liveforever22 : Nobody disproves SENS in "SENS Challenge"

Visit our sponsor: Vitamins, Supplements, Nootropics

Home

News

Join the revolution!

Join Us On Facebook! 1 2 Next >

Amazon.com Widgets

liveforever22

Nobody disproves SENS in "SENS Challenge"

In results just announced by the magazine, Technology Review, not a single contestant has won the "SENS Challenge", and, according to the magazine, "the challenge remains open". This means that, for all intents and purposes, SENS has withstood the challenge! This is a strong victory for Aubrey de Grey and SENS! Aging may be cured in our lifetimes!

Here are the full results for the challenge. Evidently the best submission was given the $10,000 from the magazine (which they donated to the American Federation for Aging Research), but not the other half of the money, the $10,000 from the SENS fund. This was done, presumably, because they had the money set aside anyway, but make no mistake; according to the magazine, "the judges felt that no submission met the criterion of the challenge and disproved SENS".

The article about the efforts makes some valid points about further experimentation and observation being needed before SENS can rise to the level of being "scientifically verified". Sounds like a terrific idea to me! Let's bring on the experimentation!

For some more discussion on the "SENS Challenge" contest by Technology Review, see the Immortality Institute thread on the subject.

Published Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:23 AM by liveforever22

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

	jwbats wrote on July 11, 2006 3:53 AM Unfortunately, nobody proves it either. There ought to be run a simulation of a cell that's been SENS-tweaked to see whether it ages or not. I guess this will be possible in the not too distant future, with all the computational power we'll have at our disposal.
	John Schloendorn wrote on July 11, 2006 8:02 PM That picture is pretty mean actually. Btw, it goes "intents and purposes" ;-)
	John Schloendorn wrote on July 11, 2006 8:04 PM jwbats, I'd prefer to create an actual organism that's been SENS tweaked ;-)
	liveforever22 wrote on July 11, 2006 9:46 PM You are right, John. I corrected it. ;)
	jwbats wrote on July 12, 2006 1:34 AM John, No arguments there man. But I'm thinking the simulation will be here first, don't you? Is somebody from MPrize looking into building a simulation? Because I think they should be. Especially now that people are starting to understand simulations are even more useful than reallife experiments (not my words).
	liveforever22 wrote on July 12, 2006 2:22 AM jwbats, I am not going to argue with you here, but what if the Singularity (or whatever the term you have for it) arrives later than you expect? Would you not want to have a backup plan? The same reason that cryonics is a good backup plan ("the next worst thing to dying"), so is a sound biotechnology plan to defeat aging, compared to a "singularity" event that may or may not happen in your lifetime. (backups on top of backups are the key, you can neve be too safe when it comes to continuing existing)
	liveforever22 wrote on July 12, 2006 2:24 AM *never instead of neve
	links for 2006-07-12 » What Future? (Trackback) wrote on July 12, 2006 3:27 AM PingBack from http://whatfuture.net/index.php/2006/07/12/links-for-2006-07-12/
	jwbats wrote on July 12, 2006 8:29 AM liveforever, I'm not sure what you're talking about now, but let me just clarify that I'm talking about the simulation of a SENS-cell. A medical simulation. No Singularity-level simulations implied here.
	liveforever22 wrote on July 12, 2006 5:13 PM Aah, ok jwbats. Sorry, I must be hanging around too many transhumanists. ;) When you said "simulation" I thought that you meant a simulation of a brain running on a computer. My fault, and you might be right about the simulation of a cell, but attacking the problem on many fronts might be wise as well.
	John Schloendorn wrote on July 14, 2006 11:07 AM There is no way to simulate a cell, because way too many things that happen in a cell are totally unknown. Such as the underlying physical law, just for starters. One can make specialized functional simulations of some very small, well known aspects of it, and these are useful and will become more useful and sophisticated but simulating the whole thing, and arriving at correct predictions at every level is unforseeable science fiction. Liveforever, maybe we should say, biomedical life-extension is the third-worst thing that could happen...
	jwbats wrote on July 21, 2006 5:56 AM John, The model of physics we have now may not be complete, but it works for atoms as far as I know. Implement the laws of physics, define molecules that make up a cell and run the simulation. Are you saying we can't model the underlying physical forces yet? Then what about the nanofactory movieclip? What about the work at http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/mambo/ ? What about the fact that researchers are starting to see that simulations are more useful than real life experiments ?
	jwbats wrote on July 21, 2006 5:58 AM And what about this? http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0314virus.html