that b) we, or one of our AI tools, will do it soon is hubris. Nothing but hubris.

You realize that what you are talking about there are terms where some of them nearly infinitely times harder than others.

I don't know how the universe was made and it might require things that don't exist inside the universe itself or can be manipulated in any way. I did mention it was far fetched.

Believe it or not, most of my ideas do not require nanotech. Self replicating factories don't need it. And the AI I've talked about in my posts in the last 6 months isn't the sci fi concept of AI. We're not talking about machines that can even carry on a conversation, they are just big mathematical algorithms that explore a solution space and choose the min( possible paths ). They use other algorithms, also capable of automatic adjustment, to actually model the world and classify what is in it.

Such algorithms could control a robot to efficiently perform any repetitive factory task. But they could also scale to controlling a robot that can actually build a rube goldberg machine to solve a defined task, and later to automated designs that are as good as human engineers.

Oceans of money are flowing in this direction. The difference between now and "then" (none of these algorithms are new) is that quantity matters. It's a different world when billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people are working on AI vs millions of dollars and dozens of people in elite computer science labs are working on AI.

It may take decades to go from "we know the tech can do it, it does scale far enough" (present state) to "basically all factories, mines, farms, retail stores, warehouses, and cars and trucks can be automated, with commercial off the shelf products existing for all tasks".

And as I mention, once you hit that point, you could dip into nanotech or mass biological research and hit the problem with a million times current capabilities. Instead of a few greying PhDs like your favorite blogger, working semi-independently, you'd study the problem on a colossal scale using a lot of new tools.

So it's not going to take 5000 years. It can't. This would be like you saying that a flight around the world is going to always take 2 years in the air. Distance and time don't add up and your estimate is so far off it's silly. With that said, no I can't say exactly when, and I do not know what the social outcomes will be in a world where every job can be automated. The current system of capitalism, working exactly as it has worked for centuries, would reward only those who own robots and land and give not a penny to any of the displaced human workers. Those same rich owners can then bribe the government, since that's allowed in the United States in practice, to make sure only the most meager and grudging forms of social support are given to all those lazy "takers" who can't seem to find a job because all their skills are tasks a machine can do better.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 20689407)
Do you need help figuring out how the "Ignore" function works?

You really get a kick out of that one, huh. "This guy thinks he's smart yet he can't even find a small text button in the UI visible from a certain screen on his 4k monitor. He must be a moron, I can't be the moron."

Totally logical reasoning there. And I only put the deserving on my ignore list, which currently has just 2 entries. Though it may be about 5 soon, given there are several posters in this thread who are just wasting space.

I don't mind being argued with. I like being reasoned with. I don't like being blithely dismissed in 1 sentence or called a crackpot when most of what I am posting you can just read about in scientific american yourself...

running coach 12-28-2017 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689418)
You really get a kick out of that one, huh. "This guy thinks he's smart yet he can't even find a small text button in the UI visible from a certain screen on his 4k monitor. He must be a moron, I can't be the moron."

Totally logical reasoning there. And I only put the deserving on my ignore list, which currently has just 2 entries. Though it may be about 5 soon, given there are several posters in this thread who are just wasting space.

I don't mind being argued with. I like being reasoned with. I don't like being blithely dismissed in 1 sentence or called a crackpot when most of what I am posting you can just read about in scientific american yourself...

Stealth brag!!!!!

Pretty pathetic, actually.

Darren Garrison 12-28-2017 10:54 AM

Quote:

Though it may be about 5 soon, given there are several posters in this thread who are just wasting space.
You really don't grasp the concept of a pit thread, do you, you condescending, patronizing, self-aggrandizing delusional racist asshole?

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 10:55 AM

How bad are your eyes if you need a 4K screen to see buttons?

Sunny Daze 12-28-2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689418)
I don't mind being argued with. I like being reasoned with. I don't like being blithely dismissed in 1 sentence or called a crackpot when most of what I am posting you can just read about in scientific american yourself...

Well, that explains a lot. You've started reading Scientific American. Now that you have a superficial understanding, you've begun bloviating instead of doing actual research, all mixed in with your obsessiveness about life after death and nanobots.

I'd ask you to come back when you have a clue, but don't. Fuck off.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 20689445)
How bad are your eyes if you need a 4K screen to see buttons?

Guess they must be pretty bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20689443)
You really don't grasp the concept of a pit thread, do you, you condescending, patronizing, self-aggrandizing delusional racist asshole?

I'm human like anyone else. I'm no doubt all of those. I just stepped in here to clear up the criticism that isn't true. Yeah, I said something racist on a thread. (don't remember doing it, but it is what it is). Maybe being confident that p=mv and the rate of total progress is accelerating makes me condescending, patronizing and self-aggrandizing when I point out to you people when you're definitely, 100% wrong because reality says you're wrong.

But you're worse. I think most people, if they even read your posts in this thread, would agree you're just pitting yourself. You have added little to nothing of value, made sweeping conclusions without evidence, and are just generally a dick. There's a reason you're one of the only 2 people I have ignored.

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 20689445)
How bad are your eyes if you need a 4K screen to see buttons?

I apologize-You were referring to nano-buttons, weren't you?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 20689454)
Well, that explains a lot. You've started reading Scientific American. Now that you have a superficial understanding, you've begun bloviating instead of doing actual research, all mixed in with your obsessiveness about life after death and nanobots.

I'd ask you to come back when you have a clue, but don't. Fuck off.

ignore list is now 3. The straw here is that you are being lazy. Instead of claiming my understanding is superficial, pick an important point and justify why your understanding is more in depth.

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689459)
Guess they must be pretty bad.



I'm human like anyone else. I'm no doubt all of those. I just stepped in here to clear up the criticism that isn't true. Yeah, I said something racist on a thread. (don't remember doing it, but it is what it is). Maybe being confident that p=mv and the rate of total progress is accelerating makes me condescending, patronizing and self-aggrandizing when I point out to you people when you're definitely, 100% wrong because reality says you're wrong.

But you're worse. I think most people, if they even read your posts in this thread, would agree you're just pitting yourself. You have added little to nothing of value, made sweeping conclusions without evidence, and are just generally a dick. There's a reason you're one of the only 2 people I have ignored.

Are you beta-testing a new "reality" that the rest of us don't have access to?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20688675)
How is it any more impossible than the crap you've been peddling?

+4. This is too sweeping to bother paying attention to you. First, I haven't peddled shit. If you believe I have, find a post where I name some foundation I want you to donate to or some store I want you to buy stuff at, something. Hell, I haven't even mentioned some society that is for the advancement of nanotech (is there one?). Second, some of my ideas are less scientifically certain than others*, but all are based on real, working principles, and to dismiss them all as crap reveals you are too ignorant to pay attention to.

*for example, we don't know we can cut apart a frozen human brain and recover the data, but given we have electron microscopes and have cut apart smaller brains from smaller animals and build emulators, we probably could in fact do it with humans. So the uncertainty exists but we have proof of concept.

We don't know that self replicating nanotech is possible but since we appear to be constructed of it, it probably is.

MichaelEmouse 12-28-2017 11:12 AM

Samuel, if half of what you say is right, then your visionary brilliance is wasted going on about it on an Internet forum and working for your father in some low yield job. Perhaps you should publish in journals or work in firms working in nanotechnology or the other wonderful things full of potential you keep telling us about.

Nawth Chucka 12-28-2017 11:12 AM

This thread looks quite different when SamuelA is the one on Ignore. And better by a magnitude of thousands, naturally.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka (Post 20689482)
This thread looks quite different when SamuelA is the one on Ignore. And better by a magnitude of thousands, naturally.

Well that's an insult worthy of ignoring you.

Shodan 12-28-2017 11:17 AM

Maybe you can invent a self-replicating nano-bot to manage your Ignore list.

Regards,
Shodan

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689484)
Well that's an insult worthy of ignoring you.

You do realize that you are in a BBQ Pit thread dedicated to Pitting you, right? You are going to end up with a record-breaking "Ignore" list before this runs its course, dipshit. :rolleyes:

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse (Post 20689481)
Samuel, if half of what you say is right, then your visionary brilliance is wasted going on about it on an Internet forum and working for your father in some low yield job. Perhaps you should publish in journals or work in firms working in nanotechnology or the other wonderful things full of potential you keep telling us about.

How many of those jobs do you suppose exist, vs 'code monkey' positions that are generic? In order to do what you are saying, I'd have to be 10 years younger, I'd have to have richer parents so I could afford SAT prep courses (I missed some points on the math section, ironically), maybe if people didn't bully me in high school I would have had better grades.

Jobs like you are describing basically require a PhD from MIT or Stanford and a shit-ton of luck. There's only one Ray Kurzweil, and he was ignored for a very long time, and he spent his whole life shilling dubious predictions*.

Has it occurred to you that there are probably many people like me, but society at the present time lacks interest in such visionary efforts?

Remember the post I felt the most passionate about? There's a very real (from a "laws of physics view") possibility we could be preserving human brains right before death in a way that works.

Other people with far more reputation than me have pointed this out. They have mostly been ignored. Not with arguments based on fact, generally, but mainly a bunch of tired ideas that are bullshit..but most people believe them. Ideas like "if people didn't die, the earth would be overcrowded". "if people didn't die, no social justice progress would be made". "you'll never see heaven if you remain alive". And other total malarky.

So we let a million people a year die and spend 600 billion year on a gigantic military to "protect" our citizens from possible death from foreign attack. Oh and even more than that on medicare, which shovels money to institutions to "memory care" for patients who are steadily degrading from dementia.

You call me a crackpot for proposing brain preservation. "memory care" is literally a medical treatment that doesn't work at all. It does fuck all. The dementia patients keep getting worse. You can give an elderly person physical therapy so they can use a spoon again and then they'll just forget it. At least if you froze them, there's a chance.

So yeah, I wish I could do more with my life. But I can't. And it's probably only a little my fault.

Darren Garrison 12-28-2017 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689459)
Maybe being confident that p=mv and the rate of total progress is accelerating makes me condescending, patronizing and self-aggrandizing when I point out to you people when you're definitely, 100% wrong because reality says you're wrong.

No, when you are being condescending and patronizing is when you have implied that maybe Stranger on a Train and Sunny Daze are really lying about being authorities in what they claim to be, and then saying that if they were really that intelligent they would see that what you are saying is obviously true. You are a poster boy for "mansplaining."

Morgenstern 12-28-2017 11:26 AM

Sammy. Sit down, listen to me. Okay?

You've put some really good people on ignore today. That's totally unnecessary and will result in you missing some good posts by those folks.
If you can't stand some anonymous person calling you names on the internet, you'll never get your gold class internet merit badge.
If we weren't all bozos, we wouldn't be on this bus. So quit trying to drive our bus in fucking circles. Just sit down and listen. Fit in a little better.

first person to mention licking the bus windows gets an STD from the hooker in his boat thread.

running coach 12-28-2017 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689465)
ignore list is now 3. The straw here is that you are being lazy. Instead of claiming my understanding is superficial, pick an important point and justify why your understanding is more in depth.

You actually think being on you ignore list is a punishment? it's actually a relief, nanodick.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20689514)
Sammy. Sit down, listen to me. Okay?

You've put some really good people on ignore today. That's totally unnecessary and will result in you missing some good posts by those folks.
If you can't stand some anonymous person calling you names on the internet, you'll never get your gold class internet merit badge.
If we weren't all bozos, we wouldn't be on this bus. So quit trying to drive our bus in fucking circles. Just sit down and listen. Fit in a little better.

first person to mention licking the bus windows gets an STD from the hooker in his boat thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20689515)
You actually think being on you ignore list is a punishment? it's actually a relief, nanodick.

Yeah I think this guy deserves his slot.

running coach 12-28-2017 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689528)
Yeah I think this guy deserves his slot.

*does victory dance*

Darren Garrison 12-28-2017 11:35 AM

How long before Sammy's ignore list is longer than the absent idle_thoughts' friend list?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20689540)
How long before Sammy's ignore list is longer than the absent idle_thoughts' friend list?

A while. I only put complete waste of space posters on it. The guy who claims to work at Stanford who claims that letting a patient rot until they are braindead is "good" while freezing them before then is definitely murder is "evil"? At least he was willing to consider each argument independently.

He didn't sweepingly just call me a shill for some unspecified idea or company like running coach has or claim that 100% of everything I have posted is crackpot like you did. That's the reason you are on ignore and he is not.

Morgenstern 12-28-2017 11:44 AM

Sammy. Try to understand, it's not you. We don't know you. We only know you from what you post. You're young and excited about technology. You let that excitement get in the way of reality sometimes. That's why people get on your ass.

It's not too late. All you have to do is listen to people who have more knowledge than you do in the fields you explore. Listen and learn. Asking "why" will never get you piled on. Telling experts that they are wrong because they won't listen to you, will get you piled on.

You're here in an world of people who have vastly different interests and education than you. Ask just about any question, and someone will have an answer or tell you where the answer is.
Free exchange of ideas, even far out ideas, is fine here. Your questions aren't the problem, it's your response to those who respond with facts you don't like that leads to the problems.

If I was in your position I'd immediately unblock those who you've blocked.
I'd start asking "why" instead of telling experts how it really is.
A year from now, you'll find that listening makes you much smarter than talking ever could.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 20686556)
My citations are thus:
1. My I.Q. has three digits, not two.
2. Reality
3. "Fog in a vacuum"......riiiight

Ok, there's enough for ignore. Reasons are :

1. I don't even consider this an insult. I've taken IQ tests, I know what it is, and you should be able to tell it's above average. If you can't, well, that reveals a failing on your part, not mine. If you call a supermodel ugly, you're just proving that you're blind and they are not going to be hurt. Insults need to have a grain of truth to work.

2. What are you claiming reality about?

3. You do know that fog can be other liquids than water, and some liquids are stable enough to form a fog briefly in vacuum. Did you read Lost Moon by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger? Of course you didn't. There was a visible fog of liquid oxygen vapor when they blew their oxygen tank.

Anyways even that wouldn't be enough, but you've made meaningless insults about 8 more times in this thread as well. Really, making fun of my eyes? What kind of low brow insult is that?

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689549)
A while. I only put complete waste of space posters on it. The guy who claims to work at Stanford who claims that letting a patient rot until they are braindead is "good" while freezing them before then is definitely murder is "evil"? At least he was willing to consider each argument independently.

He didn't sweepingly just call me a shill for some unspecified idea or company like running coach has or claim that 100% of everything I have posted is crackpot like you did. That's the reason you are on ignore and he is not.

Are you using a definition of "ignore" that has yet to be released to the general public?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20689564)
Sammy. Try to understand, it's not you. We don't know you. we only know you from what you post. You're young and excited about technology. You let the excitement get in the way of reality sometimes. That's why people get on your ass.

It's not too late. All you have to do is listen to people who have more knowledge than you do in the fields you explore. Listen and learn. Asking "why" will never get you piled on. Telling experts that are wrong because they won't listen to you, will get you piled on.

You're here in the midst of a collection of people who have vastly different interests and education. Ask just about any question, and someone will have an answer or tell you where the answer is.
Free exchange of ideas, even far out ideas, is fine here. Your questions aren't the problem, it's your response to those who respond with facts you don't like leads to the problems.

If I was in your position I'd immediately unblock those who you've blocked.
I'd start asking "why" instead of telling experts how it really is.
A year from now, you'll find that listening makes you much smarter than talking ever could.

Running coach, Darren Garrison, Czarism...what are they experts in?

Why should I listen to them if they won't do more than make generic insults?

I do ask why. What kind of "expert" calls someone a nanodick? What kind of "expert" disagrees on every single thread I ever make but can't give a technical reason why? Not only is that childish, if I did have a nanodick, it wouldn't be my fault, now, would it? Why would that offend me?

No, what would offend me is the truth. I have a large dick but I rarely get to use it. Now that's something to insult someone over. That would be genuinely hurtful if someone made fun of me for that. Since that would mean I was unsuccessful in my 'spitting game' to attract mates, something that would theoretically be within my control. If I had a nanodick, that would simply mean that nature decided not to equip me for that at all.

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689567)
Ok, there's enough for ignore. Reasons are :

1. I don't even consider this an insult. I've taken IQ tests, I know what it is, and you should be able to tell it's above average. If you can't, well, that reveals a failing on your part, not mine. If you call a supermodel ugly, you're just proving that you're blind and they are not going to be hurt. Insults need to have a grain of truth to work.

2. What are you claiming reality about?

3. You do know that fog can be other liquids than water, and some liquids are stable enough to form a fog briefly in vacuum. Did you read Lost Moon by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger? Of course you didn't. There was a visible fog of liquid oxygen vapor when they blew their oxygen tank.

Anyways even that wouldn't be enough, but you've made meaningless insults about 8 more times in this thread as well. Really, making fun of my eyes? What kind of low brow insult is that?

"Low-brow", not "low brow".
edited to add: This "Czarism" person really seems to have ticked you off. What did he say?

running coach 12-28-2017 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689567)
Ok, there's enough for ignore. Reasons are :

1. I don't even consider this an insult. I've taken IQ tests, I know what it is, and you should be able to tell it's above average. If you can't, well, that reveals a failing on your part, not mine. If you call a supermodel ugly, you're just proving that you're blind and they are not going to be hurt. Insults need to have a grain of truth to work.

2. What are you claiming reality about?

3. You do know that fog can be other liquids than water, and some liquids are stable enough to form a fog briefly in vacuum. Did you read Lost Moon by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger? Of course you didn't. There was a visible fog of liquid oxygen vapor when they blew their oxygen tank.

Anyways even that wouldn't be enough, but you've made meaningless insults about 8 more times in this thread as well. Really, making fun of my eyes? What kind of low brow insult is that?

It doesn't stay a fog.
I could go outside on a cold day and create a "fog". Doesn't mean it's now a foggy day.

Morgenstern 12-28-2017 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689574)
...

No, what would offend me is the truth. I have a large dick but I rarely get to use it. Now that's something to insult someone over. That would be genuinely hurtful if someone made fun of me for that.

Well, better stand by. I know these people pretty well, and I predict the next 2 pages will be about your dick.

Now, you can let it piss you off, or you can laugh with them. I'd suggest the latter.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20689582)
It doesn't stay a fog.
I could go outside on a cold day and create a "fog". Doesn't mean it's now a foggy day.

This is quite pedantic and irrelevant for the general point. Which is that if you have a fog, and want to move that fog, and all you have is a device that creates sharp, sudden impulses like a gun, you can in fact move the fog by shooting it if you load the gun with projectiles that are small relative to fog size.

So if a rubble pile asteroid were coming to the earth, you might have to use smaller nukes detonated very close to each major piece of that asteroid.

Running coach, what do you consider yourself an expert in?

running coach 12-28-2017 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689592)
This is quite pedantic and irrelevant for the general point. Which is that if you have a fog, and want to move that fog, and all you have is a device that creates sharp, sudden impulses like a gun, you can in fact move the fog by shooting it if you load the gun with projectiles that are small relative to fog size.

So if a rubble pile asteroid were coming to the earth, you might have to use smaller nukes detonated very close to each major piece of that asteroid.

Running coach, what do you consider yourself an expert in?

What do you think? Doesn't mean I don't know you're blowing smoke fog.

Ignore
Quote:

verb (used with object), ignored, ignoring.
1.
to refrain from noticing or recognizing:

JohnT 12-28-2017 12:01 PM

I will say "I don't get laid a lot" is a novel defense of scientific obdurism. (Is that a word? It is now!)

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689574)
I have a large dick but I rarely get to use it.

Just to remind everyone, have you considered making "Large Dick" your personalized title?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT (Post 20689613)
I will say "I don't get laid a lot" is a novel defense of scientific obdurism. (Is that a word? It is now!)

I would say that "reading a comment about my dick size and assuming it applies to a different topic" is simple illiteracy, myself. Also, yeah, obdurism isn't a word. Did you mean something with a root word of obstinate? Which all good scientists should be : you do have to assume basic laws of physics are correct or you're not going to get anywhere, and ignore anyone like Darren Garrison who says otherwise.

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689636)
I would say that "reading a comment about my dick size and assuming it applies to a different topic" is simple illiteracy, myself.

You brought it up...or at least pointed it in the general direction, considering.

SamuelA 12-28-2017 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20689607)
What do you think? Doesn't mean I don't know you're blowing smoke fog.

Ignore

You've made 30k posts here, but I got bored when the last 500 were about Trump. He's a bad man and there's nothing we can do about it, jeez. As for "ignore", this simply means I choose when to read a post by you. Morgenstern said I should give you another chance but so far you haven't even attempted to claim to be someone I should read the posts of.

JohnT 12-28-2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689636)
I would say that "reading a comment about my dick size and assuming it applies to a different topic" is simple illiteracy, myself. Also, yeah, obdurism isn't a word. Did you mean something with a root word of obstinate? Which all good scientists should be : you do have to assume basic laws of physics are correct or you're not going to get anywhere, and ignore anyone like Darren Garrison who says otherwise.

Lol. Well, let's note for the record that you brought up your dick size and how often you get to use it (or not). What did you expect?

And this is English, the biggest whore of a language there ever was. It is quite kosher to both steal and make up words, amirite?

[Oh, and the root word you're struggling to come up with is "obdurate".]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obdurate

QuickSilver 12-28-2017 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689506)
How many of those jobs do you suppose exist, vs 'code monkey' positions that are generic? In order to do what you are saying, I'd have to be 10 years younger, I'd have to have richer parents so I could afford SAT prep courses (I missed some points on the math section, ironically), maybe if people didn't bully me in high school I would have had better grades.

Jobs like you are describing basically require a PhD from MIT or Stanford and a shit-ton of luck. There's only one Ray Kurzweil, and he was ignored for a very long time, and he spent his whole life shilling dubious predictions*.

Has it occurred to you that there are probably many people like me, but society at the present time lacks interest in such visionary efforts?

Remember the post I felt the most passionate about? There's a very real (from a "laws of physics view") possibility we could be preserving human brains right before death in a way that works.

Other people with far more reputation than me have pointed this out. They have mostly been ignored. Not with arguments based on fact, generally, but mainly a bunch of tired ideas that are bullshit..but most people believe them. Ideas like "if people didn't die, the earth would be overcrowded". "if people didn't die, no social justice progress would be made". "you'll never see heaven if you remain alive". And other total malarky.

So we let a million people a year die and spend 600 billion year on a gigantic military to "protect" our citizens from possible death from foreign attack. Oh and even more than that on medicare, which shovels money to institutions to "memory care" for patients who are steadily degrading from dementia.

You call me a crackpot for proposing brain preservation. "memory care" is literally a medical treatment that doesn't work at all. It does fuck all. The dementia patients keep getting worse. You can give an elderly person physical therapy so they can use a spoon again and then they'll just forget it. At least if you froze them, there's a chance.

So yeah, I wish I could do more with my life. But I can't. And it's probably only a little my fault.

This kid is one lab accident away from becoming super amateur-villain.

You'll be sorry! You'll ALL BE SORRY!!

Czarcasm 12-28-2017 12:25 PM

I can't link to You Tube at work, otherwise there would be the obligatory "Stupid! Stupid!" clip from Plan 9 From Outer Space in this post.

crowmanyclouds 12-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689549)
{...} The guy who claims to work at Stanford who claims that letting a patient rot until they are braindead is "good" while freezing them before then is definitely murder is "evil"? {...}

Until you / they can figure out exactly how to freeze someone that isn't currently dead* without killing them I'm pretty sure that is gonna be murder in most jurisdictions.

*'Cause ya ain't reallllly dead if your brain ain't dead, "mostly dead" ain't something taught in med school!

CMC fnord!
Now, will I win that coveted spot on someone's "Ignore List"?

SamuelA 12-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT (Post 20689650)
Lol. Well, let's note for the record that you brought up your dick size and how often you get to use it (or not). What did you expect?

And this is English, the biggest whore of a language there ever was. It is quite kosher to both steal and make up words, amirite?

[Oh, and the root word you're struggling to come up with is "obdurate".]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obdurate

Insult for an insult :

Definition of obdurate
1 a : stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing an unrepentant, obdurate sinner
b : hardened in feelings The obdurate enemy was merciless.
2 : resistant to persuasion or softening influences obdurate in his determination
remaining obdurate to her husband's advances —Edith Wharton

Definition of obstinate
1 : stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion obstinate resistance to change
2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed obstinate fever

Definition of similar
1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable

So "struggling" would be a rather poor interpretation of the facts given the root word I matched to has a similar definition. I am happy with the performance of my neural network on this task.

Morgenstern 12-28-2017 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 20689645)
...Morgenstern said I should give you another chance but so far you haven't even attempted to claim to be someone I should read the posts of.

Sam. I didn't say Running Coach. Running Coach has spam busting to do and we don't want him wasting time in the pit. Why yesterday I saw RC take 2 full minutes to report one. I was disappointed.

Don't you disappoint me too Sam. Learn to learn from people you feel are inferior. You might be surprised.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.