Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Why I think Nanotechnology is Bogus Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 89 20:20:39 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida Lines: 59 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article James.Price.Salsman@cat.cmu.edu writes: >Why I think Nanotechnology is Bogus. By James P. Salsman. >First, I think nanotechnology is bogus, because I think that >information requires finite space. I believe that there is >a fundamental volume that a "bit" must occupy in order for >it to be stable as a memory cell. I think that dreams of >embedding a typical "AI" program in an object the size of a >mitochondria is silly. That depends on what you mean by "a typical AI program." If you mean a super-human intelligence, your're probably right. If you mean an expert system or neural net that is hard-wired for some specific task--such as extracting energy from chemical fuels--then you are provably wrong. What do you think a mitochondrion *does*? >Second, I think nanotechnology is bogus, because I think >that energy requires finite space. I believe that there is >a fundimental volume that an "electron volt" must occupy in >order for it to be stable and not dissipate. I think that >dreams of embedding enough energy for self-duplication in >something th size of a mitochondria is possible, because, >after all, that's what mitochondria have spent the last >billion years of evolution learning how to do. However, I >do not think that humans will ever be able to construct >anything smaller than a mitochondria that is still capable >of self-duplication and still have energy left over to do >other things -- like, run an "AI" program. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, even if evolved biolife does represent the best intelligence/volume ratio that can ever be obtained, that's still VERY impressive compared to our current technology. I think most people would without any hesitation call a demonstration of such human-developed technology a complete vindication of what Drexler says about AI in Engines of Creation. But then, we can ALREADY make artificial compuational elements, analogous to neurons, that have a much better intelligence/volume ratio than natural neurons do. >Finally, I think nanotechnology is silly because all of the >very-very-very-small logic gate technology I've read about >seems too Newtonian-mechanincal and not very well grounded >in quantumelectrodynamics that form the laws of nanophysics. Nanomachines do not necessarily need to restrict themselves to mechanical computational mechanisms. Quantum-molecular effects are being explored right now today as a basis for logic devices. The physical POSSIBILITY has already been proven. What remains is the engineering of practical devices. I make it my business to keep up with what's going on in all fields of science and technology. Unless you do this, you cannot see the whole picture, and you will tend to underestimate what is and will be possible. The other point I want to stress is to READ ENGINES OF CREATION!!! I get the impression that many people who pontificate on nanotechnology haven't even read this book. Shame on them! Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. ______________________________Down with Li Peng!________________________________ Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.