Jump to content

Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Self-replicating machine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.114.36.203 (talk) at 11:54, 17 October 2007 (→‎Independent Operability: Response to Buckley Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 7:51am (EST). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clanking machine merge

Hi, I have proposed merging these two articles because there is very little content in the self-replicating machine article, and a lot of good content in the clanking replicator article, but I feel very few people would actually know what a clanking replicator was if you asked them, so I propose that the clanking replicator article be re-titled "Self-replicating machine" and the content of the two articles merged. Anyone with any objections please don't hesitate to add them here. User: Jaganath 18:28 31 May 2006

Well, okay, I'll object. It seems to me that the term and concept of a "clanking replicator" has been around in the literature for a long time, whereas, unless I've missed something "self-replicating machine" really hasn't. Clanking replicator is a specific term that differentiates the scale at which the process of self-replication occurs, that is, Clanking Replicators are made of macroscale discrete parts. There is a whole other self-replication discussion going on that is functionally the same but proposed to take place at nanoscale. Anyhow, what it appears to me that you've done is blur the boundaries of what we are discussing without taking in any more real material, viz, nanoscale technology to justify the blurring. Plaasjaapie 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For me, the difference is one of presentation. Clanking replicator does have an implication of scale, so it could be considered equal to robotic self-replication. This, indeed, is the image shown at article page top. Yet, it would also be reasonable to view the clanking replicator as a metaphor. Self-replication is not. In my view, we should maintain a hierarchy of articles, and hotlinks between, so as to separate abstract from real, metaphor from description, etc. This is indeed the reason for separating von Neumann self-replication Von Neumann Universal Constructor from Universal Constructor. One article refers to the general notion, the other to a specific case. This is important, for as von Neumann defined the general case, he also developed a specific example. Well, actually two examples. The kinematic model (a robotic notion) is a good specific example of the clanking replicator concept. The tesselation model (cellular automata) is the abstract concept. Universal construction, on the other hand, is a global concept. These distinctions should be retained within the structure of article interconnection, and not within article wording. There is much value to the conveyance of information through its organisational structure, an additional measure of content beyond that one would obtain from an article. Further, this allows for pairing of fluff (do they call that cruft here?) in article content. Improved encyclopedic content and efficient presentation is a goal not to be corrupted by inappropriate article merger. William R. Buckley 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Constructors, replicators, machines, oh my

I'm trying to sort out the teminology used in various articles here. I've thrown some merge tags on them, although "merge" isn't /quite/ the concept I think is needed (but that's as close as I can think of). I think what is needed is to make sure that all editors are aware of alternative terminology and other articles, and then to re-arrange articles and content and article names to make things clearer. So far, I've encountered the following:


All of the above appear to be related in some way. The terms aren't always well defined. Some of the terms are used interchangably in some places but not in others. One can, generally speaking, make their way from any of the above to any other, but it may take several hops when it should be one. Some of these are dab pages. Some are redirects. Some articles link to redirects. At least one article links to a redirect to itself. I think many of these articles probabbly should exist on their own, but clean-up and more structure is perhaps needed. I'm thinking those "Series boxes" one sees in other Wiki articles might be a good choice. Thoughts? --DragonHawk 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Ribosome is also a self-replicating machine, in that given the information necessary, it can construct its own components. Not all self-replicators are man-made. Here are mentioned both specific examples and the most general of theory, as well as applications areas and ethical concerns. Another to consider is epigenesis - machine developmental processes. The best umbrella for these concepts is constructor theory. William R. Buckley 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure this is a good idea. A self-replicating machine isn't necessarily a universal constructor. Indeed, it only needs to be able to construct one very specific thing in order to qualify as a self-replicating machine. Bryan 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've read the Universal Constructor article as well, I'm now quite sure it's not a good idea to merge them. "Universal Constructor" is about one very specific self-replicating pattern that von Neumann envisioned, and it isn't even a physical thing. Bryan 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Several comments. 1. It is not true that the universal constructor is a specific example of von Neumann. Indeed, the notion of universal construction is quite general. 2. No, these two articles, self-replicating machine and universal constructor, should not be merged. Though they are based on the same foundation, universal construction, one is a general topic (the notion of universal construction), the other specific (how a constructor, universal or not, can be organised to effect its replication, also called self-replication). 3. It seems that the structure of several articles, and their relationships to each other, need to be changed, to better represent the relationships between these articles. The article on John von Neumann is part of this need. I expect that a number of individuals are thinking carefully about reorganisation - comments on this point exists in talk pages of various relevant articles. 4. Frankly, we should also have an article about constructor theory, and derive universal constructor and self-replicating machine therefrom. William R. Buckley 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Complexity in Self-replicating Machines

"most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device"

What, exactly, does this mean? I don't like statistics like this; when you're talking about the majority (most) of living organisms you're referring to bacteria and there are plenty of man made machines more complicated than bacteria in many regards. You're also dealing with the definition of the word complexity, namely; complexity in what sense? The building blocks in a computer are far more complicated (due to relative scarcity of constituent materials and the necessary processing) than the DNA building blocks of bacteria (composed of 4 rather common nucleotides).

Where does anyone say that there is a need for complexity for self-reproduction? See this article:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html

And also,

"If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof"

Who ever said that self-replicating machines were not possible?

Ironcorona 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Prior to von Neumann, no one knew the details of how to build a self-replicating machine. So, as you used the word "ever," consider that any researcher questioning the likelihood of building such a machine, say in the 1700s, would be a candidate in answer of your last question. William R. Buckley 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Good point. I agree. In that light, perhaps this paragraph should be modified to read something like
"some critics such as X, Y and Z have voiced opposition to the posibility of creating self-replicating machines, although the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating, by definition, should go some way towards providing that proof."
I'm not sure that we should assume that, because there were people that might have thought that self-replicating machines were not possible, had they been consulted, that, in fact, anyone did.
There's also the point that perhaps not all living organisms are self replicating. According to the Virus article some people think that viruses are alive [though some think they're not]. As far as I can tell, viruses cannot self-replicate. If anyone had some clarification on that point it would be quite helpful.
of course I realise that I'm in danger of being overly pedantic :)
Ironcorona 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


On the point of meaning for the term *self-replicator* I agree that independent (no need to invent a new word: independency) operation is important. However, von Neumann defined the term (though others have moved it from self-reproduction to self-replication, owing to some differences in the two behaviors), and he includes within that definition the kind of articulation exhibited by the robots of Lipson. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Von Neumann may have included it but you have only spoken of it here in general, sparse of terms. Where is the specific reference? Quotations please not some book or lecture that he or one of his partisan associates wrote up, especially those
This I will do, when and if I am called to testify in court regarding your claims. Otherwise, you do your homework, and I will do mine. William R. Buckley 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Again, you are presumptuous of the reasoning of other people. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The mechanism which we use is called reversion. We simply revert the article, if we are not satisfied with a recent edit. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That is easy enough for you to do. Create an article called *Independent operability" and put your text there. Add a link in the *Self-replicating machine* article to point to *Independent operability" article, and vice-versa. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I corrected your indentation, just this once; not intended to be vandalism. I do hope the demonstration is of value to you. We use successive indentations to keep the context of discussions clear. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you were to compose your article without specific reference to you, then the article would be left at peace. Wikipedia has a very strong statement against the addition of text which demonstrates vanity, to even the slightest degree. Frankly, your article reads like advertising. So, I am not surprised that the editor removed it with a single word comment. My own approach is not to remove text that seems vain. This is for two reasons. First, if the author is truly intent upon improving Wikipedia, then they will with time adjust article content such that it approaches neutrality; i.e. the sections which appear as vanity. The second reason is that, yes, other more zealous editors will do this work. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Your concern for quick removal of any new submission is understandable but, it is your fault. Well, not so much a fault, as caused by your wording. Tone down the references to yourself (it really does sound like you are patting your own back), and try a new submission. Heck, I might even be willing to assist you in getting the vain out (however much or little there is), so that your article can stay in (Wikipedia). William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I do give you credit for determination, and for the subtle adjustments you've made in tone, and the spelling of names. Just to remind you, *Von* only when the first word of a sentence; in all other cases, the word is spelled with lower case letters: *von*. Also, his name is Hod Lipson, and ends with the letter *n*, not the letter *m*. It does seem a great slight to Dr. Lipson, given your greater anger at Frietas and Merkle, and you manage to spell their names correctly. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally, your description of comments to me as being retorts does not place you in good light. While the word does address the notion of reply, it does so with the implication of a *wise-guy* attitude on the part of the giver of the retort. You therefore do yourself harm, predisposing others who read your comments to take you as being less than serious. William R. Buckley 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Beware of this one point. If there are not extant other published sources, your article is subject to excision from Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of material derived from unpublished sources. Maybe that is why your article was removed from Wikipedia; you have no externally published sources upon which to base your article. If this is the case, then you need to get a source published externally, like in Scientific American magazine. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is von Neumann's kinematic design. It is described in the book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. If you do not have a copy of your own, you can instead view the bootleg copy posted on the web at URL http://www.walenz.org/vonNeumann/index.html William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You are no better expert in this topic than am I, nor are you better than the other editors of this article. Instead, you are condescending. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, Edward F. Moore described much of your notions in his Scientific American article of the mid-1950s. He called his notions *artificial living plants*. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is flawed reasoning. It is abundantly clear that self-replicators avail themselves of mass and energy flows in the course of their *self* tasks. It is also abundantly clear that such *self* processes occur independent of the mass and energy flows. Indeed, they are parasitic, not supporting, these *self* behaviors. Your argument would make more sense if the mass and energy flows were caused by life, as a means of life obtaining its raw materials. I begin to suspect you hold a belief in *intelligent design*. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Do the work yourself. If others don't like what you do, then we turn to arbitration procedures. You do not dictate article content, no matter how plaintive the request. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
*remove any existing ...* what? That is, and being properly expressive, what is it that you want removed? You forgot to mention what that thing is, which is to be removed. Just because you know what should have been mentioned does not mean that others are mind-readers. It is your job to communicate that which you want communicated. Your failure in this regard is an example of you being lazy. Clearly, you would rather have other people do your work. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not infringing to discuss things. Clearly, this request will be denied. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the reason for editing of your writing. That you are so lazy as to not edit your work should not reflect ill upon those who take effort to read your rambling. Your poor writing style is abusive to those who read that writing. Hence, you sabotage your own efforts by your behavior. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, leave off the leading spaces in Wikipedia text, as it is not properly formatted upon display. You note, no one else uses leading spaces. Instead, we use the proper formatting tool *:* for line indentation. Why should others have to reformat your text? Stop being so lazy. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix liquid plastic replicator

I removed this from the article:

  • In 1998, Chris Phoenix suggested a general idea for a macroscale replicator on the sci.nanotech newsgroup, operating in a pool of ultraviolet-cured liquid plastic, selectively solidifying the plastic to form solid parts. Computation could be done by fluidic logic. Power for the process could be supplied by a pressurized source of the liquid.[1]

It appears to be a concept that's only been published in a Usenet post, which IMO isn't a good source for this sort of thing even if Phoenix himself is reasonably well known within the field. Anyone know if he republished the concept anywhere else? Bryan 07:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found reference to it in Freitas' "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines", which is probably about the best third-party backing a usenet post like this can get. So back into the article it goes. Bryan 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote

If proof were needed that self-replicating machines are possible the simple fact that all living organisms are self replicating by definition should go some way towards providing that proof, although most living organisms are still many times more complex than even the most advanced man-made device.

I feel I've read this before. In Goedel, Escher, Bach perhaps? Anyhoo: Is this a quote? If so, it should be marked as such. (Obviously.) --91.64.240.54 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google search led me to these quotes:

"Machines today are still a million times simpler than the human brain. Their complexity and subtlety is comparable to that of insects." -- Ray Kurzweil, as quoted in http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0498.html?printable=1

"Drexler's most compelling argument that radical nanotechnology must be possible is that cell biology gives us endless examples of sophisticated nano-scale machines." -- Richard Jones, http://nanotechweb.org/articles/feature/3/8/1/1

Or is there some other original quote that would be better? --68.0.120.35 07:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great upgrade

Wow! Great additions to the entry Bryan! 206.55.252.246 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Been tinkering with it off and on for quite some time, but just recently sat down with Frietas' book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" to do some solid writing based off of the information in there. This is a favorite subject of mine. :) Bryan Derksen 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Cleanup on self-replicating machine

You just added a cleanup header to self-replicating machine but didn't provide any indication of what you thought needed cleaning up. The article is in very good condition as far as I can tell. Could you specify on the article's talk page please? Bryan Derksen 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can give a very detailed explanation of why I put that tag there, but basically I think there's too many short sections that felt like it cut the narrative of the article, or like the article seems like a bunch of stubs put together. And some parts can be a bit confusing for example, the first line says The concept of self-replicating machines has been advanced and examined by, amongst others, whereas I think it should explain what a self replicating machine is. Well, that's just an example. I don't wish to get involved in editing specific articles, (besides, all I know about this thing is from this article) I hope that helps, good luck.~ Feureau E.S.P. 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've pondered this issue off and on for a while now and I can't really consider the current layout to be wrong. There are a few sections with single paragraphs but I'm not sure that they should be expanded much; this is an article about a general concept, specific examples should get details in separate articles. I've added a new first sentence but can't think of anything in particular to do about the section headers. Bryan Derksen 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)



Existance of self-replicating machines

Removed the line: "As of 2007, there are no extant self-replicating machines, although this is a burgeoning research area."

see this article from Cornell News

Ironcorona 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The work of Hod Lipson is probably best described as self-assembling. Reproduction has been reserved for use within biological systems. Replication is the equivalent in machines. Perhaps repair is a higher function than replication. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, no machine, not even man, is able to build all of the parts from which it is made, and by this I mean to include extraction and forming of raw materials to feed all subsequently necessary processes and purposes. Man does not know how to take raw atoms and simple molecules, and by the multitude of industrial processes turn these into the various components of which he is built, and these into another he. Adrian Bowyer looks to have about the closest example of a machine that can produce all its parts. It cannot produce the raw materials, nor can it assemble the parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, a man can build another man fairly easily with the assistance of a woman. Even if you require that we start with just pure raw atoms we currently have the technical ability to synthesize all the micronutrients we'd need. That goes a bit beyond the common definition of self-replication, though. Any definition of "self-replicating" that excludes biological organisms is not a particularly useful definition of self-replication IMO. Bryan Derksen 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how. You suggested that humans were incapable of "building all the parts from which [they're] made", and I pointed out that they are indeed capable of doing this. The only thing industrial processes would be required for are in manufacturing biochemical feedstocks that we can't manufacture within our own bodies, ie vitamins and such, and that's actually a fairly simple thing to do if we really needed to. Bryan Derksen 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Because, you are begging the question. The point is, can you build the thing external to your own body? Can you construct a living system external to all the others known? Can you cobble together all the necessary components, sit back, and observe the act, without participation? William R. Buckley 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This subthread is veering off in weird directions, so let's just go back to the core issue. Are you seriously arguing that humans should not be considered self-replicating? If so, can you point to any remotely credible source that supports this view? All those requirements you specify above seem strange and ad-hoc. Why can't a self-replicator build copies internally instead of externally? Bryan Derksen 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing self-replication with self-reproduction. This language is contemporary in usage, and you can find plenty of examples in research literature. How are these processes different? A big difference is the lack of developmental processes in self-replication. Humans do not self-replicate. Rather, they self-reproduce. William R. Buckley 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My own work in cellular automata is not particularly different from that of Rendell, Langton, Sayama, to name but a few. In these cases, we say we have self-replicating machines, even if abstract, but they do not make their parts. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is exactly von Neumann's concept, for both the kinematic and tessellation models. It was Edward F. Moore who extended von Neumann's ideas to include mechanisms for gathering raw materials from the environment. Implicit within von Neumann's model is the notion that physical automata, by joint and several action, could replicate the parts of which they are made. Von Neumann's notion of robotics includes manipulation of the environment sufficient for the extraction and manipulation of raw materials, and the incorporation of same within new robots. It seems obvious enough that robots are capable of actuating the controls of mills, lathes, and other process equipment, rather in the fashion that would be employed by a human being. The construction of component parts employed in the construction of robots was clearly implied by the kinematic model of von Neumann. Being sufficiently bold in the matter of self-replication, von Neumann refrained from a venture into robotic self-repair. William R. Buckley 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The endpoint of this technology is the assembler of Drexler (a centralised solution), and the ribosome(a distributed solution), it would seem. Certainly a macroscopic notion is the robot which commands traditional manufacturing processes, having suitable manipulators and sensors, computing systems, and sufficient information stores, which can then direct the production of all its parts, and the assembly of its replicants. The only difference is the scale at which atoms are manipulated. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias Complaint

No point in leaving the discussion with Charles Michael Collins, since he removed all of his remarks. We leave this message as reference to the event, for historical purposes. William R. Buckley 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good gravy. I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention to my watchlist much lately and I missed this whole exchange. For the benefit of other editors and historical reference, here's the revision immediately before Collins deleted his comments. I would have stepped in and helped out had I seen this. Bryan Derksen 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's alright Bryan. At least you, and others, now know of the controversy, and its apparent solution. Thanks for noticing. William R. Buckley 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent Operability

The subject of this section is an invented term, having no relation to the description given in the first paragraph of the article. In fact, the act described by example of a rabbit is properly known as *self-reproduction* and has been known as such long before the birth of Charles Michael Collins. Allowing Mr. Collins to abuse the English language in this fashion is unconscionable. I, for one, will not participate in such abuse, as by failing to scrub the article clean of such abuse. William R. Buckley 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I note there used to be an article about it, but it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent operability. From this it also looks like Collins was previously editing under User:Fraberj, and his talk page is filled with similar ramblings about independant operability. At this point I'm thinking it's best to just remove references to the concept from this article completely until some sort of independent verification comes along. Bryan Derksen 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, from other edits I'm now digging up such as [1] (adding an extremely lengthy rant to a user talk archive from over a year ago) and a now-deleted rant posted on Talk:Independent operability I think Mr. Collins is coming across as a rather contentious editor. Collins, please tone down your rhetoric and come up with some references or we may have to start looking at things like article protection to get the situation under control. Bryan Derksen 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I did mention this as a possibility in the discussion now excised from the talk page. Frankly, I do not want to see this happen. Much as I like to challenge Mr. Collins with himself, I am mindful of the great potential for valuable input. For instance, I do agree that an old notion is redundantly termed: self-reproduction. Von Neumann called his automata self-reproducing. Noting such language peculiarities does not, to my mind, reasonable empower the invention of terms. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The degree of the inability to determine differences is a degree of insanity. Similarly, the degree in the inability to determine similarities, similarly is a degree of insanity. I was making an analogy for the benefit of children who need a similar analogy to grasp the term and I made that clear. I clearly was weighing similarities. Children use this reference as well as adults. Check the context and syntax. Further, even though it is customary to use "reproduce" for biological descriptions (and "self-reproduction" may be a redundancy) "replicate" means, more generally to make a copy (in my Webster's unabridged dictionary). Therefore "self-reproduce" is simply a more specific way of saying "self-replicate", in this art. Do not many practiced in this art use the phrase "man made life forms"? So, machines that are personified to an extent to be held as "life forms" may be called "self-reproducers", and vice versa. You indicated that von Neumann had some discussion on that, I would like to know where you saw that. 11:08 , 13 October 2007 (EST)
Actually, I have no quarrel with any of that (though I think we don't really need to bring the article down all the way to child level - that's what the "simple" Wikipedia is for). The thing I think we need better references for are the F-units section and the term "independent operability", which previous AfD discussion seems to indicate is a neologism inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia as a general term. Bryan Derksen 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had much to say but there is much going on here, this is not a "rant". I respectfully and constructively take issue with the several points you made at 03:16 14 October 2007 (UTC) above. The "previous AfD discussions" included not a single person that had the slightest inkling on the subject of nanotechnology much less self-replicator technology specifically. In fact it is my humble opinion most were nothing more than boobs and that comes from not as an elitist perspective but from a pragmatic and functional aspect per the task at hand. One even said it "gave them a headache". Their vacant minds had probably been inspired and led like lemurs over a cliff by a particularly malicious and opportunistic individual by the name of Richard Stallman who firmly states on his personal site aside his appeals for drug legalization (his real core interest), that the phrase "intellectual property rights" is "propaganda". I glimpse this from various attacks then on my patent. One abusing the technical term "patent cruft, a new flavor" which bestowed a particularly vile abuse of a technical term, around long before Wikipedia tried to revision it that does have a proper and sane prior usage. It is however highly misused when directed at my patent claims in particular which have been reviewed by very many top scientists and patent firms and found to be none of the such and in proper order. The confusing aspects of the patent's description section came from a sleeper spy named "Irah Donner" who, posing as a software patent lawyer chopped the description to shreds, and attempted to sabotage the PCT filing so to allow his home country to infringe it. I did not want to patent the software but believe it or not the examiner made me do it for "full disclosure". Check the file wrapper.
The patent presents volumes of novel technology aside from very allowed and fair merging of prior art to many novel useful innovations. It did not try to patent something like the browser address bar or the like. It was upon a whole working useful device presented to the patent office not some piece or widget calculated to force others more innovative to pay royalties on pieces of their own innovations. Their is not a single "cruft" aspect to it. I disagree that ALL patents are not source worthy material. Large Important ones are and no doubt this one is. Those presented with prototypes reduced to practice by assembly, adjustment and use of an important device like this device are to boot. It is also accompanied by quite a bit of high media attention such as the in studio, hour long talk show I did on December 8, 2005 at prime-time (evening hour) with Don and Mike, broadcast world wide on WJFK-FM (106.7), Washington DC's largest station "Washington's Superstation" (featuring big name acts such as Gordon Liddy, Howard Stern, The Greaseman etc.) concerning the technology, wherein I fielded the first general public talk show with call-ins on nano-replicators, my other many inventions and further discussed my CD that was played over the air upon the avant-garde theme "Nanorock" and the upcoming feature film "War in the Nanosphere" and the comedic character "Dr. Nanite" that I portray and the many other comments from high places that abound including my high detractors Frietas and Merkle proclaiming, amongst over 1000 other words, and as first patent described in their book "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines:
"The breathtaking scope of the Collins patents..." and...
"...they may yet provide some inspiration to future engineers (they quoting Matt Moses)"
Cumulatively, the above with my very successful recording and performing carrier with much acclaim with musical themes on the subject of nanotechnology and self-replicators and the coining of a new genre named "Techno Crush" that makes me highly encyclopedic thank you.
I came to this site, of late and participated after seeing that there appears to be some sanity on the subject from editors with better technical and intellectual knowledge on the subject at hand. Although Buckley and I have our differences, it is at least refreshing to have someone to work with on this page that appears to know a great deal about the subject and I can interact with approximating other REAL scientist I work with, not political and intramural demagogues like Frietas and Merkle or the previous delinquents here at Wikipedia. I noticed you have a Bachelors in genetics and computer science. Hopefully, in a new unit of time our interactions will be somewhat better poised than with the boobs that I had to deal with before and something of substance can be purveyed to the readers. Although I disagree with Stallman and other points of the GNU I do like the idea of a free encyclopedia as long as those who decide to protect their artistic and practical useful works through patenting, copyright and the like are respected and not ridiculed or have a bias shoulder turned against them for political or other reasons. Such seems like it MIGHT be the intent and policy of Wikipedia but some of the editors seem to have gotten the wrong idea, unless I have it wrong. It really is hard to tell in this looming, evolving state of affairs known as Wikipedia.
On the "neologism" aspect that you pose as a problem on upon "independent operability", I think the term is more of a genuine technical phrase because it means what it means and increases the clarity of the sentence as required by Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. It is used, as well in that context in other technical fields. Further, it has been used very much within this technical area and well published, to wit: the popular book "Nano": The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology, by Ed Regis used it extensively in a proper manner. It also poses no trite or hackneyed aspects and is not stereotypical in this context. I will point out that my specific interest in it is that it was used regularly by K. Eric Drexler in the 90s and others in that era. This went on until I received my patent with a claim using the phrase and claiming such and soon thereafter he quit using it out of jealousy, in my opinion and many followed his cue. But all involved with the use of it with me in the patent as a technical term had no problem with it in the very independent claim it was within and were top flight firms. It really provides important substance to the article.
You might reconsider using the rabbit analogy because, take it from me, one ending up having to do this often if someone, adult or otherwise asks you: "What is a self replicating machine?" THAT is the fastest, most direct, analogical answer that people, in practice actually understand. It works every time when other definitions, for some reason haven't. You just tell them, afterwards that a machine has been devised that does the same. I agree though it seems a bit untechnical. You can also go into the complex, sun grown blade of grass being eaten by the rabbit showing slight flaws in its independency (maybe you missed the discussion on independency?). Independency or "independent operability" is requisite and an indispensable aspect to any real discussion on self-replication or reproduction, in my humble opinion. Just really trying to help, do as you like on that last one. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 3:45pm (EST)


Please, Charles, independence, not independency. Heck, you notice from the red-line underscore that independency (when you edit the text) is not even a recognised word in the Wikipedia spell-checker. I do note that both words are listed at www.yourdictionary.com, and in both listings the meaning is identical. However, by standards of colloquial use, we speak of the independence of one nation from another, not their independency. You obtain independence and become independent. I really do not know what independency means. Please, use independence, not independency. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Per your example, the way I see it we had a war that won the United States our FINITE STATE of "independence". Per my rabbit we have a number of degrees up to a point being described on a gradient scale of possible degrees of independency amongst a group weighed. I use independency when I am discussing one of a group and where it is situated upon that possible range that the whole group could possibly be on (like degree of independency). One is a finite state and the other a determined state among a range of possible states within a group. As you said, both terms are correct (or interchangeable) but you say you were taught or know yours is the colloquial correct item. But I hear the other used in my stated context often by others, particularly by economics people when they colloquially discuss statics as applied above. How does one determine which is correct, aside from considering the group agreement is considered reality? Your further thoughts? Also, FYI I was setting up the margins on this section here when our edits conflicted and you got to it first and when I try to use the sandbox or "Show prewiew" or "Show changes" it crashes. So, all I can do is save every update I make when needed. Also, when I make comments on sanity it is just comments on directions towards sanity, the degree in that direction being held as the more valued one, not an attack, always. Charles Michael Collins 11:25 pm October 15, 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.17.7 (talk)
Actually, I did not say that both are correct. I said both are listed in YourDictionary (www.yourdictionary.com). These two statements do not share meaning, in spite of their obvious relation. YourDictionary shows the words with identical definition. Now, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language College Edition (C) 1968, gives some difference in the terms. Independency is i. independence, or ii. political partition (I summarise). Independence is the more usual notion, of separation from outside support. You are describing a condition that is not properly described by political contingency. Use the word *independence* and not the word *independency*. As a final test, to be sure that I have not been too restrictive, I'll contact Michael Quinion and ask him of the subtleties of usage. William R. Buckley 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Conversely from what you said above, colloquial use differs from your considerations on the word. To wit: There are 457,000 uses of it on my search in the Yahoo search engine at this moment and most within the context that I used it, including a financial institution named "Independency" and this bestows a thought that, like I said it is used extensively for statistical analysis of real world stock performances which work in the REAL world, not like in La La land in academia with Frietas and Merkle who deliberately commit copyright infringement in books they sell and arrogantly get away with it while only getting paid otherwise by an insane government. The company used it in a context identical to "independence" as you would have it here as such:
"Our company Independency, attends to business, and personal finance to property, superannuation, investment and company structuring, we'll help you achieve a state of independency." (used here as a finite state even not even a number of degrees up to a point being described on a gradient scale of possible degrees of independency amongst a group weighed).
seen here:
http://www.independency.com.au/about_us.htm
Considering the volume of use, as such why is this not "colloquial" use? Are you saying all these people are somehow in error? and you are not? Or, most likely is it not just you who is in error? You also DID say that "in both listings the meaning is identical" in the defined terms in the dictionary, so say what you mean (as you like to bang me over the head over at length).
Charles Michael Collins 6:19 am October 17, 2007 (EST)
The use of a metaphor is fine. Presentation which is condescending is not fine. To be treasured are details of a working machine, a specific example that I may watch engage in the task, and yield two working copies, these then also, together, engaged in the act of self-replication. To be shunned is such a description which is not available in external sources. I would love to have included in this article operational details of Mr. Collins machine. Alas, that will apparently not happen until the machine is described in published sales literature. I reiterate my request for an in-person demonstration of your machine, Mr. Collins. Heck, if there are no published sources upon which to base content for this article, show me the device, demonstrate self-replication of the device, and I will be happy to write that source for you. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I had much to say but there is much going on here, this is not a "rant". With all due respect, you have been beguiled by such videos as seen in the Cornell replicator and "RepRap" and the like (of which, Cornell's is admittedly NOT a self-replicator nor RepRap's). The notion that a self-replicator can be filmed and such quick content may be easily Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Do not presume to tell me of my emotional reaction to the work of Dr. Lipson. While the self-assembly work is interesting in a basic sense, and the units of construction are interesting, the overall model is not particularly compelling. Then again, in as much as they are abstract models, neither are the self-replicators that I built. Compelling would be the physical equivalent of a von Neumann self-replicator, the assembler described in Drexler's Engines of Creation, and apparently due the genius of Merkle. Let's not forget the Utililty Fog of Storrs-Hall. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused out of lack of specifics, here you say you have a "self-replicator", elsewhere herein you expressed that you had a "computational self-replicator". Could you describe that some more in more detail? A "computational self-replicator" might indicate a software rendition. As for presumptions, working by email requires a good deal of that as diction, elocution and the like are not present, another fallacy of Wikipedia investigations. I would say more rude than genius of so stated. Charles Michael Collins October 17 2007 7:51am (EST)
What Lipson et al. have going for them is a physical system that satisfies at least some of the characteristics of a self-replicator. Further, it is clear that with suitable manipulators and computational capacity, Dr. Lipson's mechanisms would be sufficient to the replacement of humans in the factories of Earth. It would be foolish to assert that Lipson et al. are not close to closure on self-replication. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
depicted on-line in short is a fallacy. Of all the life-forms around you, would any of those self-replicators be able to be filmed to any end? Can you film mold growing and get anything out of it? No. Indeed we tried filming it but the problem was Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
An easily demonstrated counter-example is any of the computational self-replicators that I have built. Further, the notion described above for the systems of Lipson et al. would be fully demonstrable via film. Clearly, I can film the operation of every aspect of a factory, and show same to any interested viewer. QED. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
that the cameras back then, inexpensive ones, that is the ones that the investor was interested in investing in (VHS) provided not enough detail and it took so long (6 months) that no cameraman from a studio with hi-res was interested in hanging around for any length of time like that or leaving the camera(s) and you would have needed at least twenty cameras panning all the time over a large area on small devices to capture the full continually performed actions of the devices involved anyway and the strong lights overheated the F-Units prone to that. They explode when they overheat. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Ah! A weakness in the design. Do quantum mechanical constraints bring this weakness? William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I should think you would have been satisfied with time-lapse photography. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The important thing was, I wrote Drexler letters to come see it, called him on the phone (he did not come to the phone) and he presented complete indifference. I made a self-replicator and NOBODY CAME! I would LOVE to put up another project Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
As with taste, there is no accounting for personal choice. Indeed, every creative person experiences these feelings as a consequence of expecting that others will feel equally, as to the feelings of the creative person. Just because one feels something to be important does not mean that others will feel likewise. Ultimately, the competition is with yourself, and your performance within the world is a measure of the success of that competition. What is it that matters to you, Charles? Fame? Wealth? Something, else? William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
like that and invite you out but who is going to fund it right now? It would take a million or two to do it proper at the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
That is what investors are for. If venture capitalists feel that you have a chance at making money, they will support you; if not, they won't. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
least... to get the software done the way I like it... I am NOT a GUI, C++ with verbal commands pro and I will not waste my time doing it half way in Q-Basic again. Further, I need to buy the laser banks and E-Beam cutters to cut the huge number Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Interesting. Your page on MySpace lists you as having C++ skills. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
of tiles needed to initiate another system. This large scale endeavor was done culminating in 1998 by having .dwg files that I drew up at the lab sent to Resonetics and THEY burned the tiles up and shipped them out to us and it cost thousands of dollars at that then (nearly $100,000.00) and that was just lasers, I need E-Beam cut tiles on a proprietary E-Beam device to do it right. I might get buy with an 193 nanometer table top device but that's on the cheap and dangerous with the fluorine involved. I also have some issues with various widgets I need help getting the bugs out and need to contract small part experts to get the minor bugs out that slowed the last project. This is not a simple little toy we are talking about here. Another project is certainly in the works and give me you contact information and I'll call you whenever the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
Again, send your email address to my email address wrbuckley@gmail.com and we can engage more directly than is possible via Wikipedia. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
funding is had for this new project. In the meantime look at the picture on-line as I depicted of an F-Unit that was successful in making others of its type (coils are omitted because they are TRADE SECRET) but they lay across the top and underneath those ferrous plates which move to traverse the F-Unit. There is an umbilical that connects two of them and as one locks down on the electrical contacts the other one lays tiles or dabs liquids etc. It is very simple until the computing device, which is less difficult to actuate becomes involved but is complex but explained in the patent and here just now.
No real world self-replicator will be a simple thing like Cornell's. At least I don't think so. I am trying to write the Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
I disagree that Lipson's work is unrealistic. It is quite different from classical machine design, and it performs self-assembly and universal 3D articulation. What is missing is a general manipulator. However, just as with a Bobcat tractor, the manipulators are likely to be interchangeable. All one needs is a manipulator and a means to hold same in place. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
software myself but I really need it done by someone who eats, sleeps and drinks GUI C++ for a living to do it right. When the software is ready I can order the tiles on my credit cards which I will. But I need the high quality 40A 32V power supply and that's not cheap. However, the project to be done properly needs a MINIMUM of $8M to do it right, preferably $20m to hire the proper people to help to do it all properly particularly if patent protection is involved against academic infringers that run of the mill patent lawyers don't like to deal with usually and without patent protection, at least here in the nonacademic world no one will fund you. Hey, I have to make a living wage at this, right? Frietas and Merkle and company notwithstanding. If it was not for those two the project would have been funded, they scared them off as well as my NIST grant in the works. You seem to hobnob the academic circles effectively, you get the grant money and maybe we can share in the income and credit in an honest job at doing something wonderful but that's just a proposal, all agreements I only agree to in writing. Thanks for the interest. Would the old Q-Basic software help to source this, cumulatively with the rest of the stuff going on offered here? I have some short DV video (from a Sony DVX 1000 camera) of the "Quad " as you see it but it's a short clip... but I need to get an editor to blur out the trade secret coils in it or I'm in big trouble with my investors that funded its development. The problem with digital DV is they don't like you editing it. Would you know of any software that will that's not thousands of dollars for pros? I don't have the camera. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:08pm (EST)
I would argue that C++ is a bad choice in development language. IMPO, C and assembly are better choices for your application. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As to von Neumann's discussion, see The General and Logical Theory of Automata, as published in the book Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior - The Hixon Symposium, edited by Lloyd L. Jeffress. I forget the date, and my copy is now in storage. If you don't have a copy of his paper, send me email to the previously disclosed address, and I will send you a PDF of the paper. To the best of my understanding, von Neumann's work in this area is first presented in this paper. I'll ask around, and see if this is indeed the case. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Charles Michael Collins October 15 2007 2:07pm (EST)
Send me your email address, to the address for me, given above. I am always happy to help anyone to obtain the papers of past researchers. William R. Buckley 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, there is a tendency for Wikipedia to rely upon the retention of records by others. This means that sources once cited, may thereafter be no longer retrievable. Wikipedia should endeavor to retain *house copies* of all cited sources. William R. Buckley 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on that. The Wikipedia site has been crashing on my attempts and I'm finding things are different than before here now. It's harder to upload things. Importantly, you guys know more of this subject than the last group at Wikipedia who knew nothing and chose to go nuts. I need to get some sleep, be back later. Charles Michael Collins October 14 2007 12:59 am

F-Unit section

The F-Unit section still has a problem with lack of references, and now it's becoming quite overly large as well. When a single highly-specific subsection of a general article becomes this large I would normally split it out into its own sub-article, but in its current state I imagine that subarticle would be deleted quite quickly - the writing style is very unencyclopedic and the lack of outside sources suggests both conflict of interest and original research problems. Have F-units been covered in any depth by any other researchers? section 3.16 of Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines consists almost entirely of quotations from Collins' patents, which doesn't really help much. Bryan Derksen 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A well considered reduction, Mr. Derksen. I reviewed the material given by Mr. Collins on MySpace/mechagenics. Not very much there: a print of the patent cover page; a photo of some part of the claimed system; and a print of a letter from a law firm attesting to something as being worthy of development, and having operability. Certainly nothing upon which to base article section content. Given the amount of source material available for the work of others (like the dreaded Dr. Lipson), it would seem that either the F-Unit section should be reduced in volume, or the other sections should be markedly increased. Mr. Collins, a patent application is not sufficient to justify the text devoted to your work. The rules of Wikipedia require clear sourcing of content, and this requirement is not now satisfied. William R. Buckley 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=6f0nui%248ih%241%40news.nanospace.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-replicating_machine/Archive_2&oldid=165164019"