Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Benefits of human cloning and wet nanotechnology.

Expand Messages
  • jonathan_desp@hotmail.com
    it was a message that i responded in the past to my friend eren casson. hi every body ! True wet nano is good for the present for nanotech but not for the
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 6, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      it was a message that i responded in the past to my friend eren casson.

      hi every body !

      True wet nano is good for the present for nanotech but not for the future i think.. nature is not evoluate.. it take to long for evolute.. example : it take 6 years for the our ribosomes(1millions+) to assemble all cell in our body.. 7 years for an adult body.. the nanosystem of the ribosome is not really good i think.. the nature has not invent the wheel yet.. so.... and we yes ! of course..

      nanotechnology will going give us the power to innovate much quickly and we will have the possibility to change our body. we will want to change our old neuron for better nanocomputer. BUT a problem happen because the neuron is not really complex.. but their interaction yes ! and if we want to have a better brain with nanocomputer we will must construct the interaction too and so.. can we ? with software i don`t think so.. it will become hazardous and maybe the creation of this brain will can control us humans. if we construct the interaction of this future brain with help of software maybe it will be good,correct.. but as we know when we do something we do construct relation through our neurons.. example : we construct a car and we must think how this car will be.. at the same time we construct neurons in our head.. and so.. in the future if we want to construct the another same car we use the same neurons.. soooooooo if we want construct a nanocomputer brain with the same complexity of our brain,interaction.. well at the end of the experience we will be much smarter than the nanocomputer brain.. and so, as we remember at the first moment of this experience the goal of this experience was to construct a much smarter brain.. foe put it in the place of our old brain... that`s a big problemof nanotechnology.. and this problem will appear not just with the brain.. with our cells too.. the interaction of our cell is really complex.. well yes..... our cells alone is maybe less compless than our future design of nanomachine but their relations, correllations,their inter-relations.. them ?

      please give me some opinions about that !
      How we will try to resolve this problem ?
      The software is the key I think.. if they are used step by step..


      Regards,

      Jonathan

      <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
      Jonathan Desp
      jonathandesp@...
      Passion for nanotechnology
      <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

      Ps: I`m a dreamer and i will make a dream ! Nanodream !

      Go see my molecular nanotechnology website :
      http://www.angelfire.com/mn/atoma
    • James B. Lewis
      ... [snip] ... [snip] if we want construct a nanocomputer brain with the same co! ... I believe that the issues that you raise point to the importance of the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 6, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 1:50 AM -0700 6/6/99, jonathan_desp@... wrote:

        >True wet nano is good for the present for nanotech but not for the future
        >i think..
        [snip]
        >nanotechnology will going give us the power to innovate much quickly and
        >we will have the possibility to change our body. we will want to change
        >our old neuron for better nanocomputer. BUT a problem happen because the
        >neuron is not really complex.. but their interaction yes ! and if we want
        >to have a better brain with nanocomputer we will must construct the
        >interaction too and so.. can we ? with software i don`t think so.. it will
        >become hazardous and maybe the creation of this brain will can control us
        >humans.
        [snip]
        if we want construct a nanocomputer brain with the same co!
        >mplexity of our brain,interaction.. well at the end of the experience we
        >will be much smarter than the nanocomputer brain.. and so, as we remember
        >at the first moment of this experience the goal of this experience was to
        >construct a much smarter brain.. foe put it in the place of our old
        >brain... that`s a big problemof nanotechnology.. and this problem will
        >appear not just with the brain.. with our cells too.. the interaction of
        >our cell is really complex.. well yes..... our cells alone is maybe less
        >compless than our future design of nanomachine but their relations,
        >correllations,their inter-relations.. them ?

        I believe that the issues that you raise point to the importance of the
        early development of high level artificial intelligence (AI) engineering
        design systems. The relationship between the development of AI and the
        development of nanotechnology (NT) is complex. On the one hand, NT will
        make possible much more powerful computers on which to implement AI, thus
        facilitating the development of AI. But I believe that the role of AI in
        the development of NT will be even more important, even if the AI systems
        are implemented on current day computer systems and the near term
        improvements to those systems that will be made without NT.

        An important point to note, as Drexler has argued in _Engines of Creation_,
        is that the most useful AI systems will not be ones that appear to be
        human, with all that implies with respect to personalities, emotions,
        ambitions, etc., but rather the most useful systems will be those that are
        idiot savants - systems that are very good at solving specific technical
        problems, and solve those problems much better than do humans. I think such
        systems will be essential for the application of nanotechnology to cellular
        repair, reanimating cryonically preserved humans, and enhancing the human
        body.

        Consider if someone tomorrow developed a machine capable of atomically
        precise positional control of mechanochemistry, and also capable of
        self-replication. With such assembler-replicators we could immediately
        implement the construction of vastly improved materials, such as building
        materials with strength to weight ratios 50 or more times better than
        steel, etc. With a modest amount of programming, we could make most
        consumer goods and industrial commodities very cheaply and very
        cleanly,etc. We could also start to build much more powerful computers.

        But the application to nanomedicine, beyond perhaps simple elimination of
        viruses, microorganisms, and cancer cells, is likely to involve programming
        complicated enough to be beyond our current methods of writing software.
        Perhaps some simple regeneration can be accomplished by simple programming
        of nanobots to provide cell growth fators, or to use conventional
        microsurgery to implant stem cells in the right places. But really
        understanding how the trillions of cells in the body interact, using the
        100,000 or so genes in each cell, will probably require very sophisticated
        analysis and programming that is beyond human capability. That would almost
        certainly be the case in understanding the interactions among the 10E15 or
        so synapses in the human brain.

        We need programs that will make, or help us make, more complex programs,
        leading eventually to very powerful AI engineering design systems. Dr. J.
        S. Hall has touched upon this issue in a recent book review:
        http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update36/Update36.4.html#RobotAge

        So, to return to the issues you raised: wet nanotechnology produced through
        evolution will eventually give way to more powerful nanotechnologies, and
        how do we interact with, make use of, and benefit from such technologies
        without risking those technologies taking control from us.

        I think the way to go is through Open Source (http://www.opensource.org/)
        development of distributed systems (over the web) to develop better AI
        tools to facilitate the further development of even better AI tools, and
        also to facilitate the engineering development of NT. And developing
        software systems to control vast networks of nanodevices.

        There are lots of things that one can think of to do to try to develop
        nanotechnology. Lab work is undeniably essential, but requires a certain
        minimum of capital (maybe a few $100K, maybe more). My guess is that a few
        dozen very smart and determined programmers, including those without any
        formal credentials, could do a great deal on the AI development path with
        part time effort and without any substantial capital.

        Why Open Source? First, it provides a way for a very loose network of
        workers to collaborate without formal organizational arrangements. Second,
        AI development that "runs away" leading to a Terminator-like scenario is a
        risk that needs to be considered. Having the software along the way be Open
        Source provides much greater opportunity to catch errors and dangerous
        programming in time to correct it.

        Just some thoughts from an ex-molecular biologist who admits to knowing
        very little programming, that is, no programming except html.

        James B. Lewis, Ph.D. James B. Lewis Enterprises
        7527 40th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98115-4925
        E-mail: nanojbl@... alternate e-mail: nanojlewis@...
        World Wide Web: http://www.halcyon.com/nanojbl/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.