Hugely complex nanotechnology already exists. It’s called Biology. So we know what’s possible, because nature has done it already. We’re just working on ways of approaching it from a mechanical/electrical/chemical direction.
The electronics and scientific press keeps me informed on latest nanotechnology developments, and though each breakthrough is at a fairly basic level (tiny motors and pumps, molecular tweezers etc.) each new innovation is one step closer to a technology that will fundamentally change society.
It operates on the same scale as the brain does; molecular. Naturally, that would make it easier to analyze/interface with the brain.
That’s an arguement Drexler has made; we know that nanotech is possible, because nature uses a version. It’s messy, inefficient and not designed the way a human would do it, but it’s the same sort of thing. That’s where the comparison between flight and nanotech comes from; Leonardo DaVinci knew flight was possible, because birds did it.
Therefore, I think the low end estimates of nanotech’s potential should be, “What could a planned, controlled version of biology do ?” Nanotech will be better, since it is not restricted to blind evolution and natural materials, but this is a good start. That’s my answer to people who say “How will you control them ? How can they replicate and not mutate to uselessness ?”. Nature does it all the time, therefore we can.
Good post! You really put it all together in just a few sentences.
From what I understand there is something of a revolution going on (for a while now) in the search for an AI to work in complex systems. It turns out that you can use nature as a model for things like how birds flock or fish school. Even though the individual elements aren’t very intelligent with only a few simple rules you can actually get quite complex behavior. I envision something along those lines for our theoretical nano-machines. In fact, I envision actually using modified biological ‘machines’ created chemically (and able to reproduce under controlled guidance) to be the first real use of nano-tech. And I envision that individually each nano-bot will be quite stupid…but when working together in their millions will be able to do quite complex things.
Or maybe it will be something none of us can even imagine today. But as you say, we know it CAN be done, we even have an idea of its potential (after all, biological ‘nano-machines’ do quite a bit in our own bodies, as well as in just about everything else out there). Its just a matter of putting it all together.
Now, if I could only figure out how to live a couple more centuries to see what it will all turn out like!
Tinker’s Law: When laypeople discuss why a technology is many years off, expect it to be imminent within the decade.
Now I couldn’t constitute this in a meaningful way that would would count as “proof”, but something I have noticed is that the advancement of new technologies increase exponentially. In the 18th century we saw a revolution in logistics, which is what advanced world trade, banking and nationalism. In the 19th century we saw the industrial revolution bringing about a better idea of structure and how to use it to harness forces for a practical purpose. In the 20th century, we saw a revolution in our understanding of physical forces leading to the atomic bomb, flight and computers. In the 21st century we are seeing a revolution in the understanding of information and it’s impact upon our physical environment.
So now as the steam engine went hand in hand with the advancement of global commerce, we are now seeing different aspects of information technology that is advancing in tandem. We have computers that make developing new technology much easier by providing very precise models of what that technology will look like, and expediting calculations, the increase in processing power doubling every 18 months. With Genomics we are decoding how DNA works, and will be using DNA as a way to send information to microscopic nanobots all the while improving the artificial intelligence software of the machines that we are using to study these new advances. I believe that all of these advances will increase the rate of advancement of their brethren accelerating the speed of advancement.
In my opinion the true bottleneck is not in what is possible to do, what the technology is capable of, but more in the ability of the people to implement it. The implications of nanotech to me are more that we will be able to create machines on a cellular structure, which is far more than simply miniaturizing what we already have. So certainly it may take a while for the implementation of nanotechnology to be wide spread but I expect the capabilities of the fundamental functions to be ready within the decade.
The biggest problem I’ve had with the way we go about science is an inherent disrespect for nature. Saying that nature does it inefficiently is ludicrous. Commenting upon the intelligence of a bee-hive is a bias based completely in ignorance. Nature does things just fine, the pursuit of science is not about improving on nature, it’s about learning to control it.
Just a little nitpick I wanted to throw out there.
Of course nature does things inefficiently; it’s not designed, it’s a collection of Rube Goldberg machines pruned by natural selection. Besides, it would be boring if nature were efficient; we wouldn’t have trees, for example.
Nanotech is different; I don’t care if it’s boring if it works; tools are supposed to be boring and predictable.
Science is not inherent disrespectful of nature; many scientists are drawn to the field by a fascination with nature.
Easily solved; you design the nanobots so that any alteration makes them nonfunctional. This is one reason why Drexler and others abandoned the grey goo scenario; unlike a living thing, it’s easy to design a machine so it’s inflexible and incapable of change. To use your example, design them so they need some component of the external signal to function; if they can’t recieve, they stop working.
You are inducing a lot about nature and what the machines were designed to do. I am skeptical that you know very much about a tree’s function, would you please describe to me as you see it, what exactly a tree’s purpose is, and how you would do it better?
I don’t find nanotech boring, nor do I find my computer boring.
Ok, call it hubris then.
Then you need to design a nanobot that’s purpose is to go out and destroy the rigid ones so that they may be replaced.
It’s purpose is to send it’s genes into the next generation of course; that’s the only inherent purpose any form of life has. Being a plant, it survives by turning sunlight and nutrients into living matter; as a tree, most of that matter is wood. Trees are tall because they compete for sunlight; a more efficient design would be grass. Grass is all leaf; it doesn’t waste material on a trunk or branches.
Or just order them to leave, or self destruct if they are non-toxic.
We’ve all heard the amazing predictions for years and years about all kinds of technology, and typically the predictors are completely wrong.
At the exact same time, the underlying technology does indeed have a huge impact on our lives, but typically in ways not predicted. Did anyone predict the Internet 50 years ago? Not that I’m aware of, but I’ve sure as hell heard about flying cars a million times.
So this is my take on nano:
Current predictions are probably BS.
Naysayers are probably wrong also.
Somewhere real advancements are being made in a variety of areas, and will continue to be made that will have a huge impact.
Your reduction of the quality of existence to such simplistic terms is hardly something I can either argue with or give enough credit to actually consider. If life’s purpose is merely to pass on genes, then as I am not passing on genes with you, and you see no other purpose, I must end communications with you, as it would be ‘purposeless’.
Flying cars exist and have existed for the better half of a decade at least.
Also, people predict limits on technology that are not true as well. For instance the guy in the patent office declaring that everything that can be invented has been. Or all the talk about the size of computers being far greater than they are today, by today. “In the future a computer may weigh as little as 12 tons” “Man will never fly!”
I said intrinsic purpose, not only purpose; as sentient beings we can give ourselves any purpose we like. Like Scott Plaid said, I was talking about plants; you know, mindless green growing things.
I had felt the same thing. I was like “Holy shit I agree with Der Trihs”, and then he said this:
and reduced all life to the communication of genes, something I cannot agree with, and I don’t want to turn this into another argument about deism/atheism and their respective dogmas.
I think he induces a whole lot about the experience of being a tree. Conclusions I am simply unwilling to draw.
Definitely the transfer of information (genes) can be reduced as such, but the problem isn’t that it’s false, it’s that it’s unnuanced and again, it’s Inductive. I am not going to say his Inductive reasoning is wrong, I am just going to have to bow out respectfully and say that I completely disagree. I do not think that all plants are the same from the same point of view that I do not believe I am the same as every other animal, other than in some existentialist fashion where “we are all one”. Grass and trees are hardly the same thing, and grass also grows to compete for sunlight, and size is relative to that which you are surrounded by, so grass does not compete more or less for sunlight than trees do.
You both take a spiritual component out of the equation that I think is integral, and I will discuss that with atheists certainly, but not if the discussion becomes about arguing whether or not trees do anything other than compete for sunlight and pass on genetic material.
However, conversely, any argument about technology that leads to a dramatic shift in the state of being of humanity is inevitably going to lead to arguments about the nature of being human.
I know there is already a “singularity” thread, but this thread sort of touches on that. I think a Deus Ex Machina is inevitable, and that nanotechnology is going to be how it interfaces with the physical world. I think that the question with this is “When?”, and not “If…” This thread in particular is dedicated to the aspect that nanotechnology is going to play in this.
To me the singularity is already here, always has been, always will be, the fundamental nature is and always will be the same, and we are hardly “improving” on nature, but mutating it, we are gaining the keys to controlling evolution, and that will change everything.
So I am going to have to respectfully disagree that a tree can be improved upon, because the concept of ‘improvement’ is completely and wholly subjective.
To me the argument Trihs put forth is like the concept of “Original Sin” which I have issues with as well.
Well, let me explain, I don’t think their consciousness is the same as human consciousness, but they do conduct energy and transmit it to one another, and transmutation is part of that process, and I would qualify this as communication.
Drexler deciding nanotechnology is safe doesn’t give me a lot of confidence - Bill Joy saying this would make me feel a lot better.
Those of us familiar with fault tolerance know that planning for one thing going wrong is a recipe for disaster. Two is better, but even then some percentage of systems will have three failures. How many mutations can your foolproof system support before there is trouble? You can calculate how often you will get any number of mutations. With the vast number of systems, and the fairly small size of each one, any nightmare scenario is almost guaranteed to happen. I’d like to see modeling and simulation of all possible mutations, and some sort of verification that there is no path to gray goo or a more reasonable crisis. Has this ever been done?
This is a real application of pTerry’s law - million to one chances happen nine times out of ten.
mswas, read some molecular biology. The design of cells is not exactly elegant, and it took a billion years to get where we are. That’s only an insult to anything if you believe in an intelligent designer - he’d get a D in any design course (not an F since it works - usually.) What it is is evidence of the wonder and power of evolution. Almost anything we come up with nature has come up with first. Not only that, anytime we interfere, for instance with drugs, nature evolves responses. I actually think you are underestimating the wonder of nature.
Elegant
el·e·gant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-gnt)
adj.
Characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style. See Synonyms at delicate.
So you are saying that the design of cells lacks refinement and a tasteful beauty of manner, form and style?
or maybe you mean it doesn’t exhibit:
Are you getting your information from the PARTIAL MAPPING of the genome that we’ve been doing?
Let me guess of the three of you, Scott is Moe right?