dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Ben Burch) (05/29/89)
The following is being posted for a friend of mine; You can respond to me or you may correspond with him at the address given. (Or you may set some nano-machines to look for him...) _____________________________________________________________________________ Here I sit in my nano-apartment, sipping NanoCola (TM), thinking nanothoughts about nanotech... I've been reading some of the discussions here on the nature of consciousness, the brain, and transferring consciousness into some sort of "computer program." I smile at the thought of simulating a brain with a bunch of 80286 chips, or even Connection Machines. Every age has its pet mind-metaphors. A hundred years ago it was the sexy technology of steam and machines. We have expressions such as "letting off steam", "going to unwind", and "hear the gears turn" to describe mental activity. Are we really sure that the binary/silicon metaphor is that much better ? I think we need to be careful, and not develop techno-tunnel vision. How about the idea of gradually replacing natural neurons with souped-up neurons ? Say I get an injection of specially programmed assemblers which, at the rate of perhaps millions per day, renovate my brain cells with improvements. At that rate, I might not be aware that anything was going on, but over the course of weeks and months, I would gradually enjoy better mental function. And I would be spared the indignity of having a coax connector put in my forehead. On the subject of immortality and "mental sclerosis," the idea that growing older means growing set in your ways, I believe that the learning process will do that, to an extent. But a 500-year-old mind in a 22-year old body will be awash in a strong stream of sex hormones (for better or worse) and will be freed from the inexorably worsening indignities, infirmities, and fears of old age. To be ancient, yet *vital*, that's the ticket. To look to the future with hope, imagination, and a sense of excitement. To have the wisdom of experience and resources, and have no need to substitute the nothing-to-lose brashness of youth for the jealous empire-building and territoriality that has sometimes come with age. That would be most desirable. Does the birth of nanotech necessarily spell the death of commerce as we know it ? If everyone can obtain all the "things" they want from dirt/trash and a pinch of assemblers, will anyone pay for anything ? This idea seems to be implied in discussions about future life with nanotech. I thought I'd examine it in a little detail... The survival of commerce depends on the ability to preserve the proprietary value of information. Disregarding the costs of marketing/distribution, the value of a thing is not in the expense of raw materials but rather the ability of its structure, and its structure is determined by information. Nanotech makes the connection between things and information very explicit. Obtaining the nanoprogram to make a thing becomes equal to obtaining the thing. If these programs can't be protected against copying, they can't be sold; few will pay for something they can get for free. Enforcement of intellectual property rights gets tougher as the means of copying gets easier. Software piracy on personal computers is a problem - for developers who want to be paid. A hot issue in the music business is DAT - digital audio tape, which will let the home user make endless perfect copies for his friends. I believe music DAT is available in Japan and Europe, but not the US, where the economic impact is feared by the music industry. A few years ago, home videotaping was a big deal to the TV industry for similar reasons, and today many thousands of households have libraries of "not terribly legal" copies of movies and copyrighted shows. The nasty FBI warnings on videos have come to hold as much venom as the "do not remove" tags on matresses. The proliferation of software/video piracy would lead me to believe that an attempt to preserve the economic status quo after the assembler breakthrough by locking information would be futile. Copyright a tasty apple or a fast car - and everyone will make one anyway. If that's so, then should all thing-designs be 2elivered up graciously, for the good of humanity ? Might future generations view our present intellectual property rights policies with distaste ? Or if designers were compensated, what form would it take ? A recent (5 Dec 88) article in Fortune magazine tries to portray nanotech as the ultimate goldmine, potentially creating a new generation of billionaire entrepreneurs. Needless to say, those who have a vested interest in the economic status quo will resist the notions that our economy will crumble, and money might go out of style. But they will be a tiny minority. Commerce is just a means to an end: a way to contribute and to get the things you need to live. I think most people will be happy to see present forms of business replaced with something better. EoC proposes the possibility of active shields as proof against gragu, but is such defense realistic ? The effectiveness of natural antibodies as defense against naturally occurring replicators depends upon *recognition*. This is also true for immunizing programs versus computer viruses. - Is it possible to recognize gragu ? I maintain that the varieties could be virtually infinite, and fully capable of reshaping themselves, or at least their surface appearance, if "recognized". Natural viruses have long used the tactic of mutation for survival. Gragu might be endowed with enough nano-programmed intelligence to masquerade as something harmless, if necessary, like the sole of your shoe or a bag of potato chips. On the subject of powering gragu, again, if it's smart enough and resourceful enough, it's conceivable that it could create photo- electric or photochemical mechanisms for running on sunlight. Another obvious possibility is scavenging soil and trash for chemical compounds which could be consumed to provide energy. And let's not forget the value of hitch-hiking; natural viruses are powerless on their own, yet still manage to travel the globe in several weeks' time by riding in our bodies. A truly voracious, intelligent, adaptable gragu might not be stopped by anything. Of course, that's what makes it so appealing/appalling. JoSH hinted that there's answers to the gragu problem, though I haven't seen exactly what those answers are, and I haven't thought of any on my own. Mr. Drexler's suggestion of limited assemblers and sealed assembler labs is fine for the weekend tinkerer, but essentially it's still an honor system. Military groups will dare to create dangerous systems outside of the orthodox realm of safety. Disenfranchised loners, wanting to "get back at the system," might also be a problem. Look at what how the Tylenol poisonings of a few years ago have changed things; everything's safety-sealed. What we need to determine, definitely, and SOON, is that there's a foolproof way to defend against gray goo. John Papiewski P.O.B. 7444 Elgin, IL 60121-7444 [I do not believe that there is any *foolproof* way to defend against gray goo. Drexler's "sealed lab" is a response to a more subtle problem: assuming that the "bad guys" are going to be developing gray goo anyway, how do we have as many "good guys" as possible working on countermeasures, without increasing the risk of accidental gray goo? --JoSH]
alan@oz.nm.paradyne.COM (Alan Lovejoy) (05/31/89)
In article <8905310354.AA19565@athos.rutgers.edu< dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Ben Burch) writes(for his friend):
<Here I sit in my nano-apartment, sipping NanoCola (TM), thinking
<nanothoughts about nanotech...
<... Are we really sure that the binary/silicon metaphor is
<that much better ? I think we need to be careful, and not
<develop techno-tunnel vision.
Yes. Because of the "mental functions" that Turing Machines can duplicate,
and that steam engines cannot. Some of the things the neural netters are
doing are quite impressive, too!
<How about the idea of gradually
<replacing natural neurons with souped-up neurons ? Say I get an
<injection of specially programmed assemblers which, at the rate
<of perhaps millions per day, renovate my brain cells with
<improvements. At that rate, I might not be aware that anything
<was going on, but over the course of weeks and months, I would
<gradually enjoy better mental function. And I would be spared
<the indignity of having a coax connector put in my forehead.
Of course. The only sensible way to do this I ever even considered. And this
process can be repeated many times, each one only accomplishing a minor
evolutionary improvement, but the end result after many millenia would be
quite revolutionary! Stepwise refinement, and all that.
<.... To be ancient, yet *vital*, that's the
<ticket. To look to the future with hope, imagination, and a
<sense of excitement. To have the wisdom of experience and
<resources, and have no need to substitute the nothing-to-lose
<brashness of youth for the jealous empire-building and
<territoriality that has sometimes come with age. That would be
<most desirable.
Amen.
<Does the birth of nanotech necessarily spell the death of
<commerce as we know it ? If everyone can obtain all the "things"
<they want from dirt/trash and a pinch of assemblers, will anyone
<pay for anything ? This idea seems to be implied in discussions
<about future life with nanotech...
And if the information for producing any desired widget is freely (legally
or otherwise) available, why would you need money? Inventors only need to
be paid if they themselves have bills. If no one has any bills, then no one
needs to be paid. I question, though, whether "dirt" will necessarily always
be so cheap...
It may be that inventors will have to insist on being paid "up front" for their
inventions, instead of relying on grants of monopoly power to sell their
invention(s). This could be done by granting them guaranteed government
income based on some evaluation of the "usefulness" of the invention (i.e.,
statistical sampling of use in the population once a year...).
<EoC proposes the possibility of active shields as proof against
<gragu, but is such defense realistic ? The effectiveness of
<natural antibodies as defense against naturally occurring
<replicators depends upon *recognition*. This is also true for
<immunizing programs versus computer viruses.
< - Is it possible to recognize gragu ? I maintain that the
<varieties could be virtually infinite, and fully capable of
<reshaping themselves, or at least their surface appearance, if
<"recognized". Natural viruses have long used the tactic of
<mutation for survival. Gragu might be endowed with enough
<nano-programmed intelligence to masquerade as something
<harmless, if necessary, like the sole of your shoe or a bag of
<potato chips.
Gragu can be recognized by what it does (nanovandalism). It can hide all
it likes, but eventually it has to attempt to perpetrate some crime. Otherwise,
it isn't gragu, is it? Imagine the world INFESTED with repair and defense
nanoagents, at high density, ready to spring to action at the first sign of
inimical activity (NAT MAN and ROBIN? :-) :-)). Of course, the problem then
becomes the reliability and security of the nanopolice. Can they be trusted?
Subverted? Could a traitorous strain be introduced that would out-replicate
the bugs in blue, displacing them from the target area, and then striking?
(Oh no, have I invented a new term: "Blue Goo" (The Nanopolice))?
Blue Goo may work--if it can obtain and maintain a technological lead over
the purveyors of Gray Goo.
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me.
______________________________Down with Li Peng!________________________________
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
[The Blue Goo vs the Gray Goo -- sounds like the Nano Civil War...
--JoSH]