Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive 1

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)

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:

• Self-replicating
• Autopoiesis
• Self-replicating machine
• von Neumann machine
• von Neumann probe
• Universal Constructor
• clanking replicator
• Astrochicken
• Santa Claus machine
• Nanorobotics/Nanorobot/Nanobot
• Nanoprobe
  • Nanoprobe (device)
  • Nanoprobe (Star Trek)
• Molecular nanotechnology
• assembler/Molecular assembler/Assembler (nanotechnology)
• Molecular engineering/Molecular manufacturing
• Artificial life
• Grey goo
• Ribosome

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a sticky issue, the existence of self-replicating, self-reproducing, self-repairing, and self-assembling machines. William R. Buckley 19:55, 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)

This is a non sequitur. William R. Buckley 19:47, 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)

In hindsight, include the molecular assembler as a distributed solution. William R. Buckley 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be too soon to say that we have now a self-replicating machine but, also soon will such a statement be true. William R. Buckley 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tomorrow I'll see if I can condense it down to a paragraph or so, which is on par with many of the other specific examples given elsewhere in the article. Expanding the other sections to the same size would be nice, but it would make this article huge and I'd split them out into sub-pages too if that happened. Bryan Derksen 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: You both need to re-read the last part over at the last of independent operability as it looked like Buckley came in just before it was finished.)

Again, I will in the strongest, absolute possible terms object to the policy of Wikipedia to not consider patents that have prototypes reduced to practiced and on the record after being duly provided to the patent office be not considered as a reliable source at Wikipedia. Particularly in my case where the patent office expressly required it for patenting of such

I did not say unreliable. I said insufficient. None of those who maintain Wikipedia content have familiarity with your prototype. Further, even if we did, that would be insufficient. To boot, I seriously doubt that any editor cares about your *hard earned career*; take that trash elsewhere. Concentrate on the article, and the justifications for its content. If there is insufficient justification, content removal occurs. One reputable document is not enough. Advertising does not count. Do yourself a favor - get a paper published in a reputable journal. The best choice would be an academic journal. William R. Buckley 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that is what is wrong with your movement. You don't judge human beings by the work they do. Saying you don't

I am not writing about your career. In fact, I don't really maintain *Self-replicating machine* article content. What I do is battle with those who would corrupt encyclopedia content. William R. Buckley 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

care about a person you are writing on's carrer is a mistake. Every culture and movement since the dawn of time have used that yardstick and if the "open source movement" does not it will fall. "Trash"? And they say I am contentious. No

personal remarks please! The way you get away with all of them you MUST be Wikipedia's secret master editor(s) using an anon proxy. (Charles Michael Collins) October 19, 2007 1:42 AM (EST) User:fraberj

a bodacious innovation. I do accept in full agreement and backing that patents without submitted working prototypes reduced to practice, though valuable and interesting can be rejected as reliable source until later reduced to practice and made public. This wreaks of Stallmanism. Further, this creates a "wag the dog" literary conflict highly damaging to my hard earned career only for the benefit of the biased editors here and over exposure of my product before it is ready to be presented to the public with safe countermeasures. It is, further forcing the outing of the technology for the first time under absolutely needless contention, raising fears and upsets and uproars. This is not good. I should be allowed to maintain control of what I release without having to release undue aspects to my detriment just to be sourced. This is

Maintain control of your proprietary material as you choose. Simply understand that any content which is not sourced external to you is subject to removal. Release as much or as little as you choose; content is determined by external, third party sources. No original research. If this rule, no original research, were not in effect, I would probably publish my work directly in Wikipedia. The rule is there for a reason, and that is to prevent accumulation of such one-source material. Wikipedia is neither advertising venue, nor self-promotional soap-box (well, save these occasional banters in the talk pages). Get your *I love me* in places other than article content. The only thing I care about in relation to you is the benefit a discussion of your work means for article content, and that decision will not be made by any one person. Get used to how Wikipedia works; give back to society something greater than a stuffed shirt. William R. Buckley 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Noting the raprochment between China and Mr. Bill, it would seem the rest of the capitalistic world is ready to embrace open source. This is an omen for you, Charles. William R. Buckley 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm? Ranting? Contention? How can Capitalism coexist with Open Source Culture? (if that's ever been really defined outside software realms) Equating me to Bill Gates again are you? ...or was it Clinton? Can't really tell with you guys

What an ego you have. There is no comparison between you and Mr. Bill. Instead, I presented an observation of the behavior of one who is clearly more successful at promotion than are you. Further, this person, William Howard Gates III, seems quite comfortable with the Chinese way of doing business, having learned the hard way that the Chinese legal system does not protect those who seek to market their products via greed. Microsoft's legal battles in China yield no tangible benefit but, the new tactic of going along and getting along, making far less money per unit, has still resulted in a direct friendship between Mr. Bill and Chinese leader Hu Jintao. William R. Buckley 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

with all your nifty tricks. Well go right ahead I think you know by now I could care less about your attempted vilifications and guilt trips, ethics baiting etc. Sticks and stones to you too. When I finish this new self-replicator I think there will be nothing that will threaten my future, one way or the other if you want to focus on me personally like

Do be sure, please, that your replicator not become a gray goo, intent upon consuming you. Also, stop shouting fraberj.

that. The question is where will you and the rest of the human beings on this planet stand and, just as importantly, what will they plan to do? What should I do, what do they think, what do you think? Don't you think it is you that is being uncooperative? Where does, (I better stand back when I say it) Lou Dobbs and his supporters fit in to your assessment of the big picture? Bill G. speaks before congress as a "one world order globalist" L1 advocate and all... and what is your

I do this moron thing, called thinking. As I like to form my own opinions. (To George Carlin: Thanks for letting me steal your jibe). No other person speaks for me. The proof is in my writing. William R. Buckley 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

assessment of the connections of your "counterculture" (or what, appears to be what used to be "subculture") to globalization and.. oh yea forgot about them did you, the Illuminati network and the S.P.P. and the like? Seems that all your idols and enemies are a bit connected, and if you become mainstream you won't have any silly little pretty group to hang out with calling themselves "counterculture" anymore doing your fun little mischief stuff... and everybody's whispering (where's Stallman's super duper OS he promised us?), maybe the drugs are taking their toll. Since you want it all out in the open here what IS your official opinion on drug legalization, anyway? and what's all this got to do with my

When the common knowledge is that the US President has powdered his nose, I think the whole drug war issue collapses. I hold that we should not have police. Instead, we should each be a member of the public police force. Give me a twin rig! My politics are anarchistic libertarianism - also known as, *no government is good government*. This position is well documented, and lifelong. William R. Buckley 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

self-replicator being passed over for YOUR new flavor of dinosaurs mating? ... I know and you know that I have a self-replicator, I know you are tech oriented enough to know that by now by way of the questions you asked me, but not

Actually, I do not know that you have a self-replicator, for you have not demonstrated same to me. I will give you the benefit of doubt, and agree that you may indeed have a self-replicator, this agreement tentative and subject to change, particularly upon your demonstration to me of this purported self-replicator. The difference between us is that my claim is demonstrable in the academic and public literature, and yours is not. On may easily find the source code of my self-replicators. Conversely, one may not find same regarding your work. You have the opportunity to sway but, have not availed yourself of that opportunity. William R. Buckley 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to say something, and I want you to read it closely to heart. Fathom it to the day you die. Put 100% attention and importance and priority and emergency upon this one senior and important statement I will make next. It means much to me and is the most important thing I have to say herein now and forever: Your work is most likely impressive. My next comment is not on that. However, "academia" means one thing and one thing only to me. And it is this: 0. User:fraberj 05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

publishing it here as you ethically should is unethical and unprincipled... so if you are concerned about my perception of you and your group as somehow beneficial to me or mankind, to somehow abandon my patent to "out source" it and join your side don't bother. You're making a bad impression. Particularly when you pose the "open source" culture movement as an economic predator against this target or another. And the washing machine turns and turns... Oh, by the way, you are soooo hot and cold water, like "bad cop, good cop"... are you a police investigator? (Charles Michael Collins) October 19, 2007 1:14 AM (EST) User:fraberj

highly irregular for an encyclopedia or publication of any kind. Particularly when WJFK sourced it and Frietas and Merkle foisted it into the spotlight with their outrageous book that is clearly only devised to bust my patent in the most scandalous manner imaginable in every way available to their hands for personal greed to sell books and get grants and make my device with Toth Fejel at NIAC. Further it is clear that there exists a veritable war between myself and academia initiated by their well documented indifference not only towards me but towards other individuals over the years under similar circumstances. Further, you propose leaving Frietas and Merkle's scandalous book and works on this page knowing they committed deliberate copyright infringement and scientific misconduct. I only came here after noticing Frietas and

Editors of this article have no proof of any infringement due the work of Frietas and Merkle. Your assertion thereto is not proof. If you feel infringement exists, go to court. Take your chances. See if instead of judgment in your favor, you instead are found guilty of a frivolous filing. Your venting will not change article content. Article content is based upon third partly documentation. It is your obligation to provide creation of such third party documentation, and the courts present one means to get same. William R. Buckley 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you not aware of the fact that in your own Wikipedia at site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

On the subject of fair use it expressed : "Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial."

Please count the words he quoted from the "heart" of my patent please in Frietas and Merkle's book then delete the infringing material and links. (Charles Michael Collins) October 19, 2007 2:24 AM (EST)

Merkle's book here and only did the last article after their book came out in defense of myself which is not vanity or conflict of interest. What ever happened to apposing views being presented in the media? Has Wikipedia rescinded that right

The article pages of Wikipedia are not debate fora. William R. Buckley 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's no excuse. Encyclopedias should have balanced content. So should any publication, for that matter. (Charles Michael Collins) October 19, 2007 2:47 AM (EST)

under the GNU too? I would hope not. You wanted good content, I gave you good content and besides what you might think it 'is very good reading, rich with real historical substance. The conflict alone is news worthy on a subject this large because it does not get any larger. Not like that flooding fodder of the others.

Further, the "patent nonsense" page within Wikipedia's rules indicate the following: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the "occasional exception". Further, the link from "occasional exception" links to this substantive instruction: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it". I would advise you do just that.

Note to those who block on basis of legal threats - clearly you are not living up to Wikipedia standards, as the rule of No Legal Threats has made working with others (in particular, Charles Michael Collins) near impossible, and so that rule should have been ignored. You seem to do that very well with the personal attacks that Charles Michael Collins has imposed upon me. In particular, I refer to CambridgeBayWeather, Yamla, and Neil. William R. Buckley 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Less Mr. Buckley forget I was first the recipient of a personal affront by Mr. Buckley in uttering these words, saying that I sounded like a: "deranged malcontent" (01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC). Further, the specific statement that he refers to calling a "slander" was not so nor, further a proper accusation of "libel" because it was a written two part sentence wherein I was accusing another person, that I had just finished talking about of stealing my patent not Buckley. He just dredged that up as another reason to perform another attack nonetheless even knowing this which he has continued to present a pattern of all throughout my communications with him herein. This is simply merchanting chaos. There is not enough attention paid, often times into who started the trouble and I would appreciate that such proper alignment of justice be applied here, if any. Further, this is a talk page for giving opinion and opinion is never actionable as slander nor libel that he stated he thinks are one and the same. Allowing such to exists casts the Chilling effect upon opinion of article content so bestowed and discussed herein limiting valuable content. (Charles Michael Collins) User:fraberj 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is inaccurate, at best. Further, removal of the relevant discussion, as Mr. Collins did (presumably so that others would not be privy to the content of that discussion) makes the comments of Mr. Collins (immediately above) appear quite self-serving. It is true that I described the first entry of Mr. Collins as making Mr. Collins sound like a "deranged malcontent." Such a statement is not an accusation. Rather, it is an observation. I am not surprised however that Mr. Collins does not seem to understand this difference. William R. Buckley 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again Mr. Buckley has alluded to some unspecified, generally described occurrence and disparaged it. In fact, generality and done it twice. Innuendo? Maybe. As to the material I removed of my own writings it constituted a large amount of my responses to such similar general disparaging comments that had taken up unruly amounts of space that was simply diluting any new discussions and any real content I had put in it was wholly unappreciated. Further, it was clear that no one here seems to care about substance on self-replicating machines or at least so far and there was little to the point there just haggling over minutia. Most of the writings gravitated around those such as Merkle's who have produced no working self-replicator that I can detect and have infringed upon the copyrighted description of my patent far beyond fair use who create nothing more with my ideas than create a bunch of nonsensical hoopla to to sell books which is what most of the "nanotechnology" literary community has fed upon for years. Now, since I published a real world self-replicator they have begun to feed on that and supplanted my terminology with von Neumann's and have tried to bust the patent which is what Buckley has stated interests in at least once herein which got, justifiably redacted. Mr. Buckley then, himself revived it all again to pick over. Now he is complaining about my using it.

Buckley now holds me as "self serving" simply for doing what any normal person would do defending my own interests. Is it "self serving" for me to defend myself from this? No. This concept is absurd. But Buckley would have one believe such. He admits to initiating those disparaging comments but the record shows that after the comments were made that the justifications for them did not hold up under scrutiny and it seems he was just confusing the comments I made about other transgressor's actions with my discussions about them. The describer of the villain is not the villain, please. Indeed, shoot the messenger tactics here. Here's the underlying main problem (and he may even agree with me on this one): If a person here happens to express any form of communication utilizing another form of dialect not hailing from Mr. Buckley's parochial region of preference he finds this reason to disparage it argumentatively. Thereafter, any defense of this will be described as, somehow "self-serving". This calls for me to coin another term: greed-baiting.

I guess the only thing I have going for me is that I live in Northern Virginia, two steps out of Washington D.C. and Mr. Buckley in Southeastern California (if I got it right) and that makes me closer to not only England but closer to where the Brits first landed and a few steps from Washington D.C. which pretty much is the seat of the United States (although you can knock off a few points for being an "inside the beltwayer" several times). Being that as it may, I've lived in Washington D.C. all my life and visited and lived in England as well as three years as a child with schooling in France, learned perfect french. Northern Virginia Schools have been cited to be some of the best. So, being closest to where English itself began maybe my chosen flavor of it should prevail. Further, since my self-replicator actually existed maybe my terminology should supplant the other less practical ones instead the vice versa. What works is what works, preferable for self-replicators, same for communications. Just like Larry the liquidator said: I'm not your best friend, I'm your only friend when it comes to self-replicator encyclopedia content. John von Neumann came up with some of the fanciest writings on self-replicator ideas of his time. But that was then, this is now. Just call me Larry the liquidator of self-replicator tech speak. Out with "cellular automatta" and "kinematic replicator" von Neumann speak and in with "reproductive mechanics" and "Mechagenics". Why? Because that is of what works. No brag, just fact... and you never get noticed in this Britney Spears media world by playing quite any more, by the way, I verily tried that. User:fraberj 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Since, I, Frietas and particularly Merkle (who has a patent shortly after mine citing mine as prior art and are direct, competitors of mine, clearly bias against me, hostile in every way in the book "Kinematic Self Replicating Machines") and we all have huge patents, maybe a section on patents should be had and move my piece there as a self defense against these miscreants. Entitle it: "War in the Nanosphere" (just give me credit for that name please).

Take credit yourself, and create the article. I would have no problem with that approach. William R. Buckley 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, what about my CD album and movie "War in the Nanosphere"? Mention of the first CD on this theme and snippets could be played at the site if you like and there is much much art pertaining to the movie in high resolution. If you did me up right, and it was not in vain I have a color 1080 res High Definition art mural of the system completely laid out with text and lead lines, but I will only purvey it into public domain if I am certain that it stays up. FYI: I have a "private" book titled: "The infinity Device"... but I am not certain I want it released just yet but was coauthored by Alex Nicholson (another scientist). I feel sometimes as well, I am treated less dignified on account of presenting myself as an artist as well as a scientist. You might take that into consideration as well because I have a music career to maintain with that image in tow.

(Charles Michael Collins) October 18, 2007 10:43 AM (EST)

testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.25.253 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question and sincere concern. The "RepRap" project is a rapid prototyping project that admittedly does not self-replicate its own small parts. Should it not be in the rapid prototyping article instead of in here? I am planning on moving it. Rapid prototyping devices alone, inherently have no means of self-replicating small parts unless some hitherto invented accessory is employed. Germs self-replicate all their smallest parts, so do birds. Even with the parts it so-called "self-replicates" it needs a human to supply it with plasic and thereafter to even assemble it. This is far removed from any form of "self-replication". It just needs to be in the rapid prototyping section. RepRap may be important work, it just should not be clasified as "self-replication". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.23 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very concerned about that last paragraph in "F-Units". I have taken much time to read the entire book cited of reference "35" named "Kinematic Self-replicating machines" and find no such references in the book. Further, if you know your patent law the book only cites material in the description and nothing in the claims which are not too broad. Description requires broad descriptions, unlike the claims and does not make the patent "overly broad". Seeing how many unorthodox style blocks have occurred here of late I am posting it here for discussion prior to any possible alterations.

Rattler2 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Mr. Collins refers to the following excerpt of KSRM:

"Replicating systems engineers who, upon reading the above, might become concerned that their existing or future inventions could infringe the Collins patents, should take note that the disclosures of prior art attested in both patent filings [650, 651] include not a single reference to von Neumann’s substantially identical prior work (beginning in 1948; Section 2.1.2). Astonishingly, von Neumann’s name appears nowhere in any of Collins’ documents, nor is there a single mention of any of the many hundreds of items of previously published relevant literature that are cited elsewhere in this book. These fatal omissions should have significant implications for the future viability and enforceability of the Collins patents."

Now, it is clearly the case that the statement from KSRM is summarised by the phrase *overly broad* and so Mr. Collins complaint is reasonable. KSRM clearly conveys a notion that the Collins Patents are overly broad, owing at minimum to the lack of references to *von Neumann's substantially identical prior* art. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The authors of KSRM, clearly sedulous competitors of the prolific Collins patents would have one and all confuse the prolific innovations set forth in the patents with only broad description. Also, again if one would know one's patent law any one or two claims that a judge or jury may find "overly broad" would not weaken in the least any and all other remaining claims. This makes the very general comments in KSRM, which are more general than not because it refers to no specific claims, not only self serving but contains insufficient reference to such. Therefore, weak at best and useless at worst.

Further, I find no references to the alleged "prior art", and I've searched far and wide for anything that approaches the following list of new art in the Collins patents, including the John von Neumann extensive written works that are admitted by the author himself to be not rigorous:

1. "Trolley car" means of any kind, used in self-replicators, replicators or programmable matter,

3. Discrete, self-replicating actuators of that type or otherwise, anywhere,

4. Discrete "programmable matter", as it is referred to today, used in any self-replications,

5. Colorized tile indexing used in self-replicating devices and software of any kind anywhere, prior to the Collins patent disclosures now being extensively used over the net,

6. Systems capable of self-replicating all necessary "small parts" without exceptions,

7. Systems for placing conductive traces to utilize conductivity of high load electrical power, discrete or otherwise,

8, Use of "electromagnetics" in complete self-replications in any enabling disclosures of any kind, discrete or otherwise,

9. Any self-replicating data storage means, like the "data track", discrete or otherwise practical to be used in any known self-replicating plan to date nor one that is portable and interchangeable,

10. An overall, well planned, practical system of wide distribution and control, discrete or otherwise.

Further, John von Neumann bestows no fully "enabling" descriptions nor clear enabling drawings on any self-replicator and neither does KSRM and it refers to none which would be very necessary to be classified as legal "prior art", short of actual constructions and there are no photos as in the Collins site.

Further, since Collins has clearly stated that work commences under "trade secrecy" the comment "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" is pure speculation and opinion by the Wikipedia author in question and this is not at all stated in KSRM. KSRM only states that the Collins patents only "appear" not to present a workable self-replicating device but fails to offer up any enabling comment in the least as to why not. In short, very general commentary, useless as source. The use of the word "appear", a very general term renders it completely useless as source.

Further, the personal attacks on Collins in KSRM are highly irregular, bestowing personal political bias, not to mention not becoming a formal writing and therefore casting serious doubt on the whole KSRM works.

Rattler2 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed, and the only published information about F-units is in the patents themselves and a critical mention by Freitas and Merkle in their text Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines^[2] There have been complaints that the granted patent was overly broad and did not give mention to most existing prior art.^[2] Collins strongly contests these assessments.

Rattler2 removed the above paragraph, and I reverted, so I'll be explaining myself. The above paragraph is the result of a lot of work myself and other editors put into expressing a neutral point of view. I think it's fair and balanced: no editor has demonstrated any of the facts to be false, and Collins' contesting of the claims are noted. The complaints that the patent is overly broad and fails to mention prior art is also cited. I do not believe there is a consensus to delete this paragraph, though I'm open to a discussion to re-assess that consensus. Before anyone removes the paragraph again, I'd like to discuss specifically what's wrong with the paragraph, so we can address these issues rather than remove it completely. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much work you and others put into the article note that you may not protect it which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. You state in your userpage that you advocate "open source" software and seeing how you and other open source Wikipedians are ignoring the facts here that were carefully drafted and agreed amongst the experts there is nothing left to conclude excepting that you are in contempt of patents which is another form of intellectual property rights.

There is no "prior art". This is a lie. Sir, find the prior art and show me or cease reverting my hard work or change what you have written to what is factual. Better yet for a real article expose KSRM for the lie it is which is a major scandal. A scandal that you do not understand or have chosen to ignore. Would you have Wikipedia to publish lies? The fact that you and your open source lobby has called the work of Adrian Bowyer a "self-replicator" clearly bestows your bias, as well. Does the rapid prototype device he discloses self-replicate its motors, its slide bars, its circuit boards? No. Adrian Bowyer even admits it. So, move it to the Rapid prototyping section where it belongs because it cannot and will not self-replicate.

You are trying to argue again which was clearly settled above with no new logical facts which is pure equivocation. You said, as well that you did not spend much time on the article before you blocked Mr. Collins and all his friendly editors with your cabal. Blocking Collins for in good faith reporting a perceived hack which is a wrongful block and you and your cabal well know it firing off a vicious flame war. So there is no fair "consensus" of what you speak. At the very least the "hard work" you speak of is not finished.

Further, Collins started the first self-replicating article. Remember "independent operability"? This, which you editors have continually hi-jacked and filled with crack pots such as Adrian Bowyer, Toth-Fejel, and KSRM all that attack intellectual property rights. Should not Collins, an expert at the least be having a say so on other players in the game? Or advising you of the facts about his technology without being accused of and blocked for "self promotion". You even deleted his userpage which makes sense because he was commenting on some bad practices of open source advocates. You and many others here who advocate this open source movement appear to be only quietly attacking all intellectual property rights as well known nefarious members of the group are well noted at doing. What is your point on this "open source" activity anyway? Do you wish to "open source" patents? That is clearly what the KSRM authors are doing, inviting the world to infringe the Collins well drafted patents. Rattler2 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rattler2, your response does not address my concerns. We must come to a consensus to delete this content from the article, and I believe that a consensus does not exist. Please succinctly describe what you find contentious about the paragraph you have deleted, so that it can be addressed. Also please note that it doesn't need to be truthful to be on Wikipedia, it must only be verifiable. Thank you. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus when the paragraph was added because you and your cabal strategically deleted Mr. Collins's work before consensus could occur. You are gaming the system. Consensus does not mean simply a vote count after a flame war or the like, it means good faith communications to arrive at "consensus". This you seem not to understand. Further but not least you and your cabal, just like you have tried to do here to me blocked Mr. Collins at an undue time. You have no right to block Mr. Collins for reporting a hack as you did when a hack occured from your cabal and you have no right to block me for taking up Mr. Collin's cause which I try to do as perfectly as I can. If you want "succinct" I'll give you that: The first sentence of that paragraph stating that no device was constructed is not sourced. It is a lie by you, not source. KSR speaks only of his patent, not the device itself. Rattler2 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RHaworth, what objection do you have of what you deleted and why? You delete in mass and don't talk, yet force all others to talk under threat of blocks. Your character is really showing thereby.Rattler2 (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Collins:

You want example configurations that do engage the act of self-replication? See the URL

http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/automata2008/buckley/buckley.pdf

What will be downloaded is a catalog of such self-replicating automatons. This catalog is part of the paper Signal Crossing Solutions ... which is part of the proceedings of the conference Automata 2008.

William R. Buckley (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is software output from a software program. No one has any doubt that software can reproduce more software, even in huge quantities but there is no actual useful self-replicating physical "machine" here that can be held up against the Collins patents as prior art in the least.AvantVenger (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Collins:

Though I have complaints regarding his work, it is clearly the case that Umberto Pesavento produced images quite similar to mine in 1995, which is fully two years before your patent; see the journal Artificial Life.

The images presented for Automata2008 were produced since 2004. This work was in consequence to certain inadequacies of the Pesavento design. As published, it is not a self-replicator, though with some extremely minor modification (the increase in length, and hence delay, of a single signal line), it becomes a self-replicator. There are philosophical issues surrounding my rejection of the Pesavento design. For instance, though as given the configuration is not able to construct one of its cells, it is clearly the case that his configuration can construct a separate little configuration which is then able to construct this one otherwise non-constructible cell. I hold to a strict definition (self-replicators do not use external configuration), while Pesavento may hold to the contrary position.

Clearly, the configurations I give are for the abstract mathematical environment known as von Neumann 29-state cellular automata, and the variant 32-state model developed by Renato Nobili, which I term Nobili cellular automata. In your parlance, they are software self-replicators. And, such have I been building since early 1981, and publishing since March of 1985; see the column Computer Recreations in the magazine Scientific American.

You, like everyone else, are welcome to a copy of the catalog, so long as the copyright is obliged.

I have spent no time reviewing your documents, nor shall I devote such time.

William R. Buckley (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this that you pose here is software output from a software program. No one has any doubt that software can reproduce more software or even pictures of self-replicating devices even in huge quantities but there is no actual useful self-replicating physical "machine" here that can be held up against the Collins patents as prior art in the least. Further, what you have described here is nothing like the description in the Collins patent. Your unwillingness to review the Collins materials bestows your bias against it.AvantVenger (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of conflict and possibly misunderstanding going on in this discussion and with the article. I am going to attempt to do some kind of interview with some of the parties involved, including Freitas, Merkle, and Collins. I'll report back here as I get in touch with people. RadioShack1234 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting offer - but sadly, it's pointless. Wikipedia cannot accept hearsay evidence - even if it's directly from the people involved. Unless you can get your interviews published in a properly reviewed/fact-checked journal, we can't use whatever information you obtain. We rely on allowing our readers to check the claims we make. If all we have is your word that you interviewed these people and that they said this and that - then it's not something we can use. SteveBaker (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Then what type of journals/publications might be interested in an interview? I'd really like to get all of this sorted out. RadioShack1234 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which journals would be interested in publishing such an interview. However, you might read WP:SOURCES for guidance on the kinds of publication that Wikipedia would be able to cite. SteveBaker (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much. RadioShack1234 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)