Study
The Brain (Narf!)
Dear all,
I am a 12th grade student interested in working later in the nanotechnology
research field, specially nanocomputers. I have a passion for computers, I
can already program in more than 5 languages, have hardware and networking
experience. I am also deeply interested in artificial intelligence and
robotics. Can you help me establish a link between these fields in order to
know what to study next year in university and then my masters and
doctorate...
Looking forward to reading your answers,
Sami.
Amos Jeffries
As an only-just graduate in the AI/software field, I would suggest a
software engineering course to get you into the AI. The robotics you can get
by taking your optional papers from the computer engineering, or electronics
(or robotics if the university has one).
The SE courses tends to stay away from the hardware wiring side, but it is
not hard to take some of these as your optional papers. For the robotics
side you will need extras in physics, electronics, and mechanics.
>From personal mistakes though, do take the first year calculus paper in your
first year.
Amos
[For nanorobotics, I would add chemistry as essential & pay close
attention to how nanomechanics & electronics may differ from the
classical versions. Also, from personal experience - do take a
diff eq. course at some point. - SL]
Fraser Orr
"Amos Jeffries" <ya...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9s9jb...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> As an only-just graduate in the AI/software field, I would suggest a
> software engineering course to get you into the AI.
> [For nanorobotics, I would add chemistry as essential & pay close
> attention to how nanomechanics & electronics may differ from the
> classical versions. Also, from personal experience - do take a
> diff eq. course at some point. - SL]
There is a danger in becoming too generalized. Modern
scientific disciplines are becoming more and more
specialized and narrow, not more generalized. And that
is no surprise really. Allegedly the number of scientific
papers is growing at an exponential rate (in the case of
medicine, allegedly doubling every 3-4 years.) With
an exponentially growing knowledge base, you need a
correspondingly exponential decrease in the size of
people's specialties. (As an illustration, when I was
a kid one of the greatest specialties in medicine was
dentist, a doctor who specialized in one of the smallest
parts of your body: your teeth. Now there are general
dentists, hygienists, periodontists, orthodontists, and
endodontists, not to mention the various classes of
cosmetic dentistry. To the best of my understanding,
an endodontist basically performs two different procedures
only. Now that is specialized!)
Consequently, to the young person who asked what he/she
should study, I would recommend that they choose a specialty
they like, and not try to master every scientific discipline
involved in Nanotech. You seem particularly interested in
Computer Science and its specialty AI. They would be excellent
choices for very effective work in the future nanotech world.
Master that skill well, and you will have a great deal to
contribute.
(Of course your college will probably require certain breadth
of understanding courses above and beyond your major. Chemistry,
microbiology/biology, and mechanical engineering would make
excellent minor classes, however, they are likely not necessary
to work successfully in nanotech -- after all, I write computer
software for businesses, but I don't have an MBA.)
Above all, I would recommend to both this young poster and to
all young people that first and foremost they master the art
and skill of learning. It is a sad fact that many public schools
have been rather delinquent in this area, focusing on knowledge
rather than knowledge acquisition skills. Such an approach worked
for churning out Victorian era factory workers, however, in a
world where we undergo radical paradigm shifts several times
in a lifetime learning new skills and adapting to new circumstances
is of the greatest importance.
Few things are certain about a nanotech revolution, but one thing
surely is: many of the jobs humans do today will not exist afterward.
Consequently, you'd better recognize the fact that the job you do
after the cape and gown, will not be the job you retire from when
you snowbird it down to Arizona.
The Brain (Narf!)
Well thank you very much Amos.
By the way, I am not that interested in chemistry, I prefer the Top-Bottom
nanotech research by far.
"Amos Jeffries" <ya...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9s9jb...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
[...excess quoted text elided by your moderator... -SL]
John S. Novak, III
In article <9sbqc...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Fraser Orr wrote:
I'm not sure that I disagree, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate
anyway.
> There is a danger in becoming too generalized. Modern
> scientific disciplines are becoming more and more
> specialized and narrow, not more generalized.
While this may be true, I'm not sure that it then follows that the
path to success, fulfillment, productivity, or any linear combination
thereof, depends on increased specialization.
One of the consequences of increasing specialization is the decreased
ability for specialists to talk to each other and do interesting
cross-discipline collaboration. I can point to many examples of a
now-established engineering discipline having begun as a niche
cross-displine enterprise, and I think it's obvious that
nanotechnology will be a very large case of that.
I think it follows that someone with a mastery of two or more fields
will certainly be able to find interesting and useful work in the
years to come.
[Interestingly, combining 2 or more fields might sound like
generalization, but could also be considered specialization
- e.g. I'm currently specializing in scanning force microscopy
of biological polymers - which involves a special combination
of physics, biology & chemistry. -SL]
However, having said that, I will emphasize that I said *mastery* of
two or more fields. I don't think dilettantism will serve anyone
well, and mastery of even one field is a difficult enough task.
Concurrent mastery of two fields is quite a bit to ask for coming
right out of an undergrad program.
So for a first phase, my advice parallels Fraser's-- find a subject
you like, and study it, and then practice it until you are proficient.
Proficient, in my opinion, means at least five years of professional
practice after obtaining a degree. In your case, it sounds like
computer science would be it. In my case, it was electrical
engineering, which I pursued to an advanced degree and have practiced
for years, now.
At the same time, though, keep your eye out for a minor specialization
that interests you as well, and which you might be interested in
pursuing farther. In my case, it was mathematics, which has been of
great help in my studies of computer science.
On a philosophical level, education is a lifelong process. An
undergraduate degree is the *start* of your education, not the end of
it, and the best I would hope for out of an undergraduate education is
a base of knowledge and skills that will allow me to continue my
development as easily as possible for the rest of my life.
> Above all, I would recommend to both this young poster and to
> all young people that first and foremost they master the art
> and skill of learning. It is a sad fact that many public schools
> have been rather delinquent in this area, focusing on knowledge
> rather than knowledge acquisition skills. Such an approach worked
> for churning out Victorian era factory workers, however, in a
> world where we undergo radical paradigm shifts several times
> in a lifetime learning new skills and adapting to new circumstances
> is of the greatest importance.
Unfortunately, this seems to have been relegated to graduate school in
many cases.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net