Hi Richard, thanks for your well-thought response. It’s nice to connect with other folks passionate about this stuff. Any new data I can get to help modify my perspective is incredibly valuable to me.

A few points to address, I suppose. First on not being a visionary aspect. Never claimed I was. In fact I don’t really believe in trying to predict the future. Rather, I think we need to build it. That’s how you “predict” the future with 100% accuracy and that’s how I’ve approached building things my adult life.

To your second point on biologic and artificial converging, I do agree with that. It’s the reason this publication has been named Humanizing Tech for many years. The two will always look to borrow from the other.

Third on AI’s ability to use recursion and fractals, if you can show me a mathematic equation that an academic has come up with that’s being used by tech companies that takes these two things, along with time, into account, then consider me fascinated. These are a few of the major differences of current technology. Eventually AI will tend towards what we’re doing with Biologic but it’s not there yet.

The other items you reference such as Smart Dust, 4D Printing, and self-organizing Biorobotics I’ve written about. Have a look over there and see what you think.

The other thing, after working closely with Timothy Busbice who’s been building this Biologic Intelligence for years, is that it’s going to be hard for it to just “grow up” from only the C Elegans 302-neuron connectome to the 100 billion-neuron connectome of a human being. We’re going to have to work with it and massage it with new animal connectomes as we go into the future.