[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Brett Paatsch]

John K Clark wrote:

> ..if it could be shown that for Drexler's assemblers to work 
> you'd need to move faster than light, violate the conservation
> of momentum law, place things with more precision than
> Heisenberg allows, or violate the second law of thermodynamics
> then it would be safe to dismiss the entire idea as nonsense; but
> nobody has come close to doing that. 

I am not dismissing the idea as nonsense. But I am wary that 
often what we want to be true isn't and I very much include myself 
in that category of we. I am glad that Smalley has engaged with
Drexler, that in itself is a win for Drexler. Whether or not it is a win
for the truth I can't say as I do not yet presume to know the truth
on this matter. But it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof 
lies on Smalley. Its a political mistake.

I think it was David Hume that said that extraordinary claims 
require extraordinary evidence. There is an opportunity cost for 
people to investigate complex ideas requiring understanding in multiple
disciplines like those that are detailed in Nanosystems. And it could
be fairly asserted perhaps if they are true that there is an opportunity
cost in not making the effort to come to terms with those ideas.  But
right now most people, even most intelligent people are not in the 
camp that can see it is true. Anything that can be done to make it 
easier to convince more people and to reduce the amount of effort 
open minded interested folk have to divert from there other tasks
would I think be efforts well spent. 

> I also disagree that life is not a pretty good existence proof
> of the idea, it's true Drexler's machines can do more but that's what
> you'd expect, all else being equal intelligent design will always beat 
> random mutation and natural selection. Of course we will not know
> with absolute certainty that Drexler was correct until an assembler
> is actually built, and that should be about 20 minutes before the 
> singularity.

I think it is possible to set the standard of verification lower than
20 minutes before the singularity, but I think it is prudent to realise
that the task of persuading folk to spend time examining this issue
and thinking about what standards of proof would be adequate or
greatly improve confidence that further investigation into the matter
is not wasted time, is itself a task that falls on either the enlightened
or the true-believers. The open minded undecideds we can tell the
enlightened from the true-believers beforehand. 

I am not looking to join the latest religious crusade I am willing (time
permitting - and it often isn't - that's a problem everyone faces when
they are trying to persuade) to engage in pleasant and interesting 
conversation with folk who know what they are talking about and 
who don't say - just read everything Drexler ever wrote and by the
way here is thirty papers of my musings on partially related matters
as well.  That stuff may be said in good faith but it just doesn't 
persuade. 

Perhaps genuine discussion with those who are interested but not
yet convinced and who will therefore play Socrates to Drexler's 
(and those that already agree with him's) Protogoras, is a good way
 to achieve two worthy things. 1. It allows the arguments aimed at 
persuading open-minded folk to be honed. 2. It brings some clear
thinkers (who are often good persuaders once persuaded themselves)
on-board quicker.  

Regards,
Brett