Let me begin by reviewing some of the research topics that I mentioned in Nanotechnology without Genies:
from the home page:
With nanotechnology we can build apparatus that will enable us to understand the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, and make use of it. This is the key to the door that leads to wonderland. (This "apparatus" could exist within a cell. All kinds of nanodevices could be built within cells. In fact that's going to be the easiest way to build them.)
from page 6, the interface problem:
Someday there will be an IDE for cell programming, with a high level language instead of low-level DNA code.
from page 21, the irrelevance of AI:
When a translation system finally appears that really does what it is supposed to do -- i.e. it produces translations that make sense -- it will be semi-automatic. It will be a translator's workbench, not a free-standing program that tries to translate by itself.
from page 28, the last page of the original site:
Cell repair machines will be cells -- highly modified cells, yes, but still cells. Cell repair systems will be an extension and refinement of the immune system we already have.
from the Singularity page:
Suppose we start with a human being. We incorporate nanoscale devices into his or her cells, including brain cells. A nanodevice is like a new organelle, which monitors the activity of the cell and tweaks it or assists it as necessary. The artificial organelles are designed to mesh with the cellular machinery that is already there.
The next step is to suppose that some of the natural organelles in the cell are replaced by artificial organelles. In other words, at this stage the new organelles don't just act as adjuncts to the natural organelles, they take over certain tasks, so the original organelles are no longer necessary. For example, we could design an artificial lysosome that would clean up the cell and remove waste products better than natural lysosomes. Suppose this happens in all cells, throughout the body, including the brain...
On the Singularity page I continued this scenario so that all organelles were artificial, but that isn't really necessary. In fact, the word "artificial" may be misleading. Continuing the scenario,
The new organelles are not foreign objects inserted from the outside. There are artificial ribosomes which make the new organelles right there on site, in the cell. The chromosomes have been modified so that when the cell divides, the new cell has artificial organelles. The DNA code for the natural organelles has been removed.
In the January 8, 2000 issue of New Scientist, there was an article about putting DNA-based nanocomputers into cells -
Shapiro's vision is being able to place Turing machines inside every one of our cells. Based on the biochemical conditions in cells, these molecular physicians could make diagnoses, prescribe specific drug molecules in response, and assemble them. A "general practitioner" computer could detect a bacterium and dispense an antibiotic, spot defective RNA or DNA and fashion healthy replacements, or make extra molecules of a necessary protein that the body isn't making enough of. Specialists machines could be designed to troubleshoot the unique functions of individual organs. If the computer senses a condition it can't treat, it might send out distress signals, says Shapiro, such as colouring your urine blue or placing alarm molecules in your bloodstream that are readable by an external device.
This isn't quite what I have in mind, but it's uncomfortably close. Ehud Shapiro is still thinking in terms of adding a nanocomputer to a cell (which was Eric Drexler's idea), as opposed to recognizing that the cell already has a model of itself, and providing a mechanism that will allow the cell to refine its model and reprogram itself, which is what I want to do.
All the tasks Shapiro's nanocomputers are supposed to do are already being done:
- The immune system already detects bacteria and tries to get rid of them - but it could do this better.
- The cell already detects defective DNA and tries to fix it - but it could do this better.
- The cell (in conjunction with the endocrine system) already regulates which proteins are made and in what amounts - but it could do this better.
And so forth. Instead of having the nanocomputer in there as a foreign object, I think of the nanocomputer as an extension of the nucleus - or the immune system, or the endocrine system, or the nervous system.
What Eric Drexler and Ehud Shapiro are proposing is a necessary step on the way to what I want to do. I agree that we have to incorporate nanocomputers into our cells. Actually it doesn't matter whether anybody agrees or not. It's going to happen anyway. It's the inevitable endpoint of the technological path we are following. Ready or not, here it comes.
The question is, what happens next? Who is going to be using those "external devices," and for what purpose? Is this going to be like being hooked up to machines in a hospital? Apparently so. Machine-centric transhumanists (which includes essentially all transhumanists at this point, although that could change) believe that computers are going to "wake up" and lead the way to transhuman life. They regard the human body as a passive object to be acted on by external machines. Even the nanocomputers in our cells will be connected to external machines, and the machines will be in control.
My mother used to say "If anybody hooks me up to those machines, I'll come back and haunt 'em." When her time came, I made sure they let her die in peace. It wasn't easy. In fact only the last four hours were peaceful. The previous two days had been hellish. A hospital room is just one step up from an interrogation room, and not always a step up. A lot of prisoners get off easier than my mother. She was caught in the bureaucratic nightmare at its worst, and I had to draw on everything I ever learned about social engineering to get her out of it - and even then I just barely did it, and only at the very end.
I think in terms of a yoga class in an ashram, not machines in a hospital. What I want to do is set up a biofeedback loop. We will learn to control our cells. I regard the external devices as temporary, like training wheels on a bicycle. Eventually the external devices will become unnecessary, and the nanocomputers themselves will become unnecessary.
The cell already is a self-programming computer - almost. It's crude in some ways, but it could be improved. It could be perfected. It has only limited self-awareness, but its model of itself could be made more articulate and more explicit.
To sum up: the idea is to modify the cell so it repairs itself better than it already does, and then redesign it on a higher level so it can make such modifications on its own, without outside help (or with less and less help as time goes on). Instead of evolving in geological time, over a period of many generations, it will modify itself continuously in real time.
"A new vision of human nature and destiny
is emerging, a vision that was not possible
until this moment in time."