Skip to 5:15.

Most critics of Drexler seem to be acting as if he were speaking of nanoassemblers that can be built at the present moment; whereas, I understand him to be advocating a RESEARCH PROGRAMME that could deliver such systems only at the culmination of perhaps a decade or more of intense basic research, R&D, and scaled-up production. His arguments seem to be that 1) the sorts of machines he models on computers are within the "possibility space," and 2) we can devise many sensible engineering paths.

I found the talk very interesting. I found the comments les so, in general.

Even analog at its most basic state is binary. Even digital at a certain state is analog it all depends on the resolution of the model. There is a level of resolution that neurons are binary (notice I did not state digital) and these binary models when examined on the macro scale are very complex but that does not mean they cannot be modeled. it is your self who does not understand computational mathematics and the resolution of modelling. Nor the exponential growth of functional algorithms.

Well for one his ideas have kept the cryonics industry afloat and the research money flowing in. And although cryonics almost certainly won't work, research into it has helped medicine in some ways. But it is minimal, yes. However I firmly believe you need dreamers in the world, otherwise it's just filled with 'skeptics' and naysayers. Being a dreamer myself I can attest to how much my imagination has helped me reach my own goals, when almost everyone told me it's not possible.

You stated "It's just not computational" this is a mystical statement. Every thing in physics is computational. To try and state that neuroscience is not computational is to neglect the laws of physics. The brain has a structure and DNA also has a structure that is computational. I am not talking about consciousness up loading which is slippery subject what I am getting at is the brain can be simulated and regions have already been simulated. This has already been done with the fruit fly.

Computers have then been super intelligent since being able to outperform human beings at calculations. The difference between strong AI and weak AI is that the strong AI has intentionality and awareness, aka core components of consciousness.

We are not talking about FTL that is science fiction. We are talking about human level intelligence which as a maximum level of computation based on the laws of physics not a mystical theory. Each neuron can only perform a certain amount of computation it cannot exceed that amount. Binary mathematics can be applied to neuron modelling. This can then be upscale to deal with the large neural patterns this is already happening right now not in the future.

@MrAdvancedAtheist What ‘touchiness’ are you referring to? I've been picking apart Pemetzger's little comment here and can't find it. It's a very simple statement without emotionalism.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't talk about planar assembly, as shown in your nanofactory video. Rather than having to design thirty different levels of fit/function between components - doable but awkward - it seems better to go from molecular mills, to ~1-micron "nanoblocks", and then direct to products. But I guess convergent assembly is easier to put across to a new audience.

@mechadense

6 жыл бұрын

As I see it currently (2017) one would not really want to go for very tiny convergent assembly steps like a mere factor 2. More for like for x32 (or even x100). Yes, that is slower (in case of a single serially operating assembly mechanism per assembly cell) but the products would not need to waste a high fraction of their volume just for interface mechanisms. Less interfaces make product design a lot easier too. And of course one would not need to design 30 something different levels of convergent assembly (in case of x32 steps there would be just four steps from 1nm up to 1mm). In other words a bit bigger convergent assembly step sizes make nanofactory design easier too. For a long time I was pretty puzzled about what higher level convergent assembly steps would actually be good for and whether they are necessary at all. As far as I can tell this is not discussed anywhere. What I've found out so far is that is higher up convergent assembly levels allow for: (1) The avoidance of unnecessary disassembly when reconfiguring already produced products in a way that just swaps big chunks. (2) The assembly of unstable overhangs or impossible undercuts (stalactite like structures) both without scaffolds. (3) More levels of vacuum and clean-room lockout for better isolation - lower ones quickly loose all effect though - practically-perfect-vacuum to practically-perfect-vacuum (...) Does anyone know of more points I have not mentioned here? For passerby readers: The lowest two assembly levels in the nanofactory-concept which are: (1) molecule-fragments to crystal-molecules and (2) crystal-molecules to micro-components, always need convergent assembly. This is because the first layer producers (mechanosynthesis mills) need to be specialized to specific part types (for being capable of good throughput) and an inter-assembly-level-logistics-layer needs to transport these parts (standardized crystal molecules) from where they are made (1) to where they are needed (2). In further up assembly levels there is enough space available (and friction area low enough) for general purpose manipulators to be sensible. Thus bigger parts (e.g. microcomponents) can be made right at their final destination. And thus further "higher" up logistics layers are not fundamentally needed. Convergent assembly can in principle be stopped. Stopping convergent assembly at the lowest possible level leaves a thin sheet nanofactory that looks a bit like a silicon waver. That is what Chris Phoenix is referring to with "planar assembly" here - (I presume).

You are using the word consciousness when we are talking about intelligence there is a difference. I have explained that the brain is computation just as physical mechanics is. So by your theory we will not be able to model the auditory cortex or be able have working medical practices for neural structures. The brain consists of neuron's that form clusters that are formed by synapse structures. These form physical structure that are create three dimensional computational model.s

First I never said it can't be modeled, I just said it won't be for a long time. Secondly only some aspects of our neural functions can be programmed by algorithms. I'm not a comp sci guy but I'm pretty sure that most of the things which make us human cannot be reproduced on any computer today. Third the quantum brain model is getting more evidence behind it every year, and while I don't think it's the main model of neural functioning it definitely plays a part. So we have a ways to go.

I suppose that is were the super computers running super Ai can model the earths climate so we can engineer such conditions. That will be true sustainable energy. The concept of super Ai will enable us to model extremely large data sets in a human meaningful way. This is what Drexler is talking about and from our current position it will appear to be a singularity but as we move closer the orgy will not appear like an orgy at all. It will just be considered normal.

@MrAdvancedAtheist Space colonization is such a mainstream idea that Newt Gingrich is campaigning on having a moon base by 2020. Also flying cars do exist. Go to wikipedia and search flying car. My favorite is the Terrafugia Transition. It is a technology that is progressing very nicely. Fusion reactors do exist. For example look at the Joint European Torus. Fusion power is just not economically efficient yet. Yea, these things exist in the "real world".

Science make bold hypothesis. The Higgs field was such a bold theory that took 40 years to derive a probabilistic outcome. The Scientific method is based on the concept of Probability were a hypothesis is tested. You seem to be implying that the brain is some mystical entity that cannot be quantified via conceptual models nor can mechanical models be created. If this is your position then please clarify.

What a formidable scientist I wish people would know more about him than the stupid useless tv celebrities ... President Trump this gentleman is the greatest representative of American Science pride and joy

'We have working biological molecular machines.' So in other words, soft nanotechnology that would have little in common with drexlers hard nanotechnology. 'We have already used STMs to bond individual atoms.' Perhaps, but there have been no experiments conducted (to my knowledge) which validate the possibility or plausability of mechanosynthesis. Certainly none of the examples given in the renowned october 2004 lecture (by robert freitas) would qualify.

He's created a fantastic idea which may come true...in a few centuries. Most of the greatest scientists were dreamers who had crackpot ideas and views. Even Turing believed in telepathy. That's why when I see someone PZ Myers criticizing everyone from Kurzweil to Hameroff to Sheldrake I just laugh. Because while he sits in his intellectual tower (his blog) the rest of them push the boundaries of science, they might be wrong but that's the beauty of it. To dream the impossible dream.

And then ask why Eric Drexler is speaking at the Inaugural Lecture of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology and Scott Locklin is not.

'Any naysayer against Molecular Manufacturing has to prove that we cannot build working programmable molecular machines.' First off, thats an argument from ignorance. Second, you are shifting the burden of proof: It is those who claim that something can be done (against the consensus) who must produce the evidence.

eli 5 when is this coming.

I think most educated people know that Kaku is someone who popularizes science. He's fun and interesting, noone takes him seriously. Honestly I've changed my opinion of Drexler/Kurzweil and the singularity gang, the loons are the ones that make breakthroughs in science. Even if we most likely won't reach that breakthrough they definitely do push the boundaries of our knowledge. Even Orch OR has some evidence supporting it and everyone in the scientific community called Hameroff a crank.

Watch this if you don't have time to read his new book.

como me gustaria conocerte y felicitarte amigo....el tiempo se me acaba y eres como lo que yo siempre quise ser ojala dios algun dia me de la dicha y alegria de conocerte amigo

You know I used to hate people like you because I believed in a lot of the quantum woo stuff (I still do a little). However now that I'm older, people like you are extremely important because you're practical. And that's what is needed, even in the scientific world. You have the singularity nuts, quantum woo, nanomagic, neuroscience woo. And they could all be true, but there needs to be a rational approach towards them. Quite often even scientists get carried away by fantasies. Thank you.

The whole of the universe is quantum if you are trying to apply this "quantum brain model" so has silicon integrated chips. The brain nor DNA require quantum computation for the level of the models present. The main power of the brain is its fractal structure that is both distributed and 3 dimensional. There is brain functions that can already be modeled. The fruit fly neurological system has already been simulated and did not require quantum brain models (Pseudoscience).

actually someone said something similar and it was nobody less than Richard Feynman!

it depends on how you define a computer and I am assuming you are talking about a physical machine when you refer to a computer. Computation is a conceptual process just like mathematics just like chemistry and biology. Anything even quantum mechanics can computed so can DNA and metabolic structures. There is ZERO evidence of the quantum brain model that is pure pseudoscience that is akin to the concept of a soul.

..because even if it does come out the other end looking much the same, at least it will be behind us.

Singularity nuts that is a bit unfair. I believe in the concept of a singularity that has no relationship with "quantum woo". Our human brain is a physical structure that is mechanical why is it such a step to believe that we are unable to model the brain and then to build upon this model. Calling something "nuts" just because you do not understand it or agree with it is unfair.

still a very long way to go...

Nature just stumbled across "intelligence" and maybe our technology will become "aware" by accident. We may not need to understand what consciousness is or how it works on a deep level in order to create AI. We could just keep building more and more powerful computers and just wait and see if it wakes up. Lets just do this! Lets do this drunk!

Umm you do realize that intelligence is highly influenced by consciousness. Computational power is not intelligence, if so the most powerful computer in the world would be solving our problems on their own and seeking new problems. And it's not my theory, it's the leading theory in science today. We would be able to model the auditory cortex but we have to learn the causal interactions in the system to make it work.

Making bold predictions on partial knowledge is not smart but believing in those predictions is ridiculous. I don't think we can map our consciousness on a turing machine due to several problems. We will need a massive conceptual breakthrough in computing. Cryonics can only work if super duper nanomagic is available. Every bit of technology has it's own problems, which is why future technology =/= immortality. If panpsychism is true then strong AI will be set back even more. So on and so forth.

@MrAdvancedAtheist That guy, Scott, calling every person that demonstrates his ignorance "dipshit" and going mad on them... Thanks for the good laugh.

How can you compute a non deterministic system? The quantum brain model had break throughs where quantum processes were found in birds, plants and DNA. So the whole 'warm wet brain prevents quantum processes' contention is wrong. And the recent Bandopadhyay paper showed how microtubules might have qubits. A prominent neuroscientist also state that quantum processes might have been selected for in decision making as well. It may be pseudoscience to you, but the evidence is piling up. Sorry.

Yes it is a buzz word that has many meanings. But if applied to intelligence growth it has meaning for our current position. The reality is that the further we move forward the and the more intelligent we become the less a singularity appears to be a singularity as that level of intelligence will not appear to be that spectacular. I do not think Greenland would be a good place to have an orgy it is very cold there and some men may not be able to perform due to blood circulation problems

For another view of Drexler's career, google "Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry," by Scott Locklin.

Umm no. First of all Orch Or had a breakthrough with the Bandopadhyay paper on microtubules and qubits. Secondly there is an element of quantum randomness within our brains which facilitate decision making. Each neuron operates within SEVERAL mechanisms all extremely plastic and dynamic. You sound like a Kurzweilian tape recorder, it may work on someone who hasn't studied this. Finally I'm not saying it won't happen, but it will take centuries. We won't have AI by 2045 or even 2245. Maybe 2545.

Well, perhaps you can send me them via PM.

"most powerful computer" is not a human brain nor is it intended to be anything of the sort. First of all lets clarify my position. I am not talking about creating a Ai Consciousness. What I am talking about is creating an Ai that can perform at human levels there is a distinct difference in this. There already are Ai that can perform certain tasks at human level. Watson can use text at human levels and there is many more.

Please read the most current research in neuroscience regarding consciousness. I never said the brain was mysterious. It's just not computational, which invalidates uploading. It's one thing to make bold predictions, it's another to make predictions off the bold prediction. To use your analogy, what singulatarians say is not only that there's a Higgs field, but that we will get warp drive, immortality, unlimited power, unlimited energy, bliss, heaven, fairies, god. It's nonsense.

stop calculating in usd and start calculating in available resources ...

Well I don't want AI and it's not just Americans. The blue brain project is a swiss project.

@pemetzger BTW, your attitude also shows bad economics about the use of your remaining time before cryosuspension. You must have gotten to the neighborhood of 50 years old by now, so have your efforts in creating Drexler's "nanotech" fantasy produced marginal returns large enough to justify the costs? I doubt it. You'd probably get higher marginal returns by making sure you can get a better cryosuspension based on real technologies.

Dude the brain is not digital, it's analog. It cannot be reproduced on a turing machine. This is what computer theorists say, real theorists. Please stop embaressing yourself. This is not happening right now, if you're talking about Modha's cat modeling then they are very crude models of neurons. If you're talking about the open worm project, well it's a task that has taken decades just to map 300 neurons and it's still not complete. We have 100 billion neurons.

"Go away, Danny."

I love listening to Dr. Drexler speak of the ribosome and imagining you Darwinist's saying, "Yeah, and all that happened by chance," as I laugh out loud.

@marrs1013

7 жыл бұрын

VeritasWorld Accepting evolution is accepting reality. Howaver, Darwin never made an attempt to explain how the Universe came into existence. In fact, none of the modern scientists actually trying to explain how the Universe came into existence. Simply becauese unlike you, they have the decency to admit that they simply don't know. Claiming that you know it is simply making you a liar. Because you don't know it either. You might 'believe' in a certain origin, you might hope for a certain way, but wishful thinking doesn't equal to actual knowledge. Scintists might try to understand how it works, but not where it came from. At least not yet.

@theoptimisticnihilist3912

7 жыл бұрын

VeritasWorld Says the guy who thinks magic is real.

wut

Lol be careful youtube is crawling with PZ Myers fanboys and they are rabid.