[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - meta

[Brett Paatsch]

Chris Phoenix wrote

> This post is meta-discussion.
> 
> Brett wrote: "From where I sit neither the case that these
> sort of assemblers are definately possible nor the case that
> they are impossible has ever been convincingly made."
> 
> Brett, what is your purpose in holding this discussion? 

I don't "hold" discussions, I participate in them.

When I ask you a question it is because I want you to answer
it. I respect that sometimes you may not be able to or that you
may not have time to, or that you may not know the answer.

When you responded to a post of mine that was onlist,
I backposted your response to the list because I saw an 
opportunity to have a useful discussion and to better leverage
the value of that discussion.

> Do you want our readers to believe that we know nothing about
> how an assembler might work--and if so, why do you want people
> to believe that?  Are you trying to convince people not to work 
> on or study assemblers?

I don't want readers to believe anything, I want them to think. 

When they think they can work problems better. They can also 
make better determinations on which problems are worth their
while to work.

Sometimes uncertainties are difficult to manage, but believing
does not help. 

> My goal has been 1) to establish that we know, calculate, and 
> reasonably suspect quite a lot about molecular manufacturing 
> (the technical side); 2) to convince people that, given what we
> know and suspect, there are several compelling reasons for
> investigating further.

I think your beliefs are impacting upon your general effectiveness.

You are not alone in that, even amongst intelligent people.

I think Robert Bradbury's (whose intelligence I also respect)
tendency to professing beliefs when they are not germaine hinder
his effectiveness too.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch