🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <799@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dji@sbcs (David J Iannucci) writes:

> Has anyone
>else even read _EOC_?  I can't believe I haven't seen any discussion of it
>in this group.

When I first found out about the net, I wrote a short message describing
some details of nanotechnology, then a long magazine-length article about
nanotechnology and Buckminster Fuller's concept of "ephemeralization".

I posted these to sci.physics and sci.space and possibly one other group.
There were alomst no responses.  I was baffled, given the obvious 
intelligence of the net.readers, that nobody wanted to talk about the
fantastic claims and possibilities that Drexler comes up with.  Perhaps
we've heard so much bad news that we cannot believe anything good can 
happen.  Or perhaps it all sounds like some Omni-magazine pseudoscience
fairytale.  I don't know; I stopped trying to stir up interest. 

Every now and then somebody will bring up Drexler in some context, like
the fellow in sci.space who mentioned that with nanotechnology we could
send nanobuilders ahead of the colonization ships and have cities 
ready when the colonists arrive.

In article <2698@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>I posted these to sci.physics and sci.space and possibly one other group.
>There were alomst no responses.  I was baffled, given the obvious 
>intelligence of the net.readers, that nobody wanted to talk about the
>fantastic claims and possibilities that Drexler comes up with.

	I have recently been pointed to comp.society.futures for the
discussions on nanotechnology.  There's not a lot there, but there's
something.  I guess there just aren't as many people as I thought who
have read _EoC_, and certainly not many who want to tackle something
so highly controversial on a scientific level.  Understandable.  The
sociological aspects are easier to deal with at this point.  Still, I've
never known the net.readership to back off from a juicy argument before 8^)

--
Dave "it's a physical example of infinity" Iannucci         SUNY at Stony Brook
UUCP: {allegra, philabs, pyramid, research}!sbcs!dji     CSnet: dji@suny-sb.edu
ARPA-Internet: dji%suny-sb@relay.cs.net                ICBM: 40 55' N  73 08' W

In article <2698@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>In article <799@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dji@sbcs (David J Iannucci) writes:

>> Has anyone
>>else even read _EOC_?  I can't believe I haven't seen any discussion of it
>>in this group.

>When I first found out about the net, I wrote a short message describing
>some details of nanotechnology, then a long magazine-length article about
>nanotechnology and Buckminster Fuller's concept of "ephemeralization".

I don't know why there was not much response before, maybe not many
people were familiar with his ideas yet.  Interesting that you should
bring up Fuller, since I just finished reading _Critical_Path_ (I'm
still working on _EoC_).  I see many parallels between what the two
of them are saying.  _EoC_ clearly extends some of Fuller's projections
much further into the future, as it should since Drexler grew up in the
world that Fuller projected when he was younger.

I didn't see your articles, if it has been quite some time you might
consider reposting.  There have also been several articles on _EoC_
in comp.society.futures that you might want to check out.

Gerry Gleason

Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.

peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".

Rather than being apprehensive about Grey Goo, I am looking forward to
the time when I can design a suite of nanomachines that will rebuild my
body from the inside out, enhancing my mental abilities by a factor of
10**9 and my physical abilities by a lesser factor.

Once a sufficient number of people have done this, I'm sure we will have
no problems finding ways to deal with Grey Goo.

The point of this is that, if Drexlers predictions pan out, then
just about anything becomes possible.

I must confess that I am still a trifle skeptical about the feasibility
of all of this.  I would like to *see* a fully worked out design for Grey Goo
or even for a submicron supercomputer that can be, if not empirically tested,
then at least scrutinized by the scientific community and run through a
computer simulation.  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo,
then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have
a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available.

Does anybody know how close the Foresight Institute/MIT Nanotechnology Group
is to completing the designs for interesting nanomachines?
-- 
Doug Moen
University of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab
UUCP:     {ihnp4,watmath}!watcgl!kdmoen
INTERNET: kdmoen@cgl.waterloo.edu

In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
>peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".

>[...]  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo,
>then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have
>a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available.

You have to find it first.  The difficulty is that, in order to decide
if a particular bit of nanomachinery is Gray Goo (or a part thereof),
you have to analyze its program to see if it ever quits reproducing.
This is exactly equivalent to the halting problem, which is insoluble.
-- 
  The above are the official opinions and figures of Robust Software, Inc.
             Will you come quietly, or must I use earplugs? 
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.    (313) 662-4147    {sw1a7,umix}!m-net!rsi

In article <1445@m-net.UUCP> russ@m-net.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
>>[...]  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo,
>>then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have
>>a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available.

>You have to find it first.  The difficulty is that, in order to decide
>if a particular bit of nanomachinery is Gray Goo (or a part thereof),
>you have to analyze its program to see if it ever quits reproducing.
>This is exactly equivalent to the halting problem, which is insoluble.

Fortunately solving the halting problem is not necessary to controlling
Grey Goo.  Better safe than sorry: we kill any nanomachinery that we
can't prove will stop reproducing in a reasonable amount of time.
After all, there is little practical difference between something that
never stops reproducing and something that stops after 100 million
years.

-- 
    o							Andre Guirard
   < '	  The race is not always to the swift...	"Thai green beads"
   / >	  but it's a pretty safe bet.			ihnp4!mmm!cipher
  '

In article <1445@m-net.UUCP> russ@m-net.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
)                             The difficulty is that, in order to decide
) if a particular bit of nanomachinery is Gray Goo (or a part thereof),
) you have to analyze its program to see if it ever quits reproducing.
) This is exactly equivalent to the halting problem, which is insoluble.

As long as the GG itself is not insoluble ... :-)
There are theoretical differences between the GG containment problem and
the TM (Turing Machine) halting problem.  Suppose the nanoprogram has been
proven to stop in a finite time.  Only, after the machinery is released, it
turns out that the stopping time is 10^79 generations.  Not exactly what we
want, eh?  On the other hand, it does not really matter if the stuff keeps
indefinitely "alive" as long as its growth is checked.  I can imagine a
nanomachined salami sausage that will regrow if you cut slices off, but not
beyond one foot.  (The problem whether a machine--together with its
offspring--will grow beyond a prior established space limit S is
algorithmically solvable in theory, but the time this takes is exponential
in S, so this is no big help.)  Finally, one has to take the (real-time
physical) input stream to the machine into account, whereas for the TM case
the input is given and finite.  Perhaps the growth of my salami sausage is
provably checked except if it is kept on a diet of pure caviar.  That would
not worry me ... until someone markets caviar with checked growth except if
fed enough salami.  Part of the physical environment is radiation, which
will cause random mutations.  Most mutations may be indifferent or lethal,
but in the analysis we must consider the possibility of malign mutations.
Even theoretical analysis can only give probabilistic results here.

-- 

Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@cwi.nl

  I'm interested in reading more about nanotechnology...  Do you know
where I can find more information about the subject?

Kent
-- 
Kent Hutson
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
kent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1526@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>In article <1445@m-net.UUCP> russ@m-net.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>>In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
>>>[...]  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo,
>>>then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have
>>>a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available.

Goo seems almost inevitable. It should not be a big problem, of itself;
the definition of Goo (for those not familiar with the problem) is that
of a nanomachine that will use any available energy and raw material to
reproduce itself periodically.  If it reproduces at 2x per year you have
one problem, relatively minor; if it reproduces at 512x per minute, you have 
quite another.

Goo will probably be built out of destructable materials, or with various
lethal trapdoors, like death in sunlight or at some laser frequency.  The
real danger is heuristic Goo that changes its spots.  It's at this point
that you start to rely on Good Guy Goo that's smarter and replicates 
faster than Bad Guy Goo and lies down and dies altruistically when it's
finished with the Bad Goo. 

The impact of this level of technology on society must not be underestimated.
I think it may pick us up and tear along the dotted line.  

In some respects, the AIDS viruses look like engineered nanomachines.
They attack the body in a way that's almost too clever for nature to have
come up with; they are a meta-disease.   Before the AIDS crisis is over, 
we may have to build up enough nanotechnology to confront AIDS on the
viral level with tailored organisms that parasitize the AIDS virus or
neutralize it in some other way.  This should be the gateway to
serious cellular-level nanotechnology, such as repair of damaged DNA,
and should enable us to deal with cancer and other viral disorders.

Russ Cage:
> Doug Moen:
> >Me:
> >>Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".
> >[...]  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo...
> You have to find it first.... you have to analyze its program to see
> if it ever quits reproducing.
> This is exactly equivalent to the halting problem, which is insoluble.

Besides, Grey Goo is more likely to be born by accident, not made. If you
have problems with alpha hits in microtechnology, what do you think radiation
will do to nanotechnology? You're gonna knock off the control system for
some gadget before it's even out of the lab. This stuff makes biowarfare
research look like a Thomas Salter chemistry set. (You can't do anything
REALLY dangerous with those kits. I know. I tried)
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.

In article <2783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>In article <1526@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>>In article <1445@m-net.UUCP> russ@m-net.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>>>In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
>>>>[...]  If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo,
>>>>then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have
>>>>a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available.
>
>Goo seems almost inevitable. It should not be a big problem, of itself;
>the definition of Goo (for those not familiar with the problem) is that
>of a nanomachine that will use any available energy and raw material to
>reproduce itself periodically.  If it reproduces at 2x per year you have
>one problem, relatively minor; if it reproduces at 512x per minute, you have 
>quite another.

I can hear the squeals from the anti-nuclear type lobby already

	Can you PROVE it is safe?
	Campaign against the Grey Goo!
	prevent Nano-technology!

and not a :-> in sight.
	Bob.

>In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
>>peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".

>You have to find it first.  The difficulty is that, in order to decide
>if a particular bit of nanomachinery is Gray Goo (or a part thereof),
>you have to analyze its program to see if it ever quits reproducing.
>This is exactly equivalent to the halting problem, which is insoluble.

>Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.    (313) 662-4147    {sw1a7,umix}!m-net!rsi

Nope.  Just destroy anything that is not identifiable as 'friend'.  That's
the principal the immune system uses, and it seems to work okay most of
the time.

     I should mention that Drexler has proposed more detailed designs of
nano computers than the popularizations in EOC.  The more detailed designs
look quite plausible and look like variations on Babbage's
Analytical Engine -- only with smaller gears, levers, etc.  The key trick
in simplifying the design problem is to (1) propose a few intuitively
plausible building blocks -- rods that can be slid back and forth, knobs
that stick out of the rods, etc.  Then (2) propose a specific chemical structure
for each building block, and demonstrate that -- within reasonable engineering
tolerances -- it can be treated like the intuitively simple building
block (example -- a 'rod' can be made out of a series of carbon atoms,
alternately single and triple bonded).  Finally (3) put the basic building
blocks together into some interesting structure -- such as a computer.

     The major limitation today is the manufacturing technology.  Given
an atomic machine shop even I could start making interesting nano-machines
using the 'building block' approach.   Current molecular-scale fabrication
technology is limited to the construction of arbitrary sequences of
amino acids (protein engineering).  Understanding how to build a protein
is rather difficult right now, though a great deal of funding
is being poured into research in this area.  Building a working machine
composed of hundreds or thousands of proteins is beyond current design
technology -- though NOT current MANUFACTURING technology.  If someone
(God, ET's or whoever) gave us the specific amino acid sequences of the
needed proteins, we could easily (this is the scientists 'easily', not the
engineers 'easily') produce the proper proteins in the proper amounts.
Assembly of the proteins is simple:  stir them together and watch them
self-assemble.  This is a standard assembly technique used in existing
protein-based machines (us!).

     Now it's just a small matter of programming :-) to build a molecular
level machine shop from proteins.

     Ralph C. Merkle
     ...!sun!elxsi!merkle

In article <2783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>In some respects, the AIDS viruses look like engineered nanomachines.

  Forgive me, but I don't quite understand that statement.  Could you 
explain in more detail.  When you talk of nanotechnology, does that
include genetic engineering?  
  You might also be interested to know that AIDS vaccine testing will begin
in 1988 at six different centers in the U.S.  Unfortunately, however,
Dr. Robert Couch, director of the center here, said an AIDS vaccine is not 
likely to be available to the public before the mid-1990's.  [information
from Nov. 1987 issure of Baylor Medicine]

>serious cellular-level nanotechnology, such as repair of damaged DNA,
>and should enable us to deal with cancer and other viral disorders.

  There is very promising research being done in the area of DNA repair
right now, here at Baylor College of Medicine.  For example, there are
researchers trying to use viruses as a vehicle to deliver functional DNA
to the proper sites in a living animal's genome in hopes of correcting
for the animal's own genetic defects.  One of the problems (of many) is
finding a form of the virus that won't mutate back into a pathogenic form.
This sounds like what you consider to be a problem with nanotechnology.
I still don't understand the difference between "nanotechnology"
and present-day genetic engineering.

Kent
-- 
Kent Hutson
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
kent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <3278@soma.bcm.tmc.edu> kent@soma.UUCP (Kent Hutson) writes:
>I still don't understand the difference between "nanotechnology"
>and present-day genetic engineering.

The difference is that "nanotechnology" is a broader class of mechanisms,
not restricted to being composed of organic molecules.  Drexler points to
genetic engineering as being the present day beginnings of nanotechnology.

Gerry Gleason

In article <3278@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, kent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (Kent Hutson) writes:
> In article <2783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> >In some respects, the AIDS viruses look like engineered nanomachines.
> 
>   Forgive me, but I don't quite understand that statement.  Could you 
> explain in more detail.  When you talk of nanotechnology, does that
> include genetic engineering?  
>
>   There is very promising research being done in the area of DNA repair
> This sounds like what you consider to be a problem with nanotechnology.
> I still don't understand the difference between "nanotechnology"
> and present-day genetic engineering.
> 
> Kent
> -- 

I've edited Kent's words somewhat.  Here's what I propose as the
significant difference:

The most significant difference between nanoengineering and genetic 
engineering is that genetic engineering is based on organic chemistry, 
while nanoengineering is not.  The nanomachines may be made entirely 
of inorganic materials.  

Some of what falls under genetic engineering could be included in 
the wider category of genetic engineering.

The latest Scientific American has an article on nanomachines.

Norm Andrews
AT&T Information Systems
Room MT-2C402
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, New Jersey 07748
(201)957-5786
vax135!mtuxo!mtgzy!norm

In article <636@elxsi.UUCP>, merkle@beatnix.UUCP (Ralph Merkle) writes:
> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Even Drexler is uneasy about the "Grey Goo".
> 
> Just destroy anything that is not identifiable as 'friend'.  That's
> the principal the immune system uses, and it seems to work okay most of
> the time.

Great job. Your grey goo detector sounds just like the sort of thing to run
wild and turn you into grey goo. These tiny little machines are going to be
real susceptible to radiation... so what happens when a carbon-14 in your
little sliding rod state machine decays and your nanomachine "immune system"
suddenly forgets that your red blood cells are "friends".
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.