[MURG] x prize write up

[Joseph J. Strout]

At 4:08 PM -0400 10/12/04, Eric Zilli wrote:

>Yeah, I've never actually even seen Engines of Creation, but I do have
>a copy of Nanosystems--a good demonstration of your point.

You should take EoC with you on vacation sometime -- it's a fun read.

>Yeah, I've thought about writing such a book, and I remember reading a
>long technical assessment of the problem, but I forget who wrote it
>and I know it's quite out of date now. The time problem is indeed a
>big one, but it seems the list has a few neuroscientists on it. If we
>desperately wanted such a book a number of us could team up on it.
>That's probably too big a project though.

Probably.  It might be worth exploring, but usually such projects 
have difficulty maintaining the steam required to keep them going.

>  > In an environment lacking such a detailed, technical, and coherent
>>  argument, we are going to have a hard time getting anyone to take us
>  > seriously.  (Though the recent NBIC report is highly encouraging.)
>
>Indeed. I'd like to point out that I posted that same report last year
>at some point, maybe you missed it. :)

I did.  Oops.  I go through periods where I'm not able to keep up 
with this list as well as I'd like.  Thanks for posting it anyway!

>  > So, what's needed is a machine that can automate the
>  > ultramicrotoming, as well as the microscopy.  This requires
>  > specialized MEMS -- not nanotech, thank goodness, but not the sort of
>>  thing you can order in your lab supply catalog either.  It requires
>>  serious invention, and the early models will probably not be much
>  > faster than human hands (if even that).
>
>I'm not up on my microscopy, but you make a good case.
>Who'd have thought something as simple as coming up with a good X
>Prize proposal would be so complicated?

Heh.  When I entered grad school I actually proposed a 1 mm^3 
scanning project (with manual labor as required) to my advisors. 
They essentially patted me on the head and gave me some real work to 
do.  It took a while before I realized why that proposal was so far 
ahead of its time.

>Unfortunately, you're probably right. I guess my optimism is based on
>the idea that most/all of the technology needed for uploading would be
>created for reasons not directly inspired by uploading. So there is a
>vaguely concerted effort, in that sense.

That's certainly true, especially with regard to things like 
compartmental modeling and basic understanding of how brains work. 
But the key piece missing at this point, I think, is that automated 
sectioning/scanning machine.  And as far as I know, nobody's working 
on that, alas.

>  > Prize money can't fund primary research. ...
>
>You are correct. I expected the funding for the resources to come from
>individuals/corporations who would benefit from it, like how Paul
>Allen funded SpaceShipOne.

Hmm... I have trouble picturing that happening.  That's not how 
researchers work.  Scaled Composites is different: they're an 
aircraft engineering company.  They build planes under contract all 
the time; this was just a particularly exciting job to them.  But a 
researcher is used to getting money from funding agencies.  I'm not 
even sure he'd be allowed to hire himself out for contract work at 
most universities.  I'm sure such things could be worked out, but the 
hurdle is much higher.

>  > What prize money can do is add a little extra interest to work
>>  researchers are already doing, or get them to spend a little bit of
>>  extra time on a side project directed towards the prize.  That can
>  > certainly be better than nothing.
>
>I point back to SpaceShipOne again. The X Prize demonstrated that
>prize money can do more than the two things you mention, though,
>indeed, most prizes probably do have such effects as you describe.

Yes, I was talking specifically about what prizes might do in the 
sciences.  SS1 wasn't science, nor was Scaled a research group, so 
I'm not sure you can extrapolate from one to the other.

>  > Heh -- that's like an 18th-century person saying, if we could build a
>  > craft that goes to the moon, it would teach us revolutionary things
>  > about how our horses relate to their carts....
>
>I think it's more like saying if we could find a craft that could go
>to the moon, we could study it to see how it works.

OK, that's fair enough.

>I've held the opinion that we don't need to actually understand how 
>the brain works above the neuronal level for successful emulation.

I agree, to some extent, but to emulate the neurons properly will 
require a lot greater detail of understanding than we have now; and 
validating the emulations will involve such things as multi-unit 
recording (and stimulation).

But you do have a valid point that once uploading of a 
reasonably-sized animal is possible, there will be lots of new 
research questions we can tackle by experimenting with the emulated 
brains directly.

Best,
- Joe

-- 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web Directory:     |
|    joe at strout.net           http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'