The implications of Nanotechnology in the next ten years.

[Ryan Rudolph]

What does the future hold for Nanotechnology?

Nanobots running specific algorithms similar to biological celluar algorithms. The nanobots use raw material molecules, prode, manipulate, and assemble the molecule into a material composition. The material composition are assembled into a geometric shape. For example a mound of copper could be assembled into a door knob, for macro assembly. The end result could be a home created from molecules that nanobots assemble to build a more complex structure.

Nano technology will disrupt how medicene is delivered to patients. In the future, nanotechnology will come in the form of a patch. The patch will be applied to the skin of the patient, small nanomachines will release specific drugs into the blood of the patient, as needed. The patches will be computer assembled and disseminated.

Nano technology will be used too simulate celluar functionality. These nanobots will be used able to fix celluar damage, prevent disease, destroy cancer or defective cells, or provide barriers between host and foreign cells. For example, pig islets cells contained within a protective nanocell allow glucose into the cell, produce insulin which is small enough to pass outside the cell, and block incoming antibodies that cell the pig islet cells. Nano technology can be used to deliver chemicals to cancerous cells. The nano cell adheres to the cancer cell wall, dissolves, and releases its chemicals into the cell.

Self replicating machines called nanobots. Machines will improve material compositions, organize these materials to provide specific functionality, sequence the functionality to solve a particular problem, and perfect through connected feedback. Fabrication will increase as more effective and innovative fabrication machines are built. Plastic circuits will decrease cost and increase usability. The circuit logic will blend with the print industry meaning that logic will be more distributable. The more distributable and connected the logic, the more adaptive the machine. New software interfaces will be able to query specific circuit logic, print the circuit logic, and connect the circuit logic to the fabricated device.

A new emerging class of engineers will be heavily sought after. These engineers will have knowledge in molecular biology, computer science, material science, architectural design, mechanical processing, and robotics.

D. Nishimoto

Now I wonder what are the implications of nanotechnology? Will we create an intelligence that will replace us? Can a machine be conscious? Or can a machine only be programmed?

It is very difficult to predict where the discoveries of nanotechnology will take the species. Will it help liberate mankind? Destroy mankind? Replace mankind?

What is your take on this upcoming technological revolution?

[MKFaizi]

I heard a bit on the radio this morning about nanotechnology. From what I gathered, it is not yet all that advanced.

As for machines replacing humans, I think that has already largely happened. Not completely yet but working on it.

My job requires heavy use of the telephone to contact insurance companies. Over the years, I have grown to love some robots. I feel a pang when I realize that one is about to become obsolete. I am nostalgic for the old monotone ones. They were so cute and, in a way, innocent.

Now we have 'bots with personalities. Such fakers. I long for the day of the honest 'bot.

A 'bot without pretense is a 'bot 'o my heart.

Faizi

[kjones]

I read "Nano! Nano! Nano!" recently, about Eric Drexler's development of nanotechnology through the 80s and 90s. The two main problems he perceived:

- nanobots might get out of hand, and restructure the molecules of everything, except themselves, like an atomic virus. He called it the grey gloo, I think. He wanted to be sure that blue gloo could operate as corrective nanobots.

- no one would have to do any work, because everything could be made for "free". Life itself became meaningless.

His driving interest was to create efficient technology for space travel and colonisation. He was an engineer, rather than a theorist, and had a lot of problems actually developing the machines, owing to people not liking how many traditions he undermined.

[Kevin Solway]

Can a machine be conscious?

We are machines and we are conscious. We are programmed and we are programmed to learn.

What is your take on this upcoming technological revolution?

More of the same.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kjones quoted another:

no one would have to do any work, because everything could be made for "free". Life itself became meaningless.

I don’t agree with his point. Robots will reduce friction for humans. We will no longer have to slave like robots in factories, assembly lines, call centers, and so on. Surely being liberating from these sorts of hellish activities is not meaningless.

Yes, humans will have more leisure time, but this is precisely what the sage or genius is looking for. He is looking for leisure as a means to live a creative life. He doesn’t wish to be a slave to these things.

So nanobots will be a significant aid in medicine, manufacturing, and all the rest. They will make human’s lives easier, less energy will have to be exerted to do the same tasks. Surely this is something significantly beneficial

Solway wrote:

We are machines and we are conscious. We are programmed and we are programmed to learn.

I don’t agree with this point. I question whether humans who behave like machines are conscious in the first place, I suspect no. If you observe a human who drinks alcohol, smokes habitually, does his wife doggystyle every Wednesday night, goes from one get rich scheme to the next, and is infamous for the same vulgar one liners that he has said years before, I suspect this human isn’t all that conscious. On the contrary, he is quite unconscious, or asleep, almost zombie-like. He lacks sensitivity, and no longer inquires. He has stopped thinking precisely because he is programmed. So a programmed human being is incapable of learning. You can only learn when you inquire, investigate, and wonder. This is not a programmed response. This is a creative response.

You must distinguish between a creative response and a programmed response. A programmed response is very predictable, it is based on mechanical habit. A creative response to life is incredibly unpredictable, one doesn’t know where it will lead…

This not only applies to the mind, but also to practical affairs. A carpenter will allow himself to be programmed by the college, but his best discoveries and innovative creations come when he abandons his programming, and inquires, investigates, and wonders about areas of carpentry which exist outside the boundaries of programming.

Any great carpenter abandons his programming, it is like training wheels.

The sage does the same, he maybe programmed by all sorts of philosophers, but eventually he must forget what others have said, and inquire into his own daily life…

And an individual who inquires into his own daily life is not doing so from a programmed response. It is a creative impulse which is something entirely different.

[Jason]

Solway wrote:

We are machines and we are conscious. We are programmed and we are programmed to learn.

I don’t agree with this point. I question whether humans who behave like machines are conscious in the first place, I suspect no. If you observe a human who drinks alcohol, smokes habitually, does his wife doggystyle every Wednesday night, goes from one get rich scheme to the next, and is infamous for the same vulgar one liners that he has said years before, I suspect this human isn’t all that conscious. On the contrary, he is quite unconscious, or asleep, almost zombie-like. He lacks sensitivity, and no longer inquires. He has stopped thinking precisely because he is programmed. So a programmed human being is incapable of learning. You can only learn when you inquire, investigate, and wonder. This is not a programmed response. This is a creative response.

You must distinguish between a creative response and a programmed response. A programmed response is very predictable, it is based on mechanical habit. A creative response to life is incredibly unpredictable, one doesn’t know where it will lead…

Just because something is unpredicable doesn't mean it is not programmed or deterministic. Every snowflake is different, yet apparently they all form from the predictable rules of nature. The difference between predictability and unpredictability can just be down to complexity, and our lack of ability to find patterns in highly complex but still predictable phenomena.

As far as computer programs go, the external responses of programs are not always predictable. If the program is sufficiently complex, or reacts to what are essentially random events, like the environment, or even just an internal random number generator, the program will not be predictable, at that level. A program can learn from experience too. It is also possible for a program to reprogram itself.

[Kevin Solway]

We are machines and we are conscious. We are programmed and we are programmed to learn.

I don’t agree with this point. I question whether humans who behave like machines are conscious in the first place

A machine is simply something that operates strictly by cause and effect. And that's exactly what we are. There is nothing about our thinking and creativity that doesn't happen strictly by cause and effect.

And just as we cannot predict with certainty the behaviour of any machine, so we cannot predict human behaviour with certainty.

You can only learn when you inquire, investigate, and wonder.

You can only do these things if you are programmed to do them, and the specific way you go about these things will have also been programmed.

A programmed response is very predictable

Ultimately nothing is predictable. Cause and effect is too complex for anything to be 100% predictable. The boring person down the pub who has been doing the same thing for forty years might become a genius within a week.

[kjones]

Kjones quoted another:

no one would have to do any work, because everything could be made for "free". Life itself became meaningless.

I don’t agree with his point. Robots will reduce friction for humans. We will no longer have to slave like robots in factories, assembly lines, call centers, and so on. Surely being liberating from these sorts of hellish activities is not meaningless.

No, you don't get it. Nanobots are protein molecules (as far as I recall), meaning, a human is largely an aggregate of cellular nanobots. It's neither alive nor dead. Everything that a human does, all its labours and achievements, are ultimately not its own achievements.

Then again, the nanobots are not responsible either.

Yes, humans will have more leisure time, but this is precisely what the sage or genius is looking for. He is looking for leisure as a means to live a creative life. He doesn’t wish to be a slave to these things.

I recall the one line repeated several times in that book (which was really quite silly): "We can all sit back and sip mint juleps."

Robotically sipping mint juleps all day seems slavish to me. What's the difference between molecular mechanisms now and nanobot mechanisms now - nothing.

Without a fundamental reorientation in values, work (and life) will remain ludicrous.

So nanobots will be a significant aid in medicine, manufacturing, and all the rest. They will make human’s lives easier, less energy will have to be exerted to do the same tasks. Surely this is something significantly beneficial

We already have the ability to make our lives extremely simple, immediately. It's called thinking.


--

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kjones wrote:

Everything that a human does, all its labours and achievements, are ultimately not its own achievements.

You’re using reductionism here to deny the fact that humans are responsible for their actions. If I do something stupid, I suffer for it, indicating that there is right action. You’re reductionistic approach doesn’t make any sense to me.

kjones wrote:

Robotically sipping mint juleps all day seems slavish to me

A creative individual sips mint juleps? I don’t know where you got that at, but its absurd. A creative individual wants to be free from suffering, meaning he doesn’t want to do many of the hellish jobs in capitalist society.

A creative individual gets satisfaction out of doing simple things.
Ie: making clothes, growing food.

He doesn’t want to be a powerful CEO of a capitalist company, this is why the world is so hellish. We all want power.

Solway wrote:

There is nothing about our thinking and creativity that doesn't happen strictly by cause and effect.

Geese Solway, why don’t you just marry cause and effect! Perhaps all the geniuses in this forum can dress up in tuxedo’s and hold a big wedding for you and Cause and Effect. Quinn can even come and be your best man.

Or perhaps we can construct a giant golden calf and call her causality and worship her as our own creation.

Don’t you get sick of this cause and effect idea?

It’s so stifling to creativity.

Its such a limited boundary to work in, such a limited space. Don’t you ever just want to break limited boundaries?

Breaking limited boundaries is the essence of creativity. It frees up space to allow something more vast to enter….
Something infinite which isn’t an idea… it’s an actual presence.

[DHodges]

Robotically sipping mint juleps all day seems slavish to me. What's the difference between molecular mechanisms now and nanobot mechanisms now - nothing.

Without a fundamental reorientation in values, work (and life) will remain ludicrous.

How many people really want more free time? Don't they immediately find something to fill it with - television, for instance?

The average American watches more than four hours a day of television. So what would be gained by having more free time?

[williamashley]

you show a scotsman a twig and they may think it a nano caber?

It is just smaller cr4p.

Of course it is going to make technology more capable. You see though it needs fuel.. right grey goo, well mr flame thrower or mr HCl may have something to say about that.

it's gonna be no more harmful than car exhaust.

Sure it is going to have military applications.. I know how about we start a ludite petition.

sign below... all in favoour of becoming forest dwellers sign below. If I get 6+ billion petitions we may have hope of stopping the advance of technology.

Very negative context article.

We can only hope nano and 0 emissions and CI come together in a post government, non militant non selfish or capitalizin reality.. but really, am I made out of pastel?

[kjones]

KJ: Everything that a human does, all its labours and achievements, are ultimately not its own achievements.

CP: You're using reductionism here to deny the fact that humans are responsible for their actions.

Responsibility really means, understanding that whatever one is doing, and whatever one plans, is not really one's own creation, but that one is that which is happening.

"I am responsible for all my actions", boils down to, logical thought processes construct things accurately, and illogical thought processes don't. The former is sane, and the latter isn't.

How's this for reductionism: illogicality is caused by logicality, rather than grey goo nanobots.

KJ: Robotically sipping mint juleps all day seems slavish to me

CP: A creative individual sips mint juleps? I don't know where you got that at, but its absurd. A creative individual wants to be free from suffering, meaning he doesn't want to do many of the hellish jobs in capitalist society.

A creative individual gets satisfaction out of doing simple things.
Ie: making clothes, growing food.

He doesn't want to be a powerful CEO of a capitalist company, this is why the world is so hellish. We all want power.

I was quoting the author of the book I read, who suggested that the ultimate benefit of nanotechnology was sipping mint juleps.

I don't see any difference between the capitalist CEO and the DIY rustic. Both are power-hungry, one squashing little companies, the other squashing snails. If both clearly saw why all their creativity is ultimately without any meaning whatsoever, they'd have no room for power-mongering.

Geese Solway, why don’t you just marry cause and effect! Perhaps all the geniuses in this forum can dress up in tuxedo’s and hold a big wedding for you and Cause and Effect. Quinn can even come and be your best man.

It's impossible, because Solway, Quinn, the wedding, forum members, the tuxedos, and everything else, would be the bride.

Dn't you get sick of this cause and effect idea? It's so stifling to creativity.

Try and be creative without any input whatsoever, without any creativity, even.

Its such a limited boundary to work in, such a limited space. Don't you ever just want to break limited boundaries?

Breaking limited boundaries is the essence of creativity. It frees up space to allow something more vast to enter. Something infinite which isn't an idea, it's an actual presence.

You're behind the eight-ball. Understanding the boundlessness of causation removes all boundaries, and is the essence of creativity. This understanding of the Infinite removes all blockages to creativity, because there isn't ever anything there at all.

Ah-hah! I've got it: you don't need to worry about creating anything, because everything you create is the same: Nature, empty, constantly without form. It's all a joke!

Worth laughing over !
---

[kjones]

How many people really want more free time? Don't they immediately find something to fill it with - television, for instance?

The average American watches more than four hours a day of television. So what would be gained by having more free time?

I'm going to try a more positive approach.

People start to think intensely when they have a pressing problem.
Addiction and withdrawal symptoms are humiliating, which is why most people don't try to drop the addiction, from fear of experiencing the humiliation consciously. Nevertheless, this vague disquiet eats away, every day.

Just by having examples of a deeper consciousness of things, namely, truthful statements and thoughts, one can glean more experience on how to drop addictions. One gets more confidence of how to orient to free time.

Free time puts one up against God, so one does need quite a bit of confidence to endure it, until one works out why it's a good thing.

In the past I haven't had enough experience, and have sent many snails sucking back up into their shells. But the more experience of emptiness and timelessness, the more compassion is expressed. This creates examples and habits, which is always helpful for whoever is struggling to break the mind of addiction.


--