Howard, you said 'I used the term "believers" on purpose because one source told me that arguing with a Drexlerian is akin to debating a Creationist: There's simply no winning, since they take their beliefs on faith. I countered that most Creationists do not desire or seek proof -- the very definition of faith -- whereas MNT proponents are actively pursuing proof.'

But Howard, the MNT crowd is not seeking proof, they are instead seeking to implement their program, in the same way that communist true-believers sought to (and succeeded in) implementing their program, to the great sorrow of the world.

The communist program burned itself out after 70 years in Russia, but hangs on on in China, North Korea, and Cuba. All the time it was evident to right(wing)-thinking people that communism was unworkable, but there was no way to prove it.

It may take a comparable time for the MNT program to burn itself out, even though it is evident to most that MNT is unworkable, because there is no way to prove it.

It's that lack of falsifiability that helps make MNT such an effective religion.

Edited by author 12-10-2003 06:43 PM
attobuoy: So we're commies and religious nuts now, eh? Well, that's a new one. Prize for originality on your part at least. Contrary to your claims, we want proof very much, with one of our first goals being to shove that proof in the faces of everyone who said it couldn't be done and say "HA!" I also fail to see how comparing us to mass murderers is a valid analogy - we're not advocating any of the psychopathic/totalitarian policies pursued in any of the communist countries you mentioned.

That being said, in actuality we do have a great deal of proof. Biology is indeed "nanotechnology that works." If MNT is impossible, then how is it you exist?! I realize that it's not possible to prove a negative but YOU seem to have a rather sure FAITH that MNT is not possible. Care to enlighten us as to what gives you this FAITH? You don't work as an intern for Smalley by any chance, do you?

Careful about that blood pressure, Janessa.

It's my understanding that the misguided attempt to implement communism wrecked the economies of Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba (among others). And now you tell me that it also involved mass murder, psycopathy, and totalitarianism. Yikes!

(And you tell me that you're not advocating any of the psychopathic/totalitarian policies pursued in any of the communist countries I mentioned, which prompts me to ask, just what psychopathic/totalitarian policies are you advocating? That's a joke, calm down.)

But seriously, you seem to be thinking of a different definiton of MNT than that proposed by the Drexler/Merkle/Freitas (DMT) hypothesis, which can be summarized as the building and replication of complex systems via deterministic mechanosynthesis rather than via stochastic chemistry or enzyme-mediated biochemistry. Biology is not an existence proof of the DMT hypothesis, but may indeed fall under suitably broad definition of nanotechnology.

Jannesa, you compared yourself to a religious nut, and so I think your missive deserves some additional depth in a reply. I recommend a book to your attention: Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper & Row, New York, 1951. Republished 1989, Harper Perennial, New York, NY, ISBN 0-06-091612-5

Some relevant quotes from that work:

It is necessary for most of us these days to have some insight into the motives and responses of the true believer. For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities. (page xiii)
        
If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible not vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning, and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness. (page 81)

To be in possession of an absolute truth is to have a net of familiarity spread over the whole of eternity. There are no surprises and no unknowns. All questions have already been answered, all decisions made, all eventualities foreseen. The true believer is without wonder and hesitation. . . . The true doctrine is a master key to all the world's problems. With it the world can be taken apart and put together. . . . The true believer is emboldened to attempt the unprecedented and the impossible not only because his doctrine gives him a sense of omnipotence but also because it gives him unqualified confidence in the future.(page 82)

Give it a read, Janessa, and then comment further.

One of the odd things about the debate about MNT vs. extant nanotech is that the environmental question has been injected into it, a kind of catalytical non-sequitor that has thrown the larger question into confusion.

I wrote a story over the summer for Salon about the growing polarization of the Nano Think (MNT) and Nano Inc. camps. And now those divergent worldviews seeem to be coming to the fore.

Nano Thinkers...show us your cards: make some concrete proposals on how MNT can be tested and evaluated.

Nano Incers....back the best proposals and settle this annoying disagreement.

Getting to the bottom of this arguement doesn't require federal funding.

But it does merit resolution. The MNT perspective either deserves more attention or none. I know there are plenty of people who already feel that none is the right level of attention that MNT deserves, but let's find a fair way to get to the root of the dilemma, once and for all.

Ho boy...I don't know who the hell you've been talking to, but none of the pro-MNT people I know are out to forcibly change the world, or claim to be in possession of "an absolute truth." We think it rather evident that the advent of this technology will have far-reaching effects and are trying to point out the benefits/consequences of them to society at large and are very much looking forward to them ourselves. If they don't feel like listening, well that's their right. I'm not a proselytizer and I don’t have a “convert quota” for the month.

Turning back the clock a bit, let's look at those who predicted that the invention of the telephone would have a profound impact on society and bring about a great many changes. This should not have been taken to mean the advocated forcible conquering of the planet by telephone and the subjugation of those who oppose telephones! It was just that - an observation that this new invention was BIG and would almost certainly have a correspondingly large impact by a society that eagerly adopted it, seeing its obvious benefits.

And no, I'm with the Drexler/Merkle/Freitas group. Biology provides some important clues and suggests the probable feasibility of MNT. I've never met anyone on "my side" with any serious case of "true faith," but instead those who, like myself, have looked at the available evidence and come to the conclusion that it is 99% probable.

You seem to be off on some sort of weird obsession with your "religious belief" angle. I submit that aside from a few "really enthusiastic" pro-MNT people, this situation exists only in your head.

And I have no intention of purchasing a 52-year-old book on psychology. All of the psych books on my shelf are a bit more recent. And for the record, I'm pretty anti-religious - those who would claim science as a religion are missing the point entirely.

Jack Mason: Excellent post! To quote Glenn Reynolds: "Indeed." Let's settle this. (But I'm thinking it will be a few years before this will really come to a head.)

Jenna, Jenna, Jenna.

As much as you deny it now, your own postings (http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/003078.html)show that you are an evangelist, proselytizing for a religion which promises life after death, resurrection of the body and eternal life. I quote you:

---------------------------
Cryonics in and of itself doesn’t do a darn thing to grant you immortality. It is, as popularly described, “an ambulance to the future.” Meaning that the nanotechnology necessary to do the job doesn’t exist NOW, but will someday. Unfortunately, if you die before then, you’re toast and you lose out on all eternity. THAT’S where cryonics comes in – it gets you to that future hospital where the technology is available. Another analogy I’ve seen used is coming down with a serious illness out in the middle of a jungle. Can’t do much for you there, but if we can get you to a modern hospital, you should be alright. Right now we’re all living out in the jungle.


Posted by Janessa Ravenwood at September 17, 2003 09:46 AM
----------------------------------

Now come on, Jenna. Admit it, there is almost NOTHING that you would not do to assure yourself of eternal life, isn't that right? You want to live to the end of the universe, and beyond if possible, and will let nothing stand in your way.

I believe that pretty muc defines your morality. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Edited by author 12-11-2003 07:40 AM
attobuoy, whats wrong with you? Jumping to conclusions and putting words in other peoples mouths?

For example below you said and I quote:

"Jannesa, you compared yourself to a religious nut"

No, YOU compared Janessa to a religious nut.

I don't know why you posted that quote about cryonics. I highly doubt Janessa wants to be frozen, and most transhumanists (myself included) hope to stick around until we wouldn't have to. It is the second worst thing that can happen to you after all.

On one hand we have cryonics which may or may not bring you back, and on the other hand you can rot in the ground or get burnt to ashes, which I think we can agree that your not comming back from.

I find it interesting that for someone criticizing Janessa's moral character that you are perfectly fine living in a world where so much human life is lost to death. What does that say about your morality?