X-Message-Number: 4006
From: thomasd@netcom.com (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #3996 - #4003
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:17:51 -0800 (PST)


To John de Rivaz:

Thank you. I think that I should tell you, though, that Robin Hanson did 
send me, by email, and after that statement, a copy of his EXTROPHY article.
I found it very interesting but still remain unconvinced. We happen to be
having a private discussion about it now.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas

To Mr. Clark:

Ok, so now you have a definition of symbol. Let's look at the can opener. 
Or better yet, let's look at a hammer. You say that a "symbol" is any change
in a physical object which has been set up by convention. Are trees responding
to symbols? Can openers clearly must be, because cans have a conventional 
structure. So can openers manipulate symbols. Hammers sometimes do, since nails
also have a conventional structure. But hammers are sometimes applied to things
which were NOT made by people, too. Trees manipulate the chemicals they draw
up through their roots and the sunlight they get in their leaves. These 
chemicals have a UNIVERSAL structure, and the tree can manipulate them because
of that. Sunlight, also, has a common structure which allows the leaves to
manipulate it. 

Are you equating "convention" with "universal" ie. sunlight, or the humus that
a worm eats, or many other things that human beings had no part in making? Or
when you say that something is a "convention", is it something agreed on 
between a group of actors only? If you mean the first, you are saying something
very broad indeed. The Sun itself does nothing but work with symbols (in your
sense). And yes, in your sense I can see how hard you would find it to see
that ANYTHING does not work with symbols. At the same time, the differences
between all the different kinds of "symbols" we find in the world are obscured.
You might as well refer to them as "things" or "objects". You have a perfect
right to define words as you wish, but you can lose lots of content when you
do so, and make your thinking and communication very hard.

Naturally you should understand that I was not using and don't plan to use your
definition. I will also note that by your definition of symbol, there are a
great many symbols which computers cannot and will never be able to manipulate.
Since we see many of these symbols manipulated every day, and not just by
creatures, animals, or tools that we think of as intelligent, then computers
therefore have a limited field compared to the many symbols we see around us.
They may be able to solve the equations for our weather, but they cannot keep
us dry.

About "nanotechnology": your explanation is circular. Even more so,
since the devices Drexler speaks about don't now exist, and your explanation
presupposes first that they can exist, second that they will work well enough
in the real world, once built, to be useful AS DESIGNED. Please understand 

that I am not criticising Drexler or nanotechnology as such: but 
implementationsoften have problems which no one foresaw, and I would not be at 
all surprized
if the same were true of the particular machines Drexler is working on. Not
only that, but the best instances of nanotechnology we presently have consist
of modified versions of objects taken from living things. There is nothing at
all innate to these chemicals that prevent them from being put together into
much larger machines ... but for some reason this has not happened. Or to be
more accurate, it HAS happened, but in a way that we, with our 20th Century
industrial technology, would not have used at all. And so our late 20th
Century technology must clearly provide an instance of superiority?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that computers cannot keep us dry.

And finally, about values: no, you chose some very simple differences. But the
differences between values can be much more subtle than that, even for 
human designers. People come in different shapes and sizes, especially when
we include children in the category of "people". So just what is the "best"
design for a car seat? (And the differences are NOT just a simple matter of
"taste"). We are different chemically from one another: I am likely to be
able to smell things you cannot, and vice versa. Is there then a "best" drug
for (say) colds? Again, I hardly chose my own chemistry. I'm not talking about
taste. I might have a fatal reaction to a drug which cures you of your disease.

Clearly, unless we start working on it ourselves, no life form has been shaped
to serve our purposes. Wood has really evolved to hold up the tree, not to
make our houses. Vegetables ... very interesting ... have evolved, particularly
under our "tutelage", to feed us (and in return, spread their seeds by so
doing!). To complain because these life forms don't fit our purposes, and 
claim that is a reason why nature is a poor designer, is both short-sighted and
ignorant. We have done much better in designing many of our devices not because
we are innately better but simply because we can make something which serves
US. And we will continue to do that. 

			Best and long long life,


				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4006