There is one thing that keeps coming up in the cloning discussion,
and that't nano-technology.
I don't see nano-tech really happening, we are already reaching the
limits of how much information we can map into a small area due to physical
constraints. Much smaller and it's going to run into
the uncertainty principle. So, we are using nano-tech to wave our
magic wand and boom, these little machines the size of a single cell know not
only how every cell in the brain is made they also know how to put all of it
together so that it matches one specific individual.
They also have a super-duper Brain Positioning System so they know
exactly where they are at at any moment and they know how to coordinate with
their millions of buddies. I just don't buy it.
I am more likely to believe a new understanding of physics that allows
exceeding the speed of light than I am in believing we will be
rebuilding brains with nano-technology in the next 3K years or so.
> Roger Books wrote:
> There is one thing that keeps coming up in the cloning discussion,
With real nanotechnology, we're already there. Machines have already been
built that do simple computations, using gearwheels and rods made of single
molecules.
Yes, they're Babbage Engines. At the nano scale, mechanical rather than
electronic appears to be the way to go, purely because of uncertainties of
position when you deal with subatomic particles. And in "mechanical" I include
the use of knotted polymorphic proteins, which is how much of biology works. A
lymphocyte forex is a very complex machine with many
different parts - we should be able to make something more specialised
that has all the sensors, computation, effectors and power supply we need in
about the same size.
Getting rid of the generated heat - that's a very big problem. What to
do when things go wrong - that's another. Manufacturing these beasties
in sufficient quantity is also a problem, as the ones Evolution developed,
while being millions of times bigger than they need be, are
good at self-assembly and easy to produce.
The problems:
"Do we assemble a set of proteins that wrap together in a certain shape" "Do
we breed a particular strain of virus"
"Do we manufacture a single-purpose nanobot"
become very convergent, and probably equivalent in the long term.
> I am more likely to believe a new understanding of physics that allows
I'll settle for either. Though I think both is are likely. I think persuasive
evidence is in that Mozart's 40th has been transmitted and received over 12cm
FTL (4.7 c to be presact).
URLs
FTL and Mozart's 40th
G.Harry Stein's Alternate View
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html
BBC's HORIZON transcript on "The Time Lords" - Hawking, Sagan et al
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/timelordtran.shtml
(HORIZON is by far the best Science TV series I know of, and the archive of
past programs is a treasure trove)
Nanotech
Molecular Manufacturing: Adding positional control to Chemical Synthesis
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/CDAarticle.html
Charles Platt's (fictional) Nanotech Museum
http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/museum.html
Useful for its (factual) links.
More if people want them. I've tried to only quote the ones relatively easy to
understand.
Roger,
Quite the contrary the nano-research is going very well. Though Eric
Drexler was a bit optimistic he has not been far off in the research line of
this tech. Like all science there have been slowdowns and unexpected additions
from other areas that are keeping nano research open. Would the US Govt (a
notable conservative organization) start to throw money at it if it was just
waving a magic wand?
Magic (No wand waving here <G>)
[quoted original message omitted]
For more about the coming era of Nanotechnolgy, see:
Engines of Creation K. Eric Drexler
ISBN 1-872180-46-9
Unbounding the Future - The Nanotechnology Revolution
K. Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson with Gayle Pergamit
ISBN 0-671-71108-3
For technical details about Nanotechnology, see:
Nanosystems K. Eric Drexler
ISBN 0-471-57547-X
ISBN 0-471-57518-6 paperback
For way out seeming speculation on Nanotechnology, see:
Nanotechnology - Molecular Speculations on Global Abundance
Edited by BC Crandall
ISBN 0-262-03237-6 (hc : alk. paper)
ISBN 0-262-53137-2 (pb : alk. paper)
> Roger wrote:
> I am more likely to believe a new understanding of physics that
Your objections are covered in the book, 'Engines of Creation' and, in great
detail, in 'Nanosystems'. Far better than I could currently hope to cover in
this email. If you can't get hold of these books quickly,
check out Drexler's site http://www.foresight.org for more about
nanotech and frequently asked questions.
I hope that helps!
In a message dated 1/2/00 3:24:59 PM Central Standard Time,
> On 2-Jan-00 at 05:49, Magic (rmako@coqui.net) wrote:
It's going well, but do you really think we are going to make a cellular size
machine that not only knows how to put a brain together (which obviously is
currently coded in DNA) but also knows how to build a brain that has all the
right neural pathways which the DNA does not know? Basicly you need all the
information about how to put the brain together AND all the information stored
in the brain. I don't believe that will fit in something the size of a cell.
> It's going well, but do you really think we are going to make a
> Roger
The bots only need to respond to remote command and do one small job at a
time. Programing and contol of millions of bots to do the job should be worse
then planing a battle.
Andy
Roger,
No I agree that in this case (putting together cloned brains) we are no where
near any sort of breakthroughs. I was just making a general statement (and
getting into the trouble that is caused by such generalities <G>)
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/2/00 3:24:59 PM Central Standard Time,
without the HTMLery, that's:
http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/index.html
Engines of Creation is also available:
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html
tom