Page 1 of 2

Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:16 pm
by Naveen
Craig Venter and his team in the US have, using sequences of computerized genetic code,succeeded in assembling a completely artificial DNA of a bacterium and inserted it back into the shell of a similar organism. As a result, the new cell is self-replicating, controlled only by man-made genetic instructions. The achievement is probably one of the biggest breakthroughs of this century so far but as Venter himself puts it: “We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome.”
Yet the announcement has thrown up complex moral issues. And while they may not admit it, religious authorities are worried. Should real lab made life ever live it would not have divine ancestry , would it ? No Fall; no original sin. Nor, for that matter, would it be carrying the baggage of good or bad karma to work out in its current incarnation. Where did this sudden extra soul pop up from? Does a second separate cycle of birth, death and rebirth begin again from here or what?
However, ancestry and descent — though important considerations — are not the main concern. The dilemma is ,how can something digitize out of artificially derived binary mathematical codes have a perception of some ultimate purpose or design — an end towards which its development continually strives, like most religions maintain all life forces do?
Its said the first life on Earth was also a single-celled organism fashioned out of ancient, inanimate chemical sludge. Its indwelling significance was cloaked at the outset by a dense material of inconscience into which the “obscure, mysterious creatrix” delivered its secret consciousness little by little in minute infinitesimal drops till it reached its climax and exceeded itself in Man who is now evolving into a superconscious being.
It lived, it knew, it saw its self sublime, Deathless, outmeasuring Space, outlasting Time. Maybe it's true, who knows. But as people like Venter and Mukul probably feel: it's worth a shot , aint it?

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:34 pm
by Sabina
Hi Naveen!

I don't know about religious authorities being worried. They are free to worry though..

As for "carrying the baggage of good or bad karma to work out in its current incarnation", I don't really see a contradiction.
If it is the spirit that is old or new, then that spirit may enter this world in whatever form, in whichever way, theoretically. Karma doesn't come from the body and these people are only talking about alterations, basically, in that domain.
So, it doesn't matter whether it came from a lab or a womb.

That is my opinion.

Also, welcome to Deep Spirits. Interesting first topic!

Sabina

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:46 pm
by Naveen
Thanks Sabina..

Appreciate your response!

Glad you found it interesting :)

Agree, we re all blessed ... Free to think , choose , voice our opinions and free for our own pursuits ..

Vanish, My Vanity !!

Gratitude..

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:45 pm
by ThePermster
Naveen wrote:Craig Venter and his team in the US have, using sequences of computerized genetic code,succeeded in assembling a completely artificial DNA of a bacterium and inserted it back into the shell of a similar organism. As a result, the new cell is self-replicating, controlled only by man-made genetic instructions. The achievement is probably one of the biggest breakthroughs of this century so far but as Venter himself puts it: “We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome.”


Interesting stuff, I wonder if the science behind it is simple enough to allow this to be a direct way to empirically explore DNA encoding. That'd be a really exciting prospect.

Naveen wrote:Yet the announcement has thrown up complex moral issues. And while they may not admit it, religious authorities are worried. Should real lab made life ever live it would not have divine ancestry , would it ? No Fall; no original sin. Nor, for that matter, would it be carrying the baggage of good or bad karma to work out in its current incarnation. Where did this sudden extra soul pop up from? Does a second separate cycle of birth, death and rebirth begin again from here or what?


Dogmatic ideologies always have the wonderful ability to riposte in kind with more dogma:

Naveen wrote:Should real lab made life ever live it would not have divine ancestry , would it ? No Fall; no original sin.


God's design and man's design are not mutually exclusive.

Naveen wrote:Nor, for that matter, would it be carrying the baggage of good or bad karma to work out in its current incarnation.


Consciousness is all that is needed to be part of the karmic spectrum or to be sentient.

Naveen wrote:Where did this sudden extra soul pop up from? Does a second separate cycle of birth, death and rebirth begin again from here or what?


In line with the traditional doctrines of reincarnation, to assert this new life as an "extra" soul would first require an absolute knowledge of all life and all death within the entire universe.

Naveen wrote:However, ancestry and descent — though important considerations — are not the main concern. The dilemma is ,how can something digitize out of artificially derived binary mathematical codes have a perception of some ultimate purpose or design — an end towards which its development continually strives, like most religions maintain all life forces do?


If I've understood the process involved I think the DNA chemicals to binary transition is just an encoding step and not actually part of the hardware (or is this wetware?) used so I wouldn't really call this life they've created digital in any fashion.
But to answer your question, in the form of a question if you don't mind it, how can something manifest of electrical impulses over synapses and through neurons have a perception of some ultimate purpose or design — an end towards which its development continually strives, like most religions maintain all life forces do?
My point being that this new synthesised form brings nothing new to the classical naturalist's problem.

Here's an article I found whilst looking into it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -life-form
The video is really interesting, he blew my mind when he started talking about DNA watermarks and "suicide genes" to keep them under control. It all borders a bit on the scary side for me but I'm excited by it at the same time. That being said, I'm sure there's a fair few sci-fi plots which have gone this way before with some less than pretty results. x]

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:32 pm
by Naveen
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

God and man , one and the same eh ??

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:46 pm
by mirjana
Naveen, welcome to DS =0)
It is an interesting topic but I have very confused feelings about it at the moment.The only association is Star Wars scene that awakes a kind of primary fear. I do not know why.

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:22 pm
by Naveen
Thanks for the welcome ma'am :)

I should tell you that I am liking it here ...

I feel you have the answer to all your questions..Please look deeper..There shall be no confusion,no fear ..

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:43 pm
by mirjana
Naveen, you are right about deeper look. I do that last ten years intensively. Working with people and helping them to get rid of their fears I had to make my laboratory clean first. It was not an easy way but I love every step of it and it has been worth all my efforts.
I am glad you like being here and looking forward to new challenging topics.
=0)

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:32 pm
by Naveen
Oh you work with people and rid em of fears! :)

Re: Worth a Shot , aint it ! :)

PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:55 pm
by Sabina
She didn't say she rids people of fear, but helps them get rid of their fears.
I am curious about your statement though and what exactly it means or implies, if you would care to enlighten me?