6 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Chat Topic: Nanotechnology and Life Extension - Chris Phoenix

Chat Time: Sunday Feb 1, 2004 @ 8 PM Eastern
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat
or, Server: irc.lucifer.com - Port: 6667 - #immortal

Inventor, entrepreneur, and published author in the fields of nanomedicine, nanomanufacturing, and administration of nanotechnology, Chris Phoenix joins ImmInst to discuss Nanotechnology and Life Extension.

Article first appeared as a chapter in "Doctor Tandy's First Guide To Life Extension And Transhumanity."

Nanotechnology and Life Extension Introduction
By Chris Phoenix

This article is not really about life extension. Instead, its focus is on health extension: keeping the body in a state of good health. This is a simpler topic, because we can ignore several philosophical questions. However, as the article unfolds, it will become clear that life extension is a natural consequence of health extension. As diseases are cured, causes of death will be avoided; as people make use of technology to improve their health, they will find themselves living longer--perhaps much longer.

More:
http://www.longevity...le_id=10&page=1



Chris Phoenix was born on Christmas Day, 1970. As soon as he could think, he became interested in how things work, buying a pair of binoculars to look at electrical power lines, reading and re-reading a book on engines, and spending hours tinkering with digital electronics. In school he preferred to skip recess and write programs on the library's computer.

Chris' interest in nanotechnology began when he took Eric Drexler's class "Nanotechnology and Exploratory Engineering" at Stanford University in 1988. He has followed the field continuously since then. He has attended numerous nanotech conferences, made frequent contributions to several on-line discussion lists, helped to review a major book and a Ph.D. thesis on nanotech, and co-authored a peer-reviewed paper on a nanomedical topic (Vasculoid). He is a Senior Associate of the Foresight Institute, co-moderator of the sci.nanotech newsgroup, and Director of Research for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

After graduating from Stanford with an M.S. in Computer Science in 1991, Chris worked as an embedded software engineer for six years, then switched careers to dyslexia correction for five years; most recently, he works full time on nanotechnology. He is interested in almost everything, especially if it's related to science, technology, biology, or psychology. His hobbies include hang gliding, caving, singing, and stained glass. His web site is http://www.xenophilia.org.

Chris is a co-founder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRNano.org)



CRN acts to raise awareness of the issues. We believe that even a technology as powerful as molecular manufacturing can be used wisely and well—but that without adequate information, unwise use will be far too common. The mission of CRN is to raise awareness of the issues presented by nanotechnology: the benefits and dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use.

http://CRNano.org

[Bruce Klein]

CHAT ARCHIVE

<BJK> Topic: Nanotechnology and Life Extension
<Eliezer> doesn't sound like a very viable solution, phoenix, toys are always easier to lock down than brains
<BJK> Inventor, entrepreneur, and published author in the fields of nanomedicine, nanomanufacturing, and administration of nanotechnology, Chris Phoenix joins ImmInst to discuss Nanotechnology and Life Extension.
<BJK> Welcome Chris
<cphoenix> Thanks.
* Jonesey holds up a match to the sarts
<Jonesey> flame on
<John_Ventureville> *the trouble I sart around here*
<Jonesey> welcome chris
<cphoenix> E: Don't need to lock the brains; lock the bodies.
<BJK> We'll dive into questions now... unless you have anything to start with Chris
<cphoenix> I don't have anything pre-planned to start with.
<Jonesey> chris:what's the center for responsible nanotech?
<cphoenix> Though I did read some pretty cool stuff yesterday.
<BJK> what did you read?
<cphoenix> J: CRN is a group I co-founded. The goal is to maximize the benefits of advanced nanotech while minimizing the downsides.
<BJK> Jonesey, please see: http://imminst.org/f...=ST&f=63&t=2889
<Jonesey> cool
<cphoenix> The downsides could be huge. Hence the need for some foresight/activism.
<Eliezer> Chris: I do not understand yon proposal. "Lock the bodies?"
<Jonesey> don't the downsides stem from human nature and values?
<Jonesey> aren't we screwed with whatever tech if we remain squabbly and callous?


<cphoenix> B: I read a review article on RNA folding/engineering. Much farther along than I realized. The first technology I've seen that looks anywhere near as useful as Drexler-style MNT.
<cphoenix> E: Jail, paralysis, whatever it takes. But we're getting silly.
<cphoenix> E: At least I am.
<BJK> cphoenix, thus you see a progression from biotech to nanotech a reality?
<BJK> first before the reverse?
<cphoenix> J: I think we may be screwed if we remain untrustworthy. Squabbly and callous is kinda' necessary for free market. It's not necessarily bad.
<John> sorry, can you explain Drexler-style MNT please?
<cphoenix> B: I don't know. It's just a second possibility--which is big news.
<Eliezer> C: As far as I can tell, you get sufficiently fast computers and the world goes poof due to brute-force AI failure, Existential Risk #4.
<cphoenix> Drexler-style means diamondoid NEMS (Nano electro mechanical systems) doing chemistry to build more NEMS. Presto, a manuafcturing revolution.
<John> thanks
<ddhewitt> Biotech bootstraps Nanotech makes sense to me.
<BJK> so, cphoenix.. would you call yourself a Singularitarian?
<greenrd> cphoenix: I don't think either social changes or species changes will affect the trust problem. You can't "make people trustworthy".


<cphoenix> Well, not quite "presto"--I wrote an 80-page paper last year on how to bootstrap a Merkle assembler into a tabletop nanofactory. I covered every issue I could think of, but at a high level.
<Jonesey> wow cphoenix that's like saying slavery is necessary for agriculture based on human history up to the beginning of the last century where slavery was legal everywhere and all economies were mostly agrarian. bit of an extrapolation to argue that poor conflict resolution and ignoring or actively pursuing the suffering of others are good things.
<Eliezer> the trust problem can be resolved if you can specify and audit cognitive processes
<John_Ventureville> future book?
<Eliezer> that is, artificial cognitive processes, FAIs and stuff
<John_Ventureville> *just a little brainwashing will do the trick!*
<cphoenix> G: Lie detectors, drugs, surveillance... there are lots of ways to increase your knowledge about what other people are thinking.
<Jonesey> if we're squabbly and callous we're necessarily untrustworthy
<Jonesey> so we're screwed
<cphoenix> B: I don't know about the Singularity.
<Jonesey> might as well get it overwith and wipe ourselves out
<Jonesey> let evolution pick it up anew
<Eliezer> a problem I have with this surveillance plan is that it requires extremely advanced nanotech, while brute-forcing an AI requires extremely primitive tech - window of vulnerability much too large
<John_Ventureville> or we can just turn things over to the godlike A.I.'s who may be vastly more "trustworthy" than the mass of humanity
<cphoenix> J: Self-interest can be openly declared. Any bargaining session involves squabbles. Monetizing anything is callous. But that's not the problem that lack of trust is.
<Jonesey> and they may be vastly more squabbly/callous.
<Eliezer> john, that's a hell of a lot harder than it sounds and it never sounded easy
<John_McCluskey> So Chris, don't you think it's going to take quite a long time before nanotech will be usefull in life extension? I've read lately that most nanoparticles (nanotubes, gold, titanium dioxide) is really quite toxic to living cells.
<Jonesey> monetizing anything is actually an agreement, a trade.
<cphoenix> Jonesey: I didn't get your point about slavery.
<Jonesey> why's it callous?
<Jonesey> my point is that you're arguing from historical accident into necessity.


<cphoenix> Monetizing is callous because it ignores intangibles. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
<Jonesey> Nope if there is no agreement there is no monetizing.
<cphoenix> I didn't mean to say that callousness etc are necessary. Just that they're survivable.
<Jonesey> buyer and seller have to come to terms to deal
<Jonesey> the more squabbling the less chances of a deal being struck
<Jonesey> squabbling definitely doesn't promote volume of trade
<Jonesey> nobody thinks wow, that guy screwed me last time we dealt, i really wanna do biz with him again soon
<seanait> could someone explain what we're talking about, just got here
<cphoenix> JohnM: Depends what kind of nanotech. Near-term nanotech is a bunch of tools and it'll take time to develop them and figure out what they're good for.


<Jonesey> seanalt:nanotech
<John> Where will this revolution happen? which universities are at the forefront of Nanotech?
<BJK> seanait: please see: http://imminst.org/f...=ST&f=63&t=2889
<cphoenix> Farther-term nanotech is general-purpose manufacturing at the nanometer scale. That'll revolutionize medical research.
<seanait> oh, thanx


<Jonesey> mike=mike treder?
<Mike> yep, that's me
<Jonesey> hey mike, jones from NYTA
<Jonesey> good to see you
<cphoenix> Jonesey: Squabbling is the worst system in the world, except for every other. :-) I agree it decreases efficiency.
<Mike> hey jones, long time no see
<Jonesey> cheers, mike
<seanait> thanx again

<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, I see humanity a century from now being somewhat like an Ian Banks "Culture" novel
<greenrd> cphoenix: Is there any useful way in which I, as a programmer not a scientist, might be able to contribute to the development of nanotech, or responsible development of it, thus speeding immortality, in your opinion?
<Randolfe> High Mike. We've been missing you at the NYTA monthly meetings
<cphoenix> John: The general-purpose-manufacturing revolution (advanced nanotech, molecular manufacturing, MNT) will quite possibly happen in China between 2010 and 2015.
<Jonesey> hm cphoenix if you look at systems that decrease squabbling they tend to jack up trading volume big time, e.g. electronic securities trading systems like nasdaq, vs dealing with humans more involved like the specialist system on the NYSE That has gotten them in so much trouble
<cphoenix> But we don't really know. That's maybe a 30% chance with lots of other very differnt possibilities.
<Eliezer> chris, have you read your Tversky and Kahneman?
<cphoenix> greenrd: Sure, there's lots of things for programmers to do. For example, you could work on nanoscale CAD or simulation programs. There are lots of components out there, many open source, that just need to be integrated. See Folding@Home.
<Randolfe> Chris, where does the USA rate in nanotechnology?
<cphoenix> Or work on collaborative discussion software. We're thinking about developing a system for that, so we can use it to finally have a decently rigorous discussion about _Nanosystems_.
<greenrd> Ah. Now that is something I've been wanting to do for a long time.
<cphoenix> R: The USA is pretty far down the list. We're too complacent. And we currently have a policy of trying to ignore the advanced stuff.

<cphoenix> g: What, the discussion software? Let's talk.
<John_Ventureville> what do you mean by the U.S. being too complacent?
<BJK> cphoenix, ImmInst is built upon a good discussion software system (invisionboard.com)
<greenrd> I'd been putting it on hold to work on programming language development, but I think now is a good time to start working on better discussion systems.
<John> greenrd: why not become a scientist yourself? If we are talking of living forever, then think of the future, you have endless time to retrain yourself.
<Randolfe> Who are China's closest competitors?
* Eliezer points out that Nanosystems contains no discussion of debugging, making the highly unconservative assumption that all failures are detectable, noisy, and cause immediate controlled shutdowns
<John_Ventureville> Is Japan or China going to leave us in the dust?
<greenrd> John: Cart before horse problem. Immortality will probably follow nanotech.
<Don> i would the US would be spurred on by the "national security" issues posed by nanotech
<John_Ventureville> I agree
<cphoenix> J: We're pretty happy with what we have. We don't need to industrialize in order to prevent tens of millions of people from starving.
<Jonesey> i'm concerned that nanotech control is misguided like gun control. it's the values, the tools or technology that get us in trouble.
<Don> agreed
<Don> but the us governement may not
<John_Ventureville> I find it hard to believe the "technically backward" Chinese could leapfrog us on nanotech
<greenrd> Jonesey: Gun control works pretty well here in the UK.
<Eliezer> ...the Chinese are NOT technically backward, what on Earth have you been reading?
<cphoenix> E: Many failures are in fact detectable. With MNT, the function is mostly digital--including the chemistry--so pretty easy to check.

<Jonesey> greenrd:gun crime in the UK is creeping up
<greenrd> Jonesey: The police even oppose themselves being able to carry guns. They voluntarily do not carry them, except for special units.
<Eliezer> how'd you check? vibrational frequencies?
<Jonesey> along with non gun
<Eliezer> doesn't cover debugging design flaws, either
<greenrd> Jonesey: Hard for a gun-toting American to comprehend, I know.
<John_Ventureville> the Chinese military does not have near the quality of hardware which the U.S. has
<John_Ventureville> how do you explain that?
<Mike> Japan, China, India, even Brazil are moving rapidly in nanotech
<Jonesey> i think the gun crime level correlates much more with general crime lvl than with severity of gun control laws
<Eliezer> I doubt it's a killer flaw (we couldn't get that lucky) but it's the most obvious hole in Nanosystems... if you're looking for discussion of it


<cphoenix> E: Sub-wavelength non-proximal imaging may help with design flaws. Yes, it's possible; NASA has a page on it, and AngstroVision is close to shipping a system.
<Don> mike - especially Japan, whose government is investing heavily in nanotech
<cphoenix> JohnV: China is competing non-militarily.
<Jonesey> india and brazil have massive illiteracy and relatively short life expectancies, i hope nanotech ultimately helps them deal with these problems that are very tractable with current technology
<Randolfe> Brazil has a system whereby some science, especially genetically engineered crops, etc. get tax support that is not sensitive to political pressure and they have great science in Brazil for that reason, lack of political interference.
<cphoenix> All: If I miss a question, please ask it again.
<Eliezer> [Eliezer] chris, have you read your Tversky and Kahneman?
<BJK> cphoenix, how did you and mike hook up?


<cphoenix> B: We had an email discussion. I sent Mike a thing I'd written about how quickly MNT could be bootstrapped. He wrote back, "Holy hell, we've got to do something!" We've still never met in person.
<greenrd> Randolfe: How does that work exactly? How long has it been in operation?
<BJK> cphoenix, have you met Robert Freitas yet?
<cphoenix> E: No, I haven't read them. But I had six years experience as a high-end embedded software engineer. I know about finding bugs in mostly-opaque systems.


<gustavo> brazil's life expectancy: 71 years. I don't think it's especially low
<John> could be bootstrapped? sorry, what does that mean?
<cphoenix> B: Yes, I've met Freitas at several Foresight conferences. I also co-wrote the Vasculoid paper with him.
<gustavo> http://www.indexmund...y_at_birth.html
<Jonesey> gustavo:I must be looking at an old number, last i remember it was in the mid 60s
<Randolfe> It was passed a few years ago. Science programs get a certain percentage of tax revenues and therefore research is insulated from poolitical pressures. I have a great article about it from the Economist fro0m 2000.
<gustavo> ok, J
<cphoenix> John: Bootstrapping means developing a more useful system from a more primitive system. For example, scanning probe chemistry might (with lots of work) be used to build NEMS that could then build more NEMS more quickly.

<Eliezer> <cphoenix> But we don't really know. That's maybe a 30% chance with lots of other very differnt possibilities.
<Eliezer> [Eliezer] chris, have you read your Tversky and Kahneman?
<Eliezer> that was about the probabilities issue


<Eliezer> Tversky and Kahneman are the cognitive science of heuristics and biases
<Mike> NEMS = nano electrical mechanical systems
<Jonesey> wow gustavo infant mortality is also down a lot in brasil, interesting
<Eliezer> "Judgment Under Uncertainty" is the latest book I am trying to nag everyone into reading
<Jonesey> that's great
<John> and what is scanning probe chemistry? sorry, I'm new to all of this...
<cphoenix> E: Are these related to debugging mostly-digital systems?
<Eliezer> really, really important for futurists - same importance rating as knowing about evolutionary psychology
<Eliezer> cphoenix: no, cognitive scientists, nothing to do with debugging nanotech
<Iscariot> Judgement Under Uncertainty written by?
<cphoenix> John: A scanning probe microscope moves a very sharp tip with angstrom precision and senses things about the surface at the atomic or near-atomic level. Scanning probe chemistry does chemistry by any of several interactions (electrical, mechanical) between the tip and the surface.
<Jonesey> wait. we are struggling to understand human evolution, and don't have neuroscience yet. what's evolutionary psychology mean in that context? sounds like it should be pretty shaky science at this time.
<Eliezer> Iscar: Edited volume by Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman, and Paul Slovic

<John> thanks
<Iscariot> Thanks.
<Randolfe> We should make sure book suggestions like these are listed under our recommended reading lists on the site.

<Eliezer> Jonesey: You're flat wrong, read the literature, here's some web resources: http://www.psych.ucs...cep/primer.html
http://www.anth.ucsb...evpsychfaq.html http://salmon.psy.pl...339Evolutionary

Psychology/EvolutionaryPsychology.htm

<John_Ventureville> *Don't mess with Eliezer!*
<John_Ventureville> *Master Urlslinger of the ImmInst Corral*
* Eliezer shrugs
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Randolfe> You can't argue with an URL
<BJK> cphoenix, do you think death = oblivion?
<Jonesey> hehe randolfe
<Jonesey> eliezer:ok when i read this literature i'm gonna see some tight confidence intervals on predictions of human behaviour? decent standard errors and whatnot?
<John> If we are talking about everything at a nano level, then do you think we will no-longer have biology/chemistry/physics but instead just one unified molecular science?
<cphoenix> You mean, does anything survive after death? I don't see any mechanism whereby anything could. I've heard stories that make me wonder, but nothing testable. And I'm not religious or mystical about it.
<BJK> wonderful.. yes.. are you signed up for cryonics?
<cphoenix> John: I think it'll be clearer how the sciences fade into each other. But there'll still be a use for separate sciences for many purposes, just as metallurgy and structural engineering are different.
<Eliezer> Jonesey: for that you will need to work your way up to more technical literature, "The Adapted Mind" and so on
<cphoenix> B: Not signed up... not gotten around to it. Irrational, I know.
<Eliezer> the highest correlation I've ever seen out of an evolutionary psychology experiment was 97%
<BJK> heh.. thus you would call yourself an immortalist, eh?


<bioimmortal> hi Ocsrazor2
<cphoenix> I don't know what an immortalist is. I tend to avoid labeling myself.
* BJK nods..
<Eliezer> which is actually DAMNED impressive, I can't recall any cognitive science experiment I've ever seen with a correlation that large, except for one experiment with a 98% correlation - that was in Tversky and Kahneman
<Randolfe> It's not irrational not to be signed up. It is a big commitment and it is difficult to wade through the competing literature. And it costs a lot of money.
<Ocsrazor2> Hi All
<cphoenix> R: Yeah, that may be it. :-) I sometimes pay bills a day or two late too. :-(
<Eliezer> I have to AFK now...
<Jonesey> haha, work my way up eh eliezer?
<BJK> cphoenix, would you say that in light of the overwhelming evidence for there not being an afterlife.. that living forever is perhaps the most important goal, sometimes called 'immortalism'
<Eliezer> Chris, everyone in the field of futurism needs to read "Judgment Under Uncertainty". I shall nag everyone involved until they do so. Cya all.
<Randolfe> Chris, don't be afraid of labeling yourself. "Immortalist" is a stunning title. It almost defies definition and is quite impressive.
<Ocsrazor2> CYa Eli\
<cphoenix> Bye Eli... will these books help CRN?
<Jonesey> eliezer:so basically we have isaac asimov's psychohistory down right? we should if we have evolutionary psychology in something that resembles "scientific" form.
<Eliezer> Chris: If you are even remotely interested in understanding the future, this is a necessary book.
<cphoenix> R: If it's undefinable, then it encourages people to form judgements about me based on their current incomplete impressions. Not really what I want. I'm too much of a middle-of-the-road fence-sitter.
<Eliezer> Too many mistakes are standard, but not known.
<cphoenix> E: Thanks.
<greenrd> cphoenix: I'm not sure that Jannessa who posts comments on CRN blog would agree
<greenrd> cphoenix: But then, libertarians seem to view everyone else as extreme.
<Mike> Anybody have any questions for Chris about nanotech and life extension?
<cphoenix> g: From an extreme position, most other positions also look extreme. :-(
<greenrd> Good, that must mean that I'm not an extremist then. Despite being strong left.
<BJK> mike heh.. cphoenix, how long do you want to live?
<cphoenix> Personally? I'd like to live at least 200 years, and see how I feel then. If I'm at all the same person, I'll want to live a lot longer than that.
<Randolfe> Chris, nanotech is one of my weaker subjects. I gather, however, that many people believe we will be able to rebuild the body using nanotechnology.
<rav3n> Randolfe, labels *can* get one into trouble, because the movement comes to represent you more than you represent the movement
<John_McCluskey> Forever? what kind of BS is this? 1000 years would be great. A million is *outstanding*. A billion year lifespan? I think it has no meaning to us.
<bioimmortal> John_McCluskey whats 'BS'?
<cphoenix> R: Rebuilding the body is fairly boring... we do it today with plastic surgery. Repairing the body: very cool idea, and probably also doable.
<John_Ventureville> John, it's not just the length of the lifespan which astounds but the form it may take which blows my mind.
<cphoenix> JohnM: Who said "forever"?
<Randolfe> Rav3n, "immortalist" actually has an intimidating ring to it.
<John> can you comment on nanotechnology and any possible impacts it might have on space travel, e.i. things with less mass can be sent further
<John_McCluskey> BJ said "forever", about 15 lines above.
<John_Ventureville> two centuries from now you many simply be an extremely enhanced human while a million years from now you might have transcended into a jupiter brain
<BJK> <BJK> cphoenix, would you say that in light of the overwhelming evidence for there not being an afterlife.. that living forever is perhaps the most important goal, sometimes called 'immortalism'


<rav3n> Randolfe: the 'ring' draws its power from people being unfimiliar with the movemet
<cphoenix> It'll revolutionize space travel. Much stronger materials, much easier recycling.
<Jonesey> do you think youre the same person you were as a small child cphoenix?
<cphoenix> Nuclear rockets may also revolutionize space travel. "nuclear lightbulb" looks very promising.
<John_Ventureville> Will human sexuality be affected by nanotech?
<cphoenix> B: There's not overwhelming evidence for there not being an afterlife. There's a noteworthy lack of evidence for there being an afterlife. Big difference.
<Randolfe> Once they become familiar with the movement, its goal of defeating involuntary death is a universally respected and laudable goal.
<John_Ventureville> double negative
<Don> call me old fashion, but space travel is not at the top of my agenda
<John> what's a Jupiter Brain?
<cphoenix> JohnV: Almost everything affects human sexuality. Every technology is useful for porn. extrapolate...
<ct> Chris: Do you think that the rate of MNT development will outpace the morbidity and mortality risk associated with it?
<greenrd> John_Ventureville: You may be interested in James Hughes' writings on transhumanism and sex.
<cphoenix> ct: At some point, yes, definitely.
<ct> And, until that point?
<gustavo> i'm gonna register domain name nanoporn.com right now
<cphoenix> When we have general-purpose nanoscale manufacturing, we'll be able to deal with our body's systems on equal footing.
<greenrd> gustavo: Damn you. You thought of it first.
<John_Ventureville> in Physical Immortality magazine James Swayze wrote an interesting article on the sexuality of immortals
<cphoenix> ...Wait, you said "associated with it." I was answering the question of today's morbidity and mortality.
<John_Ventureville> James and I are friends so I had to call him up and argue with him for a half hour
<John_Ventureville> lol
<rav3n> Randolfe: only if immortalists manage to avoid being labelled quacks.. a task more formidable then you seem to give it credit for
<Jonesey> issues of identity arise over a much shorter timescale than centuries
<Randolfe> Nanoporn would have virtually no mailing expenses.
<cphoenix> The risks of advanced nanotech are quite large. they're not directly comparable with life extension--they "talk past" each other.
<ct> The specific M&M asso with MNT.
<Jonesey> phsycial and psychological changes are quite dramatic over a human lifetime, even after we reach "adulthood", let alone over the entire course of life
<cphoenix> Old thread: I'm actually surprisingly similar to who I was as a child.
<Mike> <Randolfe> Nanoporn would have virtually no mailing expenses. ROFLOL
<Jonesey> in that case go to your room cphoenix
<cphoenix> And I didn't say I expected to be identical. Just similar enough to want to keep living.
<greenrd> Randolfe: Not true. Three of my friends were very alienated when I came out in support of immortality.
<cphoenix> I'm in my room. Aren't computers wonderful?
<greenrd> Randople: They knew me well.
<Jonesey> always ahead of me aren't you!
<John_Ventureville> I remember once hearing a speaker say he was basically the same person he was at age 12
<Randolfe> Rav3n, everyone would like to live somewhat longer. It is not being a "quack" to list universally desirable goals.
<John_Ventureville> just with a great deal more experience under his belt
<BJK> cphoenix, what is your underlying reasoning for helping to advance safe nanotech.. is it mainly to save lives?
<greenrd> Randolfe: Not so. There is a Stockholme syndrome at work. Some people, e.g. eco-Luddites, believe death is natural hence good.
<John_Ventureville> one of my favorite immoralist books....
<greenrd> immoralist, hahahaha
<John_Ventureville> "The Baby Boomer's Guide to Living Forever"
<cphoenix> As it happens, I've spent the past few days sorting through boxes of old papers. I can safely say that I'm mostly the same person I was in college--even though there are whole classes I can't remember taking.
<John_McCluskey> Chris.. would you agree with the proposal that the first widespread use of nanotech in life extension will be in medical diagnostics? Followed by what?
<greenrd> To an ecoluddite like my friends are, immortalist == immoralist
<rav3n> the goal is a small part, Ran
<Randolfe> Greenrd, are you suggesting we should be "closet" immortalists?
<cphoenix> B: Good question! I basically want to avoid any of a dozen human-race-scale tragedies that advanced nanotech could produce.
<greenrd> Randolfe: No, I'm suggesting we need to work on our PR.
<Jonesey> ecoluddite in a western country seems problematic, you are hammering the planet at a vastly disproportionate rate
<cphoenix> JohnM: Diagnostics is a good first technology. Doesn't have to be invasive, doesn't require lots of equipment or even complexity at the nanoscale. So, yes.
<rav3n> the transhumanist movement seems nobel enough, but i've shed the label due to an abundance of shallowness and general quackery
<Randolfe> Greenrd, to start with PR, we could picket a local morgue with signs denouncing "involuntary death".
<greenrd> Jonesey: In IRC of necessity I use caricatures. I don't mean to ridicule my friends. Their views are sincere and they are not extremists.
<John_Ventureville> in forty years would it be possible for a group of middle-class "amateurs" to build a long duration spacecraft to escape the possible dangers of Earth?
<Jonesey> cphoenix:I think human scale tragedies are already possible unfortunately and our primitive values and culture are the problem not the level of tech.
<Jonesey> ah greenrd
<greenrd> Randolfe: Haha good joke
<rav3n> (on the part of transhumanists, Ran)
<cphoenix> B: The best I can say right now is that I want a future where human rights are seldom violated. I see MNT could go either way: promote massive tragedy, or enable massive improvement.
<greenrd> Randolfe: I mean, it's not funny when you really think about it, but my instant reaction was, what a good way to confirm us as nutcases.
<cphoenix> And I think MNT is early enough that we can affect its course.
<Randolfe> I'm not jokiNG> It might prove to supply us with a good platform. We would be the "latest new thing".
<cphoenix> JohnV: I think within two years after the "nanofactory breakthrough" it'll be possible to build that spaceship.
<greenrd> rav3n: If you've shed the label, have you also shunned joining a transhumanist organisation like the WTA?
<greenrd> rav3n: If so I think that would be a mistake. We need critics in the movement to keep us sane, and relevant.
<Jonesey> we have a proven capability to be genocidal maniacs with simple tech. The worst episode of genocide in recent history happened mostly with machetes, in Rwanda.
<cphoenix> Fifteen minutes left of the official chat... anyone got more questions for me on medicine?
<John_Ventureville> I love the idea of being part of a mid-21st century "wagon to the stars" expedition!
<rav3n> greenrd: not necessarily, if i felt i could contribute in some way
<cphoenix> Jonesey: how much of that was caused by scarce resources?
<Randolfe> You wouldn't have to picket a morgue. Perhaps the site of a terrible tragedy where people died unecessarily and tragically.
<BJK> cphoenix, thus you're underlying reasoning for advancing safe nanotech is to save the 'human-race' from extension? thus, to save your family, friends, and perhaps yourself from death?
<greenrd> rav3n: The WTA is still small. There's plenty to be done. I honestly think more honest down to earth skepticism would be a great boon.
<Jonesey> cphoenix:not much, no starvation there or anything like that. just ethnic squabbles that dated back a century or 2.

<cphoenix> B: Did you mean extension or extinction?
<John_Ventureville> Morgues can be a cryonicist's friend.
<BJK> extinction sorry
<John_Ventureville> CI knows this
<Jonesey> cphoenix:as with the next biggest I can think of, saddam's onslaught on the kurds and shiites in iraq. that was a bit more high tech but same basic principle, ethnic squabbling
<greenrd> rav3n: And the WTA is not gung-ho optimistic like the Extropian institute. It's more of a broad church, figuratively speaking.
<cphoenix> B: I'm an idealist... I don't like living in the same world as human rights violations. And I do think that MNT threatens both me/friends and society.
<rav3n> i can understand and appreciate your points, greenrd
<John_Ventureville> even the Society for Venturism (I'm a member) wants to distance itself from transhumanism
<Randolfe> "Extension or extinction"? You have to watch Microsoft word because it always wants to turn you from being an immortalist into being an "immoralist".
<Don> lol
<John_Ventureville> we are die hard cryonicists who just want to "get to the other side" and not spend forever discussing how many "transhumanist angels can dance on the head of a nanopin!"
<greenrd> Randolfe: I think you would not make a good PR person. Maybe it's different in America. I don't mean that in a prejudiced way. I'm a Brit and it just seems like you do things differently there.
<rav3n> greenrd: shedding the label doesn't affect my goals. it's just a personal 'PR' matter.
<greenrd> Randolfe: The nearest equivalent I can think of is the PETA school of PR.
<greenrd> Randolfe: "Stop the animal holocaust!"
<BJK> cphoenix, thus your underlying reasoning is to promote an 'idea' world, where injustice is made rare.. and perhaps death is voluntary?
<John> cphoenix: who is into nanotech in the UK?
<John_Ventureville> Americans love everything to be bigger and better
<BJK> *'ideal'
<Don> greenrd, i think you need to get in peoples faces a little, especially when there is little to no exposure
<rav3n> i'd join a nazi movement if it was gaurenteed to indirectly bring a safe singularity
<John_Ventureville> ????
<Jonesey> cphoenix:i think squabbliness and callousness threaten you even if MNT is never implemented, and they would be the basic threat driving ominous uses of MNT
<rav3n> though that's insanely hypothetical
<John_Ventureville> Nazi's + Singularity= Mass Genocide
<Jonesey> we need a center for responsible psychology or something
<Randolfe> You Brits don't have any flair. That is a central problem with the British. That stiff upper lip keeps them from being innovative.
<cphoenix> John: What kind of nanotech? For early stuff, a web search is your friend. I haven't heard of anyone doing MNT.
<rav3n> JV: -indirectly-
<cphoenix> J: People trying to grab maximum power is certainly a problem. MNT could make it a massive problem.
<ct> Chris: What is the primary goal you have for MNT for the coming year?
<John> just wondered, will google it.
<Jonesey> randolfe:I dated a brit and her upper lip was quite mobile. nuff said
<cphoenix> Have you heard of Clare Graves? has a theory that society has bounced back and forth between individual power in various guises and social systems to channel it.
<John_Ventureville> Hitler would have had his own little singularity had he developed the atom bomb & not delayed jet fighter & rocket research by two critical years
<John_McCluskey> The semiconductor industry (I work in it) is gradually getting into true nanotech... we're at 90 nanometers, moving to 65 and 35 nm soon... We are slower than true MNT, because we have to make it *cheap*.
<cphoenix> J: Go ahead and start one! I'm not kidding.
<Jonesey> cphoenix:I'm thinking about it!
<rav3n> JV: i don't see the analogy there.

<John_Ventureville> there very well might be a Nazi dominated Europe going on to this very day which could have made our cold war with the Soviets look mild by comparison
<cphoenix> ct: I'd like to see more recognition that, although general-purpose nanoscale manufacturing may be spooky and require several paradigm shifts, it's *not* impossible.
<Jonesey> biological systems have achieved nanoscale manufacturing. why people are even debating this is beyond me.
<rav3n> JV: that has little to do with The Singularity
<cphoenix> Recognition among scientists, I mean. The general public already knows that. In their usually-fuzzy way.

* BJK 7min to end of official chat - feel free to stay longer
<John_McCluskey> There's billions and billions of dollars being invested in semiconductor research and manufacturing, chasing the almighty buck all the way to the bottom.
<John_Ventureville> an atom bomb in Nazi hands & combined jet bombers would have been what I call a "mini-singularity"
<John_Ventureville> because it WOULD HAVE changed the world
<Randolfe> It took me nearly 7 minutes to load and get entrance tonight. Is there a capacity to the chat room?
<cphoenix> J: They want a way to prove that gray goo is impossible. They're backed into a corner and will argue with increasing shrillness until someone builds it. :-(
<BJK> Randolfe, shouldn't be a problem with capacity
<Jonesey> they need some hot primordial soup to calm em down then
<Mike> <Randolfe> It took me nearly 7 minutes to load and get entrance tonight. ** Me 2

<gustavo> me too
<John_Ventureville> I got right in, no problem
<BJK> hmm.. strange.. thanks for the feedback
<John_Ventureville> I'm good friends with the doorman
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Randolfe> AnD I have a cable connection. Anyone using simple dial-up?
<cphoenix> I got in quickly. I'm in Florida using Trillium.
<Jonesey> trillian?
<John_Ventureville> ?
<cphoenix> yah.
<BJK> multi-host chat program
<John> uk, dial-up, no problem
<BJK> vs. ImmInst's Java browserbased chat
<BJK> perhaps there is a slower connect when more individuals are using the browser chat
<John> Have to go. Thanks a lot, been v.interesting. bye.
<John_McCluskey> I noticed a delay of 20 or 30 seconds after starting, before the #immortal pane opened up... nothing serious.
<BJK> cphoenix, what got you into nanotech, etc in the first place?
<cphoenix> More questions? Nothing about the Vasculoid?
<Ocsrazor2> Hey gang, been busy
<cphoenix> B: I took the class Drexler taught at Stanford. Then I followed sci.nanotech for years.
<cphoenix> Then I started writing about it. Then I met Mike Treder...
<greenrd> John_Ventureville: Unfortunately, some of the original Nazis and their sponsors escaped justice, and some attained positions of power.
<BJK> welcome Ocsrazor.. good to see ya
<Ocsrazor2> wanted to introduce myself Chris and have some targeted questions if you dont mind
<cphoenix> O: Go ahead.
<John_Ventureville> How did the students in Drexler's class react to his ideas?
<John_Ventureville> enthusiastically?
<greenrd> John_Ventureville: Klaus Barbie for example. But that's really offtopic now.
<cphoenix> J_V: IIRC, it was standing room only. I don't remember much skepticism.
<Ocsrazor2> Just interested how far development is coming along
<Ocsrazor2> haven't had a real update in ~2 years
<John_Ventureville> greenrd, they gave a technical boost to the Argentine Air Force for one thing
* BJK Official Chat Ends (feel free to stay)
<cphoenix> O: You mean toward molecular manufacturing? So far, not so good. Smalley is still saying it's impossible (without peer review) and many are still listening to him. The Drexler/Smalley debate didn't advance things much.
<Ocsrazor2> I'm a neuroengineering and am especially interested in materials useful for biological intereaction
<cphoenix> The Nano Act had a study of molecular manufacturing changed to "molecular self-assembly" at the last minute by the NanoBusiness Alliance.
<greenrd> John_Ventureville: OK, since the chat has ended: This was under a democratic regime...?
<BJK> Ocsrazor = Peter Passaro (brain-comptuer intervace imminst advisor)
<Ocsrazor2> are you working for someone right now Chris
<gustavo> if he's called Smalley... she should support nano
<John_Ventureville> lol
<cphoenix> I'm working for CRN, which I co-founded.
<John_Ventureville> he was only thinking "smalley"
<John_Ventureville> *groan!*
<cphoenix> Smalley supports nanoscale technology. Not molecular manufacturing.
<Jonesey> wtf? how can there be a serious debate about molecular manufacturing when biological systems do it all day long?
<cphoenix> J_V: Laughing at your jokes is bad enough. Groaning at your own puns is a new low.
<John_Ventureville> nature did it first
<Jonesey> how can beings which are essentially molecular factories debate its impossibility?
<cphoenix> J: there are some who say that biology is the only way to do it, and it'll never get any better than that. It's the last gasp of vitalism.
<greenrd> cphoenix: Any insights into the nanotech bill and the changing of the critical paragraph on the feasibility study?
<Jonesey> this is like the nutty debates about AI
<Ocsrazor2> btw I know Ralph Merkle very well, and used to converse often with Bob Freitas
<John_Ventureville> I will try to leave the reactions to others
<greenrd> er, s/bill/act
<Jonesey> "OK dna did it, but other than that it's impossible"...exactly cphoenix
<Ocsrazor2> Merkle is trying to get Nano off the ground here at GaTech
<cphoenix> g: Howard Lovy has done a great service in documenting that it was the NanoBusiness Alliance that changed it.
<BJK> have you met him in atlanta yet, Ocsrazor2?
<Ocsrazor2> yes, a couple of times, he is literally right across the street
<cphoenix> The NBA has done us all a disservice. or maybe they've overstepped the bounds enough to raise eyebrows--they might have worked against themselves.
<Ocsrazor2> and he shows up at Transhuman Atlanta meetings
<greenrd> Jonesey: Not nutty. There are plausible reasons from philosophy of consciousness (qualia) to believe that the mind might be non-computational
<BJK> sweet
<Jonesey> yeah when the NBA added 3 seconds in the lane for defenders I was outraged too
<greenrd> Jonesey: I'm not sure I agree with them, but there are arguments worth listening to.
<Ocsrazor2> those are not plausible greenrd
<cphoenix> J: *groan*
<Jonesey> cphoenix is obviously not a post player
<Ocsrazor2> they are completely rediculous and outside of mainstream neurophilosophy
<cphoenix> g: I think there are plausible ways to do qualia without quantum stuff.
<Jonesey> greenrd:show me a mind that does not inhabit a sufficiently complex computer and i'll believe you.
<greenrd> Ocsrazor2: Good to hear about Merkle. What is his day job now, nano-related or no?
<Ocsrazor2> qualia is not even considered an issue by most of the leading neurophilosophers
<Ocsrazor2> Merkle is the head of the cybersecurity dept here
<John_Ventureville> it is a recurring obsession on the extrolist
<cphoenix> J_V: Sorry, what is?
<John_Ventureville> *qualia*
<greenrd> Ocsrazor2: Qualia challenges David Chalmers, who's a first-rate philosopher. It's not a simple issue.
<Jonesey> are philosophers best positioned to analyze the possible computing power of machines?
<greenrd> er, s/challenges/challenge
<cphoenix> Oh, qualia? Are the extrolist people AI researchers?
<greenrd> Jonesey: It's not a complexity question, it's a fundamental in-principle question. No numbers need be involved.
<Ocsrazor2> its not a simple issue but it fundamentally goes against what we are finding in neuroscience
<Ocsrazor2> it has dualism at its core
<greenrd> John_Ventureville: Cool - what's the address?
<Jonesey> if the only minds we know of inhabit the most complex naturally built computers we know of, doesn't that tell you something?
<John_McCluskey> Feh... qualia... I'm reasonably sure that when strong AI rolls around, basic humans will only be considered to be "semi-conscious" at best.
<John_Ventureville> www.extropy.org
<cphoenix> My opinion: Just as "life is the only self-replicator" is the last refuge of vitalism, "The brain requires quantum qualia" is the last refuge of spiritualism.
<Jonesey> if there's something non computational why didn't it pop up in simpler computers long b4 humans evolved?
<Ocsrazor2> Jonesey- YES!
<Ocsrazor2> CP - YES!
<BJK> heh
<Jonesey> ocsrazor2=marv albert
<Ocsrazor2> CP have you read the 4th Discontinuity?
<greenrd> cphoenix: You may be right. But that doesn't explain why blue looks like it does.
<Ocsrazor2> by Mazlish?
<greenrd> To me, that is.
<greenrd> To you, blue may look entirely different.
<cphoenix> O: No, haven't read it.
<Ocsrazor2> you would enjoy it\
<greenrd> In fact, our qualia for the same blue input might even be incommensurable.
<cphoenix> g: Do you realize that different parts of your brain disagree on how blue looks?
<Jonesey> greenrd:that really makes me see red
<greenrd> haha
<greenrd> cphoenix: Didn't know that.
<Ocsrazor2> its a non issue greenrd, even if it looks different if we can agree on it, uit doesn't matter
<cphoenix> Well, most of your brain doesn't have any concept of blue.
<Ocsrazor2> its a differencing problem
<greenrd> Ocsrazor2: It does matter. It means there's "something more out there", as Mulder might say.
<cphoenix> And the different parts that do care about blue associate it with different things.
<Ocsrazor2> it just means we have computational machines that work slightly differently
<Jonesey> if you're having trouble with blue wait till the fall election, you'll be seeing a lot of blue states if that helps
<greenrd> Funny, this blue image in my background looks real uniform to me.
<cphoenix> "Something more out there"--yes, I can see why that would matter to those who want to think there is.
<greenrd> cphoenix: Oh, I agree, there is a strong tug in that direction. Put me down as agnostic, personally.
<greenrd> I don't think I'm smart enough to figure it out one way or the other just yet.

<BJK> welcome there mich
<John_McCluskey> Waves at LuciferLurking..... See you guys next week on the same "batchannel"... Thanks for coming, Chris... bye.
<MitchH> hello
<Ocsrazor2> CP the 4 major discontinuities in human thinking about nature
<Ocsrazor2> 1 - the copernican
<cphoenix> OTOH, I have seen what appears to be long-distance awareness--very strong reaction, anomalous, noteworthy, singular, caused by singular and disruptive event. I don't think it could be chance in this case--too many unique things came together in two parallel tracks. I don't know of any current physics theory that can explain it. So either I'm fooling myself, or there's "something out there." What's a skeptical scientist to do? :-(
<Jonesey> i'm singing the blues and this qualia is really getting me down
<Ocsrazor2> we are the center of the universe
<Ocsrazor2> that was the 1st discontinuity
<BJK> cphoenix, is the the evidence that you point to to suggest there's perhaps something after death?
<Ocsrazor2> btw current physics cannot deal well with complexity, which is the major issue it can't undersatnd the something more out there
<BJK> heh, do you think we're in a simulation?
<cphoenix> B: Dunno. Death was involved.

<Ocsrazor2> I missed something above BJ?
<BJK> ah, earlier discussions..
<Ocsrazor2> k
<BJK> the ol' one i like, death=oblivion?
<BJK> thus... immortalism is important
<cphoenix> O: Complexity can't explain telepathy. I don' t think quantum entanglement can either. If anyone ever demonstrated telepathy or distance viewing, I think we'd need new physics.
<Ocsrazor2> real quick the 4 discontinuities Copernican, Darwinian, Freudian, and now Machine conciousness
<cphoenix> Freudian?
<Ocsrazor2> but no one ever has CP
<Ocsrazor2> the freudian was that our conscious mind is completely in control of the rest of our brain
<cphoenix> And why not Wohlerian (urea vs. vitalism)?
<Ocsrazor2> wrapped up with the Darwinian CP
<BJK> and perhaps.. free will vs determinism
<cphoenix> O: I know no one ever has. It's hard to pin down. And until this happened, I was a total skeptic. I'm still a skeptic, but now I'm less comfortable about it.
<cphoenix> It doesn't help that most scientists are so knee-jerk against it that I know it could be right under our nose and we'd still be chanting "No evidence, no evidence, I can't hear you, nya nya nya."
* BJK thinks back to those cold future shocky moments in his life
<Ocsrazor2> man is different from nature and organic nature is different from the rest of nature, but you have a point, maybe should add another one \
<BJK> 1. death = oblivion 2. Singularity 3. free will vs determinism
<Ocsrazor2> mind repeating the telepathy story?
<Jonesey> what we're doing now is getting closer and closer to telepathy as far as our ability to communicate across great distances.
<cphoenix> OK. My wife suddenly got a pain in her back. Very bad. (Never happened before.) We were about to go out to the store (so I checked the time) but stayed in to rub her back. It was in the ribs, where back pains usually aren't. I started rubbing, and she said, "How come the more you touch me, the more I want to cry?"
<BJK> with your Vasculoid work..
<cphoenix> She'd never said anything like that either that I recall. After a few minutes the pain went away. A few hours later we got a call. Her brother had been run over and killed. Within a few minutes of that pain. And the tire hit that spot.
<BJK> do you ever think it will all be left behind via uploads?
<John_Ventureville> I've heard similar stories

<John_Ventureville> mothers who felt a shock when a son died on a battlefield many miles away
<cphoenix> J_V: Happened to you personally, or where you were personally observing? I've heard lots of them and cheerfully discounted them...
<Jonesey> i felt a shock on sept 11th, but my daughter survived
<John_Ventureville> anecdotal only, I admit
<Jonesey> don't think it was telepathy, just parental fear
<cphoenix> It used to be that scientists were willing to catalog things they couldn't classify. Now they're not.
<Ocsrazor2> CP I definitely think there in connectivity that we don't yet understand, but I don 't believe in anything supernatural
<Ocsrazor2> if they are real phenomenon, I think we will be able to understand them as any other natural process
<cphoenix> O: Supernatural? Seems unlikely. (Unless we are in fact in a simulation. Then supernatural could be meaningful.) Beyond the laws of physics as currently known? Sure. Understand as natural process? Sure.
<John_Ventureville> what about the theory which says in effect the brain is like a radio receiver and picks up "distress frequencies" in rare circumstances
<John_Ventureville> ?
<cphoenix> But natural things can be spooky until they're understood.
<Ocsrazor2> I wouldn't call that a theory
<John_Ventureville> scratch theory, more like idea
<Ocsrazor2> definitely CP
<Ocsrazor2> more like a very shaky hypothesis John
<Ocsrazor2> yep
<cphoenix> Well, it's an idea. There's little formal support for it and a fair amount of unverified anecdotal support.
<Ocsrazor2> how about ghosts? same thing
<cphoenix> BTW, I don't expect any of you to take my story seriously. There are too many ways I could be fooling myself. I think I'm not, but you don't know that.
<cphoenix> O: Define ghost.
<John_Ventureville> supposedly some ghosts have been caught on camera/videotape
<John_Ventureville> but there can always be the claim that is a hoax
<John_Ventureville> *it is a hoax*
<Ocsrazor2> Difficult to define CP, but lots of annecdotal evidence
<BJK> thanks for sharing your story cphoenix...
<cphoenix> A friend of mine has had lots of spooky experiences. If I believed her, I'd have to believe in something persisting beyond death--with personality, skills, and memories even. Brrr.
<cphoenix> B: You're welcome.
<Ocsrazor2> I think its probably mostly minor hallucinatory effects....
<Ocsrazor2> but...
<BJK> i must be away... but would like to welcome you back anytime
<Jonesey> i think it's just all the superstitious memes that are out there in popular culture
<BJK> i'll email about imminst's discussion software soon
<Ocsrazor2> I have a thought that they may actually be strong emotional events patterning the matter around them
<cphoenix> O: It'd be nice if we could collect this evidence and evaluate it in aggregate. But sadly, only the most fringe people are willing to work on it, and so their research is low quality.
<Ocsrazor2> cya BJ
<cphoenix> O: By what force or mechanism? (You're allowed to say "an unknown one.")
<John_Ventureville> some paranormal researchers have good credentials
<John_Ventureville> Jeffery Mishlove for instance
<Ocsrazor2> just hypothesizing out of my ass CP
<John_Ventureville> lol
<cphoenix> O: To quote you: "I wouldn't call that a theory." If there's no mechanism, it's not physics.
<Ocsrazor2> just have had the thought that if there were any possibility they might be real
<John_Ventureville> as a kid I fervently believed in Nessie but no more
<Ocsrazor2> they may be some form of interaction b/w intelligence and matter
<Ocsrazor2> which would leave echoes of the interaction
<cphoenix> From stories I've heard, strong emotion is a common thread.
<John_Ventureville> the highly emotional teenage girl who is "telekinetic"
<Ocsrazor2> I don't think they are in any intelligent, even if they are real
<cphoenix> I have heard of "echoes of the interaction"--people being able to detect archeological ruins, that sort of thing.
<John_Ventureville> or find water with a divining rod
<cphoenix> But I'm not sure this conversation can get us anywhere. We don't have enough rigor and don't have the tools to improve.
<John_Ventureville> hold on....
<Ocsrazor2> No, and if it is important it will come out in the long run anyway
<John_Ventureville> what about Robert Bigelow and his paranormal research organization?
<cphoenix> J_V: Center for Responsible Parapsychology? :-)
<John_Ventureville> Robert Bigelow is a billionaire putting a half billion into a space cruiseliner built
<Ocsrazor2> what do you see your critical research goals as Chris?
<Jonesey> huh?
<Ocsrazor2> continue John?
<Jonesey> we can't even get the space rowboat and he wants QM2?
<John_Ventureville> sorry
<John_Ventureville> Jonesey, exactly
<Jonesey> he is planning to be the gilligan of space
<Jonesey> or maybe the skipper
<John_Ventureville> by 2020 he wants it to go on its maiden voyage
<Jonesey> the billionaire..and his wife...
<John_Ventureville> a ticket would be a mere quarter million with a three day training class you must pass to get the chance to go
<cphoenix> O: Nanotech-related research goal: To answer the questions about feasibility, capability, and timeline for advance nanotech manufacturing.
<Jonesey> nasa couldn't do mars under 400 billion b4 they listened to zubrin
<John_Ventureville> they would fly to the moon and back
<Jonesey> even then that's like 20 bil
<Jonesey> ah that's prolly only a few bil if done right
<John_Ventureville> he is just providing the seed money
<cphoenix> O: For example, my Nanofactory paper. And my discussions with various scientists about whether MNT is really as bogus as they say it is.
<Ocsrazor2> very cool Chris
<Ocsrazor2> mine is first stage Intelligence Augmentation
<Ocsrazor2> doing a Phd in Neuroengineering right now
<cphoenix> I'm currently asking a chemist about whether there are any known limits to mechanochemistry. I told him--completely truthfully--that I'd be very happy to take CRN more mainstream if he can show any limits that would prevent Drexler's designs from working.
<Ocsrazor2> Im trying to get more communication b/w artificial intelligence and neuroscientitsts as well
<John_Ventureville> Robert Bigelow's organization is the National Institute for Discovery Science
<John_Ventureville> http://www.nidsci.org
<Ocsrazor2> What is your opinion John, is he a quack or just bleeding edge
<Ocsrazor2> ?
<John_Ventureville> he is an exceedingly wealthy man who would like answers
<cphoenix> Though come to think of it, since I wrote that, I read the nucleic acid engineering paper, and now I think Drexler's diamondoid is not the only path. So even if mechanochemistry can't work, CRN may have to stay in the relatively extreme position: that advanced nanotech is *very* revolutionary.
<John_Ventureville> and so he hired mainstream scientists to look into it for him
<Jonesey> what's mechanochemistry?
<Ocsrazor2> CP Im very interested in nano, especially short term for production of materials and components for bioengineering systems
<John_Ventureville> I don't know how much he wants to just verify things for himself as compared to the general public
<cphoenix> Just took a quick look at his site. His topics seem to be flashy/spooky rather than interesting.
<John_Ventureville> please explain
<John_Ventureville> details
<Ocsrazor2> agreed Chris
<cphoenix> O: IA is very cool. Good luck. Communication between AI and neuroscience will be extremely productive.
<Ocsrazor2> they focus on the X-files issues
<John_Ventureville> lol
<cphoenix> O: What do you think of the "artificial hippocampus"?
<John_Ventureville> that tends to be the "paranormal"
<John_Ventureville> X-Files stuff
<Ocsrazor2> its vaporware right now, but an interesting proposal
<Ocsrazor2> his group is very good, but that press release was irresponsible
<cphoenix> O: I don't know as much about the short-term stuff. You probably know the literature far better than I do.
<Jonesey> what's mechanochemistry?
<cphoenix> Long-term I think nanoscale manufacturing will lead to massively improved probes and computers--you'll be able to watch millions of neurons simultaneously in a human brain as easily as you take a blood sample today.
<Ocsrazor2> exactly CP, thats what Im looking towards
<cphoenix> J: Mechanochemistry is a kind of chemistry that uses direct positional manipulation of molecules to force reactions. Kinda' like enzymes, only easier to design, and often programmable for extra flexibility.
<Ocsrazor2> We are going to need to interface on a one to one level with neurons to really have anything looking like uploading
<cphoenix> O: I don't know how far MEMS will take you toward that. Again, I wish you luck. The more we know about our brains, the better.
<Jonesey> cphoenix:a lot of biochemistry is what you're callling mechanochemistry
<cphoenix> Uploading? For now I'll be happy with just a higher-bandwidth interface.
<John_Ventureville> his staff only includes two fulltime academics
<John_Ventureville> not too promising I suppose
<Ocsrazor2> The system I am building allows us to take time lapse movies, and electrophysiological recording and stimulation from 10000 neurons at once over long periods
<cphoenix> J: Mechanochemistry is a superset of biochemistry. Drexler's designs are in a different subset of mechanochemistry than biochemistry. For example, they work in vacuum.
<Ocsrazor2> but only in culture
<Jonesey> well, we know biochemistry can work in vacuum for a while, viruses can survive a long time
<cphoenix> O: Even in culture, that's still breathtaking!
<Jonesey> and some simple microbes
<Jonesey> but yes you're right re superset

<cphoenix> J: Survive doesn't mean they're active while in vacuum. Though it's worth noting that Smalley is wrong about enzymes requiring water.
<Jonesey> nature has only explored a tiny subset of the possibilities for exploiting stereochemistry for manufacturing
<Ocsrazor2> I hope to go on and work with Nicolelis or Donohughe on human neural implants after completing my PHD
<cphoenix> O: Wait--you'
<cph

[darren]

Thanks Chris, always great hearing your thoughts!

I cant find the entire log, has anyone got a direct link?

I enjoyed the chat about qualia and consciousness. Has anyone read this:


http://www.klab.calt...koch-cc-97.html


Any thoughts? I would like to here Peter Passaro's thoughts.

[Bruce Klein]

Thanks Darren.. here is the continuation of the log:

Look for Peter Passaro's chat Feb 15, 2004
http://imminst.org/f...st=0#entry25104


<cphoenix> O: Wait--you'
<cphoenix> Oops... Wait--you're doing this even pre-PhD? That's even more impressive. Means it doesn't need an established researcher with a huge lab. Wow!
<Jonesey> its tough when you only have a few billion yrs to work with
<Jonesey> and all you're doing is rolling the naturally selected dice
<Ocsrazor2> I work for a professor, so it is a big lab actually
<cphoenix> J: Yes, and when you can't get away from water. You can't juggle radicals underwater like you can in vacuum. I doubt there's any way to build diamond underwater.
<Ocsrazor2> working on my PhD at Tech
<cphoenix> Which Tech?
*** Joins: Lukian (Wizard@203-219-232-19-too-ts1-2600.tpgi.com.au)
<Ocsrazor2> but hope to make the jump from in vitro to in vivo as a postdoc
<Ocsrazor2> Georgia Tech
<Ocsrazor2> www.neuro.gatech.edu
<Jonesey> as john wheeler would say, "first there were the olmecs and the toltecs, then came the cal techs and the mass techs..."
<cphoenix> O: Have you thought about getting together with the artificial-organ people to grow complex structures of neurons?
<Ocsrazor2> we do that here, probably better than anyone in the world
<cphoenix> I'd really like to see what a grid of cortical columns would do.
<Ocsrazor2> a lab right down the hall is making the prototype
<cphoenix> How much theory do you get into? Do you know what a liquid state machine is? I'm convinced that's one of the cornerstones of intelligence.
<Ocsrazor2> we're all working together to develop a 3d neural culture system
<John_Ventureville> wasn't there a rat brain cell computer recently built? what is the next step?
<Ocsrazor2> a 4 university collaboration
<cphoenix> O: Wow... if I wasn't doing CRN, I'd give you my resume tomorrow.
<Jonesey> sorry cphoenix, overqualified
<Ocsrazor2> the rat brain was actually our 10,000 neuron chips
<John_Ventureville> ok
<Jonesey> what made it a rat brain?
<Ocsrazor2> the press played it up, but we only use 10K at a time from a rat or mouse brain
<Ocsrazor2> its 10000 disassociated neurons from rat or mouse embryos
<Ocsrazor2> cortical neurons
<Ocsrazor2> want to go back to grad school CP?
<Ocsrazor2> they are hiring like crazy around here actually, mostly administrative positions though
<Jonesey> why did you call the neurons neuron chips?
<Ocsrazor2> we grow neurons over a microelectrode array which allows us to record and stimulate them
<cphoenix> Sorry, no time... and I want to do research, not politics. It'd be nice if there were a sort of "vocational PhD." You only have to know your subject.
<cphoenix> Maybe that's called an MS.
<Ocsrazor2> we refer to them as neural chips in the lab
<Jonesey> what calculations can this computer do so far?
<Ocsrazor2> we are reversing engineering a network of 10K neurons right now jonesey
<Ocsrazor2> just starting to figure out what kind of processing is actually going on in there
<Ocsrazor2> we have begun to figure out how to control their development
<Ocsrazor2> but it will be a while before we can make them do specific computations
<Jonesey> ah ok just gettin off the ground
<Ocsrazor2> yep, midscale neuroscience is in its infancy
<Ocsrazor2> we understand single neuron to small network very well...
<Ocsrazor2> and large components such as brain regions
<Jonesey> hm
<John_Ventureville> does using living brain tissues for computers bother anyone here?
<Ocsrazor2> but the whole middle ground, large networks, is wide open
<Jonesey> no but it will bother the animal rights crowd I'm sure
<Ocsrazor2> how else do you develop interfaces to live brains John?
<cphoenix> J_V: Why should it bother anyone? A neuron is just a cell. Tickle it and it jumps.
<Jonesey> and i guess when you get to human tissue it would bother religious wingnuts
<Jonesey> too bad you're in the buckle of the babble belt Ocsrazor2
<John_Ventureville> not just the religious fundamentalists would be bothered
<Jonesey> they're the canaries in that goldmine
<Ocsrazor2> yep Jonesey we are under the radar right now but...
<Jonesey> ...after george w cements his grip you're screwed
*** Joins: eclecticd (forti2de@c-24-118-176-129.mn.client2.attbi.com)
<Ocsrazor2> Im expecting the whole cloning backlash will be a tempest in a teapot compared to what will happen when people figure out what will be possible with our stuff
<cphoenix> Apparently George Soros has blasted W, saying America under W is a threat to the world, and Soros is devoting his live right now to making sure W doesn't get reelected.
<Ocsrazor2> acutally not J
<cphoenix> I wonder what he's planning to do about touch-screen voting machines.
<Ocsrazor2> the DOD is way too interested in nueroengineering to let politics mess with the research, which is very scary in itself
<cphoenix> O: Reproduction is a specially weird issue. Just call it "neurons" instead of "brain tissue" and you might be OK.
<cphoenix> O: I sent you some private messages--did you get them? About liquid state machines?
<Ocsrazor2> looking now CP
<cphoenix> O: Do you know that the DOD wants them for?
<Jonesey> Ocsrazor2:religious right will trump defense dept easily
<Jonesey> that's w's base
<Jonesey> screwed without em
<Ocsrazor2> no way J, the DOD doesn't let most of the Govt know what its up to
<Jonesey> yep but some kook will
<Jonesey> esp out there in the buckle of the bible belt
<Ocsrazor2> CP DOD wants hands free weapon systems, think and shoot
<Ocsrazor2> which is almost possible now
<Jonesey> just make sure you get your phone call b4 they take you away dude
<cphoenix> Well that's not so bad... compared to what they could want. (Loyalty control?)
<Jonesey> neural viagra sounds promising i guess
<Ocsrazor2> that could be done now as well CP
<cphoenix> I want a hands free keyboard system. Maybe even a system that can read my visual imagination and show what picture I'm making.
<Ocsrazor2> that is actually fairly simple, people did those experiments back in the 50-60s , very scary stuff
<cphoenix> Loyalty control can be done now? How? What's the tradeoff?
<Jonesey> liquid state=some peculiar finite state machine?
<Ocsrazor2> the loyalty I meant
<eclecticd> DOD :O?
<eclecticd> :>
<Jonesey> TV, beer and chips are the tradeoff, it's operating now e.g. super bowl
<Ocsrazor2> emotional centers can be stimulated with simple single electrode implants, cude but effective
<Ocsrazor2> crude but effective
<cphoenix> Liquid state isn't finite state. You take perhaps 100 time-sensitive neurons and connect them recurrently. They start firing and exploring a 100-dimensional space. Then a simple three-level network can watch the activation. You can feed in a time sequenced pattern and do computations on it. Amazingly powerful stuff.
<Ocsrazor2> did you guys catch the remote control rat story about 1.5 years ago
<eclecticd> i didn't :O|
<Jonesey> whence the adjective liquid?
<Ocsrazor2> would be very interested CP, Im looking for good modeling paradigms for our networks
<cphoenix> The 100D space has a memory, of course. That's the "liquid state." So you can train a six-D window on the 100-D space. And see just the aspect you're interested in--automatically selecting the right viewpoint.
<cphoenix> Apparently hyphen D shows up as emoticons. That's "6D window on the 100D space."
<Ocsrazor2> we have one grad student who just builds computational models all day to try and match the data we are getting out of the biology
<Jonesey> i still don't see what liquid has to do with this
*** Joins: cyborg01 (~y.k.y@147.4.225.217)
<cphoenix> I independently invented a crude form of LSM to solve a problem I was interested in: How can two neural nets with random connections learn to talk with each other? I think LSMs can do that.
<Jonesey> liquid has a well defined meaning...?
<cphoenix> J: It's just a description. Don't worry about it.
<cphoenix> Even if the nets are dissimilar in structure.
<cphoenix> And without external training.
<cphoenix> And once you have dissimilar nets "knowing" what each other is doing, any input will get echoed around the brain.
<cphoenix> So correlations and patterns can be learned. Internal "symbols" are a natural consequence.
<cphoenix> And by manipulating the strength of the connections between the modules, you can generate quite a lot of psychology.
<Ocsrazor2> very interesting, there are a couple good papers this year theorizing about how biological brains do the same
<Ocsrazor2> would be interesting to see if the math models are similar
<Jonesey> why do we have to theorize? why not measure?
<cphoenix> Well, I'll be happy to tell you what I know. I've sat on this for a year and a half.
<Ocsrazor2> no tools yet Jonesey
<Ocsrazor2> we are building them
<cphoenix> And I don't have time to follow up on it.
<Jonesey> Ocsrazor2:koch(caltech), sereno(caltech and then ucsd) et al were doing a lot of sticking electrodes into squirrel brains 10-15 yrs ago to look at stuff like like this, nothing came of it?
<Ocsrazor2> that is all single neuron stuff Jonesey
<Jonesey> they never moved beyond single neurons in over a decade?
<Ocsrazor2> my lab and a few others are trying to break the single neuron paradigm in neuroscience right now
<cphoenix> There was some multi-neuron rat stuff: they could tell where it was in the cage. I think it was "place cells" in the hippocampus.
<cphoenix> They could even watch it dream about moving around the cage.
<Jonesey> they were definitely tapping into multiple neurons at a time
<Ocsrazor2> place cells are a very hot field right now CP
<Jonesey> helmets with lot of electrodes
<cyborg01> What is LSM?
<Ocsrazor2> never more than ~20 at a time
<Jonesey> and that's it, for 10-15yrs?
<Jonesey> wtf are those guys doing over there
<cphoenix> The rat stuff was not a helmet, but implanted electrodes. And I'm pretty sure they had 64 neurons. They used several electrodes and correlated signal strength of simultaneous pulses to determine 3D position of the neurons.
<Ocsrazor2> lots of neuro people stuck in the I can understand the brain by looking throw a drinking straw mentality
<Jonesey> carver meade was building them custom chips etc
<Ocsrazor2> 64 has only been posible for ~5 years
<cphoenix> c: LSM is liquid state machine. A theoretical neural net architecture that's extremely powerful. Google is your friend.
<Jonesey> wowthat's painstakingly slow
<Ocsrazor2> we are up to ~1000 now
<cphoenix> O: I saw this maybe 3 years ago, at a Complex Systems conference.
<Ocsrazor2> there is a 16000 electrode implant in development
<cyborg01> We need up to
<Ocsrazor2> in primates they have done ~800 microwire implants
<cyborg01> We need up to
<cyborg01> 10billion for the whole brain
<cyborg01> (Sorry spilled water on my keyboard)
<Jonesey> water..sure...
<Ocsrazor2> you need full on nano for that cyborg and why would you want to interface to the entire rbain at once
<Ocsrazor2> ?
<cyborg01> Nano is not strictly required.. just sub-micron scale electrodes
<Jonesey> i hate american "football" but this super bowl is not bad
<Ocsrazor2> I wrote a little piece for betterhumans.com on this last week
<Jonesey> maybe i'll hate it a bit less after today
<Jonesey> gotta think about it
<Ocsrazor2> we have submicron sclae electrodes already, still wont be good enough
<Ocsrazor2> packing problem
<cyborg01> Ocsrazor2: increased resolution will allow more information to be read from brain
<Jonesey> sounds like a job for mechanochemistryman
<Ocsrazor2> agreed cyborg, but you dont need that many to get a good idea of what is going on in there
<cphoenix> J: I was never a sports fan. I've seen half a baseball game in the past ten years, and I saw it by accident. It was the final Marlins game. Thrilling! But it didn't make me watch baseball.
<Jonesey> reassuring cphoenix
<Ocsrazor2> btw if you missed it cyborg, I build these systems
<cyborg01> Yeah I know that...
<cyborg01> =)
<cphoenix> ocsrazor: could I get your email address? I'd like to continue talking about LSMs but I have to go soon.
<Ocsrazor2> ocsrazor@yahoo.com
<cyborg01> I agree you can decode a lot of information... but not all memories
<cphoenix> c: Why not all memories?
<Ocsrazor2> depends on what you want to do cyborg
<cphoenix> We know long-term memories survive deep unconsciousness. So they wouldn't even need active probing--just physical/chemical structure analysis.
<cyborg01> Memories are probably encoded at a finer level
<Ocsrazor2> what I want short term, ~20 years is robust sensory interfaces
<cyborg01> You mean only morphological data?
<Ocsrazor2> Long term memory is a combination of denritic spines and synapse structure most likely
<cyborg01> I agree too.. probably..
<eclecticd> Chris, all long term memories are retained?
<cyborg01> But with so few electrodes a lot of information is lost
<eclecticd> this is proven?
<Jonesey> how do you define deep unconsciousness as opposed to deep sleep?
<Ocsrazor2> Im just looking to do sensory interface as a start cyborg, uploading is a long way off
<cyborg01> It's not proven but it makes a lot of sense
<cphoenix> e: People have apparently recovered completely after spending an hour drowned in ice water.
<Ocsrazor2> yes CP, LTM is almost completely structural
<Jonesey> yep kids in particular
<Ocsrazor2> you can stop the dynamics of a brain and still have memory
<cphoenix> Wilderness rescue people say: "They're not dead until they're warm and dead."
<Ocsrazor2> I was very suprised by this
<cphoenix> Why?
<eclecticd> A lot of repeated knowledge that gets erased from our conscious minds.. we need more working memory! :O)
<Ocsrazor2> the first time I looked at the literature
<eclecticd> well not erased, but rather deep in our subconscious minds
<Ocsrazor2> I had a bias intially that mind must be dynamic in nature, but apparently all you need are the right intial conditions to restart it
<cyborg01> Yeah
<eclecticd> initial conditions, somewhat like cellular automatons & simple programs, no?
<Ocsrazor2> yep
<eclecticd> or exactly alike?
<cyborg01> So the purpose of BCI should be to extract connectivity information
<Ocsrazor2> mind is something beyond any current models eclectic
<eclecticd> right.. current :O/
<Ocsrazor2> there are many different goals cyborg
<cyborg01> OK.. I forgot that=)
<Ocsrazor2> my personal first one is to get robust sensory connectivity from electronic to biological systems
<cyborg01> OK
<cyborg01> So what do you think is the major bottleneck in your research?
<cphoenix> Are you planning to inject signal into early modules that are simply structured, so that it would appear to piggyback on an existing sense?
<cyborg01> Computing power, electrodes, or?
<Ocsrazor2> Ec - I'm fond of pointing out to people that the human brain is THE most complex physical system we have yet encountered
<cphoenix> Or later modules that are more amorphous, leading to the possibility of new senses?
<Ocsrazor2> cyb - DATA ANALYSIS!
<Ocsrazor2> intially going in through existing systems CP
<Ocsrazor2> auditort is very well understood, I don't think we are far from the implantable cell phone
<cyborg01> Probably V1 I guess
<Ocsrazor2> V1 is a little farther off cyb, there is one good lab moving quickly though
<Jonesey> nice, now i can have dropped calls inside of my ear
<Ocsrazor2> Normann at Utah
<Jonesey> that sux, it's nice to throw the phone around a bit when i lose calls
<cphoenix> O: If you're looking at sensory interface, you might also be interested in what I know about dyslexic perceptual distortion.
<cphoenix> Like: perceptions can change under conscious (or unconscious) control in a fraction of a second.
<Ocsrazor2> I saw that on your website and I am very interested, bc I have always suspected I am slightly dyslexic
<cphoenix> I hypothesize that this has to do with the magnocellular system being extra-flaky in dyslexics.
<cphoenix> Anyone smart enough to do what you do is likely to be dyslexic.
<cphoenix> Dyslexic is not the same as learning disabled.
<Ocsrazor2> define magnocellular? new term for me
<cyborg01> Magnocellular applies to V1 only I guess...
<cphoenix> Large cells in the visual system that are responsible for detecting motion. Parvocellular is another system that does detail.
<cphoenix> According to Grossberg, the auditory system also has timing and detail subsystems.
<cphoenix> Dyslexia can mess with both vision and hearing. And in hearing, it apparently messes with timing.
<Jonesey> yikes, i'm not dyslexic at all, that mean I'm dumb?
<cyborg01> Heh
<cphoenix> J: You may be dyslexic (able to distort your perception) but not learning disabled.
<Jonesey> kcuf!
<Jonesey> hm
<Ocsrazor2> I'm great at small to medium neuroscience, but large scale stuff I don't have a great handle on
<cyborg01> Ocsrazor2: what kind of algorithms you use for data analysis?
<cphoenix> Are you good at most things, but notably bad at others? Sports? Handwriting? Math? Attention? Perceptual distortion can affect all of these. It hits everyone differently.
<Ocsrazor2> im definitely ADD, have learned to control it through meditation, martial arts, yoga
<cphoenix> A disability is a vicious cycle involving several functional levels. Once you know what's going on it can be debugged and corrected.
<Ocsrazor2> have had mathematics problems, I learn math in completely unconventional fashion
<Jonesey> you and einstein
<eclecticd> ADD is a disorder that is not clinically diagnosed, right?
<Ocsrazor2> terrible at learning math in a classroom, have to apply it to a real world problem or it is useless for me
<eclecticd> I mean they still have many possible causitive factors
<cphoenix> I've gotten one kid to read in three days. Another to ride a bicycle in two. An adult who couldn't travel alone due to panic attacks, after working with me for a week, spent a day touring San Francisco alone--first time she'd ever been there.
<cphoenix> Not every case is that spectacular, but many are.
<eclecticd> Ocsrazor, yous the man
<cphoenix> ADD's definition depends on who you ask. Some kids came to us on Ritalin and didn't need it when they left. Others still needed it.
<eclecticd> Ritalin is dangerous, much dangerous then the now (banned) ephedrine
<Ocsrazor2> never used drugs, but I think on multiple tracks at once, and can get lost in them if I dont force myself to focus
<eclecticd> only used in baby's "cough" formula & other decongestants
<eclecticd> or something like that :/
<cphoenix> I don't say whether we correct ADD, or whether dyslexic time-sense distortion can mimic ADD and we correct that.
<cphoenix> O: I've sent you an email. Feel free to ask me more questions. In fact, any of you feel free to ask questions. cphoenix at CRNano.org. But I've got to go really soon now.
<Ocsrazor2> I will definitely check out your stuff Chris
<Jonesey> l8r cphoenix, fascinating chat, most enjoyable
<Ocsrazor2> yep me too, have a little experiment to un b4 leaving
<cyborg01> Think for telling me LSM too=)
<Ocsrazor2> great meeting you Chris
<Jonesey> thanx for the info Ocsrazor2, also very interesting contributions to the chat
<eclecticd> great meeting another Chris besides me
<Ocsrazor2> take care everyone
<eclecticd> well chat rather
<cphoenix> O: The perceptual distortion thing has several implications. 1) It's a variable in experiments that probably isn't accounted for. 2) It's controllable, so provides another way to study the brain.
<cphoenix> Great meeting you to, Ocsrazor2. Looking forward to talking by email.
<Ocsrazor2> btw I'm doing the imminst chat on feb 15 for anyone who wants to hear more about the state of the art in BCI
<cyborg01> Yeah me definitely
<eclecticd> BCI :?
<Ocsrazor2> brain computer interface
<cphoenix> Ooh! Cool! I hope I can be there.
<eclecticd> ah.. :O)
<Ocsrazor2> Im rebuilding my website with lots more links and references, will hopefully be done by then
<Jonesey> nice
<Ocsrazor2> OK gang must be off, night all
<Jonesey> don't cut yourself shaving Ocsrazor2
<cphoenix> Bye--thanks again. And I'm off too.
<eclecticd>
<eclecticd> bye

[darren]

Thanks Bruce. Ive read quite alot of the Peter chat. The stuff their doing with stimulating small neuron nets in pettri dish is great! Im interested in neural correlates of consciousness and (although outside Peters research) i was wondering what his opinion of the above link i gave. Its a Crick and Kotch paper, and sounds very interesting. Anyway if you see him around and if hes got a few minuetes point him to it.. Thanks!

[Bruce Klein]

Darren, feel free to PM (private message) Peter - ocsrazor here with a link to this discussion. When he returns to the forums, I'm sure he will be happy to answer.

[darren]

Thanks again!

I have emailed him