As long as this technology is under very strict supervision and thorough safety evaluation I don't see any problems with this. Quite the contrary, I see lots of potential.

I don't see how painting a picture or sculpting clay is playing God. You are insulting your own intelligence trying to make those connections. Please reference the fact that people at the time felt those listed items were "playing God".
One is creating life and one is painting a picture...

Taking humanity out of the equation..... what are you talking about?

Agriculture, developing soap, etc. are turning points where humans made the conscious decision to take life into our own hands, to foster certain organisms and seek to exterminate others... changing the balance of life through conscious decision. If cobbling together a novel living cell is playing god, I don't see how agriculture and sanitation aren't.

Ok. Im not trying to convince you.

i won' t insult your intelligence by referencing every single thing in a general list that was compiled to prove a general point. Entropymaster seems to have quite easily seized the nature of my argument without a page of footnotes...

But for the record, are you seriously trying to infer that there has never been a time when the technologies of art have not been viewed, for better or for worse, as communion with god, or outright standing in as god? That no one has ever felt threatened by artistic endeavour? Or engaged in it as a means of placating, appeasing or quelling (or invoking) the wrath of god(s)?

How about cave painting? Rain dancing? Vaudoo dolls (sculptures...), Monks hoarding libraries of illuminations during the inquisition? Occult Spellbooks? The bible, the koran, the talmud, the upanishads, the book of the dead?

I won't insult your intelligence by listing more.

And for the equation bit, read my post further up.

JBArk

What does any of this have to do with the OP? Nothing other than the fact that you don't tollerate beliefs different than your own. I personally believe that creating life is playing God. You obviously do not. I'm ok wih differing views than my own why are you not? The Nexus has become very intollerent lately. If you don't believe science is god you are persecuted. It's really a shame to see a community that grew and thrived on multi-culturism and embrassed different religions and beliefs go this way.

Everybody is OK with different opinions but I do not know about beliefs. You appear to have beliefs, I appear to exercise some logical thinking on the issue. Beliefs are not arguable and when something goes to "beliefs" then it is a dead end.

I seen not now those "in favour" of such experiments have expressed belief views. They have just rationalised and put things into perspective. Please show me if you think I am wrong. You on the other hand appear to hold into beliefs more rigidly and have failed to address any questions that have been set on the issue. Your post to me is an attempt to avoid answering on what you have been challenged to, and on top of that now you try to hide behind the banner of "beliefs' respect"

As you may know, beliefs come in all sorts of flavours, from the best to the worst. I would prefer if you could rationalise a bit more just as we try to do on the situation. The issue is an important one!

Thirdeyevision,
i apologize for latching on to one phrase in your post; i apologize for not sticking to the original point of the thread (although very closely related); i apologize if the tone of my post was confrontational- it certainly was not my intention to argue. But it was my intention to debate.

Now to set the record straight: you insult me by saying i am insulting my own intelligence; i endeavour to engage you in a debate; you retort by further insult by accusing me first of intolerance and then infer i am responsible for the deterioration of the atmosphere on the nexus... Look in the mirror my friend...

Who is fostering intolerance? When one cant express their views without being insulted?

I further apologize for reiterating your insult in my post- i was trying to underline the innapropriate and hurtful nature of your reference to me.

But i will not apologize for debating - it is healthy and necessary for learning and understanding others views and defending and solidifying, or abandoning , ones own. I have no interest in cowtowing and fostering an atmosphere of unquestioning approbation. Frankly its a dangerous position to espouse.

Respond if you like- ill grant you the last word here. But for me:

nuff sed.

And i will try and respectfully remember that you are not fond of debates.

Cheers,

JBArk

Ted's got a video about it: http://www.ted.com/talks...eils_synthetic_life.html

How does one "play god"?..thats just sounds rediculous..Im sorry. It makes absolutily no sense. Everything is nature..nature is the driving force behind all technology, from cars to computers..all of it..you cant escape it..and you cant "play god".

So you are Ok with differing opinions but not OK with differing beliefs? At least you're honest about it.


So if my beliefs differ from your own they are not logical?



Not sure what you are saying here.



I'm not attempting to do anything other than get sucked into another ridicules argument on the Nexus.



Of course, everyone's beliefs are different.
You would prefer if I rationalize my opinion?
I don't believe this is an important discussion. This is a simple case of people with different views on life, different beliefs and different opinions. I don't need to justify my beliefs to you.


The question I believe you are saying I am avoiding is if I believe creating life is "playing God" why is using soap or painting a picture not. That doesn't even make sense. You say soap kills bacteria so it is God like. How? Anyone commit murder.

I won't continue to engage you. What I will say is this thread is a perfect example of what the Nexus has turned into. The two people that expressed opinions different than your own were attacked. I know you guys don't want to believe it but you are all very intolerant of different beliefs (from your own mouth). The Nexus used to be a very friendly place people of all beliefs, religions and walk of life could unite. Lately if you don't believe Science is the way the truth and the life you better not post or you are in for a lynching. It is very sad to see a place we love deteriorate before your eyes.

jbark. I re-read this thread and you are right, I did insult you first and I am sorry. I am just so discouraged with the attitude of the Nexus lately I became what I hate. So I apologize.

ThirdEyeVision, I have to say I find your attitude rather disturbing.

Before I elaborate on why, I think I'd better clear up a misunderstanding in terminology:


All beliefs are not logical. That's the difference between beliefs and opinions. Opinions are founded on logic and evidence; they are amenable to reason. Beliefs are, by their very nature, not logical. As a general rule, beliefs are unprovable, and thus are justified only by faith; they might have some roots in logic, but ultimately they are things we hold to be true regardless of whether we can prove them. That's why trying to change people's beliefs is rarely productive, while exploring opinions is a very fruitful ground for expanding perspectives.


I'm baffled as to why you think that exploring differing opinions is an act of aggression. You claim:


But as far as I can see, no one was attacked for their opinions. When some people expressed opinions that seemed fundamentally illogical to others, the people who didn't understand these opinions (jbark, Infundibulum, myself, etc.) responded, seeking to explore the nature of the differences in opinion. These took the form of general inquiries ("How do you define 'playing god'?" ) as well as explorative analogies ("How does this ideologically differ from domestication of plants or the advent of sanitation?" [if you still don't understand the relevance these things have to the notion of 'playing god', there are plenty of people here who would be happy to further elucidate the issue]).

These responses were not an attack. They were an active pursuit of mutual understanding. Clearly there are people in this thread with very different perspectives on this issue, so it only makes sense to try to gain a better understanding of these perspectives and the nature of the differences. If someone's opinion differs from mine, and in talking to them I find that the reasoning underlying their opinion is more sound that the reasoning underlying my own, I'm tremendously grateful for the conversation, as it affords me the opportunity to grow as a person.

Personally, I'm very curious to understand the nature of the difference between your opinion and my own on the merits of exchanging ideas and trying to gain mutual understanding. Apparently you see this as a nearly-intolerable act of aggression, while I see it as one of the best and most-accessible ways to expand the mind and gain broader perspectives. The reason for this dramatic difference is something I would very much like to understand. It truly baffles me that you perceive the quest to mutually explore the reasoning behind dissonant opinions on this forum as seeing "a place we love deteriorate before our eyes."



No, you don't need to. But justifying the ideas that we share seems (to me) preferable to perpetually talking at cross-purposes without ever attempting to understand each other.

how can we play or pretend to be something we already are ie god? How can we be separate from that which we are, ie nature?
these arguments and their logic are really outdated by what we know now. Possibly what some have always known.
I really like brain Swimmes combination of cosmology and consciousness research... it really makes these sorts of debates pointless... check out his book, the universe is a green dragon.

nature evolves..we are nature we evolve...

nature helps nature evolve...we(nature) help bacteria(nature) evolve

WHHhhaaattt

Look at the increase in computing power and human 'advancements' over even the last YEAR. Information is accelerating, same with consciousness and life itself.
oh ya and all the opinions of whether this is morally wrong or good... their just opinions, no matter what; this accelerating advancement is going to continue. These next few years are guaranteed to be interesting.


edit-edit, is it not a little scary that our government is not only regulating these experiments and our 'protection'?

This cell can easily be the most devastating killing weapon in history.
Or it can be a wonderful use for mankind.

Seems its not about arguing over the morals of the process, but what its place is going to be in the future of mankinds reality.

Brain Swimme pointed out so very nicely that we are the self reflexive awareness of the planet (and probably the universe) in other words we are the planet becoming aware of its self as the planet then the universe ect. He also goes on to say that the planet had to wound her self inorder to become self aware, or self reflexive, a risky move! The trick and the trouble now is will we ie will the planet (they are synonymous) discover that we had to wound ourself inorder to become self reflexive and then stop before we wound ourself to greatly and retard the entire process.
Every discovery and every step we take in our development as the awareness of the planet/solar system/galaxy/ universe, is collectively important and a dangerous endeavor. We learn to make life forms because it is what we are, the earth the universe, we engineer chemicals and teleport quantum particle because that is what we are, the totality of existence becoming aware of its own nature.
These are not fringe new age ideas, or even the philosophical rants of a mad man or mystic any more, this is what we have discovered through science. Its a really confusing time on the planet right now I think because we are all just catching up to what we have actually learned about our selves. So many of the responses on this post are based on such out dated ideas and concepts, but thats whats happening information and knowledge is cascading right now and it really hard to put it all together. This is why i like swimme he can do this...
check it out...

http://www.global-mindsh...asp?bandwidth=high_video

Sure as much as a saying goes. This particular debate reminds me of a short story I once read, called God's Debris.

http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf

The author describes the story as a though experiment wrapped up in a fictional story. In it, the character Avatar proposes that God is reassembling himself through a developing collective intelligence through species such as the human race. This reassembling includes significant man made accomplishments such as the invention of the Internet.

This recent scientific breakthrough is just another step in the long journey of the reconfiguration, as is all of the examples of progress in your post. We are not just playing god. We are God!

@ Thirdeyevision: no harm done. Just remember:

"To be or not to be– that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them."

youknowwho in youknowwhat by youknowwho2

Thought it was appropriate. Cheers.


Godspark - thanks for the link. Looks like a good read. I'll get to it after I finish the 11 other books I am reading - too many books, not enough time...!

insofar as "we" being god, I dunno. Familiar with the theory. Like it. Not convinced it's truthful. But hell, best way out of a buncha conundrums i can think of. So if you agree to be god, ill agree to be god too. if we can convince another 5 odd billion, we'll have a revolution on our hands!

(Have you read the self-aware universe by Amit Gotswami, PhD? Along the same philosophical lines, merging spirituality and quantum mechanics. About half way through myself. Good read.)

However, thinking we are all god is kinda akin to saying "it's all goooood!" (an expression I loathe btw!). Meaning of course it let's us off the hook for all kinds of devious and irresponsible things. Similar to the way pure determinism can. They way I see it the two ideas are irremediably inter weaved. I can't elaborate without writing a book, but hopefully you'll catch my meaning. In line with the system of beliefs i mentioned above that i didn't want to get into for fear of sparking a(nother) non sequitur sidebar debate.

but if I catch the gist of your post, we're saying the same thing in a different language. Here hear! et justement, mon ami, justement!

@dorge (oh no, I am going to get myself in trouble again and be accused of being all that is wrong with the nexus:wink

"We learn to make life forms because it is what we are, the earth the universe, we engineer chemicals and teleport quantum particle because that is what we are, the totality of existence becoming aware of its own nature.
These are not fringe new age ideas, or even the philosophical rants of a mad man or mystic any more, this is what we have discovered through science."

Through science Dorge? The engineering chemicals and teleporting states (information, not particles btw), yes, but you seem to infer that "the totality of existence becoming aware of its own nature" has been discovered through science. How do you mean? Not sure that is any more science than it is the rantings of a madman or a mystic.

Science, like spiritualism, is an overused, mishandled and largely misunderstood word.

JBArk