Programmed Reality

So Craig Venter created synthetic life.  How cool is that?  I mean, really, this has been sort of a biologists holy grail for as long as I can remember.  Of course, Dr. Venter's detractors are quick to point out that Synthia, the name given to this synthetic organism, was not really built from scratch, but sort of assembled from sub-living components and injected into a cell where it could replicate.  Either way, it is a huge step in the direction of man-made life forms.  If I were to meet Dr. Venter, the conversation might go something like this:

Jim: So, Dr. Venter, help me understand how man-made your little creation really is.  I've read some articles that state that while your achievement is most impressive, the cytoplasm that the genome was transplanted to was not man made.

Craig: True dat, Jim.  But we all need an environment to live in, and a cell is no different.  The organism was certainly man made, even if its environment already existed.

Jim: But wait a minute.  Aren't we all man-made?  Wasn't that the message in those sex education classes I took in high school?  

Craig: No, the difference is that this is effectively a new species, created synthetically.  

Jim: So, how different is that from a clone?  Are they also created synthetically?

Craig: Sort of, but a clone isn't a new species.

Jim: How about genetically modified organisms then?  New species created synthetically?  

Craig: Yes, but they were a modification made to an existing living organism, not a synthetically created one.

Jim: What about that robot that cleans my floor?  Isn't that a synthetically created organism?

Craig: Well, maybe, in some sense, but can it replicate itself?

Jim: Ah, but that is just a matter of programming.  Factory robots can build cars, why couldn't they be programmed to build other factory robots?

Craig: That wouldn't be biological replication, like cell division.

Jim: You mean, just because the robots are made of silicon instead of carbon?  Seems kind of arbitrary to me.

Craig: OK, you're kind of getting on my nerves, robot-boy.  The point is that this is the first synthetically created biological organism.

Jim: Um, that's really cool and all, but we can build all kinds of junk with nanotech, including synthetic meat, and little self-replicating machines.  

Craig: Neither of which are alive.

Jim: Define alive.

Craig: Well, generally life is anything that exhibits growth, metabolism, motion, reproduction, and homeostasis.

Jim: So, a drone bee isn't alive because it can't reproduce?

Craig: Of course, there are exceptions.

Jim: What about fire, crystals, or the earth itself.  All of those exhibit your life-defining properties.  Are they alive?

Craig: Dude, we're getting way off topic here.  Let's get back to synthetic organisms.

Jim: OK, let's take a different tack.  Physicist Paul Davies said that Google is smarter than any human on the planet.  Is Google alive?  What about computer networks that can reconfigure themselves intelligently.

Craig: Those items aren't really alive because they have to be programmed.

Jim: Yeah, and what's that little code in Synthia's DNA?

Craig: Uhhh...

Jim: And how do you know that you aren't synthetic?  Is it at all possible that your world and all of your perceptions could be completely under programmed control?

Craig: I suppose it could be possible.  But I highly doubt it.

Jim: Doubt based on what? All of your preconceived notions about reality?

Craig: OK, let's say we are under programmed control.  So what?

Jim: Well, that implies a creator.  Which in turn implies that our bodies are a creation.  Which makes us just as synthetic as Synthia.  The only difference is that you created Synthia, while we might have been created by some highly advanced geek in an other reality.

Craig: Been watching a few Wachowski Brothers movies, Jim?

Jim: Guilty as charged, Craig.

Tags: craig venter, synthetic life, artificial life, synthia, robots, ai, artificial intelligence, programmed reality, nanotech, matrix, synthetic, artificial, venter, biologists
Categories: AI | Future Tech | Life | Nanotech | Programmed Reality | Robotics | Science

A recent article on popularmechanics.com got me thinking about military robotics and the future of war.  Although the story remains vague, these iRobot SWORDS units were apparently taken off the battlefield due to unanticipated actions.  “The gun started moving when it was not intended to move,” according to the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, Kevin Fahey.

War is an unfortunate consequence of having humanity's social evolution severely outstripped by our technological evolution.  And the idea of having robots fight our battles certainly has its pros and cons.  On the one hand, fewer lives would be lost on the side of the deployers of the robots.  On the other hand, how fair is it to throw flesh and blood humans in the ring with terminators?  I would not be surprised to see an amendment to the Geneva convention regarding robotic warfare at some point in the near future.

Of course, robots are only the next stage in the application of technology to warfare.  Mines, predator drones, WMDs, laser-targeting bombs, and "Star Wars"-like anti-missile defenses have all been steps taken to remove the human risk progressively further from the battlefield.  Have nations can simply beat up on Have-not nations at will. 

Then, of course, will come the day, when all combatants are fighting remotely.  In the future, will wars be run by teens (because their contract rate is less than adults) trained on "Missile Command" type video games, where the side with the best technology, best gamers, and biggest budget wins by wearing down the opponent's arsenal of robots and munitions.  I guess the Haves will always have the edge.

Tags: robotics, warfare, irobot
Categories: Future Tech | Robotics

Scientists from the International Center for Young Scientists have developed a rudimentary nano-scale molecular machine that is capable of generating the logical state machine necessary to direct and control other nano-machines.  This experiment demonstrates a nascent ability to manipulate, build, and control nano-devices, which are the fundamental premises for nanobot technology.  Other than perfecting these techniques, all that remains to achieve the so-called utility nanobot is the generation of light, wireless networking, and the ability to fly. 

Harvard Microrobotics Laboratory developed a 3 cm 60 milligram robotic fly that had its first successful flight in 2007.  So, it seems that Moore’s law marches on in the world of microbiotics at a doubling of the miniaturization of flying robots every two years.  At this rate, we should get to 10 microns by the year 2030.  This is, of course, ignoring the fact that black ops military programs are generally considered to be at least 10 years ahead of commercial ventures.  Bring on the nano-wars! 

More on Nanotech and the Physical Manifestation of a Reality 

Tags: microbiotic fly, robotics, nanobots
Categories: Nanotech | Robotics