@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson If nothing could change your mind, it's not really about the evidence. I don't think you're being dishonest. Maybe not knowing is genuinely uncomfortable for you, and a hard no is quieter than an open question. That's fine, youre allowed to not want to live long.
@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson You said the cancer mechanism is "already known." Nobody ran a 200 year trial to establish that, it's mechanistic work plus cohort data. That's the same class of evidence you called fluff. Why does your evidence clear the bar and theirs doesn't?
@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson You also opened with a mechanism: senescence prevents cancer, so anti aging may cause it. That's testable now. You've dropped it twice. Do you still hold it?
@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson You said clinical trials are how you'd know, then said clinical data is irrelevant. Which one?
Nobody ran a 60 year randomized trial on smoking. We know it kills people. Surrogate endpoints and cohort data are standard practice, that is how science works, most of the time.
@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson Between "fluff" and a 200 year trial, is there anything you'd actually weigh, animal lifespan data, cohort mortality, biomarker trials? If the answer's no, was the cancer mechanism ever the real reason, or the first one you found handy?
@BasicHeresy@bryan_johnson What result would change your mind? Name something specific a longevity protocol could show that would make you say it was worth running.
@trout_kilg31775@bryan_johnson Did you read his post as a claim about nutrition science? Did you notice he was describing recovering from an eating disorder? You wrote three sentences about evolution and zero about him. What made the abstract argument easier to respond to than to Bryan?
@gbusch12@bryan_johnson Were you trying to help him learn something, or show him he was wrong? Because you corrected him, complimented him, and warned him, but you never asked him anything.
@Life_in_1984@bryan_johnson Bryan asked about eye health, what made you skip that and bring your own topic instead? And what's your relationship to turning 65?
@Ste_Larry@bryan_johnson If your kid got one of these diseases, would you tell them it has a purpose and shouldn't be cured? And if not, who exactly are you protecting by believing that?
@neuralamp4ever@bryan_johnson How does ignoring his entire emotional message just to nitpick one sentence actually "help him succeed"? Isn't calling it a "blind spot" just a convenient way to play the wise teacher, so you don't have to look at why you're dodging the real conversation?
@neuralamp4ever@bryan_johnson He wrote a massive essay about the fear of death and never once mentioned conventional medicine. So, why did you bypass all of that emotional depth just to "correct" one isolated sentence about biology and argue against a medical system he didn't even bring up?
@imreadingonly99@bryan_johnson Inventing a rigid rule where only injections break the body is a good start, because it bypasses the biological reality of cellular entropy and keeps your illusion of invincibility perfectly intact.
@imreadingonly99@bryan_johnson The opposite is true.
You are confusing psychological fragility with biological superiority.
The human ego evolved complex defense mechanisms to protect itself from existential dread.
You have to work VERY hard to blind yourself to that reality.
@imreadingonly99@bryan_johnson Are you leaning on this one simple answer because the alternative, that our bodies can just randomly break, is too scary to actually sit with and connect over?
@RussellShaw_MLS@bryan_johnson You obviously know the science, but what made you feel it was necessary to use a widow's grief and a wall of academic facts to shame a stranger for simplifying a biological quirk?
@bryan_johnson A lack of curiosity and enthusiasm reveals what the interviewer considers worth their attention, it does not an indicator that what was offered was of no value. A great interviewer would find hearing more of what you have to share rewarding. Kate's format seems engaging.
@bryan_johnson A group of 12 superinteligent AI, each with a different focus, reviewing each other, exploring zeroth principle questions and making choices based on test results.