From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Nov 13 1998 - 14:29:52 MST
Kathryn Aegis wrote:
>
> Doug Bailey:
> > Again, we see skeptics who should know better basically saying certain
> > technological accomplishments are impossible without any firm theoretical
> > substantiation for such a finding.
>
> Why so quick to label any sort of critique of nanotech as uninformed
> skepticism? I think that a healthy dose of skepticism (and Whitesides
> seems to have quite a background to conduct such a critique) will help
> keep nano enthusiasts focused on just what can realistically be
> accomplished. I see nothing in the quotes you provided that indicates
> that Whitesides considers nano applications to be 'impossible'--I doubt
> that he would have expended so much time in reviewing a technology that
> had no hint of potential success.
I agree with Aegis. I have very strong bull detectors, and I didn't hear
anything wrong. I heard someone pointing out the flaw in a commonly-used
analogy. If the maximum size for assemblers is smaller than the minimum size
for chemically powered cells, the analogy is invalid and that's that. If it
takes a major research breakthrough to get powered sub-micron units, then
that's one of the many leaps required for nanotechnology. Nobody said
nanotech was going to be easy. I *pray* nano is hard enough to defeat the
human race until there are competent, ethical transhumans around to handle it.
I think Whitesides has done a good job of identifying the basic issues which
do not scale down from micron cells to nanometer machines. One is power -
ATP-based chemical power doesn't scale down to what are essentially autonomous
chemicals; nanotech needs some source of power - electrical, perhaps. Two is
friction - the macroscopic or classical effects used to shape current
machinery don't operate at the atomic or quantum level; nanotech needs a
different type of design, assembled from atoms instead of carved from blocks.
Three is manufacturing - how do we make an assembler once we've designed it?
I believe that all three questions are addressed in Dr. Drexler's
"Nanotechnology". I would have been interested in a critique of Drexler's
answers, but what Whitesides delivered was a perfectly valid critique of a
common, popularized, mistaken argument. So I don't think that Whitesides is
being unnecessarily skeptical, but I don't think he's disproved nanotechnology either.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:46 MST