CompuServe Thread

#Cops, Courts, Crooks

14 messages in this thread
#88947From: Ben BlishOct 13, 1987 9:37 PM
No way. man in general is proabably capable of almost anything, as much and more than your god is supposed to have done, including generation of solar systems, stting bushes on fire, conceptions without penetration, and probagating values over time beyond one lifespan. You remember Eye-4-an-I ? Greece, or Rome, no? I can't buy that. Consensus, no, not yet. But soon. the Genetic map is undergoing significant mapping — when they figure out what makes you stupid, who will want a stupid offspring? When they figure out what makes you inherently psycotic, who, again? When they figure out what makes you generally healty, remove the need to work yourself to death simply to survive, remove starvation, eduacte the masses and so choke religon to within an inch of it's life, then you'll begin to see a consensus. Nationalism has to go. Languages have to cohere. Power has to be cheap. Knowledge has to be cheap or free. We'll get there, without the need for any supernatural forces, either. –Ben–
#89012From: Rodney SomersteinOct 14, 1987 1:34 AM
Ben, This is a little off the subject, but if you are interested in genetic engineering and other types of nanotechnology, you would probably enjoy the book, "The Engines of Creation", by K. Eric Drexler. It is well written, easy to understand (I don't come from a strong science background, but rather a strong SF background!), and is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. It discusses coming advances in molecular technology that will enable such things as the reversal of aging! Such technology will also allow the creation of mechanical super-computers, which are much faster and more capable than the electronic computers of today. The mechanical aspects will be on a molecular level, rather than a modern day version of a Babbage engine. Rodney Somerstein 73167,2165
#89021From: Don Curtis/SYSOPOct 14, 1987 2:31 AM
Rodney, Even on a molecular level….mechanical computers can never be faster than electronic computers. Lots of reasons…but the major reason is inertia. It takes very little energy or time to get electrons moving and while it takes much more energy and time to get molecules moving (on a relative time scale). The same would be true for a state, physical or chemical change in a molecule. Don
#89131From: Richard Rae/SYSOPOct 14, 1987 9:22 PM
I would expect the higher speed of a "molecular" (biological) computer to come from a massively parallel architecture, or perhaps a fully holographic system, which cannot currently be done with electronics. The brain is abysmally slower than even a C64, but many processes it can handle faster and better than the largest supercomputers. When we start "growing" computers, all us Von-Neumanites will have to start learning again from scratch. Not at all sure this is what either Rodney or the writer of the book intended, but that was the way I took it. Rick
#89148From: Rodney SomersteinOct 14, 1987 10:36 PM
Exactly. The point is, that on a molecular level, things can be done mechanically that are just plain impossible with electronics. Rodney Somerstein 73167,2165
#89222From: Don Curtis/SYSOPOct 15, 1987 1:31 AM
Rick, If we ever get the point where we can "grow" a computer on a molecular level (biological or otherwise) we would also more than likely have the technology to create a better version via electronics. We can already do parallel processing via electronics…separate programs and processors each doing a bit of an overall larger process…and all controlled by a master processor. The human brain isn't designed or developed to think numbers, and thus is slower at addition, subtraction, etc than a PC. The brain is designed to work on concepts and on them it's superb. Think of the complex calculations and adjustments that must be made to pitch a baseball…and we do it without consicous thinking other than "fastball", "curve", etc. The brain handles the concept motion, inertia, aerodynamics, gravity, musculature, strength, flexability,etc all in an instant without knowing any of the written formulas for such calculations nor the forumla needed to put it all together….it just does it. Now think of the calculations necessary by the batter to hit the ball, also done instantly and with extremely limited information to work with. The batter has to determine probable path based on an instants view of the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand, determine speed and then the necessary movements of the arms required to bring the bat into contact not only with the ball, but in such a manner as to make the ball move in the opposite direction yet stay within the limits of a "fair ball". To me…that's absolutely amazing. Don
#89270From: Richard Rae/SYSOPOct 15, 1987 1:45 PM
You'd better believe it's amazing, and that was the point: the brain is a sort of "holographic" system. Say what you will about electronics, we can't build something if we don't know how it's made, advances in technology notwithstanding. But maybe bio-engineering will allow us to "grow" complex systems without understanding them? (Although this leaves us in the hands of a holographic, artificially intelligent computer, the machinations of which we don't understand… SF here we come. 8) I dunno. This is a good category for the discussion, because I am most certainly typing this off the cuff. Let's compare notes and see how well electronics and bio-engineered systems are doing against each other when the latter reaches the state we're citing. I plan on still being around then… don't you? 8) Rick
#89305From: greg gossOct 15, 1987 5:55 PM
In the argument over whether electronic or mechanical computers would be faster, you bring in a CHEMICAL computer? The fact that a human brain is effective when it depends on neuro-transmitters wafting from cell to cell, proves only that an effective architecture can be built even from the most ineffective building blocks. Organic nervous systems depend on electrical signals to cover distance (eg communication from your fingertip to your spine), but do the processing chemically. ../greg
#89147From: Rodney SomersteinOct 14, 1987 10:35 PM
But with the distances that the molecules are moving being so small, it would not require that much energy or time to travel the appropriate distance. Rodney Somerstein 73167,2165
#89226From: Don Curtis/SYSOPOct 15, 1987 1:36 AM
Rodney, Right…and it takes even less time and energy for an electron to travel that distance or for an electron to transfer a photon over the same distance. Don
#89029From: Ben BlishOct 14, 1987 3:39 AM
Sounds very interesting — I'll pick it up, let you know! –Ben–
#89150From: Rodney SomersteinOct 14, 1987 10:36 PM
The Engines of Creation just came out in trade paperback, so if you don't like buying hardbacks, you can save a few dollars. Rodney Somerstein 73167,2165
#89115From: BILL LEACHOct 14, 1987 8:20 PM
Ben: Well, we know that this is were we have to agree to disagree. On the other hand, I do not doubt that most of what you are talking about is possible (even though not too likely in our lifetimes). Either you believe in the supernatural forces or you don't. 73, bill
#89203From: Ben BlishOct 15, 1987 12:43 AM
Yep.