This article at slash dot is in the ball park of a molecular constructor and it isn't what I am working on, but this is an example of duplicate solutions. It is interesting and I intend to see how they are doing this. I understand the atom at the level of the nucleus and it isn't necessary to manipulate these things mechanically, though it is a cool concept. I have looked at this stuff before and I did something similar to this in the early 90's and decided against spending a lot of time with it. There are several paths to self replication.
I have read many things that speculate on the evolution of life and am less than excited about their idea of what future holds. The idea of consciousness in a digital computer is a joke and is nothing more than an ornate tombstone. The process of AI and robots has been toward a more and more life-like puppet and is not really life like at all.
In order to be life it must be self replicating and that is more of a definition than it can solve tic-tac-toe or mimic every activity of a person. I can see a path of life that is very unusual and self replicating and extensible in its form. It is my opinion that life is more or less strange loops that have more or less complexity depending on the environment. The ability to form matter at the atomic level is one of those things that is very much a strange loop. It is definitely a system that can self replicate and evolve from that premise. I consider that the first strange loops like an amino acid sequence that breaks or makes amino acid bonds to be a major leap in loops, but it doesn't stay that way long and it develops higher complexity quite quickly.
I also see that life will ebb and flow and since it is so chaotic it sometimes does not recurse things that are the primary node.
It is my opinion that they are speaking from emotional logic and not universal logic when they consider the path of life. A device which can create itself by bonding atoms and has a means to select what changes it might incorporate, would evolve very rapidly in my opinion. Sometimes it isn't possible to control or project what we intend because our vision is limited. My children are nothing like me and so life isn't about cloning yourself forever, in fact, that is just another name for death IMHO.
I was planning on using nanotechnology to implement the interface from a constructive model to matter and I have a better technique now. It is less convoluted and its implementation is reasonably simple, as opposed to a complex system of methods and parts which requires a complexity so high that the base structure is less likely to be stable on replication. The idea of a catalyst that catalyzes itself in the proper environment is more of a sequence than a computer driven system that requires so many different parts it cannot reconstruct itself without an entire culture and society. So antfarmgl has incorporated a new tool and this is why I have to continually recurse development as it isn't possible to see which methods are best for a specific goal without trying them out. In this case it was not available when I started and it makes no sense to do it in a contrived way if there is an easy way.
Drug companies and many genetics companies and in fact almost everybody hides their developments in order to have advantage over others. That is one of those things where people help themselves by shooting themselves in the foot. The idea of open technology is to allow for the factorial expansion of ideas and once somebody finds a key and then attempts to own one of the obvious pathways to a solution, they act like a biological poison to the process. The concept of owning ideas is so badly thought out that it is incredulous.
I intend to release antfarmgl and it will be able to take a pdb file and generate that protein or in fact any other chemical and as such will produce chemicals and systems which are owned by others. In the process it will create chemicals and methods which are far beyond that process and if somebody is allowed to own the rights to the Carbon atom and use the military to enforce that right, they are really just a thug. They are a government sponsored and endorsed thug, but still a thug. The ownership of ideas and art is a sticky wicket and I can see that people like to gain from what they do. The problem is one of cooperation and in complete cooperation everyone gains, but that is not likely. I have no answer for greed and the hunger for power.
The system of existing biological life could possibly be maintained indefinitely through the use of this technology, but to what end? It seems more like keeping a relic of the past than life. Life changes and advances and so it is always different. You can't be the same and deal with that which is new, so the idea of self is an emotion and not a rational impulse. I know that everything in the universe is infinite in its interaction and as such the idea of "1" is a fallacy created by pure imagination. No man is an island, in fact no thing is even a perfect isolate.
The existential argument may be far too painful for some and I can understand this as it is also dissonant to my own emotional reasoning. It does not make it any less true, but it does make it one of those things that people would rather ignore as it gives them and me a headache. There is an existence, but it is more of a bird traveling to a distant island than a statue of a bird cast in indestructible materials. One is monument to life, the other is life.
Just my opinion at the moment. (Ch) Changeright 2010 moteyalpha , All my ideas are subject to change without notice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment