Dna Computers

[John]

Just stumbled onto this site http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dna-computer.htm and it tells you about a new DNA computer and how it works. Apparently these new computers are a lot better than silicon chips, 1cm cubed of DNA will be able to do 10 trillion calculations at once and store over 3 terabytes of information. The DNA computers are said to be able to solve complex problems in a few hours where it would take a normal computer 100 years to solve this. My line of thinking is, if we have DNA controlled computers who can perform so many tasks at once and solve complex problems, wouldnt it then try to come up with an idea to change its own genes, upgrade itself, become smarter? how complex could that be? I quite like the idea though, it opens new doors to the human race, it has the potential to advance us in leaps and bounds, it could prove to be a key factor in the fight against deadly diseases, who knows what this new technology will bring but if proper precautions arent taken, then The Terminator plot isnt as far fetched as it may seem.

[Jay]

I always wondered if there is a parallel between the "0's and 1's" of electronical devices and the "G, T, C, A" of the genome. While the 0's and 1's allow computers to perform logical and mathematical processes wouldn't DNA open the gate for true artificial intelligence and artificially created emotion?
After I read the article I noticed that they're using the DNA mainly to store data using its small structure but I wonder if there are other ways to use this idea.
For exmaple would it be possible to make a DNA chip grow? This sounds quite overwhelming...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I always find this one amusing. Do those that think computers can replace us also believe that we have replaced "god"? Not that I believe in god, but the concept is amusing...

[Dislogic]

Well as much as this sounds great! I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS WILL BE A FEW HUNDRED YEARS untill it happens depending upon scientific advances from now until then ofcourse... however thew next substance that replaces silicon will not be DNA but diamonds, we already have ways of creating pure flawless diamands with alot of conductivity but it will take a long time for even these to be entered into the market place as a common substance for processors as it will take a long time and money for companies like intel to change from silicon to diamonds... its a big expense and a bit of an unperfected science so to speak.

In other words as much as this sounds really cool and such about DNA computers i dont belive that they will be reaching the market place until way after my death.

hmm...
the "replicator" robots (they rebuild each other over and over until they create an army) of Stargate SG1 come to mind.

not sure i like the idea.

By the time Silicon chips reach their limits, will the new programs really NEED something faster?

[KaizerKa]

I always wondered if a computer could be constructed that uses quarks and their six positions somehow to perform calculations? I know that quantum computers are able to process vast amounts of information (in theory) because their bits, represented by quantum particles, can either be in a "yes", "no", or "frozen" state in which the particle is somehow turned up and down at the same time, making it both a "yes" and "no".
As for DNA computers and Artificial Intelligence in general, I've noticed that people seem to always view A.I. as a potentially malicious intelligence. Indeed, humans seem to view any intelligence but our own as a likely threat. Of course this view is valid, but I really think that the possible benefits greatly outweigh the risks involved. If this thing can calculate itself to the level of a super-intelligence, then it certainly can calculate the human race's way to Utopia.
The question is, do we really want that? And that is a topic for another thread...

Originally posted by KaizerKa@Aug 30 2003, 12:21 PM I always wondered if a computer could be constructed that uses quarks and their six positions somehow to perform calculations? I know that quantum computers are able to process vast amounts of information (in theory) because their bits, represented by quantum particles, can either be in a "yes", "no", or "frozen" state in which the particle is somehow turned up and down at the same time, making it both a "yes" and "no". As for DNA computers and Artificial Intelligence in general, I've noticed that people seem to always view A.I. as a potentially malicious intelligence. Indeed, humans seem to view any intelligence but our own as a likely threat. Of course this view is valid, but I really think that the possible benefits greatly outweigh the risks involved. If this thing can calculate itself to the level of a super-intelligence, then it certainly can calculate the human race's way to Utopia. The question is, do we really want that? And that is a topic for another thread...

we view any other intelligence than our own as a threat becuase we have yet to find any.

[KaizerKa]

Originally posted by Gregory@Aug 30 2003, 12:33 PM we view any other intelligence than our own as a threat becuase we have yet to find any.

Within ourselves.

LoL.

[John]

Originally posted by Gregory@Aug 30 2003, 11:35 AM hmm... the "replicator" robots (they rebuild each other over and over until they create an army) of Stargate SG1 come to mind. not sure i like the idea. By the time Silicon chips reach their limits, will the new programs really NEED something faster?

Thats was one of my first thoughts too. They scare me lol

[Fallen Angel]

I was reading once that technology would double what it had learned in the twentieth C. within the first ten years of the 21st.
However with stuff like nano technology we are opening a pandoras box which could have devastating consequences.
Almost invisible robots so small, one could crawl up your nostril and you wouldnt even know about it.
I can't say I like the way technology has been directed in the last ten years.
Pretty much the last 60 years.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Whatever new tech is being developed is always regarded as opening Pandora's Box, but it never is...

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 31 2003, 11:44 PM Whatever new tech is being developed is always regarded as opening Pandora's Box, but it never is...

Like the Atom bomb?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Oh yeah, pardon me if I do not bow to your superior intellect. Last time I looked the world is still here. Yes, the world could be destroyied with enough A-bombs, but it could also be destroyied by enough digs with a shovel if you kept at it long enough, but the shovel was not Pandora's Box either.

So, since you obviously think the A-bomb was Pandora's Box, exactly what criterea does it fill? Body count, lasting effect, or because the biggest thing out there automaticly qualifies??

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 12:27 AM Oh yeah, pardon me if I do not bow to your superior intellect. Last time I looked the world is still here. Yes, the world could be destroyied with enough A-bombs, but it could also be destroyied by enough digs with a shovel if you kept at it long enough, but the shovel was not Pandora's Box either. So, since you obviously think the A-bomb was Pandora's Box, exactly what criterea does it fill? Body count, lasting effect, or because the biggest thing out there automaticly qualifies??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Atomic energy, fission and fusion and its implications to the health of the human species, are probably the worst things we have ever developed, shovels on the other hand are pretty useful.

[Jim]

If a weapon that can end all life on a planet isn't a pandora's box in your book, GreatWyrm, what is? Also, you weren't insulted, that was an argument to your argument.

But back to the topic at hand. Just because a computer if fast and has a large memory doesn't mean it would be conscious (whatever that is). It would just mean it's fast. Would a DNA computer evolve? Only if it copied itself and the copying were imperfect. Since computers need to be very exact, I do not see how errors in translation would be beneficial, ever, nor do I see why a computer would copy itself.

A diamond CPU was made recently that ran at about 100 gHz. That's 50 times faster than my computer. They could feasably be mass produced a decade from now. And they will be, since we're reaching the limit that silicon can go to, for if processors run much faster they will get hotter, and the silicon will melt.

Wired Article on Diamonds and Diamond Computing

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I thought that some logic was too obvious to point out, but I guess I was in error. So here is a list.

#1 If Pandora's Box is already open how do we open it again?
#2 If it is radiation that qualifies the A-bomb, please note that the sun is radioactive and has been shining a while.
#3 If it is the killing potential, religion has killed more people that all the nuclear weapons ever dropped, so it is not the biggest killer.

Special note:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Atomic energy, fission and fusion and its implications to the health of the human species, are probably the worst things we have ever developed, shovels on the other hand are pretty useful.

We discovered nuclear energy we did not invent it. The implications existed before we were able to measure them.

[Jim]

Oh my Lord, split that hair!

Just because nuclear weapons haven't killed everyone on the planet doesn't mean they aren't a threat. That's like putting a gun in a baby's crib and saying, "Well, this gun hasn't killed my baby yet, so UV radiation from the sun is more likely to kill it."

The radiation from the Sun is insignificant compared to that of a nuclear weapon detonated on the surface of the planet. Also, the main danger in the use of nukes is a nuclear winter, not radiation.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Pathos, how quaint.

Other than needing a shocking metaphor to back up weak logic, why did you think a baby with a gun is a logical comparison. In this case it is not the gun that is the danger but the idiot that placed the gun in the crib, he is much more likely to kill the baby from his stupidity that the baby managing to shoot himself. But working with your silly analogy, exactly what part of the baby's body is going to be able to fit past the trigger gaurd and exert the needed pressure to set it off? If all your logic is this well thought out, you might want to give up serious debate.

Actually the main threat of nukes is some human deciding to commit mass genocide, just like it was before the weapon existed. So exactly what has changed?

[Jim]

Taking metaphors way too literally voids logical analysis. Who cares if a baby can pull a trigger? The point was that future events can change past patterns. Just because an event has not occurred, doesn't mean it won't occur, which is what you are saying about nuclear weapons.

If it is the killing potential, religion has killed more people that all the nuclear weapons ever dropped, so it is not the biggest killer.

"Potential" is about future events.

the main threat of nukes is some human deciding to commit mass genocide

Well, do guns kill people, or do people kill people? That's your opinion to have. I would argue that having guns around increases the potential for a person to take another person's life. It also makes it easier to kill more people faster.

It was never feasable to kill 6 billion people before nuclear weapons were invented.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

It is interesting how you will use a function on one part of you arguement and then fail to note that the other part of your arguement is voided by your own observation.

First, you gripe about me taking your metaphor too literally. Then you get very literal about my arguement. Does this rule only apply to me?

Second you gripe about me stating my opinion as fact, and immediately afterward state your opinion as fact. This one too?

Finally you make this big production about 6 billion people after refuting that my numbers are not relevant. I have to accept your potential numbers just because you reject my real ones?

You can talk about potential all you want, I happen to know that a misplaced pebble in the jurassic era could have caused billion not to exist, but it did not happen so it is not relevant. But I am not going to call that pebble a terror weapon, just because of it's potential.

But at least you are not trying to BS me with babykilling again...:)