Some of these points may be useful for the list (which is why
I'm posting it there).
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Gary McMurtry wrote:
> The concept that DNA may not be the most efficient or reliable information
> carrier is intriguing.
There are days (not many mind you) when I even amaze myself...
Perhaps less than 15 minutes invested...
Nanosystems, Section 12.6.4 "Mass storage systems" (pg 365).
and
Nanomedicine VI Section 7.2.1.1 "Ideal Messenger Molecule" (pg 178).
Quoting Eric (because his examination only runs for a few paragraphs
while Robert's runs for a couple of pages,
"With these restrictions, the storage density for the tape itself is one bit
per two carbon atoms, or ~15 bits/nm^3 ... alloting twice the tape volume
for other functions (reals, etc. yada yada yada)... decreases the mean storage
density to ~5 bits/nm^3 or 5 x 10^21 bits/cm^3)."
Just a rough estimate on my part, I'd put this at between one and three
orders of magnitude more efficient than DNA.
I personally have designed some encoding systems that I believe can
effectively go significantly beyond those developed by Eric and Robert.
Bottom line:
(a) DNA is far from the most efficient information carrier.
(b) It remains to be seen whether evolutionary processes might have
developed a "natural" carrier that trump DNA.
> I suppose our computer technology has already come
> close to surpassing it, but not yet on the same molecular scale.
No, we are not even close on the molecular scale (probably still off
by 1-2 orders of magnitude). But we may have exceeded the storage
reliability. So we may be able to store much more unique sequences per
unit volume or mass. (Biology gets over by having *massive* redundancy.)
> Regarding intelligence vs. technology, I too have my suspicions that
> dolphins and whales are potentially, if not actually, smarter than
> humans.
Begs some very complex questions -- precisely what is *smarter*???
A dog can discriminate *way* more many smells than I can.
Our odor discrimination system is pitiful compared to that
some other species have.
> Homo has paid a dear price in knee, hip and back problems for an erect
> posture and free use of the hands, but it's been worth it so we can
> communicate with e-mail!
Don't I know it. *But* the more interesting question (to me) may
be when we should not indulge those capabilities.
Bottom line: should there be any discussion of exploring Europa
(or Mars or Pluto) until one has ensured the survival of humanity?
For what the hell use is any of that knowledge if we get toasted
next week, a million, or a hundred million years from now?
> I'm even beginning to come
> around to the idea that the shuttle and space station programs are worthy
> of our support and good wishes. We should treat all these related topics
> like Chamberlain once advised entertaining multiple working hypotheses:
> like your cherished flock of sheep.
I will give some thought to the "multiple hypotheses" idea.
The only reason I'm not completely in the robotic exploration of
space camp is that I doubt its adaptability (I'm a software person --
I have some expertise with regard to its limits). The movie "Armageddon"
pointed that out in spades.
Its just that the shuttle/space station have such a damn high price
tag (several billion/year) vs the search for NEOs that might threaten
humanity (several million/year from the NASA perspective).
Three orders of magnitude in perhaps misdirected priorities --
Are you willing to hang the fate of what might well be the only
intelligent technological civiliation in the universe on that hook?
(Note that they might not be "misdirected" for the reasons I
cite above -- *but* a significant redirection would be required
to really get a better set of priorities online.) [Lets see --
we do some contrived science experiments or we prepare to save
humanity, lets toss a coin to see which is more important.]
Robert
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
