Actually, we are pretty close to discovering what consciousness is physically.

They've found one spot in the brain that when stimulated electrically, you don't go asleep but your "conciousness" turns off. When the stimulation stops, you recover conciousness without an awareness of any time passing.

The particular part appears to be acting like a conductor of multiple streams of information from the rest of the brain. For some reason in 70 years of this type of research, they'd never explored that particular part of the brain yet.

If it is the seat of consciousness then it's physical configuration may lead to new theoretical and machine implementations within a 30 year window.

---

To be blunt, everyone I've known personally that felt machine consciousness was impossible had a religious basis for that belief. Basically, despite all evidence to the contrary from brain research and animal research, that consciousness resided in a "soul" that was independent of the human body or with that as a basis posited that consciousness was a quantum effect (i.e. god of the gaps) which humans would be unable to duplicate.

It could have four multiple helper arms to assist you. You could read a paper without using your arms. Just avoid having any tragic accidents while wearing them.

People show measurable levels of over a hundred chemical compounds (including rocket fuel) which they didn't have 50 years ago.

My bet is on psuedo estrogens given the symptoms.

Spot on. People ignore selection bias too often.

Or maybe.... I am just more aware of people who ignore selection bias!

That's a good approach for many. However, for the 25% of men who suffer from low testosterone- it's not as effective. Just like women can get gestational diabetes, men can get diabetes from other causes (including low T) and all the dieting and vegetabling in the world won't help.

Likewise, if you come from certain racial backgrounds- the diet approach isn't nearly as effective.

However- a healthy diet is good for other things (heart disease for one- subject to the same limitations of course).

Healthy food doesn't have to taste bad. Herbs and other seasoning goes a long way as does using a variety of cooking methods. Roasting can produce delicious vegetables.

You know.. .in over 35 years of driving- I've never seen anyone driving 20 mph under the speed limit who didn't have hazard lights on because they were having an auto problem of some kind.

Lol, I was going to ask where you lived (and jokingly suggested Florida) but now I see you DO live in Florida.

The data does show that 85+ drivers are as dangerous as 16-19 year olds. And living in florida you have a higher percentage of drivers that old.

I ask because random things do happen. I've been hit three times while my car was stationary. I wasn't at fault.

Each time I was stopped at a red light.

Once, the truck in front of me suddenly put the car into reverse and backed into me at over 10mph. He really gunned it.*

Once the lady behind me suddenly accelerated into me. The light was still red. She mostly mangled her front end on my bike rack and didn't damage my car. Somehow, she'd gotten confused and thought the light had changed. Even tho I and the cars ahead of me weren't moving.*

And once two high school students had an accident over 100' back- one's airbag stunned her and she sailed straight towards me. I saw her coming and managed to get the car up to 10mph and tried to get out of their but didn't make it. Totaled my car.

I stop at red lights behind the white lines and stop where I can see the bottom of the tires of the car ahead of me. But random things just happen.

*These two accidents were in a big dodge durango SUV. But it was a very neutral dove grey. I wonder if the accidents could have been avoided with a brighter color and have stayed in brighter/stronger colors since I sold that car.

And what's the latest date you see A.I. that is conscious and self aware in the human and animal sense?

Look, if you want a population we can agree on- people 85 and older have as a group a higher accident, injurious, and fatal accident rate.

While they are individuals and some still drive very well, as a group, they don't do that well on freeways.

70-74 year olds are slightly less risky than 25-29 year olds and slightly more risky that 30-65 year olds.

75-79 year olds are similar in risk to 20-24 year olds but with less fatal accidents.

80+ are less risky than 16-19 year olds and slightly more risky than 20-24 year olds (12 accidents per million miles vs 10 accidents per million miles, ~4.5 injurious accidents vs ~4.0 accidents, and about the same (~2.5 vs ~2.8) fatal accidents.

This is true both per 100,000 licensed driver and per 1,000,000 miles driven.

"More risky" is not the same as "dangerous". Especially not "slightly more risky".

BTW, the rates are very similar per million miles driven as well.
Look elsewhere in this thread for that data.

Any argument for restricting elderly driving really fails for ages all the way up to 79-80.

They drive as safely as 19 year olds til then. If you only consider accidents resulting in fatalities or injuries, 79-80 year old drivers are still safer than 19 year olds at that point.

I remember my grandpa had one car accident at 61. He accelerated into a wall instead of braking in the last few seconds of parking. No one was hurt except the wall and his bumper.

I know (and have known a lot of) people who are 30-55 and who get in a lot of accidents and are often not at fault. One of them specifically told his wife recently that he won't follow at a correct distance because other people will change lanes into the open space.

When someone starts tailgating, you need to slow down to account for their stopping distance (drivers ed training).

Also keep in mind that accidents have a random component. Does your aunt average 3 accidents a year? And how old is she? Did she also get in a lot of accidents when she was younger or has the rate increased sharply? You sort of imply she's had these driving habits for a long time.

Individuals of any age may have or develop particular problems or driving habits which make them unsafe drivers.

How much did you want to bet?

From my post below:

The results are surprisingly similar for the rate per million miles driven as well.

It's not until age 79 and 80 that senior involvement in accidents and fatal accidents increases to that of 18 year olds.

70-74 year olds have essentially the same total accident rate, fatal accident rate, and injurious accident rate as 25-29 year olds at about 6t/2i/1f accidents per million miles driven.

Their record is better than 16-24 year olds.

---

Look, if you want to say older people are not as safe as 34-44 year olds- you have my complete agreement. But we both know you are not arguing that only 34-44 year olds should be allowed to drive. And 34-44 year olds are only marginally safer than 25-29 year olds. All drivers from 30 to 65 are in the sweet spot with regard to accidents running about 5 accidents per million miles.

When you only consider fatal or injurious accidents- the rate per mile for even the extreme elderly is below that of 16-19 year olds.

Again- I put about 20,000 miles a year on my car and I *rarely* encounter these "old" people who are so dangerous or driving below the speed limit. I do encounter people who are driving the speed limit. They are not all old.

Per 15 miles I drive on the freeway, I encounter several tail gaters, several people making reckless lane changes, and a couple people going 20mph over the speed limit and 10mph more than traffic around them. I encounter 3-5 people who run red lights each week. I've seen some horrific T-Bone accidents over the last few years. Not one of them has involved a senior.

The parent poster was engaging in blatant age discrimination.

---

I wish they gave tickets for tailgating. It would prevent a lot of accidents. I wish they still enforced the rules of the road too. Today the police seem focused on speed traps at the end of the month and that's it.

I agree. However, the avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

I'm not confusing sales people with true scotsman.

I'm speaking from experience of what is actually happening out there.

Sales jobs are declining. Median and average compensation for sales jobs is not keeping up with inflation and in many cases is being cut in real terms.

As I said, once you reach million dollar purchases from a company- you justify a sales person. If you are only buying a few hundred thousand dollars of product, it more cost effective for them to route you into an automated solution.

But where I was- million dollar sales were not even enough- you had to have multi-million dollar sales or you were sent to automated order entry.

Look- perhaps things are better in your area- I'm just saying what the reality is in my neck of the woods.