Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for the link. That indirectly lead me to this also by Freitas:
http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm

I regret now not trying to work with him in the late 1980s, since he seems one of the best people in the field.

khallow made a good reply on how we can probably make simpler computers that get the job done. But even if we couldn't, by mass, computers probably make up only a tiny fraction of a self-replicating system the size of Elysium (like 0.0001%) given it is mostly metal, dirt, air, wires, motors, rocket engines, space suit fabric, and so on. So, in the worst case, you could think of computing chips as "vitamins" supplied from outside, in which case the system could still be 99.9999% self-replicating by mass, but would need regular shipments of chips as it grew (maybe just from discarded Android phones?). Still a big win for construction costs and speed.

"None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab. None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms. "

I call shenanigans. Every one of these guys has substantial nanotech street cred going back 20 years or more. Every single one of them has "worked in a nanotech lab". Most of them FOUNDED the discipline of Molecular Nanotechnology.

Drexler did the first substantial theoretical work on precision mechanosynthesis of molecules, the limits and restrictions on carbon-carbon mechanosythesis, charted possible paths to research and development, and so on. Oh and besides providing the theoretical underpinnings for molecular manufacturing (a new term that had to be created because opportunists like Dr. Richard Smalley successfully co-opted the term "nanotechnology" all the while trying to kill the credibility of Drexler and mechanosythesis approaches), Drexler is one of the strongest voices promoting thinking ahead about the risks and ethical implications of widespread use of molecular machines. The Foresight Institute was set up in large part to think ahead of nanotech development and be prepared with ethical and legal guidelines for the development and use of molecular nanotechnology. Oh, and he got the first EVER PhD in Nanotechnology.

Hall, besides being the founding chief scientist of Nanorex (who are developing open-source computational tools to support research in structural DNA nanotechnology), he's published a trunkload of papers on various aspects of nanotechnology. You can find a list here

Merkle did some of the first work on computational modeling of carbon-carbon nanostructures for mechanosynthesis. He worked as a research scientist at Zyvex, the first commercial nanotech research company, for several years. He's apparently still actively researching. His list of recent research papers, along with Freitas's, are here

Freitas is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Molecular Manufacturing. He's published a raft of papers (see link above) and did the first practical research on the theoretical underpinnings of nanomedicine, which he published in his book NANOMEDICINE.

They may not be pushing atoms around with an AFM (or whatever you are doing), but they are laying the foundations for the science and engineering of molecular manufacturing.

Show some respect.

By why isn't MEMS used to make better STMs and AFMs? .. which you could use to make even smaller machines .. which could be used to make even smaller machines .. until you get to this stuff.

It's like they're not even trying.

Which relevant claims, specifically, do you take issue with?

The two human cryopreservation non-profits in the US claim only that their vitrification techniques and cryo-storage significantly preserve a patient's brain structure in the long-term. They point to plausible (not impossible under known physics & info theory) fields of future tech/medicine that might be used to repair or read & emulate that brain. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not a long shot. The confidence levels on any probability of eventual recovery must be low, but non-zero. It's simply the only currently scientifically plausible non-zero chance for a person to live again after legal death.

Do you think a functional description of brain/mind/consciousness is likely possible, for instance, or do you think there's some unknowable hocus beyond that.

Regarding MNT, here's a bibliography of cites to physical chemistry experiments, etc., followed by a link to further challenges.
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/AnnB ibDMS.htm
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/Chal lenges.htm

Futurist thinking isn't entirely the realm of crackpot; it just attracts them. How far out can you imagine? The next version of Java, ubiquitous wireless, head-mounted displays and power-gloves? :) Transhumanism/exptropianism, as I see it, is a catch phrase for people want "better living through science and technology". Critical thinking is still BYOB(rain), of course. ;)

Which relevant claims, specifically, do you take issue with?

The two human cryopreservation non-profits in the US claim only that their vitrification techniques and cryo-storage significantly preserve a patient's brain structure in the long-term. They point to plausible (not impossible under known physics & info theory) fields of future tech/medicine that might be used to repair or read & emulate that brain. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's not a long shot. The confidence levels on any probability of eventual recovery must be low, but non-zero. It's simply the only currently scientifically plausible non-zero chance for a person to live again after legal death.

Do you think a functional description of brain/mind/consciousness is likely possible, for instance, or do you think there's some unknowable hocus beyond that.

Regarding MNT, here's a bibliography of cites to physical chemistry experiments, etc., followed by a link to further challenges.
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/AnnB ibDMS.htm
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/Chal lenges.htm

Futurist thinking isn't entirely the realm of crackpot; it just attracts them. How far out can you imagine? The next version of Java, ubiquitous wireless, head-mounted displays and power-gloves? :) Transhumanism/exptropianism, as I see it, is a catch phrase for people want "better living through science and technology". Critical thinking is still BYOB(rain), of course. ;)

It's quite curious that I have been reading The Cat in the Hat Comes Back to my son at bedtime recently.

All we need is some VOOM.

(Check the first '*' footnote in that last link.)

10 to 15 years? :)