[Paper
presented at the conference Emotional Architectures / Cognitive Armatures,
The Banff Center, Canada, Sept. 2001]
The
concept of Emotional Architectures / Cognitive Armatures makes us
focus on our experience with technological tools as well as our
potentially embodied experience with dynamic forms of media elements
and processes. We also become aware of the physical emotive ramifications
that such extended environments might generate. There is also an
incredibly rich territory that looks at cognitive processes and
how they are augmented and / or addressed via technology. The continuum
between the physical world and the conceptual world is addressed
through the potential of the computer to call forth images, sounds,
texts, haptic processes, media behaviors, robotic movements and
even architectural reactivity, via numerous forms of interface.
This suggests a constant need to reflect on how we can focus the
potentiality and functionality of technological environments, be
they local or distributed, to enable interactivity that includes
a rich degree of openness and an emergence of resonant experience.
It
is important as a new media technology is being born to take an
active role in defining its potential functionality. I will here
begin to address a series of research questions that surround the
production of Nano-computer generated virtual / physical environments.
I believe Nanotechnology will greatly impact the world, perhaps
shifting us into an entirely new age.
Hodges,
Turing's biographer spoke about the notion of the Universal Machine:
...underneath
here lay the same powerful idea that Gödel had used, that there
was no essential distinction between "numbers" and "operations
on numbers." From a modern mathematical point of view, they
were all alike symbols. With this done, it followed that one particular
machine could simulate the work done by any machine. He [Turing]
called it the universal machine. It would be designed to read description
numbers, decode them into tables and execute them. [1]
If
we map this concept onto nano-technology and its ability to restructure
environments on the deepest physical level, we observe an incredible
shift in human relation to nature. Literally, the underlying code
of nature becomes operative through nano-processes that function
within the elusive boundries of the laws of physics. I believe Nano-computers
and the related environments that they will enable will play an
extremely important role in terms of the production of Emotional
Architectures as well as Cognitive Armatures in the years to come.
It
appears that there may be a series of different approaches to how
nano-computers might be brought into existence as well as function.
My research has centered on a series of different writings from
Eric Drexler beginning in the 1986 with Engines of Creation. [2] It is interesting to note that Drexler
ended up in the Media Lab for his Ph.D. with none other than Marvin
Minsky [3] as one of his advisors -- can we here begin to picture
a nano-related Society of Mind? [4] Will nano-computers perhaps
function internally augmenting thought processes in some manner?
As potentials of nano-machines were
being hotly debated, Ed Regis states that Drexler's ongoing Ph.D.
and its place of origin was for the most part kept quiet. [5] Yet
the Media Lab connection certainly suggests a field of ramifications
in terms of nano research in respect to the future of computing;
a relation to new media potentialities as well as a relation to
artificial intelligence, given the background of Minsky's thought.
In
terms of my research I have also become interested in Richard P.
Feinman's seminal paper "There's
Plenty of Room at the Bottom,"
December 29th 1959 [6], Drexler’s texts Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation [7], as well as the Internet publications of
Drexler's Foresight Institute [8], a plethora of papers on the Internet,
and a book called Nano! [9], 1998, by Ed Regis. I also
found the science fiction book The Diamond Age [10], 1996, by Neil Stephenson a very compelling
take on the subject.
It seems that a shift has recently come
about in terms of the skepticism that initially surrounded the potentials
of nano-technology, where even "Scientific
American" [11] has devoted an entire
issue to the topic. Huge research initiatives are now underway in
many different countries. UCLA is becoming one of these research
sites. So again, I stress the need to articulate different forms
of humanist involvement in research even in this early stage of
development.
I spent a year researching for a hybrid
dance / installation work that poetically explores the subject of
Nano-technology entitled "Inversion"
[12] -- a collaboration with the dancer Regina van Berkel. In the
process of creating this work, I spent much time thinking about
virtual environments that might be produced with both nano and quantum
computers. It is important to note that I am presenting here from
the perspective of an artist / researcher and not as a scientist
[13] -- although I am hoping that this paper will stimulate a trans-disciplinary
set of research agendas that might attract scientists, artists,
architects, and designers to begin to think about the social and
communicative potentiality of such computational spaces and their
highly dynamic relation to the lived environment.
I
want to begin to lay out a trans-disciplinary plane or plateau
of research agendas and start to answer questions over time one
by one; as well as to define a diverse team, where each person
can bring a different expertise to the table. I am seeking to
pull together disparate researches to construct a new kind of
computing environment capable of generating a very robust form
of virtual environment, one that functions in tandem with physical
space. Such a space may be interfaced from outside the body or
possibly (in the very long run) in some manner -- internally.
I have a number of problems with some of the ideas presented by
such writers as Raymond Kurtsweil in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines [14], yet there already is ongoing
research related to the internal biological use of nano-mechanisms
in the medical field. [15]
The
big problem. First -- how do we make a nano-computer? Following
Drexler's insights, we might explore an approach that would involve
a timed set of chemical reactions, constructing a complex assemblage
of molecules that could potentially define a form of bio-mechanical
computer. Drexler states:
"Molecular
Manufacturing is the construction of objects to complex, atomic
specification using sequences of chemical reactions directed by
nonbiological molecular machinery. Molecular nanotechnology comprises
molecular manufacturing together with its techniques, its products
and their design analysis; it describes the field as awhole. Mechanosynthesis-
mechanically guided chemical synthesis-is fundamental to molecular
manufacturing… [16]
Drexler
is interested in part in defining a range of nano-mechanical processes
by taking the metaphor of particular mechanical machines, machine
parts and processes and mapping those metaphors onto potentialities
of the nano arena. He has already described the potential construction
of a nano-computer. There is much healthy debate about Drexler's
approach and the complexity of the physics, which dictate such
a paradoxically small and large undertaking. Yet Drexler has a
visionary and pragmatic approach that I believe will be very fruitful
in the long run. No matter if one subscribes to his particular
methodology, one can begin to consider how to assemble a bio-mechanical
computer with atomic-scale working parts. In terms of Drexler's
research, Regis' book [17] moves through a history of a number
of instances where skepticism was overtaken by the veracity of
hard science.
It
seems ironic, but many answers to developing mechanical computers
in nano-space may lie in re-understanding the first computers
that were created by Charles Babbage and programmed by Ada Lovelace.
In particular some of the workings of the Difference Engine and
the Analytical Engine could be viewed in a metaphorical manner
and re-applied to this nano-context.
In
her Notes by The Translator
-- written to clarify the textual work entitled Sketch Of the Analytical Engine Invented
by Charles Babbage by L.
F. Menabrea -- Lovelace made some very enlightened remarks presented
initially in 1842:
The
Analytical Engine is an embodying of the science of operations,
constructed with particular reference to abstract number as
the subject of those operations... Again, it [The Analytical
Engine] might act upon other things beside number were objects
found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed
by those of the abstract science of operations and which should
be also susceptible of adaptions to the action of the operating
notation and mechanism of the engine. Supposing for instance,
that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science
of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such
expressions and adaptions, the engine might compose elaborate
and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or
extent... It may be desirable to explain, that by the word operation,
we mean any process which alters the relation of two or more
things, be this relation of what kind it may. This is the most
general definition and would include all subjects in the universe.
[18]
This
intuition is extremely rich in the context of computer-related
emotional architectures. In particular, I find it exciting that
she is discussing the aesthetic potential for such a device.
In terms of computing we seem to be on the cusp of a paradigm
shift in relation to nano-production that moves toward biological
metaphors and functional biological processes.
Might we chemically "fold" some of the parts of such
an "operative" mechanism into existence? In the book
Metaphors we Live By [19], Lakoff systematically shows
the importance of metaphor to our understanding of reality.
Drexler is well aware of the huge jumps we have made with the
Human Genome in relation to the operability of atomic scale
processes within particular solution environments. In Nano,
Regis presents the following concept:
The most remarkable feature of a protein
molecule, however, was the fact that the sequence of its component
amino acids caused the molecule to fold into a given shape.
That was the term biologists used to describe the way in which
an amino acid string behaved once it was placed in water and
let go: the string kinked up, curled around, twisted, crimped,
and folded back upon itself in highly individual and specific
fashion. The shape of the fold was determined by the precise
order in which the different constituer amino acids were distributed
along the chain. [20]
So we can begin to see a way to literally
"fold" the functional parts of our nano-computer into
existence. There are "Two protein folding problems: one
was that of predicting the shape of a fold; the other was that
of causing a fold to happen." [21]
In the prologue to Nano,
Regis states: "There was a design that worked perfectly,
a gear system that was made out of 3,557 atoms precisely that
many, not one more and not one less. Every separate atom was
placed just so. All the chemical bonds were correct." [22]
He also stated that "One particular [folding] sequence
led to a particular structure, reliably, every time." [23]
There are many difficulties in studying the underlying mechanisms
of this form of bio-technological approach. We can however potentially
become aware of how certain sequences of amino acids might in
time behave with a high degree of predictability. So how can
we build a functional computing machine out of these bio-operative
processes? How can we make inter-operative such a technology
with other existing and new technologies?
Regis goes on to say "Nevertheless, that [the folding paradigm]
in essence was Drexler’s Plan for creating a race of molecular
machines: sequence the right amino acids together and thereby
create a marvelous new protein to order. Create enough of those
proteins of the right size and shape, and they' d assemble themselves
into a workable device -- into the molecular machine of your
choice." [24]
Although
this sounds quite difficult at this time, in the long run this kind
of biological approach to making nano-computers may have more potenital
than other top down approaches related to the current manufacture
of chips. Drexler states:
Development of the ability to design
protein molecules will open a path to the fabrication of devices
to complex atomic specification. This path will involve construction
of molecular machinery able to position reactive groups to atomic
precision. It could lead to great advances in computational devices
and in the ability to manipulate biological materials. [25]
There
is a huge debate surrounding Drexler's nano-robot assemblers and
their physically impossible "sticky fingers." [26] Debates
also focus on nano-robots that might function autonomously, building
other nano-bots which in turn might restructure natural materials.
In the wrong hands or through some programming error, such a world
of devices might wreak havoc on the lived environment. We must now
begin to define an ethics surrounding nano-computation and its physical
ramifications. It is important to develop a humanist debate surrounding
the awe-inspiring potentials of this technology.
Because we will, in the beginning,
want to define a hybrid chip / nano platform, it will most likely
be a mix of top down and bottom-up approaches that will enable the
construction of these tiny computers. One can imagine computing
architectures that are both constructed through a top-down "printing"
paradigm which is described at length in the "Scientific
American" Nanotech issue, with
parts being constructed also through the bottom up "solution
environment" suggested above.
Carl Pabo Pabo spoke of Drexler, having suggested an inverted approach
in which "rather than starting with an amino acid sequence
and then predicting the conformation of the folded polypeptide,
one starts with a conformation of the backbone and then picks an
amino acid sequence that should stabilize it." [27]
Drexler states: "Intermolecular
attraction between complementary surfaces can assemble complex structures
from solutions." He also articulates the notion that "Gene
synthesis and recombinant DNA technology can direct the ribosomal
machinery of bacteria to produce novel proteins, which can serve
as components of larger molecular structures." He truely believes
that "Molecular assemblages of atoms can act as solid objects,
occupying space holding a definite shape. Thus, they can act as
structural members and moving parts." [28] A table that presents
some of the operative mechanical metaphors is given below.
|
So we then ask, how might such a computer
be controlled? Drexler states "As present microtechnology can
lay down conductors on a molecular scale and molecular devices can
respond to electric potentials (through conformation changes, etc.)
such devices can be controlled by human operators or macroscopic
machines." [30]
In an article entitled "Plenty of Room Indeed," Michael Roukes suggests that there is
also the potential of communicating with the device through other
means... to usefully track the device's vibrations, the ideal NEMS
transducer must be capable of resolving extremely small displacements,
in the picometer-to-femtometer (trillionith to quadrillionth of
a meter) range, across very large bandwidths (extending into the
microwave range." He goes on to say, "Ultimately , the
technology will depend on robust, well engineered information transfer
pathways from what are, in essence, individual macromolecules."
[31]
So the question becomes, how can we
take the present metaphor of the generation of virtual space and
enable authorship utilizing entirely new nano-computational devices?
To conclude, I would like to lay out a series of research questions:
What new kinds of operating systems
would we like to see in such environments?
What kinds of object-based code tools
can be authored to augment the programming of such realms?
How do we functionally connect the human
scale environment of media production as well as develop new models
of connectivity to this scale of computing processes?
How can we make these computers function
such that they can provide very fast refresh rates for virtual environments?
What will the best nano-storage of data be?
How might this environment enable us
to observe its functionality in a diagnostic manner?
What kinds of new output strategies
might be used to deliver these virtual worlds?
Might nano-technology also enable new
viewing apparatus with incredible, atomic scale resolution?
What new interface stratgies might nano-production
enable?
How can we make it easy to author media-environments and make them
responsive to real world input?
How can new sensing paradigms function
in a connective intelligent manner with media elements housed in
nano-computers?
In general, how might such computers
augment thought processes?
To what end can these devices be used
for emotive media production?
Footnotes
1.
A. Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma (
New York: Simon and Shuster, 1983) , p.104
2.
Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation. (Anchor Books, 1986); see also http: //www.foresight.org/EOC/
for a web version of the book
4.
Marvin, Minsky, Society of Mind (Simon and Shuster, 1988)
5.
Ed Regis, Nano!, (Little/Brown,
1995). It must be noted that I have taken a number of quotes from
Nano in that they present the topic in a manner which is
formed for a broad audience.
6.
Richard P. Feynman, "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom." A transcript of the classic talk
that Richard Feynman gave on December 29th, 1959, at the annual
meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Institute
of Technology (Caltech) was first published in the February 1960
issue of Caltech's Engineering and Science, which owns the copyright.
It has been made available on the web at http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html;
For an account of the talk and how people reacted to it, see chapter
4 of Nano! by Ed Regis (Little/Brown, 1995)
7. Eric Drexler, Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation (Wiley, 1992). In particular, see Chapter
12,
"Nanomechanical
Computational Systems," starting on p. 342.
9.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995)
10.
Neil Stephenson, The Diamond Age (Bantam Books, 1996)
11.
Scientific American Special Issue, "Nanotech," September 2001
15.
A. Paul Alivisatos, "Less is More in Medicine," Scientific American Special Issue,
"Nanotech," September 2001
16.
Eric Drexler, Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation (Wiley, 1992), p. 1
17.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995)
18.
Charles Babbage, Charles Babbage and his Calculating
Engines: Selected Writings by Charles Babbage and Others.
(New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,1961), p.249
19.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors
we Live By (University of
Chicago Press, 1980)
20.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995), p. 93; see also Eric Drexler, Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation (Wiley, 1992)
21.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995), p. 115
22.
Ibid., prologue
23.
Ibid., p. 39
24.
Ibid., p. 94.
25.
Ibid., p. 101; aee also 1981 issue of Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences; see also Eric Drexler, Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation, p. 343
26.
See Richard E. Smalley, "Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots," Scientific American Special Issue,
"Nanotech," September 2001, p. 77; see also
George M. Whitesides, "The Once and Future Nanomachines," Scientific American Special Issue,
"Nanotech," September 2001, p. 81
27.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995), p. 101
28.
Ibid., p. 101
29. Ibid., p.104; see also section
11.6 of Eric Drexler, Nanosystems:
Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation
30.
Ed Regis, Nano! (Little/Brown,
1995), p.104
31.
Michael Roukes, "Plenty of Room Indeed," Scientific American Special Issue, "Nanotech," September 2001, p. 55-56
|
