Future Tech ... on nanobots and the human soul in the 26th Century
POSTED BY: Karnejj
UPDATED: Thursday, January 5, 2006 21:49
VIEWED: 13373
PAGE 1 of 8
A fellow poster suggested this topic may deserve it's own thread.
I submit the following:
In the Firefly 'verse, ships have artificial gravity which can be activated and deactivated upon a whim. The prominent poster, "Citizen" puts forth one theory that supposes that ships can generate and direct the particles which cause gravity - namely, gravitons.
Which led me to state in one thread the following.
I never said that directing gravitons is more difficult than nanobots (although I would conjecture that it is) ... but, I would assert that the military potential for nano tech would get it higher priority than the general theoretical research that it would take to eventually control gravity.
I'm pretty sure our experiments into gravitational manipulation aren't as far along as our current state-of-the-art in nanotech. There are currently micro-scale robots that can do simple things, such as follow a line, by walking in a bi-pedal fashion. There are also Shape-Memory metals that can be actuated by a simple current. Of course there are research into bucky-balls (folded carbon nano-tubes) as mini-computers as well.
I would even submit that the Firefly 'verse has extremely advanced nanobots already. It would be one of the few ways to do the large-scale terraforming that is hinted at. Either small, versatile machinery that can go everywhere or really big complex machinery that handle various portions of the terraforming job....
As for meat computer vs quantum brains, only time will prove who's right, but I think that there can be sentient non-biological machinery. It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity. Passing the Turing test [robots that can fool you well enough to pass as humans] are within reach, I believe. If a robot "acts" like it has a soul so well that we can't be sure ... would you deny that he does have one? Possibly you would ... but not everyone would be so quick to discount it ...
Tracking inputs into a person is pretty easy, ya know ... They come through only a few well-known paths. Touch (as well as smell and taste, I think) passes through the spinal column (for the most part), visual input goes through the optic nerve, and sound through the cochlea.
One interesting argument posed in a book I read could be paraphrased as follows...
We'll assume that you either are a conscious being or not ... no such thing as half a consciousness. John Doe was born a rather sickly child to very wealthy parents. As he grows older he has to have a pacemaker installed. Later, his hearing fails, but, fortunately, he is eligible for a new operation that places a device into his ear that stimulates his hearing nerves in response to sound. Later, he notices his eyesight isn't as great as it once was. He decides to have the inside of one of his eyes augmented with a high-tech hi-res camera that triples the clarity of things he sees and allows him to see far (like a telescope) and gives him a little ability to magnify things as well. Unfortunately, trying to concentrate on those advanced functions causes him dizziness due the strain. The doctors give him a visual scene processing computer the size of a credit card that he wears in his pocket. It communicates with the camera wirelessly and automatically highlights important objects that he's looking at. It even does neat things such as give him details about people and buildings he sees. Such as their birthday, favorites, and how they met, etc. He eventually adds more abilities to the card. He has it process sounds as well. One day he loses the card and can't stand the loss of the extra processing. He tells the doctors to just replace those parts of his brain and implant the machinery in his head. He's got a lot of silicon and metal thinking for him now ... is he still the same John Doe ... just better? Of course, all of his friends say he's the same ... he just can "remember" more about the people he meets now, and can hear/see much better than he used to be able to. He's even
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen .. you stated that
Quote:
Karnejj:
You make a convincing argument but the truth is in the details. Not once has 'John Doe' had his brain removed. His essence lies within, and that is never touched.
But in that long thread you may have missed where I suppose that small pieces throughout the entire brain are replaced by machinery ... one bit at a time. I highlight it in the above reposting ... and where in the replacement process does he lose enough essence to be considered 'just a non-sentient machine.' I would answer never. [I *DO* believe that the original John Doe does die somewhere along the process, but that the final robot clone is a new 'person' still capable of just as much sentience as the original-human John Doe.]
Quote:
I don’t agree. There’s more to life than a simulation. At least a simulation that we can envision.
And that's where we differ. Unfortunate as it may be ... I think we ARE just programs run on a meat computer
Complex programming, no doubt .... but not beyond *EXACT* replication and simulation on a silicon machine. You appear to believe that the quantum effects that have been discovered in the brain have a large effect on the overall programming. I believe they do not, and even if they did, that similar effects could still be achieved within a machine. That would leave no place for our coveted sentience/consciousness (even soul?!) to hide ....So, if that is all true, there are only 2 possiblilties: A) even the machines that we will eventually be able to create must too be sentient or B) we, humans, are not truly sentient either.
As for nano-tech .. you're probably right about the fact that mini machines have their little cogs break and burn-out very quickly. But, that's exactly the reason that nano-tech research aims to create one-piece machines (complex single molecules) which can work together to achieve some various goals. Much like simple neurons can cluster together to form an amazingly complex thing we call the human brain.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To Terraform you need big machines. Nanobots are just too small for the job (ironic isn't it?)
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I would even submit that the Firefly 'verse has extremely advanced nanobots already. It would be one of the few ways to do the large-scale terraforming that is hinted at. Either small, versatile machinery that can go everywhere or really big complex machinery that handle various portions of the terraforming job....
Think of it this way, you need to build a normal human sized bridge across a river. There are two teams one is of normal humans the other or 200 foot tall giants. Who will get the job done faster?
Besides why do you need to use nanobots to terraform? What you need to do is change the atmosphere, purfy the water (if none present bring some IE crash some comets) and transplant topsoil for farming.
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh.... you limit the nanobots too severely.
The ultimate goal of nanorobotics would be to allow them to merge Voltron-like into a big machine that could build the bridge in the conventional way that you'd like to see it built. Or they could form into whatever other big machine that you could want.
But, if it were up to the nanobots, they'd form together to truss it up and then pass materials from whatever source along to the area where the bridge was needed and deposit them in the correct place. Then swarm off to another area.
What better way to control the atmosphere than to have miniature machines floating around in the stratosphere catalyzing various reactions as needed ....?
Why use nanobots? 'Cuz building one little thing that can copy itself and create a batch of itself is easier than building huge construction equipment.
Why NOT use nanobots? ... well, there is always the problem of them malfunctioning and not knowing when to stop copying itself ... that would lead to them becoming a huge environmental cancer that would destroy a whole planet ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But is it faster? How long would it take for the nanobots to build themselves to sufficent numbers before they could work? If you have giant (or in this case normal sized) building machines constructing terraforming machines you build one machine you can start terrforming on a large scale right away- if you have nanobots it takes them millions if not billions of replications to work at that scale. Both systems take equaly as long to build a terrforming unit the big ones win the race.
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My guess is that the nanobots are ready faster and are more resilient than your big machine.
We would both need raw supplies. That's a given.
You would need to build all of your circuitry and moving parts and eventually assemble all of that together.
I need only make one nanobot successfully and drop it into a soup of the raw materials. After that it will make another nanobot. Those 2 bots will make 2 more bots. Those 4 bots make 4 more ....
While they're doing that ... I can go make my next nanobot for the next planet, while you're still putting together the machine for the first planet ... The autonomy (self-direction) of the nanobot is the key.
What happens when a piece of your machine breaks? You have to find and replace the problem. A nanobot breaks and it'll just get cannabalized into a new bot or some other project ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The nanobot needs to build another of its kind with the same scale of tools that a human would build a machine. Maybe terraforming is too complex of an example since humans have not really reached that scale of technology. Lets go with something really simple...
... you have two people, lets say clones- equal in every way. You want to kill them. 
because he is going to start a fight with you or he bothers you, or if there's a (wo)man, or if you're gettin' paid... The first guy you decide to go all Dirty Harry up on his ass and use a .44 Magnum. (Go ahead make my day PUNK!) One shot to the head and he drops like a slab of meat. Now assuming the 2nd guy didn't see you blow his copies head off with a .44 Magnum and runs for his life, you have a gun that shoots nano-bullets (bullets in nano scale). Each of those bullets would only destroy a few cells of his body with each shot and assuming that for each shot you make the next shot has double the nano-bullets how long will it take to kill guy #2? After a dozen shots he might feel a sting. After a hundred a slight burning, after that he might just beat the crud out of you and kill you with that .44 magnum.
Anything a nanobot can do a big machine can do on a larger scale, and larger scale = faster in 99% of cases (the 1% being cases that take place on nano scale).
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're still not seeing the ultimate potential for nanobots. You're still thinking "mini-independant-robo-guys." You have to think more "smart Voltron-bacteria." It is essential that nanobots be able to copy themselves AND that they be able to work together.
Say Guy #2 doesn't run .. instead he gets his bucket of nanobots and takes his remote control and pushes a few buttons. The nanobots rise out of the bucket and merge together to form bulletproof armor that covers Guy #2. Say, he pushes a few more buttons and some more bots get together to form Jayne's good-ole Vera with other bots forming .50 caliber slugs ... whereupon he asks Guy #1, "Do you feel lucky punk? ... do ya??!" ... That first shot is gonna do more than sting a little .....
The ultimate goal of nanotech would be to create little machines that can replicate themselves like bacteria, but also can work together to form useful machinery, like (re-usuable) animal stem cells. Have them able to respond to some sort of control device - chemical, radio, laser, whatever ... They should probably also be able to pass along signals like neurons do.
Remember that bacteria are able to create complex machinery (more bacteria) on their small scale and have complete copies within a couple hours or less.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay firstly on the subject of Nanobots:
Karnejj, you seem too want to elevate Nanobot abilities into the magical, being capable of pretty much anything, at a scale far smaller than anything we can currently produce.
The most advanced Nano scale machines we have are cogs that wear out quickly. When speaking of Nano motors modern technology is referring to motors a little larger than a match head, although small this is still far larger than anything that could be inserted into the blood stream. Likewise we currently can only build the simplest of self replicating machines, and that's on the macro scale.
The thing is Nanobots aren't actually a part of real nanotechnology research; they're a construct of pure Science Fiction. Consider:
Quote:
From CRN (Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology):
The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things “atom-by-atom” by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing, Nano scale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fuelled by science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology. Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial technologies and discussion of the real dangers.
...
Both scientists and the public have gotten the idea that molecular manufacturing requires the use of nanobots, and they may criticize or fear it on that basis. The truth is less sensational, but its implications5 are equally compelling.
http://www.crnano.org/BD-Nanobots.htm
Further more we can't build a macro scale machine with the adaptability of the Nanobots you suggest, so how do we fit this considerable processing power and memory storage into a neat Nano package?
Now I'm not saying that someday Nanobots won't be within our grasp, but by the shear fact that in comparison to modern technology Nanobots seem like magic it's a long way off.
The second question is on the nature of the brain.
Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity.
I don't believe that Human's alone have sentient consciousness or any of the other things we like to think makes us unique. Most animals can show a certain degree of consciousness.
What I do believe is that there is more to the Biological brain than simply a meat computer. There's persuasive evidence that Quantum Mechanics plays a role in consciousness, something that can't be modelled.
Now remember that a computer is simply a calculator, identical to the basic concept of Babbage’s Difference and Analytical engines. They take two inputs for any particular operation, perform that operation, and output a result. This gives rise to the well known input process output diagram:
INPUT -> PROCESS -> OUTPUT
Its true modern systems, for instance SSE instructions are SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) but these are merely a CISC optimisation attempts, i.e. using fewer instructions to submit more data.
Now the brain doesn't work this way. Beyond the obvious that the Brain is analogue rather than digital, conceptually the brain can work on an infinite number of inputs simultaneously. A computer is a centralised processing unit, in fact the computer itself is the main memory and the CPU unit, the rest is peripherals and interface devices. The Brain is very much more a decentralised processing unit. Sure there are areas in the brain that deal with specific things, but any one Neuron can communicate with any other Neuron or Neurons (albeit not directly) in order to function.
Getting back to the fact that a computer is a calculator all it can do is simulate this interaction. Again it's true that neural nets have some success with AI and Learning programs, but is this true learning and true AI?
Yes
Do these, or could these programs experience consciousness?
I don't think s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Okay firstly on the subject of Nanobots:
Karnejj, you seem too want to elevate Nanobot abilities into the magical, being capable of pretty much anything, at a scale far smaller than anything we can currently produce.
Well ... yeah... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." [Arthur C.
Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)] ... Take a kid's walkie-talkie to Renaissance Italy or ... take a chess playing machine to 18th century New York. Take that new prosthetic arm that can be controlled to feel and pick up things from an amputated stump back to World War I.
Quote:
The most advanced Nano scale machines we have are cogs that wear out quickly. When speaking of Nano motors modern technology is referring to motors a little larger than a match head, although small this is still far larger than anything that could be inserted into the blood stream. Likewise we currently can only build the simplest of self replicating machines, and that's on the macro scale.
Further more we can't build a macro scale machine with the adaptability of the Nanobots you suggest, so how do we fit this considerable processing power and memory storage into a neat Nano package?
Now I'm not saying that someday Nanobots won't be within our grasp, but by the shear fact that in comparison to modern technology Nanobots seem like magic it's a long way off.
Work in the direction I have been implying has already begun ... http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nGB3nWOzK3YJ:www.nanotech-now.com
/utility-fog.htm+fog+nanobots&hl=en&lr=lang_en
and
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-qAUlfGlyz4J:discuss.foresight.or
g/~josh/Ufog.html+utility+fog&hl=en&lr=lang_en
and prototypes at
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:hPgS28iOeekJ:nanodot.org/articles
/01/02/04/100216.shtml+utility+fog&hl=en&lr=lang_en
Quote:
The second question is on the nature of the brain.Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity.
I don't believe that Human's alone have sentient consciousness or any of the other things we like to think makes us unique. Most animals can show a certain degree of consciousness.
Eeek ... a squirrel more sentient than Star Trek's "Data" ... that's
Quote:
What I do believe is that there is more to the Biological brain than simply a meat computer. There's persuasive evidence that Quantum Mechanics plays a role in consciousness, something that can't be modelled.
Now remember that a computer is simply a calculator,
.
.
.
INPUT -> PROCESS -> OUTPUT
Now the brain doesn't work this way. Beyond the obvious that the Brain is analogue rather than digital, conceptually the brain can work on an infinite number of inputs simultaneously.
.
.
.
but any one Neuron can communicate with any other Neuron or Neurons (albeit not directly) in order to function.
It seems that you agree that computers can simulate this in software ... why discount that it can be done physically, as well (not that I believe it's strictly necessary, ... but for the sake of argument). There are what ... 4 billion devices connected to the internet. What if we add a program to each of these computers that allows them to communicate in a way that more closely models the way neurons work? This is still a far cry from 100 billion neurons and the quantum effects therein (not to mention lag throughout the internet), but it would possibly allow us enough processing to simulate the personality of a human.
Quote:
Getting back to the fact that a computer is a calculator all it can do is simulate this interaction. Again it's true that neural nets have some success with AI and Learning programs, but is this true learning and true AI?
Yes
Do these, or could these programs experience consciousness?
I don't think so. We can't program or simulate consciousness; I believe it's an emergent pr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME