[p2p-research] steve tallbott on synthetic life
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 15:33:09 CEST 2010
I understand that Ryan, and I am the same,
but do you seriously consider that you do not have a metaphysics, i.e.
underlying assumptions that determine your worldview and how you filter and
see the world?
meta-physics is not religion, must the underlying presuppositions that
determine how you experience the world .... it pays to pay attention to it,
as otherwise, it remains an unexamined part of our life, that controls us
rather than the other way around ...
whether we are spiritualists, materialists, or the many other shades, we all
have some spiritual and metaphysical presuppositions, even if they are "the
spiritual world doesn't exist" ..
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> I regularly listen to religious music on my iPod...Kyries, gospel tunes,
> masses, etc. None of it matters much to me as "faith." But the passion
> others had for their faith gave me art. That is value creating. So too if
> a socialist painter paints a great mural, I am a winner for the effort. He
> didn't do it for my pleasure, but still I win even if the message the
> painter or mass composer was attempting to send is not the one I receive.
> So I do not reject the value of metaphysics, I reject the message as
> intended. Indeed, as my wife will sadly tell you, I often watch Bible TV
> for the entertainment value. The scams are hilarious. I enjoy seeing their
> ploys for manipulating people. Do they benefit from my watching? Yes. Some
> machine records I stopped on that station for a time. So be it. We are all
> capitalists all day every day whether we like it or not. As soon as we
> express a preference for anything...a location, a food, a drink, a type of
> cloth, we are complicit in markets. We have created incentives and rewards
> for those willing to answer them. There is great reward in producing
> metaphysics because people want to believe in something simple and
> transcendental. I might find that childish and naive, but I don't
> underestimate the power. Indeed, on my death bed, I might find the value
> proposition such as to try prayer. Some would see that as a victory of
> God. I see it as the market selling me a medicine for fear.
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> sorry Ryan, but you can't escape the metaphysical assumptions in things
>> you say, like everyone else ... not wanting to debate them is legimitate,
>> but it also means your own assumptions are outside rational challenge,
>>
>> accepting that life is just heaps of matter without any emergent
>> properties is in my view, 'gross materialism'; my own view is probably best
>> called subtle materialism, and it does not involve any recourse to the
>> supernatural, though I don't discount being wrong on this, which woul make
>> me an 'agnostic' .. now the fact that I have this view does not impede
>> collaboration on many matters around concrete objectives ... many different
>> metaphysicial presuppostions may still converge on practical possibilities
>> ..
>>
>> I would argue that most spiritual aspects, in so far as they are not
>> illusory, are 'subtle material' in nature, but that is just my own view,
>>
>> cloning humans is not something I discount, I was discounting your view
>> that just adding body parts would amount to making a human,
>>
>> I urge you, like Frankenstein, to try it as a concrete possiblity, and see
>> what happens,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michel,
>>>
>>> Long ago I've stopped arguing metaphysics one way or the other, so I
>>> understand your views given past arguments. If you believe humans are more
>>> than heaps of matter, then I respect that as a private view. To my public
>>> mind, there is no evidence or support of any sort that anything going on in
>>> the human process is more than material. There never has been. There is no
>>> evidence of "soul" or divine spark or impossible complexity. In other
>>> words, a cloned human would indeed be human in all respects given any
>>> reasonable bounds of the term human. Governments block this now because
>>> everyone knows all law, etc. would be thrown into chaos by the event of a
>>> human who was not born, etc. All our rules of who can marry, who lives,
>>> dies, gets benefits, etc. would be shattered. It also raises uncomfortable
>>> issues of slavery, purpose, dignity, etc.
>>>
>>> So, yes, if we can make the parts, I assume the systems integration is
>>> imminent--not more than 20 years off. We cannot yet make the parts, but
>>> will soon do--my guess is within 5 years. It is a matter of time...when not
>>> if. So, I think under the circumstances, it is time to prepare.
>>> Sanctioning the processes is unrealistic rather like making minor drugs
>>> illegal. It will be done whether legal or not. I am sure that some cloner
>>> has already attempted human cloning and then hidden the results. It is too
>>> tempting not to.
>>>
>>> I think science is making those who claim its stake irrelevant. That is,
>>> those who fantasize about futures are not relevant when the futures become
>>> real. At that point it is fact and law that matter. Law only matters to
>>> the degree that people are naturally inclined to respect it given some
>>> reasonable educational and cultural norms. If those are made problematic,
>>> then anything feasible will be tried for some purpose and will probably be
>>> so anyway. Do I believe there are ethical bounds where science should not
>>> tread? Short of species ending experiments of uncertain outcomes, I'm
>>> probably not inclined to limit science beyond the normal bounds of what is
>>> considered decent. Even with such bounds, others will almost invariably
>>> establish differing ideas about what decency means--and always have done so.
>>>
>>> Artificial humanity is within a generation. We should think about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ryan, so you think that if we can make skin, then bone, etc... and
>>>> then patch it together, that will make a human?
>>>>
>>>> why not talk about making skin, producing bones .. the idea that a human
>>>> is just a collection of these disconnected heaps of matter, strikes me as
>>>> very reductionistic ...
>>>>
>>>> you may think I'm just a luddite here, unless, you remember that I spend
>>>> five years of my life reading and talking to all these people (i.e. the
>>>> TechnoCalyps project ..) once I shared, however briefly, your awe and
>>>> enthusiasm ... but you have to dig deeper and indeed see the 19th cy.
>>>> mechanistic visions of science and the human that underly these hopes and
>>>> dreams ...
>>>>
>>>> if you haven't seen it, see part 2 and part 3 .. it's all available on
>>>> youtube and google video
>>>>
>>>> apart from the piece on Rael in part 3, which I didn't want in there,
>>>> it's still very interesting and not outdated 12 years after making it ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They're scaffolding organs now in several countries from Asia to Europe
>>>>> to the US for rodents, mammals, etc. Given any sort of reasonable
>>>>> projection, one would have to say that within 10 years they will be farming
>>>>> human organs from stem cells in the lab. Skin is now grown in the lab from
>>>>> SC as is bone...jaws, etc. Nerve tissue is under experiment in several
>>>>> places and discussions of organs like pancreas's are regularly discussed.
>>>>> Is it hyperbole to talk about building a human?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the word transhumanist is starting to outlive its usefulness.
>>>>> The questions now are simply science and ethics. This stuff is coming far
>>>>> faster than anyone anticipated. I've personally moved up my estimates by
>>>>> more than a decade recently. I am hearing that what is going on in the
>>>>> university labs that is not ready for prime time is that basically stem
>>>>> cells can be easily harvested, made pluripotent, and then farmed into
>>>>> whatever. That's widespread. Who knows where the cutting edge is.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to robots, I just tonight watched a movie of a machine run along
>>>>> side a dog that looked elegant like the dog in movement. New robotic hands
>>>>> are widely visible on youtube etc. and are amazing. These are products.
>>>>> Again, hard to say just how much further ahead the labs are. I have
>>>>> personally been in discussions with people about AI that can take in huge
>>>>> amounts of data (e.g. financial or military information) and sort it out in
>>>>> ways humans cannot easily do and in much less time. Again, machines
>>>>> surpassing humans in the front seems near term.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I don't think it is premature to begin thinking about this stuff.
>>>>> At all scale levels, progress seems rapid and linked. It looks a lot like
>>>>> the beginning of the computer age...the next 30 years will be about biology
>>>>> and a lot about climate change. In politics, it will be about demographics
>>>>> and unemployment. In finance it will be about profit opportunities and debt
>>>>> capacities.
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually think it is high time for smart people to really start
>>>>> sorting out what 2020 looks like. It is going to be a lot different.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> building a human body is getting close?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, dolls and robots?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find using the right kind of language important, but that gets of
>>>>>> course in the way of transhumanist dreaming and utopianizing ... while some
>>>>>> are indeed dreaming the millenialist dreams of flight from the body of
>>>>>> nature ... the oil keeps gushing in ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's a matter of focus really, and this is why transhumanist religion
>>>>>> is so dangerous for our future, it draws attention away
>>>>>>
>>>>>> life is the basis of everhing, especially of you writing this letter,
>>>>>> so why is it a 'strange' standard ..? it's one of the most important ones
>>>>>> there is ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Life is a strange standard. Why not go for functionality?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If an old person can sit on a phone and talk to a computer that it
>>>>>>> cannot distinguish from a companion, then who is on the other side of the
>>>>>>> phone? A lie? A life? Would anyone care? As computer games get more
>>>>>>> sophisticated, those needing "real" outlets is probably going to drop.
>>>>>>> Reality is fun...ideal, but simulation can be great fun too and better and
>>>>>>> better simulations go a long way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless, building a body is getting close. Building rationalizing
>>>>>>> machines is also seemingly on the feasible horizon. So, artificial flowers
>>>>>>> seems a rather strange retort to what is going on. The moral, social and
>>>>>>> political questions are far more interesting than the nihilism of...not
>>>>>>> really life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to Manufacture the Notion of Synthetic Life
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I recently participated in a conference on synthetic biology (the
>>>>>>>> discipline where one attempts to synthesize, in part or in whole,
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> organisms) at the Hastings Center in the lower Hudson Valley of New
>>>>>>>> York.
>>>>>>>> A rather minor exchange at the very end of the conference has been
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> on me ever since.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question of the value of artificial flowers (of the
>>>>>>>> conventional
>>>>>>>> sort) had come up, and after a good deal of conversation, I
>>>>>>>> remarked, "By
>>>>>>>> the way, I'd like to clarify a simple point. There has never been
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> artificial plant that was even vaguely similar to a real one". This
>>>>>>>> produced a roomful of blank looks, puzzled expressions, and raised
>>>>>>>> eyebrows -- symptoms, I would submit, of the difficulty we have in
>>>>>>>> understanding life today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I went on to explain: a plant is living. It expresses itself into
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> world as *movement*. It grows from seed to leaf to flower to fruit
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> seed. (I ought, at this point, to have mimicked the opening of a
>>>>>>>> flower
>>>>>>>> with my arms.) The plant *gestures* its existence; this gesturing,
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> some frozen form or substance, is what it *is*. No artificial plant
>>>>>>>> duplicates this reality in any meaningful way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said, the point has been working on me. It brought to mind a
>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>> I heard ten or fifteen years ago by one of our then-local doctors,
>>>>>>>> Philip
>>>>>>>> Incao. He asked those of us in the audience to close our eyes and
>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>> minute to imagine the human circulatory system. And, yes, we all
>>>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>>>> *things* -- the heart, arteries, veins, red blood cells, and so
>>>>>>>> on. The
>>>>>>>> fact that the circulatory system is a system of movement -- that it
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> most essentially a *doing* -- was hardly uppermost in our minds.
>>>>>>>> Dr.
>>>>>>>> Incao went on to cite a remark by Novalis: the body is a formed
>>>>>>>> stream.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My colleague, Craig Holdrege, once illustrated this by explaining
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> the spiraling fibers of the heart muscle that help to direct the
>>>>>>>> blood in
>>>>>>>> its flow are themselves a congealed image of the swirling vortex of
>>>>>>>> blood
>>>>>>>> within. This kind of mutuality holds even for the heart's basic
>>>>>>>> structural divisions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before the heart has developed walls (septa) separating the four
>>>>>>>> chambers from each other, the blood already flows in two
>>>>>>>> distinct
>>>>>>>> "currents" through the heart. The [currents] flowing through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> right and left sides of the heart do not mix, but stream and
>>>>>>>> loop by
>>>>>>>> each other, just as two currents in a body of water. In the
>>>>>>>> "still
>>>>>>>> water zone" between the two currents, the septum dividing the
>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>> chambers forms. Thus the movement of the blood gives the
>>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>>> for the inner differentiation of the heart, just as the looping
>>>>>>>> heart
>>>>>>>> redirects the flow of blood. (*The Dynamic Heart and
>>>>>>>> Circulation*,
>>>>>>>> edited by Craig Holdrege. Fair Oaks CA: AWSNA, 2002, p. 12)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our inherited mode of thought today tells us that things produce
>>>>>>>> movement. The more fundamental reality is just the opposite:
>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>> things crystallize out of the right sort of movement. The tendency
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> materialize and, indeed, mechanize life in our imaginations, when
>>>>>>>> unchecked, pretty much determines our philosophical conclusions
>>>>>>>> about life
>>>>>>>> before we ever get a conversation going on the subject. This is how
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> manufacture the notion of synthetic life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It happens that in my own talk at the Hastings Center I had quoted
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> twentieth-century cell biologist, Paul Weiss, to the effect that
>>>>>>>> "Life is
>>>>>>>> a dynamic *process*. Logically, the elements of a process can be
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> elementary *processes*, and not elementary *particles* or any other
>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>> units". In a 1963 paper, Weiss wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stable structures that are demonstrable in the living cell,
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> than chromosomes, have mostly turned out to be secondary
>>>>>>>> derivatives,
>>>>>>>> rather than primary carriers, of cellular organization . . .
>>>>>>>> [There
>>>>>>>> is] such incessant reshuffling of the cell content that even the
>>>>>>>> thought that at last the supramolecular units (particulates)
>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>>>> linked into a stable framework can be safely dismissed . . .
>>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>>> contour, intracellular fiber systems, and granules of various
>>>>>>>> descriptions change their configurations and positions
>>>>>>>> continuously,
>>>>>>>> thus ruling out the presence, or at any rate, the relevance, of
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> consistent three-dimensional cytoskeleton . . . Yet despite the
>>>>>>>> absence of an orderly static frame, the various activities of
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> parts remain coordinated in the maintenance of a standard
>>>>>>>> pattern of
>>>>>>>> order in any given cell. It is an order of relations rather
>>>>>>>> than of
>>>>>>>> fixed positions. ("The Cell as Unit", *Journal of Theoretical
>>>>>>>> Biology* vol. 5, 1963, pp. 389-97)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are countless molecular processes going on in the cell and
>>>>>>>> organism as a whole, continuing through time, and Weiss points out
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> these are interlocking processes, like "civic activities in a
>>>>>>>> community".
>>>>>>>> Every stage of every process must be in a certain proper
>>>>>>>> correspondence
>>>>>>>> with every stage of every other process. The plant's movement, in
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> words, is compounded of countless submovements, and these are
>>>>>>>> harmonized
>>>>>>>> in the distinctive gesturing of the plant as a whole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it interesting to compare this line of thought with the
>>>>>>>> notions
>>>>>>>> of someone like AI guru, Ray Kurzweil. After all, artificial
>>>>>>>> intelligence
>>>>>>>> researchers and synthetic biology researchers share much of the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> general naivete about life. In *The Age of Spiritual Machines*
>>>>>>>> Kurzweil
>>>>>>>> talks about "reverse engineering" the brain by analyzing it, thin
>>>>>>>> slice by
>>>>>>>> thin slice, and then "implementing" its neurons and their supposed
>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>> and outputs in a computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suppose we could do far better than that. Suppose we didn't have
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> content with merely abstracting a few features from brains --
>>>>>>>> features
>>>>>>>> that a computer engineer such as Kurzweil (or anyone else) happens
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> think, with rather blatant arbitrariness, are the few that really
>>>>>>>> count.
>>>>>>>> (Actually, there is not a single feature of the embodied brain that
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> faithfully captured in any computer model. But that is a point for
>>>>>>>> another time.) Assume instead that we could assemble precise
>>>>>>>> replicas of
>>>>>>>> those brain slices, atom by atom, successively adding each slice to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> previous ones. Would we then have produced a living brain by
>>>>>>>> artificial
>>>>>>>> means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is rather like asking whether an artificial floweris a
>>>>>>>> living flower. It is to have forgotten almost everything about the
>>>>>>>> reality of the brain. What has happened to the *movement*? For
>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>> as we were assembling those slices, how were the individual cells
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> nourished? How were the intercellular fluids and blood circulating
>>>>>>>> among
>>>>>>>> them? How were any living processes actually occurring in the cells
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> the essential chemical signaling that takes place within and between
>>>>>>>> cells, enabling them to retain a living connection to each other;
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> intricately coordinated replication of DNA; the entire elaborate
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> of regulation of gene expression; cell division, bringing into
>>>>>>>> movement as
>>>>>>>> it does *everything* in the cell . . . ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one thing to assemble many pieces of a complex puzzle, and
>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>> another to establish a harmonious coordination among a complex set
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> interweaving processes -- a coordination that would require the
>>>>>>>> setting in
>>>>>>>> motion, at a particular instant, of every one of the countless
>>>>>>>> elements of
>>>>>>>> the cell in exactly the right relation to all the other dynamic
>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>> And the coordination would have to be so calculated that the
>>>>>>>> thousands of
>>>>>>>> ongoing, continually interpenetrating processes would be held
>>>>>>>> together as
>>>>>>>> a single, coherent whole -- held together through all the
>>>>>>>> unforeseeable
>>>>>>>> disturbances and environmental encounters differentially affecting
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> those interrelated processes as the synthetic organism traverses its
>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>> through life. I see little evidence that the "synbio" proponents
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> much appreciation of the real nature of their task.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tendency, I think, is to assume that you need only put the
>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>> set of puzzle pieces together, and somehow the processes will
>>>>>>>> automatically start up and proceed as they ought. They will
>>>>>>>> "emerge", as
>>>>>>>> the jargon goes, indicating a kind of mystical potential in the
>>>>>>>> puzzle
>>>>>>>> pieces. This is why a number of commentators have recognized in the
>>>>>>>> supposedly all-explaining DNA of modern biology something like an
>>>>>>>> animistic totem or materialized entelechy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remove this kind of materialized magic, and what would you
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> have after assembling the last molecules of your artificial brain?
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> answer is easy: an object perfectly fitted for display in Madame
>>>>>>>> Tussaud's
>>>>>>>> wax museum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may think that such a thought experiment is ridiculously
>>>>>>>> simplistic. I agree. But thought experiments just like this one
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been common for decades in fields such as cognitive science. You
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>> sure that proponents of today's "synthetic biology" will have a
>>>>>>>> penchant
>>>>>>>> for similar mental excursions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the Hastings conference there were in fact various references
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> possibility of assembling a living, single-celled organism from
>>>>>>>> scratch,
>>>>>>>> molecule by molecule -- an organism that was "precisely identical"
>>>>>>>> to some
>>>>>>>> already living organism. You'll note what's going on here. The
>>>>>>>> "precisely identical" idea comes from the image of an organism
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> murdered in the imagination, just like the artificial plant that is
>>>>>>>> "indistinguishable" from a real one. The life was removed from the
>>>>>>>> image
>>>>>>>> in advance, and so, of course, the artificial product becomes very
>>>>>>>> persuasive as a replica of the real one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was evident that a number of the participants (the group was
>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>> diverse) simply took for granted the realistic prospects for such an
>>>>>>>> artificial construction. On my part, I do not even know what could
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> meant by constructing an artificial cell "precisely identical" to a
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> one. The real cell, after all, is never at two different moments
>>>>>>>> identical to *itself*, let alone to another cell. It's as much a
>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>> as a thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not only that life is movement. Equally important is the
>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>> that each kind of life displays a qualitatively distinct sort of
>>>>>>>> movement.
>>>>>>>> When we bother to observe a real organism, we find that its
>>>>>>>> gesturing is
>>>>>>>> recognizably different from that of other species. An oak tree does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> at all have the same way of being as a weeping willow, nor is an
>>>>>>>> amoeba's
>>>>>>>> movement (whether at the level of the whole organism or of molecular
>>>>>>>> process) choreographed in the style of a paramecium's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If and when I hear synthetic biologists discussing among
>>>>>>>> themselves how
>>>>>>>> they will reproduce such a unique gesturing -- a gesturing they must
>>>>>>>> carefully and deliberately and knowledgeably compound out of the
>>>>>>>> innumerable molecular activities proceeding simultaneously and
>>>>>>>> interdependently in the cell -- all in order to produce from scratch
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> particular sort of organism with a particular sort of recognizable
>>>>>>>> character, then I will believe they have begun to glimpse a problem
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> might just conceivably define a synthetic discipline of life.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise,
>>>>>>>> we're left with little more than the crude and mostly ignorant,
>>>>>>>> trial-and-error manipulation of already living things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The work in synthetic biology as we have it today does in fact
>>>>>>>> rely
>>>>>>>> thoroughly upon already living things. A synthetic construct is
>>>>>>>> inserted
>>>>>>>> into a living organism, and the organism then takes it up (if the
>>>>>>>> experiment is successful) and incorporates it into its own being in
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> own manner. If you want to know how this actually plays out in
>>>>>>>> reality --
>>>>>>>> how the organism "does its own thing" with such foreign materials,
>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>> in radically unexpected ways -- then check out the website,
>>>>>>>> nontarget.org.
>>>>>>>> No one who fairly reviews that website can come away thinking we
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> *science* of synthetic biology, as opposed to a technologically
>>>>>>>> sophisticated discipline of tinkering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In sum, the imagination at work in synthetic biology is grounded
>>>>>>>> (often
>>>>>>>> without acknowledgment of the fact) in the world of living
>>>>>>>> organisms --
>>>>>>>> organisms that are continually taken for granted, rarely observed as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> living, gesturing creatures they are, and then casually employed as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> means to assimilate and enliven artificial constructs. The result
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> viewed as a triumph of clever artifice, which it doubtless is. But
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> is no reason to lose sight of the creative contribution of the
>>>>>>>> organism
>>>>>>>> itself. Through its living *activity* it proves wonderfully capable
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> meeting the contents of its environment -- internal or external,
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> or artificially constructed -- and drawing them up into its own
>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SLT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
>>>>>>>> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens;
>>>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think tank:
>>>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>>>>> P.O. Box 633
>>>>>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>>>>>> Cayman Islands
>>>>>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think tank:
>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>>> P.O. Box 633
>>>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>>>> Cayman Islands
>>>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> Think tank:
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Lanham
>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>> P.O. Box 633
>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>> Cayman Islands
>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100712/52a6d632/attachment.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list