Skip to content

Conversation with Tiberiu Nicolas Sammak on Critical Evaluation, Whims, Cryonics, Biological Death, Carcinogenesis, Advice, and Contemporary Artists: High-IQ Community Member (4)


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/10/22


Tiberiu Sammak is a 24-year-old guy who currently lives in Bucharest. He spent most of his childhood and teenage years surfing the Internet (mostly searching things of interest) and playing video games. One of his hobbies used to be the construction of paper airplanes, spending a couple of years designing and trying to perfect different types of paper aircrafts. Academically, he never really excelled at anything. In fact, his high school record was rather poor. Some of his current interests include cosmology, medicine and cryonics. His highest score on an experimental high-range I.Q. test is 187 S.D. 15, achieved on Paul Cooijmans’ Reason – Revision 2008. He discusses: critically evaluate and reason through information; the other subject matters that have been “intriguing” or “meaningful” based on ‘whims’; cryonics; biological death; the general reaction to the discovery of life on other planets; the general risk factors for cancer formation coming out research in carcinogenesis; other micro interests; advice to other gifted and talented youth who lack motivation, study skills, discipline, and interest in studying; personal experience communicating, exchanging opinions, and sharing ideas; why cultures adhere to supernaturalistic beliefs; some of the favourite contemporary artists; a genius in the modern day; a “decent life”; and people who he considers smarter than himself.

Keywords: art, biological death, carcinogenesis, cryonics, high-IQ, IQ, Tiberiu Nicolas Sammak.

Conversation with Tiberiu Nicolas Sammak on Critical Evaluation, Whims, Cryonics, Biological Death, Carcinogenesis, Advice, and Contemporary Artists: High-IQ Community Member (4)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you’re picking up some information online based on a general interest in some obscure subject matter, and when you’re ‘investigating something in particular, what is the internal thought process there? How do you critically evaluate and reason through information, so as to determine if the information is valuable or not?

Tiberiu Nicolas Sammak[1],[2]*: I don’t really know how to describe the exact mechanisms behind my decision-making process. What I can confirm is that you have to be pretty well-informed on the subject that you are conducting research on to be able to accurately gauge the degree of correctness of your findings.

To me, deciding what information is correct and not inaccurate or deceitful is just common sense (after I know enough about something), roughly speaking.

Jacobsen: What are some of the other subject matters that have been “intriguing” or “meaningful” based on ‘whims’?

Sammak: In-depth lore about certain video games, articles about cellular senescence, philosophical publications (most of the ones I have read or skimmed through being located on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website), different stuff about particular movies (or cartoons) or snippets of information about computer-related topics would be some of the subject matters which come to my mind.

Jacobsen: How much of the information around the cryonics is pseudoscience/non-science proposed as scientific information or methodology?

Sammak: The very idea that a brain could regain its consciousness after legal death is what makes other people to be skeptical and reserved about the industry of cryonics. As far as I’m concerned, nothing unscientific pertaining to human cryopreservation is presented as a scientific fact.

Jacobsen: You noted, “I’d like to be more open-minded about it, considering it’s probably the only current possibility to ever be conscious again after the biological death, whereupon eternal oblivion awaits.” Do you consider biological death final?

Sammak: I do, since there is actually no evidence to suggest otherwise. It is very clear that the brain is the organ solely responsible for creating consciousness. However, the precise mechanisms as to how it manages to do that are yet to be fully discovered. An explicit and really straightforward example proving this (that consciousness is entirely generated by the brain) is represented by the way people who are affected by neurodegenerative diseases behave and function. Their consciousness is gradually stripped away by their condition, leaving them unable to perform even the most basic tasks – they become shadows of their former selves.

The cessation of all brain’s functions marks the dawn of an eternal, dreamless sleep. This is an irreversible process (brain death) which will eventually occur at some point in time. This process might be delayed with future technologies, but all organic matter is subject to decay nonetheless.

I cannot imagine a different yet plausible scenario after the biological death. I wish I were wrong though.

Jacobsen: What do you think would be the general reaction to the discovery of life on other planets?

Sammak: My guess is that the prevalent reaction would be surprise. The first encounter (not necessarily a physical one) with an extraterrestrial lifeform would cause wonder and stir great curiosity, to say the least.

However, the chances of a physical encounter with an alien being in the current timeframe are probably non-existent or incredibly low.

Jacobsen: Based on the research, what are the general risk factors for cancer formation coming out research in carcinogenesis?

Sammak: As far as I know, there are many risk factors which could potentially alter one’s genes and lead to the onset of cancer, such as hereditary (like Li-Fraumeni syndrome or von Hippel-Lindau syndrome) or environmental factors, lifestyle choices, obesity, or old age. Most cancers are sporadic but some of them could be prevented by simply not indulging in self-destructive behaviors, such as alcohol abuse (which could lead to cirrhosis of the liver and then evolve into a hepatocellular carcinoma) or smoking. It’s worth mentioning that most lung cancers are caused by tobacco use and they could actually be avoided. Some lung cancers are known to develop chiefly (with few exceptions) in smokers’ lungs, like small cell lung cancer, which is much more aggressive than non-small cell lung cancer. Unlike other cancers, lung cancer has a very poor prognosis. To my knowledge, only a few malignancies would have a dimmer outcome (for instance, mesothelioma, exocrine pancreatic cancers or grade IV brain tumors, such as GBM).

Another environmental risk factor that I’d like to bring into discussion is represented by the asbestos exposure. A notable case which emphasizes the dangers of inhaling asbestos fiber was known as the Wittenoom tragedy. Wittenoom (now a degazetted ghost town) was a town which was mainly known for its asbestos mine and for asbestos mining and milling activities. Due to long-term exposure to crocidolite (also known as blue asbestos) fibers, a lot of miners and even people who were mere inhabitants developed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, which is a very lethal type of cancer.

Jacobsen: Any other micro interests akin to paper airplanes?

Sammak: Not really.

Jacobsen: What is the advice to other gifted and talented youth who lack motivation, study skills, discipline, and interest in studying? This can be ideas or pragmatic stuff.

Sammak: I don’t have specific advice for such people. Things like motivation when it comes to achieving certain goals and self-discipline are internal and cannot be imposed on someone. Sure, one may instill motivation in someone by inspiring that someone through different means. In my view, this is probably one of the best ways to motivate a person.

Perhaps having a really great mentor who could offer guidance throughout youthhood would be beneficial for these people as well.

Jacobsen: What has been personal experience communicating, exchanging opinions, and sharing ideas with others who performed above a similar level on cognitive ability tests?

Sammak: I’ve had very few interactions with people from the high-range testing community. However, almost all of the interactions turned to be positive and enjoyable.

Jacobsen: Why do you think many in cultures adhere to supernaturalistic beliefs?

Sammak: I suppose that’s because many are not well-informed when it comes to a certain topic. Many like to speculate and form twisted views about different subject matters when they are ill-informed. It is way easier to take something for granted than to actually search about that something.

I think the belief in the supernatural is inextricably linked with the unknown.

Jacobsen: Who are some of the favourite contemporary artists for you? Why them?

Sammak: I will mention only musical artists, since I listen a lot to music and I do believe these guys do a great job. In no particular order, my favorite musical artists or musical bands are: Paul Oakenfold, Disturbed, The Anix, Klayton (with his three projects: Celldweller, Scandroid and Circle of Dust), Disarmonia Mundi, Poets of the Fall, Christian Älvestam and The Midnight. These are probably the people or bands whose music I enjoy the most.

I consider some of their songs truly beautiful and awe-inspiring.

Jacobsen: Who do you consider a genius in the modern day?

Sammak: I cannot answer this since I have not thoroughly and carefully studied the works of truly exceptional people and I’m not the guy who would label someone as a genius so readily. Moreover, I was never interested in the work of a particular person to actually devote enough time studying it.

Jacobsen: What would comprise a “decent life” to you? You seem concerned about degradation and death more than many other things.

Sammak: A life where I wouldn’t have to constantly worry about taxes or about not having enough money for basic needs, a life in which I would be satisfied with my efforts, a life where I would be happy.

Jacobsen: Who do you consider smarter than yourself?

Sammak: There are quite a few people whom I personally know and who are smarter than I, or at least seem to be smarter than I.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tiberiu.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Highest score: Reason – Revision 2008, IQ 187 (S.D.15).

[2] Individual Publication Date: October 22, 2020:; Full Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2021:

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: