Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Amorphos]

As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

Perhaps observation? If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.

For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.

[Arminius]

As consciousness is now defined.

By whom?

But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

Why?

As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

Perhaps observation?

That is not enough!

Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.

For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.

But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).

[James S Saint]

As consciousness is now defined.

By whom?

Consciousness: Remote Recognition

[Amorphos]

That is not enough! Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses.

True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn't even require intelligence.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

True. Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental consciousness which all life has. There may be spiritual concerns but my difficulty is in the idea of something coming into and leaving the body. In short i have concluded that there must be a way to build up to consciousness e.g. If you keep adding neurons starting with one or a few. ...same if those neurons are artificial naturally.

[Arminius]

As consciousness is now defined.

By whom?

Consciousness: Remote Recognition

The issue of what constitutes consciousness is a common topic in philosophy. The word “consciousness” merely means “with-awareness”.

con·scious (knshs)
adj.
1.

a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

The Question
But a common question arises concerning the limits of that definition. If something reacts to touch, it is displaying an awareness of such touch, else how could it respond? So is it conscious of its environment?

In the case of a charged particle such as an electron, a behavior is noted that indicates that an electron is very aware of any other charged particle nearby, even without being directly touched. So is an electron conscious?

In the case of a person in a comatose state, it is hardly ever argued that they are conscious. Some will argue that there is a degree of mental activity still going on and thus perhaps a degree of consciousness, but certainly not what we call fully conscious. Yet the ears still react to sounds and send signals through nerves into the brain. They are in a sense, aware that they have been touched by their environment. So are the ears and nerves conscious?

The Distinction
There is a clear distinction that can be made between the more common usage of the term “consciousness” and the apparent awareness that inanimate objects display. That distinction can be made by the attempt at recognition of the source of stimulation.

In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.

But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.

Also in the case of the comatose person, the ears and nerves make no attempt to recognize the remote cause of the sounds to which they respond. Recognition requires memory, association, and locating algorithms not present in the ears or signaling nerves.

Thus it can be said that inanimate objects and creatures that have a disabled mental functioning, are not conscious even though there is still purely physical awareness of environment.

Since that distinction can be made, other philosophical issues can be clarified.

The Universe
It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious?

There is strong evidence that the universe does not attempt to recognize any source of stimulation any more than that electron. It merely reacts to immediate surrounding conditions and nothing more. As long as the immediate surroundings are the same, the reactions are the same. Thus it can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.

God and the Materialist
This conclusion gives the atheist and/or materialist just cause for denying that a universe, exclusive of living or artificial mechanisms within, is conscious. Fortunately for those religious people who understand that God is not the universe itself, such a conclusion is irrelevant.

Also just as it is said that God is outside of time, meaning that time has no association or relationship to God, God is also outside of consciousness. The ever-present God has no need whatsoever for recognition algorithms or memory banks.

I didn’t say that ALL philosophical issues would be resolved.

So "consciousness is now defined" (Orb) as a "remote recognition" by you, James. But how do you define "remote recognition"? You say what and who does not have consciousness as "remote recognition" - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?

[Arminius]

That is not enough! Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses.

True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn't even require intelligence.

How would you define "consciousness" and "intelligence" then?

[James S Saint]

But how do you define "remote recognition"?

Being able to identify a remote object. The ability for your Samsung TV to recognize you and realize when you are not looking at the screen, as well as where on the screen you are looking, makes that TV conscious to that degree (still far from what you would call a "human consciousness").

You say what and who does not have consciousness as "remote recognition" - but who (and what?) has it?

Huh?
I said that if an entity has the ability to recognize remote objects, it has consciousness of those objects.

And what does this mean in the context of this thread?

It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more.

[zinnat]

Nanobots manipulate.

No, that is not true for two simple reasons.

1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots?

Wikipedia wrote:
Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometer (10-9 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.1–10 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in medical technology,[9] which could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.
Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.
Wikipedia wrote:
Molecular assembler .... A molecular assembler, as defined by K. Eric Drexler, is a "proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision". A molecular assembler is a kind of molecular machine. Some biological molecules such as ribosomes fit this definition. This is because they receive instructions from messenger RNA and then assemble specific sequences of amino acids to construct protein molecules. However, the term "molecular assembler" usually refers to theoretical human-made devices.
Wikipedia wrote:
Self-replication .... "Molecular assemblers" have been confused with self-replicating machines. To produce a practical quantity of a desired product, the nanoscale size of a typical science fiction universal molecular assembler requires an extremely large number of such devices. However, a single such theoretical molecular assembler might be programmed to self-replicate, constructing many copies of itself. This would allow an exponential rate of production. Then after sufficient quantities of the molecular assemblers were available, they would then be re-programmed for production of the desired product. However, if self-replication of molecular assemblers were not restrained then it might lead to competition with naturally occurring organisms. This has been called ecophagy or the grey goo problem.[8]
One method to building molecular assemblers is to mimic evolutionary processes employed by biological systems. Biological evolution proceeds by random variation combined with culling of the less-successful variants and reproduction of the more-successful variants. Production of complex molecular assemblers might be evolved from simpler systems since "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. . . . A complex system designed from scratch never works and can not be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a system that works."[9] However, most published safety guidelines include "recommendations against developing ... replicator designs which permit surviving mutation or undergoing evolution".[10]
Most assembler designs keep the "source code" external to the physical assembler. At each step of a manufacturing process, that step is read from an ordinary computer file and "broadcast" to all the assemblers. If any assembler gets out of range of that computer, or when the link between that computer and the assemblers is broken, or when that computer is unplugged, the assemblers stop replicating. Such a "broadcast architecture" is one of the safety features recommended by the "Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology", and a map of the 137-dimensional replicator design space[11] recently published by Freitas and Merkle provides numerous practical methods by which replicators can be safely controlled by good design.

Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.

Definition of nan'o•tech•nol'o•gy

So what exactly is nanotechnology? One of the problems facing nanotechnology is the confusion about its definition. Most definitions revolve around the study and control of phenomena and materials at length scales below 100 nm and quite often they make a comparison with a human hair, which is about 80,000 nm wide. Some definitions include a reference to molecular systems and devices and nanotechnology 'purists' argue that any definition of nanotechnology needs to include a reference to "functional systems".


It seems that a size limitation of nanotechnology to the 1-100 nm range, the area where size-dependant quantum effects come to bear, would exclude numerous materials and devices, especially in the pharamaceutical area, and some experts caution against a rigid definition based on a sub-100 nm size.
Another important criteria for the definition is the requirement that the nano-structure is man-made. Otherwise you would have to include every naturally formed biomolecule and material particle, in effect redefining much of chemistry and molecular biology as 'nanotechnology.'
The most important requirement for the nanotechnology definition is that the nano-structure has special properties that are exclusively due to its nanoscale proportions.

The U.S. National Nantechnology Initiatve (NNI) provides the following definition:
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.
A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick; a single gold atom is about a third of a nanometer in diameter. Dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers are known as the nanoscale. Unusual physical, chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. These properties may differ in important ways from the properties of bulk materials and single atoms or molecules.
We found another good definition that is practical and unconstrained by any arbitrary size limitations (source):
The design, characterization, production, and application of structures, devices, and systems by controlled manipulation of size and shape at the nanometer scale (atomic, molecular, and macromolecular scale) that produces structures, devices, and systems with at least one novel/superior characteristic or property.

Second, quantum effects can begin to dominate the behaviour of matter at the nanoscale - particularly at the lower end - affecting the optical, electrical and magnetic behaviour of materials.

Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, Subsea hydraulics engineer

It's not obvious they're even possible. A nanobot is not just a tiny robot -- it operates on fundamentally different physical laws than the macro-scale universe. Quantum effects become large enough to seriously interfere with bot function (or even become dominant) and inter-atomic forces can make simple operations like "grab that molecule and move it" next to impossible. For example, once you grab an atom in a nano-claw, it will probably stick to the claw to the point where you can't let it go again. This type of cold-welding already happens in the macro scale with polished flat surfaces in a vacuum, and gets worse and worse as you get smaller.

It's not only a matter of scaling down and adapting the manipulators, there's also contamination to worry about. I've heard it said that there is enough sodium in a drop of human sweat to ruin every chip on the assembly line in a modern processor foundry. High tech materials as we know them today require correspondingly high cleanliness. That's fine when you're sealed inside a chip package but not for a robot interacting with the environment. Any device made of a number of atoms we can individually count is going to be so small that a rogue ion sticking to it will likely shut it down altogether.

Jean-Christophe Gomez-Lavocat, Founder of WordiZ - Nanotech PhD Student

I have been working on such a field, and I can tell you that the semantic here is quite misleading. Initially, people would call a micro-robot, or nano-robot, some device that is millimiter sized (at best 100 microns).

Others are talking about nano motors.. which actually is a molecular device progressing as Myosin.

On the other end, some issues happen when you go done to the microscale, let apart the nanoscale. In liquids you face an issue with Low Reynolds Number and the so called scallop theorem, that prevent you to propel unless you have some non time-reversible motion pattern. On a surface, contact forces becomes much more relevant. In the air, well, wind is a big enemy.

Randy Crawford

If you're referring to Eric Drexler's form of nanobots, my answer is, "It'll never happen". Nanomachinery that resembles macromachinery probably cannot exist, as other responders have suggested. Quantum mechanical and thermodynamic effects do not favor the rise of inorganic nanodevices with bearings, spindles, and wires. (Look to Richard Smalley's writings and interviews on the subject for an informed opinion.)

My day job is in designing NEMS and MEMS devices.

We are not close to any nanobot in any way. In fact, nobody uses the term nanobots seriously (unless they are talking to popular media channels and just want to motivate their research). The images of the thin-film devices we created using the Sandia National Labs SUMMiT V technology are extremely misleading since they are being taken out of context. Those are NOT functioning/commercial MEMS devices, they are proof of concept prototypes that we used to motivate funding for internal research into materials, tribology, MEMS class III device reliability and failure - and they were cool to build, of course. (And the 'Torsional ratcheting actuators' and 'microengine'/two orthogonal comb drives actually work - only not reliably or for long periods of time). The microgrippers/tweezers (not Sandia work) are micro-manipulation tools - requiring a desk full of hardware to operate.

How much longer will we have to wait? Let's say making a nanorobot is like landing on the moon, and we have just started thinking about using steam as a power transmission source. We need an industrial revolution and a reshaped world economy in addition to countless new inventions/discoveries before we get to the equivalent of Mars rovers in nanobots.

In response to somebody speculating that the 'government' already has nanobots, or even microbots - The Govt has been made all-powerful, yes, but it is not that powerful that it can avoid the rules of scale and physics. We are taking baby steps when it comes to MEMS/microtechnology - in fact all the commercially adopted MEMS tech adopted over the last decade (2004-2014) were originally implemented in functionality and scale before/around 1980's and invented even earlier! Your accelerometer/gyro/microphone/pressure sensors were around in very similar form factors in the 1970's!!!

So the government has some more cooler MEMS than you have heard of in the mass media, but not that much cooler. The private industry/academia almost always create all breakthrough research. The govt only moves in to capitalize and lock in IP or create licensing opportunities.

I was not merely referring to replication, thus reproduction, but also and especially to reproduction interest, when I said this:

Arminius wrote:
But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man's help.

Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That's the question.

But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to?

Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.

Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.

I know that Zinnat (Sanjay) belongs to the "no"-sayers (see here, here, here, here, here) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the "80%-yes"-sayer.

My personal/previous opinion does not matter for me when i revisit any issue. I can throw it out of the window without any hesitation, provided i find a better alternative.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.

And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.

There is certainly a limit/condotions for consciousness too and that is precisely why it cannot be found in/with every complexity.

Secondly, not the whole of nature, but only conscious part of the nature produces self replicating nanobots. This appropriate environment should be a such hosting body which entails consciousness. Otherwise, the guest DNA cell will die.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

Why cells are not machines? What is your benchmark of differentiation?
My argument is that plant cells are not machines because they are live and governed by the consciousness of the plant. What is your argument?

An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?

Arminus, i am not sure whether you are asking or telling your reasoning?

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

Microsbots;


I think they have the microbot issue well covered.

Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;

[zinnat]

Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.

An unwarranted remark. I do not think that ia am being childish here by any streach of imagination.

We have many cyborgs

Again, where?

I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked

Okay. I did not realize that.

zinnat13 wrote:
Secondly, a cell is not an independently viable unit. Means, if you detach a cell from its mother organism, it will not survive. If that is true, how it becomes independent?

Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.

How my question was out of the context? I was also referring to the definition of the independent viable unit in the biological sense.

By programming, thus by consciousness.

There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With "human help" I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells).

You may say so but i do not think that it could be defined as reproduction interest in true sense, as far it is controlled by any outside entity. Yes, one time programming is acceptable but not a continuous interference.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

Perhaps observation? If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.

For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.

No perhaps in it. There has to be an obsever in the first place, everything else comes later.

That observer is precisely what consciousness is. And, any cognition/life is not possible without it. This is the crux of all life forms and everything is built around it. As soon as you lave it out of the equation, the life would be lost and the entity would stop functioning; death.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions.

Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human's capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.

Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority?

But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).

Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

That is not enough! Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses.

True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn't even require intelligence.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

True. Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental consciousness which all life has. There may be spiritual concerns but my difficulty is in the idea of something coming into and leaving the body. In short i have concluded that there must be a way to build up to consciousness e.g. If you keep adding neurons starting with one or a few. ...same if those neurons are artificial naturally.

Amorphos,

Leave your presumptions out of your thinking.

You conclusion is right. There are only two possibilities.

1- there must be consciousness in the first place to built a life form.
2- consciousness must be invariably built from complexity.

One of those must be true but they both cannot be true. Now, try to reach a conclusion.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

Microsbots;


I think they have the microbot issue well covered.

Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;

James,

Even Microbots means such.a thing whose size is around 10-6 of a metre. We are talking about a thousandth part of a millimetre here. I do not think that the things of that size could be seen by naked eyes.

Secondly, they have to be artificially made, not naturally found, and self duplicating too.

With love,
Sanjay

[James S Saint]

Even Microbots means such.a thing whose size is around 10-6 of a metre. We are talking about a thousandth part of a millimetre here. I do not think that the things of that size could be seen by naked eyes.

???
I pointed out a distinction between the micro and the macro, although there is no defined line.

Microsbots;

Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;

And yes, you generally cannot see nanobots without visual aid.

[Arminius]

It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more.

But it is said that all machines are still under human control.

[Arminius]

Nanobots manipulate.

No, that is not true for two simple reasons.

1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots?

It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations. You can find many information about this theme in several books, on the internet, and sometimes also on the television.

Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God ....

That is right, Zinnat, of course.

But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to?

No, because that does only mean that they are not able or not allowed to do it by themselves. Like I said: Evolutuion takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how.

Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.

Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.

Yes, but like I said: They do not need to be independent in order to be part (namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Peds, for example, evolved and evolve because of the help of the humans.

Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions.

It is not an illusion.

Please, define "obsevation".

Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human's capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.

Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority?

It depends on the definition of "observation". How do you define "observation"?

But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).

Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?
Please, define "observation".

[Arminius]

Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?

Only the ones designed to do so, such as natural or artificial forming crystals. Everything responds to its environment. Even human cells will not replicate if in the wrong environment (starved of any means). To stop cell reproduction, the environment must change (and does). To stop a nanobot from reproducing either the environment must change or a signal must be received into the nanobot that alters its reproduction state (merely shifting a molecule out of alignment).

In a sense, nanobots are more capable than cells because they can be signaled to start and stop. How to process that signal is about the only thing holding them up at the moment.

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

[James S Saint]

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

Somewhat, but in the long run, humans can only communicate to machines through machines, and thus eventually, and sometimes already, it is machines telling other machines when to reproduce or do any other task.

Currently to the governance of Mankind, there is no distinction between humans and machines other than which chemicals are used to produce them.

[zinnat]

It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations. You can find many information about this theme in several books, on the internet, and sometimes also on the television.

Arminus, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity. The fact of the matter is that no actual nanobot (1 to 100 nm and according to Dexter premise) has been artificially made so far thus there is no question of manipulating ones. Yes, nanobots certainly exists but they are non man-made.

When you go in the details and check the authenticity of the pictures of so called nanobots provided on the net or the media, you will find that none of those would be an artificial one but made by nature.

The trick is in being played here in the definition of the nanobots/nanotechnology to mislead people because no one pays attention to the details but only at the headlines.

Secondly, most of us do not discern this but nanobots and nanotechnology are two entirely different things. Nanotechnology does not entail manufacturing real nanobots.

This is from your quote of wiki-

Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.

Read it carefully and try to understand what this definition is actually suggesting. It does not refer to making nanobots in reality but only to somehow interfere at that scale, which is an entirely different thing and way behind from making any real and self duplicating nanobot.

Here is one more such manipulating definition, though more honest one-

nanotechnology, the manipulation of materials and devices on the scale of atoms or small groups of atoms. The “nanoscale” is typically measured in nanometres, or billionths of a metre (nanos, the Greek word for “dwarf,” being the source of the prefix), and materials built at this scale often exhibit distinctive physical and chemical properties due to quantum mechanical effects. Although usable devices this small may be decades away.

That is the actual position as of now. They are talking about only manipulation at atomic level, not making any such scaled thing. Rest is hype/assumption/one day it will and so on.

Another one-

the science of working with atoms and molecules to build devices (such as robots) that are extremely small

Look, there is no mention of actual scale (1 to 100 nm) which is real issue. In stead of that, the term extremely small is used so that anything could be called as nanobots.

My guess is that most of the people would not be aware of the fact that this concept of nonobots is not something new but was postulated by Richard Feynman way back around 1950, when he initiated a talk with a phrase There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. This is what he said exactly-

I want to build a billion tiny factories, models of each other, which are manufacturing simultaneously. . . The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom. It is not an attempt to violate any laws; it is something, in principle, that can be done; but in practice, it has not been done because we are too big. — Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner in physics

What is Nanotechnology?

A basic definition: Nanotechnology is the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale. This covers both current work and concepts that are more advanced. In its original sense, 'nanotechnology' refers to the projected ability to construct items from the bottom up, using techniques and tools being developed today to make complete, high performance products.

The Meaning of Nanotechnology

When K. Eric Drexler (right) popularized the word 'nanotechnology' in the 1980's, he was talking about building machines on the scale of molecules, a few nanometers wide—motors, robot arms, and even whole computers, far smaller than a cell. Drexler spent the next ten years describing and analyzing these incredible devices, and responding to accusations of science fiction. Meanwhile, mundane technology was developing the ability to build simple structures on a molecular scale. As nanotechnology became an accepted concept, the meaning of the word shifted to encompass the simpler kinds of nanometer-scale technology. The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative was created to fund this kind of nanotech: their definition includes anything smaller than 100 nanometers with novel properties.

Much of the work being done today that carries the name 'nanotechnology' is not nanotechnology in the original meaning of the word. Nanotechnology, in its traditional sense, means building things from the bottom up, with atomic precision.

Something more for you-

Self-replicating, mechanical nano-robots are simply not possible in our world," according to Richard Smalley a chemist at Rice University in Houston, US. Smalley, co-discoverer of carbon buckyballs, argues that the chemistry just does not add up.

Simply shrinking large-scale machines and components down to the nano realm probably would not work, as the laws of nature are much different at small scales. For example: water becomes as thick as treacle, Brownian motion buffets things all over the place, and particles become much more "sticky" and attracted to one other.

No, because that does only mean that they are not able or not allowed to do it by themselves. Like I said: Evolutuion takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how.

Going by your definition, i can give you that. But, in that case, we must remember and discern between the two types of evolution; forced and self governed, to avoid any confusion.

Please, define "observation

Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.

Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?

That may happen sometimes but not in this case. On the contrary, most of the posters do not understand what nonobots and nanotechnology actually stand for, and what is the difference between the two, as i tried to explain above.

Arminus, i do not like to tweak the definitions to in order to fit those in any particular case. Let them what they are, both in spirit and the letter.

But, as far as the consciousness is concerned, i certainly have a different definition that what is perceived in the west.

They consider that consciousness manifests from the complexity/evolution in the organic/live forms, but in my opinion, it is other way around. Consciousness creates complexity in organisms. It is a precondition to life, not a byproduct.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

Zinnat, I'm sorry but reading your views so very much reminds me of the American Indian's views concerning the European invasion and conquest of North America; "They violate the spirit of Nature and thus will be struck down in shame!"

You remind me of the arguments that a machine could never possibly outrun a horse, and more recently that a machine could never outwit a master chessman. You seem to argue out of blind hope rather than attend to what is really going on in the real world.

Dr Feynman, Dr Smalley, Dr Drexler ... really? These guys were not stupid people by any means although certainly not people to be worshiped. But perhaps more importantly they each advocated nanotechnology, professing its wonderful potential.

Richard Errett Smalley (June 6, 1943 – October 28, 2005) was the Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University, in Houston, Texas. In 1996, along with Robert Curl, also a professor of chemistry at Rice, and Harold Kroto, a professor at the University of Sussex, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of a new form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene ("buckyballs"), and was a leading advocate of nanotechnology and its many applications, including its use in creating strong but lightweight materials as well as its potential to fight cancer.

He was an outspoken critic of the idea of molecular assemblers, as advocated by K. Eric Drexler and introduced scientific objections to them. His two main objections, which he had termed the “fat fingers problem" and the "sticky fingers problem”, argued against the feasibility of molecular assemblers being able to precisely select and place individual atoms. He also believed that Drexler’s speculations about apocalyptic dangers of molecular assemblers threaten the public support for development of nanotechnology. He debated Drexler in an exchange of letters which were published in Chemical & Engineering News as a point-counterpoint feature.

The Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology was a public dispute between K. Eric Drexler, the originator of the conceptual basis of molecular nanotechnology, and Richard Smalley, a recipient of the 1996 Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the nanomaterial buckminsterfullerene. The dispute was about the feasibility of constructing molecular assemblers, which are molecular machines which could robotically assemble molecular materials and devices by manipulating individual atoms or molecules. The concept of molecular assemblers was central to Drexler's conception of molecular nanotechnology, but Smalley argued that fundamental physical principles would prevent them from ever being possible. The two also traded accusations that the other's conception of nanotechnology was harmful to public perception of the field and threatened continued public support for nanotechnology research.

The greater concern for all of the people you are referencing was "public support". None of them argued against trying to create nanotechnology. Smalley argued that it would scare the public thus we should speak of its infeasibility, "play it down". But Smalley, although merely a chemist (the least of those involved in nanotech) received the Nobel prize for discovering and advancing nanotech.

Self-replicating, mechanical nano-robots are simply not possible in our world," according to Richard Smalley

... and flying machines are totally out of the question because if God wanted Man to fly, Man would be born with wings.

Give it a break. Nano-assembly practices have been in use since the 1970's, using lasers to remove one atom at a time from telescopic mirrors. Nano-assemblers that naturally form from living cells are used to bow to Man's whims. Retro-viruses are nothing but nanobots used to alter animal DNA and in use for decades and ARE SELF-REPLICATING. Whether Man formed the nano-machines atom by atom himself is completely irrelevant.

If Man knows basically how it works, Man will make it work and get the public to praise him for it.




It has been long known that a cell is a small manufacturing plant, complete with energy transformers, motors, assembly workers, feeding, transporting, and signalling mechanisms.

Nanophysicist Peter Hoffman explains nanobots CURRENTLY existing and operating inside you.



Why not Improve Them .. Toy with them??

.. if you don't your enemies will.

[zinnat]

Zinnat, I'm sorry but reading your views so very much reminds me of the American Indian's views concerning the European invasion and conquest of North America; "They violate the spirit of Nature and thus will be struck down in shame!"

You remind me of the arguments that a machine could never possibly outrun a horse, and more recently that a machine could never outwit a master chessman. You seem to argue out of blind hope rather than attend to what is really going on in the real world.

James, what i want is besides the point. That is not the issue here and i have not said a single word about that so for. And, for the record, i am a big supporter of all kinds scientific knowledge and inventions, including nanotechnology. I do not see anything wrong in that.

But, we are arguing about whether nanobots can be artificially made or not, not whether it is ethically right or not. You wrongly assumed that i am not in favor of nenotechnolgy or making nonobots, just because i said that they cannot be artificially made.

Richard Errett Smalley (June 6, 1943 – October 28, 2005) was the Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University, in Houston, Texas. In 1996, along with Robert Curl, also a professor of chemistry at Rice, and Harold Kroto, a professor at the University of Sussex, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of a new form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene ("buckyballs"), and was a leading advocate of nanotechnology and its many applications, including its use in creating strong but lightweight materials as well as its potential to fight cancer.
He was an outspoken critic of the idea of molecular assemblers, as advocated by K. Eric Drexler and introduced scientific objections to them. His two main objections, which he had termed the “fat fingers problem" and the "sticky fingers problem”, argued against the feasibility of molecular assemblers being able to precisely select and place individual atoms. He also believed that Drexler’s speculations about apocalyptic dangers of molecular assemblers threaten the public support for development of nanotechnology. He debated Drexler in an exchange of letters which were published in Chemical & Engineering News as a point-counterpoint feature.
The Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology was a public dispute between K. Eric Drexler, the originator of the conceptual basis of molecular nanotechnology, and Richard Smalley, a recipient of the 1996 Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the nanomaterial buckminsterfullerene. The dispute was about the feasibility of constructing molecular assemblers, which are molecular machines which could robotically assemble molecular materials and devices by manipulating individual atoms or molecules. The concept of molecular assemblers was central to Drexler's conception of molecular nanotechnology, but Smalley argued that fundamental physical principles would prevent them from ever being possible. The two also traded accusations that the other's conception of nanotechnology was harmful to public perception of the field and threatened continued public support for nanotechnology research.

Again, there nothing such in all those quotes that contradicts what i said, except your assumption that i am against nanotechnology. Please point out anything if i missed.

James, why should i oppose nanotechnology? I do not see any reason for that. Secondly, if the mankind can live with atomic bombs, why not with nanotechnology?

Your first video displays a very small microscopic soccer game, yet nothing comparable to actual nanoscale (1 to 100 nm).

Second video displays a very small robot surgeon, which can be swallowed. It can send pictures from inside, release medicines at precise points and perhaps make some surgery. It is a good development and can be very helpful. Yet, nothing comparable to the actual nanoscale.

Your third video displays animated nonobots, which are inside of our bodies. I have already seen this animated film on Discovery channel about 2 years ago, along with some others in a program about how our body works at very bottom level. Yes, these are certainly (though animated) nanobots because they represent the actual nanoscale.

But, we cannot make them artificially. Again, the same issue.

It has been long known that a cell is a small manufacturing plant, complete with energy transformers, motors, assembly workers, feeding, transporting, and signalling mechanisms.

But, where i disputed that! The dispute is not about whether nanobots exist or not. They certainly exists in the nature. The dispute is whether artificially man-made and self replicating nanobots exist or not.

Whether Man formed the nano-machines atom by atom himself is completely irrelevant.

Only If you want to cheat the definition of nanobots, provided by the original postulators.

with love,
sanjay

[Amorphos]

zinnat13

Leave your presumptions out of your thinking.
You conclusion is right. There are only two possibilities.
1- there must be consciousness in the first place to built a life form.
2- consciousness must be invariably built from complexity.
One of those must be true but they both cannot be true. Now, try to reach a conclusion.

This is not a presumption...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187950&p=2538525#p2538525