[donh]

But I thought unguided processes working over infinite amounts of time were the way to go. Are you suggesting intelligent intervention and guidance of these technologies?

Nanomachines don't evolve--and if they did, I sort of doubt that their investors expect them to mature into useful entities over the next few million year. Your grapeshot approach to logic never fails you, does it?

[unlearner]

"Nanomachines don't evolve--and if they did, I sort of doubt that their investors expect them to mature into useful entities over the next few million year. Your grapeshot approach to logic never fails you, does it?"

My reply was logical. Your argument for the formation of life rests on unguided processes over vast amounts of time. My argument rests on guided, goal oriented processes. But when it comes to nano technology, you are "not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results." I would say unguided processes are more akin to running amok, than guided ones.

And nanomachines should evolve, even if their evolution is guided. Computer technology evolved this way.