[ExI] Sick of Cyberspace?

[Mike Dougherty]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> The particular substrate is not important, yet. The underlying technology
> is much more interesting. The choice of substrate happens for many, more
>

Natasha asked about chemistry, conversation ensued and we got to biology.
The substrate was my point about OLED, not that it was important - only that
it is available right now.



> It is always a good idea to utilize the only kind of molecular technology
> we know and can control (life) in the bootstrap. Proteins and DNA are
> great for self-assembly, as long as you can't do your own self-assembly
> from scratch, or use machine-phase which allows you to maximize
> functionality
> concentration/volume down to the theoretical limit. This means we'll
> lose biological components along the way, first as sacrificial
> scaffolding, and then completely. No harsh feelings, really.
>
> So in general don't latch onto the organic/inorganic thing.
>

Again, DNA is available and being used right now (albeit primitively).
Machine-phase nano-magic is still only being talked about... Unless y'all
have been withholding links to interesting science?


> The distinction is artificial in practice, and if we're, say, using
> graphene/diamond spintronics as a optimal substrate it isn't for
> some magic reasons. It's just carbon is special in that it makes nicely
> stable chains and cages which no other element can as well. From
> that property stem other remarkable thermal and electronic properties.
> Of course it won't be pure carbon, whether it's nitrogen vacances,
> SiC islets or transition metal groups in active machine-phase
> or synthetic enzyme centers.
>

Oh.. well then.. I guess... uh... I'll just take a nap until all they get it
all worked out.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091219/204b51f7/attachment.html>