When I checked this link - "Good Luck Finding The End Of This Model Train Moving In An Infinite Spiral" this is what I instantly thought. "Come on! What is so complex to boast about it? It is there everywhere, it is there all around us. Is it anything more than a circle, a closed loop? In nature, when things don't know how much to grow and how long to grow, this is how they grow. This pattern is all around us! Anybody with their artistic side open, will be able to sense that there is not much of technology in it! For me, this is nothing more than a spinning train."
That is until I checked the meaning of "Ouroborus". So the author (of that one liner!) has only cited it rightly that this is an instance of Science meeting Art. Isn't it really hard to delineate these both? One cannot seperate one half of a whole from its other half. How can we separate right brain hemishphere and left brain hemisphere and function normally? It is just that during a given task, one half is more active, functional and visible than the other. But Scientists now have grown a replica of human brain itseems. If the same momentum continues, I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years there would be brains available with selective parts and brain replacement surgeries happening as normally as Cosmetic surgeries.
Science and Art are so much interwoven that they can't be seperated how much ever one wants to seperate them. It's just that we don't see through that. My debate is never about the efficacy and ways of Science per se, it's rather about the application of Science - how we apply it. The same experiments of growing replica of human brain can be used to meet good ends, as mentioned here. But the question now is how can one restrict anything at all, that Science be used for only these purposes and not those? That is where human discretion plays a role.
Infact, forget about such a brain-replacement technology, but if we suppress the expression of right brain hemisphere and falsely believe in the superiority of left-brain activity, the humain brain itself shall evolve so in some 1000 years. Disorders like Batten disease might just be very rare occurrence (at the moment), but the suffering of that miniscule part of human population is beyond expression. Isn't this suffering a byproduct of our accelerated evolution/growth? When we look from the lens of such suffering, aren't the rest really lucky to have "very long" lives and have enough freedom to explore life? And from the perspective of a may fly, perhaps a human life is indeed infintely long! But unfortunately for the humans ourselves, life is too short to both dream and live and finally live those dreams.