From: Eric Watt Forste (arkuat@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 1997 - 13:23:24 MDT
I William Wiser writes:
> Using nanotech to stop aging is still going to require an
> understanding of the body.
and:
> I would love to hear more about why you think nanotechnology is
> the shortest path, though.
I completely agree with your first statement I quoted above. Part
of the reason for my current enthusiasm about nanotech is its
potential in creating new scientific instruments. So much of the
nanotech horse-and-pony show ("popularization") focuses on benefits
that ordinary consumers, voters, and taxpayers can understand that
this is sometimes glossed over.
What would be the best possible data-collection instruments for
deciphering the mechanisms of gene expression and ontogenesis? What
would be the best possible data-collection instruments for exploring
the fine structure of (and the patterns of decay and degradation
in) the brain? In either case, I think that if molecular nanotech
is possible, then molecular nanotech will probably produce the most
valuable scientific instruments for this research.
So I'm not just looking for a technological quick-fix that will
give us uploading and cheap transportation to LEO. I'm looking for
a technological quick-fix that will give us vastly greater ability
to explore and understand the functioning (and possible repair) of
our own brains/bodies. ;)
But you know, one of the nice things about a market economy is how
it inoffensively promotes division of labor (well, inoffensively
when it's working at its best, that is). If for some reason nanotech
becomes a major fad (and that certainly hasn't happened yet), then
perhaps I'll be satisfied that that ground is being well covered,
and go back to trying to figure out how recursive/feedback
unsupervised-learning neural net technology works.
-- Eric Watt Forste ++ arkuat@pobox.com ++ expectation foils perception -pcd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:29 MST