Re: Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?....exobiology

["John M" <***>]

Tim wrote (among a lot of others including outer space stories):
^^^^^^^^^
The ability to successfully predict the consequences of the introduction of
new lifeforms not based on earthly evolutionary processes, whether via
technological means or alien infestation, seems extremely unlikely.
Labels such as "predator", "prey", "pathogen", rest on functional
distinctions, and function in turn rests on what a thing entails, rather
than what entails it.
Therefore, even the most intensive study of an "alien" lifeform in
isolation, or "under laboratory conditions", will fail to reveal the full
functional potential of such an organism "in the wild".
^^^^^^^^^^^
I want to look around right here on Earth. (We may be 'infiltrated from
other universes, but that is a sci-fi religion. Why not stay simple?)

We have the weirdest (wrong?) ideas about 'alien' lifeforms. IMO it is
unpredictable, the 'aliens' are not wide-eyed humanoids in grey, they may be
aberrant homo-like offsprings of regular humans by some unusual/esoteric
developmental input. 'Aliens' may be virus-like, only causing such
aberrations in us. (And I am not speaking about virus as HIV). An 'alien'
process is cloning. I consider it a reductionist model of the natural
procreation using a select part only. On the JCS list I just had a
discussion with an MD about his thought-experiment of -as said -
'completely' artificially synthesized DNA in test-tube-procreation, then
implanted into a female womb and he hypothesized about the so   developed
psiche of the offspring as compared to quotidien babies. I had some
questions (believe it or not<G>) how far he with the 'artificial' ingredient
dares go, I would start at natural DNA and make a clone. He proposed simple
molecules or even atoms. I said: they are natural products(!) so he should
cook them up as the stars do, from some artificial plasma (energy?) to be
consequent to his plan.
Then again I questioned his next step, replenishing all missing natural
developmental details (he wanted to eliminate) by a gestation under natural
enzymes, hormones, nutrients, processes. He finally agreed that a gedanken
experiment is a poor way to draw (hypothetical) conclusions.

Why am I referring to that on this list? Cloning is a model-process, nobody
knows how identical it gona be to the natural product, e.g. no
"sheep-shrink" analyzed Dolly in sheepese about her emotional life.
Was she a sheep-form zombie, or a 'real' sheep?

I believe students close to Rosenism may have good arguments to
refuse overstated conclusions from the "life-line" dreamers, rather than
becoming apostles of it - even as accused to be such.

At this level of biogenetic ignorance I find no real threat of anybody
accusing RR with anything like what had been said in this respect. IMO from
his teachings (system?) only negatives can be drawn: how NOT?

The other thread (on 2 lists) goes about 'conscious machines', not
necessarily AI or AL(life) but other 'thinking, communicating' tools.
There are opinions - not exactly Rosenites, but close - in favor of the
machine-model concept, which I try to encourage cautiously. The
misunderstandings go deeper: about the 'complexity': "language", the term:
communication, the (limited or wide) access to the "world": as programmed
vs. an unlimited source, etc. Is a machine an extension of the human
capabilities, or a restriction? (IMO it is a restriction with extending
certain features beyond our bodily limitations. )

Such topics do come up and we should take time to infiltrate them.  The
majority of the highly learned participants of some lists (mostly
name-professors of name-universities international) is faithfully
reductionistic. Some, however, have a more open mind and may pick up
(topical, even theoretical) encouragement. Then our references come helpful.

A sideline to Judith's fears. Don't.

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?....exobiology


> Hi Judith,
>
> The paragraph at the end of your post.....
>
> > Anyway, I think it needs to be said that paranoia might be
> > exactly the mind
> > set called for when assessing the risks of application of theory
> > on creating
> > new life forms-- life that would not be based on earthly evolutionary
> > processes.Paranoia in this case is probably not careful enough.
> >
>
> .....brings to mind another situation that concerns me deeply - one where
I
> fear great danger from "life that would not be based on earthly
evolutionary
> processes".
>
> That is the situation of either intentionally or inadvertently introducing
> "alien" life from another planet, such as Mars, into the Earth's
> environment - for example, during one of our attempts to return samples
back
> from such a planet.
>
> It might be that some lifeforms have already hitched a ride on asteroids
to
> Earth, but a more sheltered ride aboard a returning spaceprobe would
likely
> permit a broader variety of lifeforms to enter our biosphere.
>
> Of course, the danger goes both ways: It might be that a microbe from
Earth
> aboard a spaceprobe might infest one of the planets to which we send those
> probes, and might result in ecological destruction on a planetary scale.
>
> The ability to successfully predict the consequences of the introduction
of
> new lifeforms not based on earthly evolutionary processes, whether via
> technological means or alien infestation, seems extremely unlikely. Labels
> such as "predator", "prey", "pathogen", rest on functional distinctions,
and
> function in turn rests on what a thing entails, rather than what entails
it.
> Therefore, even the most intensive study of an "alien" lifeform in
> isolation, or "under laboratory conditions", will fail to reveal the full
> functional potential of such an organism "in the wild".
>
> I hope NASA and other space agencies take steps to sterilize outgoing
> spaceprobes, and have protocols in place to deal with any returning
probes.
> I believe these kinds of safeguards are in place, but I don't know how
> extensive they are or how seriously they are taken.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> > Rosen
> > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 6:43 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?
> >
> >
> > This is something my father was gravely concerned about. He not
> > only thought
> > it could be done, but believed it would be INEVITABLE if he published
> > anything close to "instructions" on How To Build A Living System.
> >
> > One only has to watch the news to see how it might be used. 9/11? The
> > anthrax scare? Chemical weapons? War? That would be nothing
> > compared. A new
> > life form, not naturally occurring, wouldn't be some sort of pet.
> > All living
> > things have their own set of imperatives and go about satisfying those
> > imperatives, no matter what. To assume that humanity could control any
new
> > life form would be foolish. (And, even if it was possible to
> > control it, do
> > we have enough wisdom as a species to be respectful towards some new
> > organism of our own creation? I think not.) To assume that any
> > danger a new
> > life form presents to humans wouldn't be used for aggressive
> > purposes by one
> > group of humans against another group of humans would be just as
foolish.
> > People have been using animals and their various protective mechanisms
for
> > aggressive purposes of our own since the beginning of our
> > history--it's just
> > another kind of "tool". The religious right would see nothing
> > wrong with it
> > since we were "given" dominion over all we see by the "creator" of said
> > universe. Business would find some way to exploit any and all
capabilities
> > of a new organism, positive or negative capabilities, and multiply the
> > dangers and the atrocities all around. It would be a nightmare. My
father
> > could see it, so can I.
> >
> > He only wanted to know the answers to his own questions: What is life? /
> > What causes life? He had no interest in using what he learned to achieve
> > anything else. He spoke of an almost superstitious attitude in his
> > autobiographical "reminiscences" that I posted-- comparing the
> > gifts he was
> > born with to "witchcraft" in that they must never be used for the
> > benefit of
> > the person employing those gifts. To do so violates some sort of ethical
> > balance and leads to grief. He also never really cared if he was
> > recognized
> > as "The Man Who....."  He never went political or played the
> > popularity game
> > in any effort to aggrandize himself. Why? It wasn't for lack of ego.
Trust
> > me. It was simply because there was no VALUE in that, according to how
he
> > accounted such things. This is part of the reason why his work is not
more
> > widely known. He wanted to be left alone to tinker with it his
> > own way, not
> > become a target for whole other areas of human activity from the CIA to
> > foreign powers to the church to luddite nutcases like the
> > Unabomber. He had
> > the occasional brushes with some of these people over the years. I'll
have
> > to post a couple of those stories at some point.
> >
> > Anyway, I think it needs to be said that paranoia might be
> > exactly the mind
> > set called for when assessing the risks of application of theory
> > on creating
> > new life forms-- life that would not be based on earthly evolutionary
> > processes.Paranoia in this case is probably not careful enough.
> >
> > Judith Rosen