Re: DNA Computer Design

>
>   The news is a DNA-computer, not molecular mites slaving for
>   us giants, or at least that's how  The Times first reported
>   Dr. Len Adleman's (of RSA crypto fame) work some months
>   ago.  This article reports on the boom since the initial
>   skepticism of his unprecedented (sez the never-ever
>   fallible NYT) work.
>

It was late & I over-reacted.  Yes it's news is that we're doing
computation at the molecular level for the first time, true enough.  But
the NYT reporter seemed so surprised.  Molecular-level computation has been
one of the great hopes of nanotechnology for at least a decade--realizing
the potential of nanotech has always depended on using molecular
computation for CAD, though this seldom makes the popular articles.

>   What interests me in this eenie-teenie-teapot is the biological (is
>   DNA bio or statistical or mathematical or theological or
>   Nobel-careerist?) computer, and the getting closer to each
>   our own vat of head-goo -- oh my god, surely this is not a
>   sneaky way to get us to go back to thinking for ourselves.

Yup.  Unless (like Drexler) you expect in "strong-AI"--superhuman
mechanical intelligence.

>
>
>   Will we soon carry a CPU in our hip-flask, while hanging
>   from the parapet, sipping con-doc from a tube?  Or a
>   CPU-bean, finely ground, put under the tongue like snuff.
>   Smoking a fag to inhale The Up-to-Date Design Word.
>   Nicoderm patches on a worker for construction documents?
>

That dreamy quality . . .

>
>   All my newbie-groupie musings on mega-super-duper-computers
>   is about the the wondrous confabulations such devices
>   inspire, especially if you are oblivious to their actual
>   workings.  The sales promo for these soft and hard
>   mental-wonder-bras, by inventors, by corporations, by
>   scientists, by venture capitalists, by nations, is
>   stimulating sci-fi fare, very much like the
>   linguo-philo-food we see here and cosmos-wide from our
>   finest mind-fabulists.
>

It is indeed.

>
>   For me, there is no sharp division between the
>   hardheaded-mind goo and the lava-jar
>   mineral-vegetable-animal versions.  The latter just cost
>   super-bundles more and thus create more jobs, taxes,
>   careers and media puffings.  We need to pump the cathedral
>   builders of the day, no?
>

If only they were . . .  Though to be fair, these are very cheap cathedrals.

It is interesting to speculate on the potential and methods of design using
artificial life techniques--the future, apparently, looks like a Roger Dean
painting.

>   (We must keep it quiet, or you will pay career-dearly for
>   suggesting Times-fallibility :^ )

I won't tell a soul . . .

R.