------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:56pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3100 of 3100)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom, I knew I could count on you. I have been waiting.

I didn't say "cloning for parts" is impossible, Tom. For all I know, it may turn out to be impossible, but, as you know, I am an agnostic, and I would never say anything is impossible until it is proven to be impossible. Of course, I am aware that hospital life support exists. And I am aware that organs for transplant can be maintained in a bath for a short period for shipment purposes. I think your statement that: "if we can reset a cell to believe it is an egg and produce a new organism, it is not very difficult to make it think it is the first heart stem cell," is suspect. Glib statements are not the same as a developed technology.

But obviously, advancements will be made in the technology. For example, Dawn has pointed out that scientists can not now replace a bad gene with a good gene in the in vitro process. As she said, "Most cloned genes are copies of mRNA, not genomic DNA. and only contain coding regions (usually put under the control of whatever the researcher decides), and they insert at random in the genome." I would guess that scientists will eventually gain the ability to directly modify the gene structure on a one to one basis, and that will open up a lot of possibilities. So, I did not say it was impossible.

What I did say was that it is "impractical." It is impractical for a number of reasons, technical as well as economic. Even if the technical problems were overcome tomorrow, the economic problems alone would make it essentially impractical. But the technical problems exist also. Perhaps the technical problems can be overcome. I think they will be overcome. But by the time they are overcome, other, more attractive alternatives, such as in vivo regeneration, will likely be available. My prediction is that thirty years from now, surgery will be a thing of the past and the mere mention of surgery will invoke shutters at the barbaric practices of our past

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Glasgow III - 02:02pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3101 of 3103)

My suspicion on cloning is that if we clone a human we will have a person that acts like a mad cow with mad cow disease. Wouldn't it be scary if we found out that those cows were in fact cows imbeded with human genes that had been cloned without anyone knowing it. Sorta like a wierd experiment done by Adolf Hitler in pre war Germany. Agggghhhh!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Carlson - 02:04pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3102 of 3103)

Many people worry that if Humans were cloned, the clones would be used for menial tasks. As long as that fears remains, it will never happen. People are afraid of what they do not understand. Let the scientists regulate cloning, they are the only ones that fully understand the moral implications of their actions. The U.S was the first with the A-bomb so we could better prepare everyone else for it, it is the same with cloning. Let us be the pioneers and fully explore this wonderously new technology without congressmen restricting it, for they know only what the are paid to know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:07pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3103 of 3103)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Darien Hager: Genes would probably not opt towards free will, from an evolutionary stance. Why not always pick the choice best to perpetuate the genes than sometimes pick the choice that kills the creature? If genes did this, we'd have a lot less suicides.

Well, if genes had intelligence...

By the way, Darien, your writing style is fragmented. (I couldn't resist it:-) Have a nice day.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 02:17pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3104 of 3104)

Tom Anderson: Certain cells have the capacity of motility...phagocytes, for example. Embryonic cells are even more motile, because they must find their way to the right spot in the embryo. These cells can leave the bloodstream, cross the basement membrane, etc. Rh neg mothers become sensitized to the Rh+ cells of their fetus, as you probably know. This used to cause severe and fatal jaundice in newborns, particularly the second Rh+ born to an Rh- mom. Now we inject all Rh- mothers with Rhogam antisera to knock out the Rh+ cells of the fetus. See the January 30, p. 635 issue of "Science" for a letter by two prominent scientists who don't think Dolly's parentage is 100% certain.

Cliff Beall: I agree that cloning intact organs as we are thinking of it isn't realistic. However see Time's Feb. 8 issue for another scenario. The adult has a bad liver, or maybe macular degeneration of the eye. One of his somatic cell's DNA is popped into an enucleated egg, and the embryo gets started. The fetal liver cells, retinal cells, or maybe even brain cells are injected into the adult (perhaps with a little to-be-developed genetic engineering) and fix everything on the spot. We wouldn't be removing the brain of an adult clone to replace it with the original. But anti-abortionists will certainly be opposed. Or will they? There was no "fertilization" moment for the soul to enter.

It seems to me that a cloned child would be a very much wanted child. Much better than the millions of children conceived au naturel who aren't wanted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:37pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3105 of 3108)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Dawn, thank you very much. If Tom doesn't believe me, perhaps he will believe you. Actually, I'm not surprised he places so little stock in what I say. After all, I'm just an old country boy from Oklahoma, and he has had a course or two in microbiology at his fancy eastern school. Obviously, his words are golden. Still, when one is right, it helps, and conformation that "cloning for organs" is not realistic, by a scientist, such as yourself, whose credentials are unquestionable, is even more helpful. Thanks.

Regarding your scenario based on the Feb. 8 issue of Time, I don't think it is likely to be objected to by many, provided it is explained properly, but I don't know. It is sometimes difficult to predict how someone else will react to a proposal. I can speak only for myself, but I am opposed to abortion, and it certainly would not bother me. Basically, as I understand it, all you are doing is to use the properties of an enucleated egg to induce division of corrected cells that you plan to reinsert back into the body from which the original cells came. What could be wrong with that? And consider the benefit to the patient. (Incidentally, it appears to me that this is getting close to "true" regeneration therapy, although, realistically, it is just the tip of the iceberg.)

But maybe we ought to ask our panel of experts: would anybody on this board have a problem with this procedure on a religious or moral basis--or any other basis, or know of anyone who would have an objection on a religious or moral basis--or any other basis?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 05:40pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3106 of 3108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I don't really want to get stuck on here (you know it's an addiction), but since it's a weekend...

Cliff, nothing is out of the economic grasp of someone who is dying, especially if they have good coverage. I also don't see the technical hurtles has being all that difficult. Even so, it may not be a heart that will save someone... hundreds of people die every day because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Such an organ as marrow, or skin, or blood, or maybe just the lining of an organ to patch an ulcer, is even less difficult to develope than a more complex organ and perhaps more important. As for regeneration, this is the idea that I find silly; how do you suppose this is going to be done? We can't change the genes of every cell in an organ if it has a genetic disorder, and we can't cause specific cells to divide to heal if we cannot directly target those cells through surgery. I'd like to know why you think this is possible. If it is beyond the body' resources to repair itself without our help, it is doubtful that it can do it with our help short of us supplying it with more resources (surgery).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 05:41pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3107 of 3108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn, Rh antigens are proteins, not cells. And even so, they do not actually pass the chorioallantoic membrane until after it has been ruptured at birth. That is why the mother's first baby is fine whereas the second baby is at risk because the mother has now been exposed. No cells ever pass this membrane until after the child has been born, at which point, there is no way that the mother's body will treat them as mammary cells, it will simply discard them. The reason the second child is "rejected" by the mother is not because it's cells have gotten into the mother's bloodstream either, it is because through passive immunization, some of the mother's antibodies can be passed to the child, not the other way around. I have not read the article, but I don't see how it can get past this basic fact.

The researchers probably used the mammary cells because they are in a high-growth region, and therefore were likely to be stem cells. But certainly stem cells of the adult, not the child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 05:50pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3108 of 3108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Basically, as I understand it, all you are doing is to use the properties of an enucleated egg to induce division of corrected cells that you plan to reinsert back into the body from which the original cells came. What could be wrong with that?

Oh, not much, except that it is the exact same thing as "inducing division" of the corrected cells (only instead of for a few days, for a few years) and then reinserting back into the body from which the original cells came (read: transplant an organ into the body from which it originally came). It is the same thing as organ harvesting, but at an earlier stage. So what is the difference if you allowed the "corrected cells" to grow for a few years without ever growing a brain, then would you be opposed to an organ farm? It is the same thing, just a bunch of "corrected cells" that have have gone through "induced division" to be "reinserted back into the body from which the original cells came". And yet I gather that you are against this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 07:06pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3109 of 3113)

...omega

Cliff: Okay, babel, I will accept that you are serious. If you weren't, I think I would have heard the punch line by now. The two things that led me to wonder was the pseudonym you gave yourself and the phrase, "I am beginning to see it now, it is almost clear," as if mimicking a fundamentalist preacher. At that point, I was waiting for the punch line so that I could respond by noting that you had named yourself well. (By the way, if you are serious, and want to be taken seriously, why the silly pseudonym?)

Well, not very long ago, I was a bit of a fundamentalist. However, I have seen reason now, since I've joined the discussion here. Before, it seemed apparent that there was an outside force, but now that seems impossible. I had never before linked semiotics and neurobiology, but after some intensive research, I can come to only one conclusion, and that is the one I already iterated to you. If you want to understand it more fully, I suggest you read up on Peirce and the philosophers since his time.

How do you mean, "named yourself well"? Why do you think my name is a pseudonym?

babel dispersus

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danny Knowen - 08:36pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3110 of 3113)

Please excuse my ignorance. but remember we are human and as humans we make errors. Where do the "error colnes" go to. Will ther be villages of rejected clones and who is responsible for them.

Clones need to be fed and clothed. What about educating clones? Or are clones to be keep docile? And of course, do clones have a soul? The holy rollers will have a field day subjecting guilt upon the entire human race.

There is only one ME. That's enough. I want to die in peace without knowing I'm taking parts from another ME. It is obvious the media is NOT doing all it can to educate the public on this subject.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rod Romanov - 08:42pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3111 of 3113)

Scientists -will- clone humans after a while anyways, whether they are allowed it or not, so why not make it legal and take it under a government control?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:06pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3112 of 3113)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom Anderson: I don't really want to get stuck on here (you know it's an addiction), but since it's a weekend...

I post evenings and weekends. I don't have time during the day. I have a job that keeps me busy during the day. As for the board, I agree it is an addiction. I would break it, but I have no will power.

Tom Anderson: Cliff, nothing is out of the economic grasp of someone who is dying, especially if they have good coverage.

I can see that, if it is necessary and it is the best treatment available. I suppose you are aware that insurance companies keep an eye on that.

Tom Anderson: As for regeneration, this is the idea that I find silly; how do you suppose this is going to be done?

For any procedure to be done, somebody has to work at it, somebody has to investigate how it can be done. How do I think it will be done? I have not a clue, but I do know this: the right people are working on it.

As I understand it, most current regeneration research is being concentrated on the spine. The reason is that the human spine does not regenerate, but the spine of some other animals do. We have a common ancestery with those animals. This means either that this is a capability that we have lost some time in our evolutionary past, or it is a capability the other animals have gained since the split. Either way, since the biology is similar, the means of discovering how to induce the human body to regenerate a severed spine may be simple as finding out why some animals have the capability and other animals, including humans, do not--a missing protein, perhaps? For a link to a page describing the research of one scientist, click the following address:

http://www.med.umich.edu/mhri/res/95/goldman/goldman.htm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:10pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3113 of 3113)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom Anderson: Oh, not much, except that it is the exact same thing as "inducing division" of the corrected cells (only instead of for a few days, for a few years) and then reinserting back into the body from which the original cells came (read: transplant an organ into the body from which it originally came).

Tom, the part I don't understand is why anyone would want to replace a procedure that is relatively cheap, relatively simple and does not require surgery for a procedure that is enormously expensive, incredibly complex and requires major surgery. Remember, I did not say your "cloning for organs" procedure was impossible. I only said it was impractical. By the way, have you ever heard of the KISS principle? It means "Keep It Simple Stupid." In industry, people who don't observe the KISS principle are left behind. In my time, I have actually seen engineers add needless complexity in order to make something patentable. And of course, all they have is a worthless patent and a product that doesn't sell.

Tom Anderson: It is the same thing, just a bunch of "corrected cells" that have have gone through "induced division" to be "reinserted back into the body from which the original cells came". And yet I gather that you are against this.

It doesn't meet the KISS test. It is impractical.

Dawn, I picked up the issue of Feb 9 issue of Time. Thanks for alerting me. It irritated me that it contained a picture of Seed. The article, itself, was fine, but calling Seed a maverick somehow does not do justice to the harm he has caused. I have some other terms that I consider more appropriate, but they are not printable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 09:25pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3114 of 3114)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

babel dispersus: I suggest you read up on Peirce and the philosophers since his time.

Well, I probably would if I was interested in philosophy. Since I am currently more interested in cloning, I probably won't.

PS. Okay, I can't resist it: "Have it you-ur way, have it your way." (Your mother named you well, babel ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 12:55am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3118 of 3153)

Please excuse my ignorance. but remember we are human and as humans we make errors. Where do the "error colnes" go to. Will ther be villages of rejected clones and who is responsible for them.

I don't know... probably with the rest of society, like people with errors of sexual reproduction. But cloning has the potential to be more bug-free than sexual reproduction. I'm nearsighted in one eye, farsighted in the other, have attached earlobes, can roll my tongue-- and get this! I'm still living in society! Whacky huh?

Clones need to be fed and clothed. What about educating clones? Or are clones to be keep docile? And What a ridiculous question. Just as identical twins, which are clones, are integrated into our society, clones would be too.

of course, do clones have a soul? The holy rollers will have a field day subjecting guilt upon the entire human race.

Their minority beliefs in a sad ancient religion are only holding them back.

There is only one ME. That's enough. I want to die in peace without knowing I'm taking parts from another ME.

There doesn't need to be a free-thinking clone of me, I'd prefer making children the "old fashioned" way. However, when it comes down to the meaning of life, the only thing anyone agrees on is survival. If that means killing a clone, or anyone else, so be it.

It is obvious the media is NOT doing all it can to educate the public on this subject.

The media's job isn't to educate the public, but merely to report the news. Anyway, do you think educated the public on nuclear power or breast implants? I don't think so. (BTW- nuclear power kicks out less radiation than coal power, and silicone breast implants have absolutely no known side effects whatsoever, aside from women getting oogled more)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 01:05am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3119 of 3153)

Tom Anderson: As for regeneration, this is the idea that I find silly; how do you suppose this is going to be done?

Well, quite easily. It's a matter of creative genetic engineering and mapping the genome of creatures that can regenerate (which is already happening)-- or the more "crude" approach of finding out what chemicals animals that can regenerate produce.

See http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt for a neeto article on regeneration.

Scientists have already found that neural regeneration is chemically inhibited (they also have found an inhibitor-inhibitor that's showing promise in labs) and that some cells have a maximum number of divisions due to telomerase.

We know that animals with aggressive and strong regeneration like hydras are immune to cancer, and carcinogens seem to induce extra growth (lizards that can only regenerate their tail are immune to cancer in the tail, but not elsewhere in their body). Cancers also (for the most part) produce telomerase to regenerate lost telomers, and seem to dedifferentiate into an almost embryonic type of cell.

What is the link between cancer and regeneration? Is cancer the result of a genetically faulty attempt at regeneration? Or is it something else?

How does the body's immune system and cancer response such as the P54 gene react to cells differentiating and regenerating teeth in old people?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:00am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3120 of 3153)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

I'm nearsighted in one eye, farsighted in the other, have attached earlobes, can roll my tongue

Eewww, you're weird! We should shun you. Let's make a camp and put all people like you in it. And we should sterilize you too... if you want to have kids, you have to adopt! I can't even fathom why people think this way.

However, when it comes down to the meaning of life, the only thing anyone agrees on is survival. If that means killing a clone, or anyone else, so be it.

Pre-meditated self-defense? I doubt the court would back you on that... but it is true, the instinct of self-preservation is a strong one, and one that nobody should be made to deny.

The media's job isn't to educate the public, but merely to report the news.

Not only that, but if the media is who educated the person that prompted your comment, then I fear for us all if that is how the majority of people are educated. Learn your facts, people, before making silly comments. My FAQ is coming... I'll redouble my efforts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:01am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3121 of 3153)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Well, quite easily. It's a matter of creative genetic engineering and mapping the genome of creatures that can regenerate

It's not that simple. If you are talking about regenerating a few cells, then I see little problem (but it still will probably require surgery). However, the kind of regeneration Cliff is talking about is an entire complex organ such as the heart. If someone needs a heart transplant, it's not because the cells won't regenerate, it is because they are diseased beyond repair. You can't just sprinkle some stimulant in there and expect all to be well, it requires the removal of the damaged organ and replacement with a new one. The reason hydra and starfish, et al, can regenerate so easily is not because they have a chemical that we have repressed, it is because they are far less centralized in respect to their vital organs. They can survive a few days while they grow back lost parts, but if we lose a heart, it's over for us. I'm not saying that regeneration research won't give us the ability to regrow neural tissue or even a lost limb, but it won't do much for vital organs. Cloning these organs for transplant is a much more realizable goal, and one that can be developed quickly, as well as tested quickly since so many recipients are waiting.

Uh oh, it's Monday again... initiating cloak...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 03:31am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3122 of 3153)

It's not that simple. If you are talking about regenerating a few cells, then I see little problem (but it still will probably require surgery). However, How would it require surgery? Gene correction therapy ain't surgery, nor is correcting the DNA in vitro.

the kind of regeneration Cliff is talking about is an entire complex organ such as the heart. If someone needs a heart transplant, it's not because the cells won't regenerate, it is because they are diseased Right-- they're diseased, and not regnerating.

To regenerate, all you need to do is have enough cells survive whatever injury to support the brain.

beyond repair. You can't just sprinkle some stimulant in there and expect all to be well, it requires the

No, a stimulant would merely make the heart beat faster for a short amount of time.

removal of the damaged organ and replacement with a new one. The reason hydra and starfish, et al, can

Not true. Unless your heart is surgically removed from your body, any partial damage could be healed by regeneration.

And without a heart, you will die.

But in reality, many cells in your body are still alive. If they can regenerate enough of the body to be functional and keep the brain alive, the organism will live. It's not immortality, but it's better than what we have now.

regenerate so easily is not because they have a chemical that we have repressed, it is because they are far less centralized in respect to their vital organs.

Not true. They regenerate BECAUSE of their chemicals/genetics. You are using the flawed "they regenerate because they are simple" argument, which is just wrong. The South African clawed frog is every bit as centralized as we are, and it can regenerate. Probably not an entire heart-- but certainly damaged portions of one. If there were enough neoplasts and cells differentiated quickly enough, who knows? It might regenerate that heart before too many cells died.

They can survive a few days while th

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 03:32am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3123 of 3153)

(con't)

regenerate so easily is not because they have a chemical that we have repressed, it is because they are far less centralized in respect to their vital organs.

Not true. They regenerate BECAUSE of their chemicals/genetics. You are using the flawed "they regenerate because they are simple" argument, which is just wrong. The South African clawed frog is every bit as centralized as we are, and it can regenerate. Probably not an entire heart-- but certainly damaged portions of one. If there were enough neoplasts and cells differentiated quickly enough, who knows? It might regenerate that heart before too many cells died.

They can survive a few days while they grow back lost parts, but if we lose a heart, it's over for us. I'm not saying that regeneration research won't give us the ability to regrow neural tissue or even a lost limb, but it won't do much for vital organs. Cloning these organs for transplant is a much more realizable goal, and one that can be developed quickly, as well as tested quickly since so many recipients are waiting.

The entire organ doesn't spontaneously combust. Cell loss will lead to the death of tissue therein and eventually the entire organ.

Regeneration wouldn't always heal 100% of all injuries here, but again, it's better than nothing.

You can't just clone an organ. Organs are highly specialized groups of tissue that develop to perform a specific function. They are protected by the immune system and body cavity, fed nutrients by each other, and are under neural network control. You just can't get a cell culture to develop into a working, bare organ that would be good for transplant and then stick it in a freezer. To bioengineer something like that, which would have to kept alive by technological life support machinery, is going to take a *LONG* time, if we ever see it. And even then, does the organ have an immune system to protect itself during development? How would this affect the body once it was

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 03:32am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3124 of 3153)

(con't)

How would this affect the body once it was transplanted?

But what we can do today is grow a clone, give it a massive lobotomy before the neural network even becomes sentient so it's essentially brain dead, and havest organs from its body. Or, we could also do a brain transplant, but that would require the surgically delicate procedure of rebuilding the skull, because the brain cavity isn't a ZIF socket.

You might argue that would be wrong, because, well, it's killing someone. But someone without a brain isn't anyone at all-- they are just a bunch of cells designed to support a brain. We don't think twice about killing bacteria, plants, or fungus. A brainless body is no different.

Prevention of the brain forming could be argued to be wrong as well, since it prevents a sentient being from being formed. But it stops one from dying, and don't forget, abortion and contraception, and not having a new child every nine months also do this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

David L. Bordelon - 04:35am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3125 of 3153)

Fear and ignorance due to the beliefs of the church have, in the past, caused well founded ideas in science to be silenced and denounced as evil. This is one of the most recent. The church and closed minded have tunnel vision and cannot see the possibilities for good. Imagine, with proper research, burn victims receiving new skin made from their own DNA. Or people either born without or had limbs removed receiving new limbs grown from their own DNA. Even better, transplants made from your own DNA ensuring a perfect match with no chance of rejection. The blind being able to see, the deaf able to hear, the criple able to walk. Stop with evil twin sci-fi movie thinking and start thinking with your own mind and not with the words of the religious right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 08:47am Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3126 of 3153)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Sometime I really wish CNN would put up a "Religious Debate" board... but they refrain for fairly obvious reasons ;-)

I really don't think that the religious sounding objection to cloning is actually religion, per. se.. I have a personal theology (although philosphy might be more accurate) and have read quite a few religious works in its development. No-where in any of those documents have I seen a stricture that promoted ignorance. If our bodies are "temples of the Lord" then are we not mearly allowed, in fact deeply held responsible, for their maintenance? Rejecting medical advance because it appears to touch upon the sacred cow of creation is nothing short of the rejection of that responsibility.

There is little enough to worry about in any case. I sincirely doubt that cloning, as a reproductive alternative, will ever see widespread use. There are far simpler and reliable methods of procreation. Those of untold wealth and ego will probably be more interested in supporting the research that will allow themselves extended life. The rest of us recognise that the true joy in procreation is in seeing something new develope through our nurturing.

Welcome back Noel! (You may be correct in your early posit that society is not ready for cloning, but I still maintain that "intentional pacing" is not possible without some kind of "star chamber" tyrany. Of course a "natural" pacing may occur if society resists the notion of cloning stringently enough!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derek Hande - 01:56pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3127 of 3153)

Gore will be the Prez soon!

It is no surprise that the Jesus-please us-maggots are against cloning. All religions risk eventual exposure for the phoney baloney that they dish out; and this exposure will come at the hands of science and discovery!

Go Science!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nabil Pavon - 01:56pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3128 of 3153)

I think the FDA should consider the nature of man before taking any steps forward. We all know that the human being has two aspects: the phisical (our body) and the intellectual. But many of us believe that there is also a spiritual aspect in our lives ( our soul). If you don't consider this as an important part then why do you think 3/4ths of the world believe in a Supreme Being, some of us call it God. When the issue of creating a human being or cloning comes, yes they might be sucssesful in creating an identical creature, yes they might be able to do a brain transplant, but will they be able to create a soul?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Decker - 02:48pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3129 of 3153)

First of all, the FDA is in no way the agency under which cloning should fall. A clone is neither a food nor a drug, so it shouldn't be in the FDA. Second, Cloning should be pursued, but only pursued carefully so as not to cause any irreprable damage. Harvesting organs is a bad idea. Cloning organs is better, and even more practical now that it has been achieved in mice I think it is. Some animal anyways. A person without a brain is no less human than anyone else. They fit all the requirements for life. Never does intellect and intelligence a pre-requisite for life to be in existence. The soul is irrelevant. Can you prove its existence. I can prove the physical and intellectual spheres. Are we to halt the march of progress because of a BELIEF held by 3/4 of the world may or may not be true. Anyways, speaking rhetorically, how can you say that the soul wouldn't be replicated? Science has been the snake under the heel of religion, now though it is important that science swat away that pesky religion thing and proceed for a bigger better tommorrow. By the way, immortality would be bad. Anybody who disagrees, think about all the ramifications of immortality. No death. What would that mean?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 04:19pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3130 of 3153)

Tom Anderson: The Rh antigen is a protein, and it is found in large amounts on the surface of red blood cells, and their stem cell precursors. Rh antigen does not float around free in the plasma. During pregnancy very small amounts of fetal blood are leaked into the maternal circulation during the last trimester, and so many OB's now give the immune globulin during that time rather than waiting until the big hemorrhage that occurs at birth. However, since red cells have no nuclei, that was probably a poor example for cloning theory. Fetal cells are highly motile, and some of them secrete enzymes that allow them to leave the fetal blood stream and cross the placental barrier. It is a rare occurrence, and back when I was in grad school in the sixties we thought it didn't happen. My 1991 edition of "Basic and Clinical Immumnology" by Stites and Terr, p. 202, states the following: "Although fetus and mother are grossly separated, cells as well as soluble substances can pass through the placenta during gestation....Syncytial trophoblast, more than 200,000 cells per day, is continuously released from the placenta and has been shown to circulate in human maternal blood from the 18th week of gestation. Various blood elements that undoubtedly contain transplantation antigens can pass bidirectionally.....The placenta provides only a partial barrier to transport of soluble or cellular elements and certainly should not be viewed as an absolute impediment to their traffic." I'm not saying that Dolly isn't what Wilmut claims her to be, just that there is a slim possibility that she was derived from a fetal cell. Until the experiment is repeated under more controlled conditions (like cloning cells from a living, non-pregnant donor)we can't be sure. The scientific method demands confirmation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 04:19pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3131 of 3153)

irreprable damage. Harvesting organs is a bad idea. Cloning organs is better, and even more practical now that it has been achieved in mice I think it is. Some animal anyways. A person without a brain is no

This is simply untrue, and not correct in any way. You CANNOT JUST CLONE AN ORGAN. The entire body develops and forms according to DNA... to make an organism that was just an organ, you'd have to do a lot of genetic engineering that we don't know how to do. And to make a clone organ that was 100% compatible with a person... well, that's going to happen about the same time Microsoft products don't have bugs.

less human than anyone else. They fit all the requirements for life. Never does intellect and intelligence a pre-requisite for life to be in existence.

No they don't-- and scientists don't even agree on the qualifications of life. They can't respond to their environment, or get food for themselves. And I never said they weren't alive. If I cut off your finger, it would still be alive. But, we think nothing of eating hamburger, sitting on wood furniture, and wearing leather shoes. A clone without a brain will only superficially LOOK human-- but absent from it is it's "soul" if you will-- the brain. As I've said, without a brain, it doesn't think, it isn't sentient, it isn't conscious-- it's just a mass of cells designed to support a non-existant organ-- the brain.

existence. I can prove the physical and intellectual spheres. Are we to halt the

Great, so you know then that without a brain, a human is just a mass of unthinking cells that isn't really "human" any more than a plant.

wouldn't be replicated? Science has been the snake under the heel of religion,

Ignorance is wisdom! Freedom is slavery! Weakness is strength!

By the way, immortality would be bad. Anybody who disagrees, think about all the ramifications of immortality. No death. What would that mean?

Well, first of all, I don't care HOW tough you are o

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 04:22pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3132 of 3153)

(con't)

HOW tough you are or how well you can regenerate, YOU WILL DIE. Everything dies-- even organisms today that can regenerate and have no cap on their lifespan. Immortality is simply impossible. If you think you're immortal, stand still while I shoot you with my rocket launcher. Woah! Suddenly, you're a lot less immortal.

What we CAN do is possibly enable aggressive regeneration and heal more quickly from more severe wounds, and have no cap on our lifespan.

Yes, if everyone had no lifespan, that would end a good deal of deaths. You speak of how death of someone without a brain for their organs is wrong, and yet you seem to like death of people with brains here! And cancer cannot occur in organisms capable of good regeneration, and cancer is about 20% of deaths in industrialized countries.

So, what should the price for "immortality" be to prevent overpopulation? Aside from a lot money, I think mandatory sterilization.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:25pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3133 of 3153)

Cliff Beall: But how do you know the answers they have found are "complete" answers?

Yeah, according to their logic, they have to prove that they have complete answers.

Bob Janitor: Well this will probably be my last post on the cloning board.

Too, bad, I just got back, Cliff has told me so much about you, and you leave.

Robert Halley: only one person can be a creator,and that is him,

God is a person?

Ernest Rockwell: It strikes me as somewhat odd that many of the same people, our ILLustrious president especially, who are PRO-abortion are ANTI-cloning.

There are very few people who are pro-abortion (these are the people making money from it.) Other people are pro-choice, anti-abortion, or anti-choice. The two biggest groups are pro-choice and anti-choice (that's right, when asked if they would "allow" an abortion for a pregnancy due to rape or incest, most "anti-abortionists" would say, "Yes.")

Back to the topic. I think most pro-choicers, when given correct information, would have no problems with cloning itself. It's the issues (such as slavery, ...) that people are against.

tom.A: That way you would answer the age old question about nature and nuture for good.

Life is not so deterministic. So, you'd probably have to perform this experiment an impractical number of times and, in the end, wind up only with probabilities with a high margin of error (ie it's 70% plus/minus 20% nurture.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:25pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3134 of 3153)

Glenn Curry: Someone brought up in a society which does not hold any god myths would be an Atheist.

I disagree. My beliefs are very different from my parents'. Although they are theists and I hop the fence between agnosticism and atheism, it could've been the other way around.

Glenn Curry: EVERYTHING we can interact with, everything in our existence can be explained to reasonable satisfaction with known physical "laws" (theories).

I see, so when we don't know something, we invent a theory (ie myth) that explains it away. The reason we still have so many physicists working is 'cos their theories still have to be tested. If the theories aren't tested, scientists cannot assume they are true. If this is so, we haven't explained away everything (and I believe we never will.)

Glenn Curry: There is no need to invent additional 3rd party elements.

Are math/science 3rd party elements?

Glenn Curry: An Atheist merely adds one or two more god myths to the thousands that everyone else already is willing WITHOUT the need of FAITH to reject.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that atheists must believe (and have faith) in Science?

Glenn Curry: That is why the "Burden of Proof" always falls on those that wish to believe the positive.

How about: Prove that Science can find all the answers. Science and math themselves take certain "facts", lemmas, ... as truths without need of proof. Any modeling of our surroundings must do so. The only difference between theists and atheists is the difference in their sets of fundamental beliefs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:26pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3135 of 3153)

Glenn Curry: But that does not mean that someone can not accept the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the existence of soemthing (like a god) and state that for all intents and purposes "There is no god". And not require FAITH to do it anymore than denying the existence of the man in the moon.

They must still have faith in that information and, more than that, faith in Logic.

Glenn Curry: The desire to reject everything society has learned and instead place your faith and your very lives in a philosophy which has no credibile support, which requires the exclusive use of BLIND FAITH is as far from RATIONAL as one can get.

Rationality is not the only valid measure of a human being.

Glenn Curry: If religion wasn't once again trying to hold society back, there would be no discussion. We would just continue to advance.

Unchecked growth is as dangerous as stagnation.

Glenn Curry: OK, show us that the mind CAN function apart from the brain. This ought to be a doozy.

Define mind. I say Earth has a mind. It uses it to regulate our climate.

Can you prove that the mind MUST have a brain? Which is the positive in our argument that must be proved?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:26pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3136 of 3153)

Dawn Willis: Maybe it is better for our survival that we find meaning where none exists (false positives) than not to find it where it does (false negatives). Better to avoid all snakes than risk getting bitten by a rattler??

I tend to agree with this. However, not all individuals need to have this. IOW, different people need different things in their lives. For example, I think you had previously posted that your daughter was one who needed this "foundation." Religion exists for a reason. We shouldn't go stamping it out without further inquiry into those reasons (and I mean on a societal basis, not an individual one.) If we do, we fall into the trap of the other religions trying to spread their own beliefs.

Rakin(Rahkeen) Ahsan Hall: Aside from the religious aspects of this disscussion, I believe we as human beings are not ready to clone anything.

I think we're not ready because of all the hoopla.

Cliff Beall: But perhaps my view is skewed by Noel's reappearance.

Do you really think my posts are so sane?

Cliff Beall: I shall remain an agnostic, thank you.

That's right, religious conversion should come from within.

Alice Reitzel: I could also imagine it could be used in instances of "sudden infant death" cases, assuming this was possible.

Are you suggesting that a baby can be replaced?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:27pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3137 of 3153)

babel dispersus: It seems that the brain has been determined to entirely control our body, and hence our actions.

And what controls the brain?

babel dispersus: I found it difficult to believe this as well, but each movement has been traced to a correspondant electrical impulse from the brain.

AFAIK, reflexes are an exception.

babel dispersus: Your statement that it is subjective clearly impresses your reliance on Cartesianism, which has been philosophically dead for almost a century.

How so? I don't know much 'bout philosophy, but didn't DesCartes support the idea of an objective reality? Didn't he propose that everything is deterministic?

babel dispersus: Science, if it has done anything at all, it has shown that every action has a consequence,

But that consequence doesn't have to be deterministic. For example, the laws of motion are theoretically enough to predict the weather. But, practically, it doesn't work. The system is non-deterministic. The same goes for a general n-body problem -- Poincare has shown this.

babel dispersus: and that we can know the consequence of any action by logically deducing the result of the action from our previous experience (science).

Isn't this what DesCartes and Newton claimed. But then came Poincare, Lorenz, Smales, Mandelbrot, ... and "ruined" this "perfect" view of the universe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:30pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3138 of 3153)

babel dispersus: If the trial of an action always results in the same consequence, we can be quite certain that it will do so again given the same circumstances.

Your premise doesn't hold for complex systems. Are we able to predict the weather? You might say that we can't 'cos we don't have all the initial conditions. Lorenz has shown that complex systems like the weather is so dependent on initial conditions that if the measurements and setting were off by parts in the billionth billionth, after a while, the outcome is different. Now consider that, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot measure, much less set, everything exactly.

HUP doesn't even have to exist for this claim to be true. Any asynchronous, parallel system has enough complexity to throw off the "determinism" premise. This is why, even though it followed a static set of heuristics, Deep Blue was able to play different games given the same initial moves.

babel dispersus: Thus, if there is no such thing as free-will (that is, original thought, and original action), then all actions will result in the only consequence that they can, as governed by natural law.

So, where does free will come from? Is it super-natural and God-given?

babel dispersus: Despite that these things may be complex and unpredictable by us, they are still deterministic.

Perhaps you and I are using different definitions of "predictability" and "determinism." I am using the common definitions as used by mathematicians in the fields of chaos, complexity, and non-linear dynamics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:30pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3139 of 3153)

babel dispersus: I suggest you really think logically about what I have proposed.

I have. I'm starting to believe that free will is an illusion. But don't give yourself too much credit for my realisation, an episode of Northern Exposure had a lot to do with it ;)

babel dispersus: When I say there is no original thought, I mean that there is nothing that originates within except that which is prompted by something outside and compared to something outside.

I see. And since we presumably live in a closed universe, nothing new ever gets created within it. The problem here is of scale. When speaking of the entire universe, we don't speak of individuals, and vice versa.

babel dispersus: A child's first thought must come after at least one sampling of at least one sense and the subsequent sampling of another.

But its perceptions are affected by how its brain is "hooked up." This is affected by any number of things (including the timing of those things.)

babel dispersus: These types of actions are less complex than those of a drosophila, but they are the first steps toward true thinking (silicon-based) machines.

Perhaps you can say this 'cos without action-reaction, there can be no feedback. Feedback is a necessary component for cognition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:33pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3140 of 3153)

babel dispersus: There is no real distinction between what computers do and what we do,

We strive to synchronize computer actions so as to make them predictable. Without some level of predictability, computers are worthless to us. We do not do the same for the brain.

babel dispersus: All of our actions are so complex because of the extremely large and varying experiences we have each had with which to compare all sensory information.

As I've said before, this is not the only reason. Synchronization and distributed processing has much more to do with it.

babel dispersus: In addition, we have no assurance that anything is "real" since to determine as such, we must first assume that we are real.

This is what I meant about "subjective reality."

babel dispersus: You can know what sonar is (the scientific explanation of sound and water, etc.), and you can see the vacuum tube display on a ship, but you can never "see" through sonar as an animal with that sense can. It is like trying to describe "red" to a person who has never seen.

You might as well say that we don't know how others see things through their eyes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:33pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3141 of 3153)

babel dispersus: The only thing that we cannot imagine is what existed before god made the universe, only because we have never before sampled anything that is not a part of this universe.

Then how are we able to imagine what happens after death? One possible (scientific) answer is that certain images are hard-wired into our brain (just like chicks now how hawks look and act.)

babel dispersus: We can assign god this ability, but we cannot ever possibly imagine it apart from things we already know.

Or how about people who are able to envision four dimensions?

babel dispersus: And even if there were an agent which could be defined as god (though we cannot know it), it must have some means of free will,

Or perhaps we need to define "free will." To me, free will depends on scale and context. A cell may "think" it's got free will (ie "deciding" how to act depending upon certain stimuli.) But we know the mechanisms behind those "decisions." The same goes for humans except that we don't fully understand the mechanisms (possibly 'cos we keep sticking to this "deterministic" paradigm 'cos the math is simpler.) We can extend the analogy to whole societies and ecosystems. Each individual organism (in its broadest sense) will, in turn, "think" it has free will, but in the broader context, it does not. So, thinking that I do have free will grants me free will at my level (ie human being) but doesn't grant me free will in a larger context (ie society.)

Darien Hager: If genes did this, we'd have a lot less suicides.

What about genes that, if their complete sequence is not present, will kill the offspring so as not to perpetuate any competition?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:34pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3142 of 3153)

Darien Hager: who wants a god like this:

God of nuetrality. Witness his mighty bell-shaped curve of probability! All bow down to God, the indifferent...

Scientists.

Daren Hager: It is easier to take the roundabout route and just say a god exists.

To some.

Mark Carlson: Many people worry that if Humans were cloned, the clones would be used for menial tasks. As long as that fears remains, it will never happen.

At least not to a large extent.

Mark Carlson: Let the scientists regulate cloning, they are the only ones that fully understand the moral implications of their actions.

But scientists sometimes hide behind the phrase, "We're not responsible for how our knowledge is used."

Dawn Willis: It seems to me that a cloned child would be a very much wanted child. Much better than the millions of children conceived au naturel who aren't wanted.

I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:34pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3143 of 3153)

Tom Anderson: nothing is out of the economic grasp of someone who is dying, especially if they have good coverage.

Hmmm, I wonder what the economic consequences of life-everlasting would be. How would insurance companies pay for all those who would want to regenerate themselves? If it's to be through premiums, then there's no reason to include this in the benefits to begin with (the patient might as well pay for it himself.)

Bob Janitor: (BTW- nuclear power kicks out less radiation than coal power,

What kind of radiation? How long are the half-lives? Do we see the same kind of mutations occuring near coal-burning plants as we did near Chernobyl?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 04:38pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3144 of 3153)

Bob Janitor: Thanks for the explanation of why it iwould be so dificult to clone isolated organs, at least in the form where one could remove the old and pop in the new. There might be something to fetal cell transplants, though, since fetal cells have remarkable powers of regeneration. Non-homologous fetal transplant is already being examined for Parkinson's disease, and it should work even better with a cloned fetus. It would be a lot quicker, too, since you wouldn't have to wait for the mature organ to form.

Cliff Beall: My reference to abortion was because the cloned DNA in the enucleated donor egg would have all of the "potential" to develop into a human child as a normally formed zygote, even though there was no "moment of conception." Even if the embryos used a cow egg and were transplanted into a cow uterus until the right developmental stage had been reached (maybe two-four months), the potential for human life is still there. It's just whose life matters most, the adult who was cloned or the cloned fetus. I agree that the the actual removal of a bad gene and the substitution of a good gene (at the one-cell zygote stage) will eventually be accomplished, but we sure can't do it yet!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kahauanu-Lake Kai - 06:00pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3145 of 3153)

I beleive we are God's Children. As a child of god I am striving to become more like my father. One way to become more like someone is to mimic what they do or find out how they do what they do. God, my father, created life, created man. Shouldn't I have the same responsibility, then, in my striving to be like him, of at least learning how he created life, and if so, isn't learning not complete without practice? We already cheat death through blood transfusions, pills, chemicals that enhance life, organ transplants and other medical methods, why stop with cloning? We may be able to splice out the cancer strand, or the mental disease strand, or the physical disability strand...we treat those things after birth, why not treat them before birth and give those people a better life? If you use the religious stand to defend against human cloning please remember, religion works on the spiritual level. Our bodies aren't "God"'s primary concern...it's our souls...and that can't be cloned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brett Roberts - 06:12pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3146 of 3153)

Kahauanu, are these bodies we're cloning going to be without souls? Is that what you're saying? That'll be interesting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 06:30pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3147 of 3153)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Brett Roberts 2/9/98 6:12pm you say "are these bodies we're cloning going to be without souls?"

Ofcourse they will be without souls, Why should they be any different than any other bodies? Unless you are ready to prove that this soul thingy actually exists. Since there have been billions of deaths, medical exams, autopsies ... and no evidence of one has EVER been found, your proofs would be truely remarkable!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 06:35pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3148 of 3153)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Kahauanu-Lake Kai #3145 Well said. Weither someone beleives in a particular religion or not. If not then we are at least children of the universe and the universe contains clones.

The second you consider that part of you was created by someone or something else then you can begin to unify with that force or entity and attempt to be like it or them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE SPELL - 06:52pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3149 of 3153)

Cloning? What's all the fuss about? Think of the possibilities...A new world order that's made to order. Ronald Reagan (this time of course we would already know about the Alzheimer's), James Earl Ray, and strictly for entertainment value, the entire Kennedy clan. What'cha think America?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE SPELL - 06:56pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3150 of 3153)

Hey,I did'nt say that. I only thought it. Must be my clone! It's true what ALICE COOPER said, "we are all clones!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOE SPELL - 06:58pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3151 of 3153)

No we are not! I wish you guys would crawl back into the test tube you came from. I am the real Joe Spell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 07:02pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3152 of 3153)

Then how are we able to imagine what happens after death? One possible (scientific) answer is that certain images are hard-wired into our brain (just like chicks now how hawks look and act.)

Nonsense. This was produced via selective pressure by the predators to favor those with a paranoid predisposition to large flying shapes with a certain wintip direction. An abiguous model with wings resembling that of a hawk will scare certain birds, but not when the model is flipped over and the wings are that of a goose. Death is not a selective pressure to impart knowledge of what's beyond that. It's flawed logic.

Or how about people who are able to envision four dimensions?

I can easily. Imagine a picture of a ball. Now imagine a ball bouncing. Woah! Time! Four dimensions!

What controls the brain?

Don't you understand how a neural network WORKS? Nothing controls the brain!

The brain is made of a lot of neural cells. Now what exactly does a neural cell do? Four things:

1. It rests and does nothing

2. It recieves a signal

3. It sends a signal

4. It decides whether or not to send its own signal

The cell fires when its voltage reaches a certain level. The signals it recieves via the IPSP and EPSP neurotransmitters either raise or lower this voltage by a certain amount-- a priority system if you will.

Now take a step back and look at the brain as a whole. As a result from external inputs-- senses-- neural cells are directed to fire and each neural cells recieves thousands of EPSPs and IPSPs. Because not only do they fire with sensory input, but can also cause each other to fire, you get "thought" that is independent of senses-- thinking, if you will.

That bit about reflexes in incorrect as well. The input coming from the periphernal nervous system causes EPSP and IPSP, which cause neural cells to fire, which provide an electrical "jolt" to muscles they control.

What kind of radiation? How long are

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 07:06pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3153 of 3153)

(con't)

What kind of radiation? How long are the half-lives? Do we see the same kind of mutations occuring near coal-burning plants as we did near Chernobyl?

Uranium 238 is primarily found with coal. When coal is burned, it goes up in smoke with the coal. U-238 has a very long half life-- 250 million years I think-- and no studies to my knowledge have been done on the effects of coal power's uranium output. I would venture to say that because they go up in smoke, they are dispersed over a larger area than say, the radiation from chernobyl, which is primarily concentrated in a small area (relative to how far smoke goes).

It would be a lot quicker, too, since you wouldn't have to wait for the mature organ to form.

Good point, Dawn. Although I did mention fetal neural tissue grafts for brain regeneration, I did not consider other fetal organ transplants as well.

Our bodies aren't "God"'s primary concern...it's our souls...and that can't be cloned.

You're right, you can't clone something that doesn't exist. (sorry, couldn't resist)

So are you saying the seat of conciousness and thought is not the brain, but some mystical thing that you can't prove exists? What about Phineas Gage and lobotomies? The fact is, we are our brains. There is no soul that can proven, and our bodies just support the brain.

And I have another one for you: suppose we made a transporter like on Star Trek, which can theoretically exist. When you transport and your old body is destroyed, are YOU transporting, or are you committing suicide and creating a perfect copy that appears to be you to everyone else and every scientific instrument?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Justice - 08:14pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3151 of 3169)

The story of humanity beyond the cave, is partly the story of the history of ration. In the western world, Hellenic logic, then coupled with Roman law, already hazed the origins of our herding nature. Approaching the issue of cloning becomes a which came first question. Cattle, sheep, breeding dogs, cats, even farming, reflects our propensity towards efficiency. Is this propensity an aspect of our survival, or a luxury of our sinfulness, or perhaps a little of both?

Our world, according to ecologists already hinges on the possiblity of ecological distaster, perhaps even leading to extinction. On the other hand, our applications of medicine and knowledge over the past hundred(s) years, has reflected our love of using the scientific method, making some sort of demigod our of our belief in ration. Have we already gone too far, or are perhpaps our efforts to use reason are a subconscious reflection that we must adapt once more, as we have over the past million years.

For me personally, I can only fall back on my as well as others, idea of late called the millenial jitters. Science and knowledge are feeling the same invisible pulls to 'be remarkable' as we approach the year 2000, as they did at the turn of the cenutry as well as the first millenium. These same pheonomona are occuring in relgion, the arts, and other areas of life. We can only hope that our dabbling with cloning, quickly reproves itself early after the first of the next century. Huxley's "Brave New World" scares the heck out of me, even as our world grows smaller. Besides that I'm a little short chubby guy, and I somehow don't think I would be Mustapha Mond.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe R. Caldwell - 09:40pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3152 of 3169)

Cloning is something that We MUST Do!! We must NOT let society or religion stop this step toward the future. If we allowed such, we would still be striving for the Dark Ages. This has NOTHING to do morals. It has NOTHING to do with souls. It has NOTHING to do with religion...This is SCIENCE!!!

We have never allowed the fear of the unknown or the idle threat of "Meddling in God's business" to slow the advances of the Sciences...THANK GOD!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 10:11pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3153 of 3169)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Joe R. Caldwell 2/9/98 9:40pm you say "We have never allowed the fear of the unknown or the idle threat of "Meddling in God's business" to slow the advances of the Sciences..."

Religion and other idiotic superstitions have ALWAYS slowed the progress of science. Do you forget Galileo? Placed under house arrest lest his horrible ideas like a round earth would get out? Or how the "church" tried to stop vivisection because the body was sacred? We would not have ANY of todays medicine without it. They even tried to poo poo sterile conditions for treating people.

You still aren't convinced? What if religion forced the teaching of Flat Earth since their ignorant source of revelation sasy that's the way it is? Sounds absurd? Well in 1992 Saudi Arabia passed such a law. It is now illegal to say the world is round in Saudi Arabia. See what antiquated superstitions can do if allowed to?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick Lazazzera - 10:18pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3154 of 3169)

Cloning of humans should be absolutely and strictly prohibited. We have not yet learned to deal with the people we are in original form, let alone creating duplicates to complicate the process. We are just not mature enough, as a species, to handle the responsibility of cloning ourselves. As for people without children, there energies would be better spent learning about themselves rather than frantically searching for something outside of themselves in an attempt to feel whole. This outward search is not good for the child, the parent or society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:35pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3155 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: And what controls the brain?

What? Noel, you are a very strange person; you make arguments out of nothing, and nothings out of argument. I have seen you do the same towards Glenn Curry, and Cliff seems to be doing this as well. Perhaps you should learn how to use logic so that you can refrain from doing this, it is very irritating.

Nothing controls the brain. From what I have learned, it is a series of chemical reactions that are caused by the external world exchanging energy with the body (light hitting the eyes, sound vibrating the hairs in the ear, molecules impacting the surface of the skin, chemicals stimulating the nose or tongue). The signals initiated in the senses from the external world are passed to the brain through chemical reactions where it goes through associative channels to be recorded as an experience and/or produce an action.

Noel Yap: AFAIK, reflexes are an exception.

What I am saying is that the brain produces reflexes only, just as the spinal cord does, but is much more complex in that the reflex depends on prior experience to determine the action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:38pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3156 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: How so? I don't know much 'bout philosophy, but didn't DesCartes support the idea of an objective reality? Didn't he propose that everything is deterministic?

No, the very opposite. He supported objectivism in that he taught that philosophy must begin with universal doubt. But he claimed that the ultimate test of certainty is to be found in the individual consciousness, that you cannot know anything unless you compare it to your self, which you assume to be real. I have shown this assumption to be false. Why don't you pick up a book on Descartes, or better yet, one on Peirce? Surely, it cannot take as much time to read as these message boards. I suggest Peirce on Signs, a collection of Peirce's essays, edited by James Hoopes, a professor of history at Babson College, published by The University of North Carolina Press, PO Box 2288, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2288.

Noel Yap: But that consequence doesn't have to be deterministic.

Again with nothings... the very definition of determinism is a single consequence mapped to a single cause; a 1 to 1 onto function. That is also the definition of reality that science has given us. Thus, it logically follows that reality and determinism are one in the same. If this relationship were not 1 to 1, if it were not onto, and if it were not a function, then science could not exist since the result of an experiment would randomly change. In fact, without these attributes, such things as humans could not exist, or even a molecule, since it requires a fixed set of physical laws to not break down randomly or interact randomly with random consequences.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:39pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3157 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: For example, the laws of motion are theoretically enough to predict the weather. But, practically, it doesn't work. The system is non-deterministic.

You are not seeing the whole picture. The laws of motion could predict the weather, if we were able to account for every variable in the universe. It is not non-deterministic, it is chaotic. Chaos is deterministic; it is just unpredictable to us because we do not have the means to track every variable.

Noel Yap: Isn't this what DesCartes and Newton claimed. But then came Poincare, Lorenz, Smales, Mandelbrot, ... and "ruined" this "perfect" view of the universe.

No, Newton delt with things which only relied on a few variables, and thus were in the grasp of common mathematics. However, there are things that rely on huge amounts of variables and may change due to the slightest fluctuation in any one of them. These things are still deterministic, only chaotic. The mathematics developed by the men you spoke of created models for chaotic events, but cannot predict the outcome exactly because too many variables are involved.

Noel Yap: Your premise doesn't hold for complex systems.

Again you make something of nothing. This has nothing to do with the complexity of the system. You are confusing meanings of things. Something which is complex does not suddenly become non-deterministic. Our ability to predict has nothing to do with the state of reality. Any book which describes dissipative or Hamiltonian systems should cover the basics of stochasticism; why don't you read one. Chaos says nothing of determinism.

Noel Yap: So, where does free will come from?

Are you not reading the text on your screen? I just said that free will does not exist... therefore it does not come from anywhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:39pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3158 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: Perhaps you and I are using different definitions of "predictability" and "determinism." I am using the common definitions as used by mathematicians in the fields of chaos, complexity, and non-linear dynamics.

It is you who brought predictability into a discussion where it does not belong. Determinism is a 1 to 1 onto function of cause to consequence. Cause is the domain, consequence is the range. There is at least one and not more than one cause to each consequence, in the most basic of interactions -- that is determinism. Compound these basic interactions a million-fold and you arrive at your complex system (which is irrelevant to this discussion).

Noel Yap: And since we presumably live in a closed universe...

Nothings... the universe is irrelevant except for the immediate environment of the person. Stop making things more difficult than they are.

Noel Yap: But its perceptions are affected...

Nothings... it does not matter how perceptions are affected, only that they are.

Noel Yap: Feedback is a necessary component for cognition.

Precisely. What we call cognition is simply the continuous interaction of the being and the environment.

Noel Yap: We strive to synchronize computer actions so as to make them predictable. Without some level of predictability, computers are worthless to us.

That is a disturbingly incorrect statement. Computers are of worth only if they can perform a task. Doing so autonomously only makes them more valuable. But this has nothing to do with the point I was making; again you have made a statement of nothing since the point was that computers can be as conscious as we are, I said nothing of their value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:40pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3159 of 3169)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Bob, I had not expected you to be so knowledgable on regeneration research nor did I expect you to argue it so forcefully. I am impressed.

But that deal about killing brain-dead clones bothers me. You compare it with abortion which I oppose. Nevertheless, while I can find some justification for abortion, I can find no justification for intentionally providing a human with a severe birth defect and then kill it when harvesting its organs.

Both procedures ends in death, of course. But there is a significant difference. The difference is that allowing legal abortions is a reaction by society to unwise choices by individuals. We may object that these unwise choices should not be made, but they are made, and once made, they can not be undone. Thus you have a balancing problem: what to do under the circumstances?

Reasonable people will differ on the best balance. Some will opt for abortion on demand as a means of avoiding the problems of unwanted children, and/or the concurrent spector of illegal abortions. Others will insist that allowing legal abortions encourage the practice, and that it is pure and simple wrong. There is no simple sollution. I don't like abortions, and so I oppose them, but I do see the problem.

Your suggestion, however, appears to be totally without merit. It seeks to justify providing a human with a severe birth defect on the basis that you plan to kill it anyway when you harvest its organs. And, by a circular sort of logic, it seeks to justify killing the human on the basis that it has a severe birth defect anyway.

I can not believe an intelligent man like yourself would think that either will ever be legal anywhere in the world. Furthermore, I can not believe you really think either can be justified. Both are attrocious, either individually, or in combination.

I think you are just having fun with this shocking argument. The problem is, it sends the wrong signal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:40pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3160 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: As I've said before, this is not the only reason. Synchronization and distributed processing has much more to do with it.

It IS the only reason. Anything of which you speak is inclusive in experience.

Noel Yap: This is what I meant about "subjective reality."

No it is not. You responded to my conclusion that we cannot know if reality exists by stating that "reality exists, but it is subjective". You obviously meant that reality is definite, and that we interpret it differently. What I said was that we cannot know if reality exists. It doesn't matter what is interpreted or not, only that there may be nothing at all to interpret, and that you cannot know either way. Anything that you experience must be compared to yourself as a basis, which is uncertain, and therefore the experience is uncertain. You cannot even say for sure that the experience was experienced.

Noel Yap: You might as well say that we don't know how others see things through their eyes.

No, you don't get it; you can imagine what others see throught their eyes because you have a basis in your own experience by which to construct a cognition of this. But you cannot possibly even imagine what it is like to sample something through a sense you do not nor ever did have. Two people who can see can speak of "red" and understand each other, but a person who has been blind since birth cannot ever understand this.

Noel Yap: Then how are we able to imagine what happens after death?

We don't. We construct a scenario based on our experience. Nothing that you can imagine after death is disjoint from that which you have already experienced. It is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine any attribute which you have not previously experienced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:41pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3161 of 3169)

...omega

Noel Yap: Or how about people who are able to envision four dimensions?

Again, no one can envision anything which one has not before sampled. If you can imagine four dimensions, then it is in the context of things which have already been experienced. You can envision purple monkeys on Mars because you have seen monkeys, you have seen purple, and you have seen (pictures of) Mars, not because you have seen them in this relation.

Noel Yap: So, thinking that I do have free will grants me free will at my level (ie human being) but doesn't grant me free will in a larger context (ie society.)

You STILL do not understand. There is NO free will. Anywhere. At any scale. Please go back and read my explanation of this, I will not repeat it any more.

Bob Janitor: 4. It decides whether or not to send its own signal

This is not a property of a neural cell. The first three were sufficient and exhaustive. In fact, the recieving and sending of the signal are actually one action of carrying a signal. So there is only one action of a neural cell, and the absense of that action. It either carries a signal or it does not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 11:41pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3162 of 3169)

...omega

Bob Janitor: The cell fires when its voltage reaches a certain level. The signals it recieves via the IPSP and EPSP neurotransmitters either raise or lower this voltage by a certain amount-- a priority system if you will.

The voltage does not vary beyond "on" and "off"; there are no in-betweens. The reception of a neurotransmitter begins a wave of sodium-potassium reversals which, when it reaches the other end of the cell, causes the release of its own neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft.

Bob Janitor: Because not only do they fire with sensory input, but can also cause each other to fire, you get "thought" that is independent of senses-- thinking, if you will.

Only so far as each thought begins with a sensory input. No thought is spontaneous.

Nick Lazazzera: As for people without children, there energies would be better spent learning about themselves rather than frantically searching for something outside of themselves in an attempt to feel whole.

If you would read back a few messages, maybe you would learn that there is no self to learn about. The only thing that exists, or possibly exists, is that which is without.

babel dispersus

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:53pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3163 of 3169)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Keith Fosberg: Welcome back Noel! (You may be correct in your early posit that society is not ready for cloning, but I still maintain that "intentional pacing" is not possible without some kind of "star chamber" tyrany. Of course a "natural" pacing may occur if society resists the notion of cloning stringently enough!)

I agree.

Derek Hande: It is no surprise that the Jesus-please us-maggots are against cloning. All religions risk eventual exposure for the phoney baloney that they dish out; and this exposure will come at the hands of science and discovery!

It is my opinion that "exposure" is the furtherest thing from the minds of religious people. The main fear they have is that you, or someone like you, will try to do something atrocious, which they, as members of society, will have to deal with. (The problem is that when you talk like this, they think you are dangerous.)

Nabil Pavon: I think the FDA should consider the nature of man before taking any steps forward.

I think the FDA should do what BIO has asked them to do. I hope they act agressively enough to convince congress that no new legislation is needed.

Bob Janitor: Well this will probably be my last post on the cloning board.

Noel Yap: Too, bad, I just got back, Cliff has told me so much about you, and you leave.

It appears now that Bob's departure was premature. And Noel, all I said was that Bob was another Tom Anderson, only smarter and more knowledgeable. It is true, of course, but don't hold that against him;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:57pm Feb 9, 1998 ET (#3164 of 3169)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Noel Yap: Back to the topic. I think most pro-choicers, when given correct information, would have no problems with cloning itself. It's the issues (such as slavery, ...) that people are against.

Yes, and why people some people who claim to support cloning keep insisting that things that strike of slavery and such are justified, and that people who question those type of ethics are ignorant fools, is beyond me. All it does is send the signal that all is not well with the technology.

Noel Yap: Do you really think my posts are so sane?

Actually, it isn't so much that they are sane, it is mainly that they are always civil. I must admit that my posts are not always as civil as yours, but I try to attack ideas rather than people. I don't always succeed. You do.

Dawn Willis: Cliff Beall: My reference to abortion was because the cloned DNA in the enucleated donor egg would have all of the "potential" to develop into a human child as a normally formed zygote, even though there was no "moment of conception."

Dawn, you are such a stickler for the truth, even when it is inconvenient. Most people, including myself, will sometimes attempt to ignore, hide, or deny inconvenient information that doesn't advance an argument. Not you. I tried to ignored that little inconvenient fact on purpose since it did not advance my agenda. But here you are reeling me in and insisting that the full truth be known. It is very inconvenient. But, at the same time, it is the very reason that people like me can have so much confidence in the information you supply.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 12:45am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3165 of 3169)

Cliff:

Obviously, morality is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm sure your moral beliefs are shared by many more than mine are.

Is it moral to kill someone in self defense? Yes.

Is it moral to kill someone for survival-- ie, food? No.

Is it moral to kill an animal for suvival-- ie, food or their organs? Yes.

Is it moral to kill someone for posessions-- ie, oil or land? Yes. (look at support of the Gulf War-- a war of oil... darn neolithic period)

But, is it moral to kill someone for their organs?

First off, who is someone? Someone is a human. But what is a human? A mass of cells. But don't we kill plants and animals for food and survival with no guilt? Yes. Why is human death worse than animal/plant death? Because killing a human is killing a sentient, highly intelligent being. How then are humans and animals/plants different? Humans are more intelligent. Where is intelligence? The brain. What if the brain never existed? Then the human would be a mass of cells just like a plant.

Abortion is a murder of convienience. What I'm talking about is a murder of survival. Only it isn't murder any more than killing a plant is murder. The brain never existed. The sentience was never formed. It's like growing a carrot in the garden to eat. Only not really, especially in the case of a brain transplant-- because the cells live on in their current forms.

I believe "murder" only appies to termination of sentience-- be it in a human or possibly even a computer in the future. (of course, other animals are certainly sentient, but I'm going to stick to intelligences with highly evolved symbolic logic here).

babel dispersus:

You seem to have a lack of understanding about how neural cells work. What you said is basically true: a neural cell either fires or it doesn't, in a binary manner similar to that of a computer. But you are ignoring the analog input system that leads up to it firing or not-- thousands of input

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 12:46am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3166 of 3169)

(con't)

thousands of inputs from other neural cells and external senses, pushing it one way or the other from firing or not. Worse still, you are applying things you only have a partial knowledge about to philosophy, and half-truths strung together aren't good for anyone.

Please see http://207.196.172.36/neurons.txt for a detailed, high-level explanation of how neural cells work. It's too large to post here. I hope you can understand this material. If you can't, please refrain from stating it is incorrect. That's worse than saying "I don't know".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 12:58am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3167 of 3169)

babel dispersus:

I'm not sure if I was suffeciently clear or not in my previous message. So let me say this in a way you would understand it.

NERVES ARE NOT SIMPLY "LITTLE WIRES" THAT PASS A CURRENT

Thank you for your time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

babel dispersus - 01:36am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3168 of 3169)

...omega

Bob Janitor:

My understanding appears much clearer than your own. The only function of a neuron, the only ability, is to "pass current", as you put it. The cell does not make any decision. Yes, whether it fires or not is based on the neurons in it's near vicinity, but it does not decide anything. You haven't a clue as to my knowledge, and from your recent arguments, it appears as though you are less logical than I had previously judged you to be. You should get a handle on your own facts before passing judgement on the intelligence of others. Nor do you apparently understand the philosophy behind my statements, and cannot possibly be able to qualify your opinion on it.

babel dispersus

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:43am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3169 of 3169)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Okay Bob. One question: how do you plan to get past the legal problems? Granted, in your mind it is moral. It is still illegal. How do you plan to get past that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 04:45am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3170 of 3209)

Quick reality check people, I will probably get flamed for this but at this point I don't really care. Would you please stop the "mudslinging"? Okay okay, I know, maybe you DO have to be the most informed person on nuerons and the way the signals are transmitted on all that, but lets try to drift back to the main subject:

What do you think about cloning human babies for infertile couples? What steps do you think the FDA should take to control cloning?

Otherwise they'll have to rename this "Nuerons" or something. Just this, credentials...what about them? Right now we are trying to work with the eugenics of cloning, yes, working of the brain is a branching subject, but lets try to keep to cloning.

I think cloning for infertile couples is alright, except if it is a clone from them. (assuming the infertility is genetic) Because then you are worstening the situation, because the kid will also (probably) be infertile and then they'll have to do it all over again...

For controlling cloning, maybe up to the point where the fetal brain starts to actually start working. Please excuse me, but nuerology is not a PhD with me or anything. With animals, alright, so long as appropriate measures are taken. You don't want an animal that somehow mutates a virus to something super virulent. And you don't want to (possibly LONG in the future:) make some sort of carnivorous human eating animal...

And yes for genetic treatment too. If you can make sure a feotus won't have the genetic disease that it's parents have, then ok.

If there were controlled experiments, it might be better to try to extend our OWN organ lifespans. Maybe grow a single organ from a cell from it that is engineered to have a extra long lifespan. It may be possible to artificially speed up the production of the organ untill it is the proper size and relative "age" to the reciever. Otherwise you would have to start a "batch" of organs every year and just hope you have to right stuff in stock. (in sto

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 05:33am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3171 of 3209)

Darien Hager:

First of all, the neural cell thing arose when questions about the soul and morality of cloning were put on the board. The other discussions and points you raised have been exhausted and this is what the board evolved into-- discussing ethics for clone organ harvesting.

I didn't want to get into a big "neural cell functionality" thread, but I was forced to because someone else was presenting misinformation. I tried providing a slightly more detailed summary, and including an off-site pointer. But that failed and I was forced to waste board space by proving my point as fact and crushing his misinformation. Even so, people knowing the truth is far preferable than someone spreading lies.

I don't even see WHY there's a debate on how neural cells work, or why there should be a seperate board for discussing it. What's next, a board to argue whether the earth is flat or not? Give me a break.

I encourage all people reading this to go down to their local college's bookstore and purchase a psychology book (a biology book might cover these topics as well). Everyone should know these principals of how the mind works down to the individual neural cell... you shouldn't be learning these things on a cloning board for the first time!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 06:29am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3172 of 3209)

Yeah, I was not criticizing anyone about starting the neural topic, I understand how it started. I just mean maybe we ought to get back to cloning. About free will and sentience, it is not very sensible (IMHO) that someone should look at facts and state "There is no free will" or "There is free will you blockhead!" because we are INSIDE the argument. Most arguments that involve consciousness and thought are a bit pointless due to the fact that we can't really PROVE it one way or the other. Occams razor would say that we have free will (IMHO) because it would be a lot harder to explain all the wacky things we end up doing at some time or another in our daily lives. To resurrect a message I sent that is probably now in rigor mortis:

If we had no free will and were governed by our genes, we would have a lot less suicides. If we don't have free will, how otherwise would you explain the choices we make besides the genes? And genes that cause themselves to suicide don't usually propogate. And I am sure suicides were LESS common in the past. So if it isn't some airborne alien virus that is bent on destroying the world and starting hotdog stands, what could it be besides free will?

EGAD! I am starting a braching topic again! Ignore that last paragraph. 8^)

(In case of the occasional few that are unfamiliar with internet jargon, IMHO is In My Humble Opinion, not that I am saying many here don't know it)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 06:38am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3173 of 3209)

P.S. And yes, I agree that nerves are not just little wires. In a sense, they are the transistors of the brain. A neural net, in computer terms, is a system with a whole bunch of nodes, and the system assigns different values to these nodes, and changes the values as it goes along to "mutate" it's performance. I believe this is a similar example of the human brain, from what I have seen.

Just to be clear on my personal opinion. Let the cloning begin! <frankensteinian laugh>"It's alive!" <crackle of thunder>.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 07:09am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3174 of 3209)

In a sense, they are the transistors of the brain.

A VERY misleading analogy.

computer neural network

A computer neural network is somewhat related to a biological neural net, but you can't understand a biological neural net by studying a computer neural net.

Free will? Well, will is the ability to make a decision. We can all certainly do that, even if we are a bit indecisive at times. Free will is being able to exercise that will-- or decision we reach. The laws of physics inhibit some of our free will (you can't cast magic spells, for instance), and the laws of man other.

Every day we integrate information from different sources and make decisions based upon it. Obviously genetics and other influences play a part in the decision. If nothing were influencing a decision, it would never happen. But the point is, a decision is still being reached and executed. "Free will" is just semantics.

As the Far Side comic goes, "Stimulus, response! Stimulus, response! Don't you ever think?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 07:58am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3175 of 3209)

I know it was misleading, I was thinking about changing it but left it alone. I also have seen that comic. There is almost no farside that I haven't seen 8^). Ever seen the one entitled "Dinosaur Cranial Capacity?"

Anyway, yes, but I meant in a very loose sense. The brain works with all of the varying charges in the nuerons, causing various probabilities of getting the right amount of stimuli to fire or not. I meant that computer transistors work in a vaguely similar way, but with only one direct decider in the switch (not countin g the nodes below).

I also saw something about morality and the law in cloning. At this point it is to be argued, is cloning right now with the laws Malum Prohibitum or Malum In Se? (obscure law terms) Prohibitum is just something that is not allowed. In Se is something that is evil in itself, like murder (at least I think so).

And, while we can't get too bogged down in the theological ramifications of cloning, I don't think we should leap ahead recklessly, remember, with early Nuclear weapons and the cold war, it was a very volatile situation. We COULD have ended up with a few radioactive craters instead of cities at the end.

Although cloning is admittedly not the same as nuclear weapons, the potential dangers are no less terrifying. We make extremely strict laws in the US, and sooner or later some despot of a county (Iraq for a n example) will have had legal leeway to experiment and would have some batch of viral death.

Yet progress too quickly, and we may make some mistakes that we can't undo. You get corner clinics offering to clone you and make you stronger and such and move your brain into the new body, or something like that. Not that I think that is in the near future.

One of my fears is that parents will start trying "baby-to-order" businesses. And since there is quite a bit of predjudice these days about hight and ethnicity, I am afraid parent will get overzealous

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 08:00am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3176 of 3209)

and select everything down to the child's predisposition to acne. I mean, it is a little scary, and you'd get a disproportionate amount of the population with various ethnic and physical traits.

Another idea posed by someone whom I forget her name and disagree, was that cloning could become the method of reproduction, males would be superflous and you would have a same-gender world, each new generation being cloned and inserted into the mother. Personally I think this is foolhardy and naive.

Without the mixing of genes provided by normal reproduction, people would be losing an extremely large part of our evolutionary tactics. You'd get a sudden disease that would wipe out everyone because nobody had a resistance gene.<insert other numerous disasters, calamities, and problems that you can think of here>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 08:37am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3177 of 3209)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Babel dispersus,

The deterministic argument is interesting, if somewhat of a digression. :) Have you considered the basic granularity and information propogation limitations of space-time in your posit? Complexity is not an issue, but non-interactive systems are unless you artificially limit the scope of the system under consideration. Chaos and entropy are quick to make a mockery of any predictive systems we attempt to construct.

In the end I think it is meaningless as the illusion of free-will is indistinguisable from objective free-will from any pespective within the system.

I believe the vast majority of objections to cloning are based upon an idea that cloning will see widespread use for, 1) reproduction and 2) replacement therapy.

I really don't think either of these are very likely. Cloning will not be terribly usefull as a reproductive option because it is not as reliable (or fun) as natural reproduction. Also, in the great majority of cases, several reproductive aids already exist that have the very desireable (for the parents) virtue of intermingling parental DNA.

Replacement therapy (the brainless clone thingy) is not inherantly imoral, but it can easily appear so. The obvious comparison can be made to chemically inhibiting neural development in a naturally concieved fetus.

I maintain that the most usefull application of cloning in humans will be in medical research. The greatly enhanced reproducability and control that the use of enbrionic material that is nearly genetically identical should produce incredible gains in our understanding of genetics and life processes in general.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Perez - 10:26am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3178 of 3209)

Let's suppose the "baby-to-order" business is allowed to develop unchecked. You could go to your local pharmacy and get a "Michael Jordan" kit or a "Cindy Crawford" kit. How weird would that be? I'm wondering whether all the "MJ's" would feel some affinity for each other. How would you feel towards a million time-shifted twins of yourself? You'd run into them in high school, at work, sitting on an airplane next to you. Would they just be another stranger to you, despite being genetically identical? Or would you acknowledge your twin somehow? Would they have their conventions, maybe voting as a block?

And when all the MJ's started growing up and meeting all the Cindys, I suppose that whatever rare, recessive alleles Cindy and MJ might have in common would suddenly be not-so-rare, and a sudden burst of homozygous individuals would appear on the scene.

Suppose you found out that someone had cloned you, and the clone was now, oh, say, eight years old and growing up in a town 150 miles away. Could you resist driving to that town just to get a glimpse of your clone?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 10:59am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3179 of 3209)

That Is pretty much what worries me. I mean the temptation to make your kid your own idea of the "best" person is disturbing to me. If anyone does that, it is like they are saying that they aren't good people to have kids, because they don't want their kids with their own genetic material.

And copyrighting genes? What about that? I'm afraid the parents will do something on a whim about how the child looks and the genetic predispositions to things, without thinking of the child. Wouldn't it be tough if you were referred to as Michael Jordan AC2249? How else would you tell people apart? Genes don't define exactly how you look, but they do play a good part.

Besides the fact that it seems to me that most popular people are sports players and movie starts, and if the child has those genes, won't they be expected by society to like sports or be a good actor?

So, we'll end up with a world of MJs, MMs, Robyn Williams, Bill Clintons... you name it. And not because of the original people's peoples genotypes. Because of the original's looks and the twists of chance that made them what they are. Not that it will happen twice.

To stop this kind of thing from happening sooner or later the general public has to know the facts about genes. I know some people who think genes control everything, looks, talents, hight.... And they really don't. They just give us a template. Some parents will be really dissapointed when their little Jordan doesn't like basketball....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 10:59am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3180 of 3209)

Hmm, I remember seeing that Far Side, but don't remember the content. I've gone through a lot of Far Sides in my day.

Please, don't make me prove you wrong a eat bandwidth. The brain is a complex parallel network of analog neural cells; a computer is a primitive collection of transistors that work by binary logic.

Malum? Huh? Would you care to elaborate here?

I don't think we should leap ahead recklessly, remember, with early Nuclear weapons and the cold war, it was a very volatile situation. We COULD have ended up with a few radioactive craters instead of cities at the end.

First of all, we didn't leap ahead recklessly with nuclear weapons. They saved over 1,000,000 American lives during World War II. Secondly, nuclear weapons prevented World War III-- hence the cold war-- because no one wanted to use the damn things or get nuked themselves. The same thing was thought of TNT, but that proved to not be destructive enough. Nuclear weapons are actually pretty destructive.

But, a nuclear war certainly would not be the end of the world. That's silly. We've detonated well over 1200 nuclear weapons so far on earth... where's our nuclear winter? The thing is, nuclear weapons may seem big to a person, but compared to the size of the planet, they're not very destructive. Think of taking a globe, and each pin you push in is a nuke. Only smaller than the pinhead.

Anyway, enough on nukes. Cloning won't result in thousands of deaths... clones don't reach critical mass you know.

Why aren't brain transplants in the near future? They've been performed on lower organisms with no problems-- even cross-species partial brain transplants, which give REALLY weird behavior results. There have been no cases of neural tissue rejection, ever. It works better than a plug-and-play PCI slot! No IRQs to configure! Yes, HumanOS 1.0 supports plug-and-play CPUs while the computer is running-- can your computer do this?

Baby-to-order: ok, that's genetic

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 11:00am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3181 of 3209)

(con't)

engineering, and has NOTHING to do with the technique of cloning people. I'm not sure many parents would "custom order" a child-- I think they'd prefer to make them the "good ol' fashioned way"-- a combination of both their DNA.

I don't think cloning would ever become widespread enough as to threaten our genetic diversity. Think of it as incest.

Replacement therapy (the brainless clone thingy) is not inherantly imoral, but it can easily appear so. The obvious comparison can be made to chemically inhibiting neural development in a naturally concieved fetus.

Nothing is inherently immoral! As I've said, morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Give this one time... more people will come to understand that the brain is where a human truly is, and that if the brain never forms, the body will only look human superficially.

The greatly enhanced reproducability and control that the use of enbrionic material that is nearly genetically identical should produce incredible gains in our understanding of genetics and life processes in general.

How does cloning help this specifically? And wouldn't mapping the genome of creatures with aggressive regeneration and finding out which gene(s) control it be more worthwhile than using a one-shot treatment of embryonic tissue?

You could go to your local pharmacy and get a "Michael Jordan" kit or a "Cindy Crawford" kit.

While I wouldn't mind seeing more women that looked like Cindy Crawford, I just don't think this would happen. Cloning is expensive and difficult. You would never see a million clones of you or me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 11:54am Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3182 of 3209)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

What I'm saying, Bob, is that by having the tighter controll, both in the subject and the controll groups, that would be provided by "running off" a few hundred cloned embrionic samples research projects involving discovery (such as accuratly mapping a multitude of genomes) and manipulation of the various interesting genomes we will get much more reliable results.

Want to know what switching a particular base pair will accomplish? Much easier to track the results when you know that all of your subjects are (nearly) identical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Perez - 12:09pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3183 of 3209)

Darien:

Parents have been making children, "without thinking of the child," for millenia. This is nothing new. Children have been produced for all sorts of reasons--for extra fieldhands, for pets, for heirs, for saleable commodities--as well as simply accidentally and thoughtlessly. I see nothing in human history that would preclude humans from producing children just for aesthetic reasons, or as an ultimate expression of celebrity worship, or even for shock value. Would someone 50 years ago had thought it plausible to suggest that teens would soon be deliberately mutilating themselves as a fashion statement, right in the middle of a blood-disease epidemic? Probably not. But, humans don't always conform to any given notion of "rationality." Sometimes, they love to be "different," they love to strike terror in each other's hearts, they want to be seen as pushing the edge. Some people will buy their off-the-shelf MJ's precisely because you think it's apalling. Oh well.

Bob Janitor:

Yes, cloning is expensive and difficult--now. Will it forever be so? Flying was--quite recently--expensive and difficult. Now it is cheap and ubiquitous. Lasers were once expensive and difficult to build. Now just about every home in the US has at least one, and kids play with them. I wouldn't count on the expense and difficulty of cloning being written in stone. A million copies of Mao, or MJ, or Marilyn Monroe is not ruled out on those grounds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike T Jones - 01:30pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3184 of 3209)

Roving Libertarian

Bob Janitor 2/10/98 10:59am

Yes, HumanOS 1.0 supports plug-and-play CPUs while the computer is running-- can your computer do this?

Good God, please don't give Bill Gates any ideas...

;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Janitor - 01:37pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3185 of 3209)

Want to know what switching a particular base pair will accomplish? Much easier to track the results when you know that all of your subjects are (nearly) identical.

Keith,

Good point, and a valid one at that. This would help bring the term "control group" to a different level :-). Of course, that's also why Nazis experimented on twins...

Bill,

You're correct. Technology has steadily gotten both cheaper and better. Cloning could quite possibly be made both cheaper and easier, but will that come in the current nuclear fusion technique they are using, or a different cloning technique altogether? The lasers children play with are solid state diode lasers, which are quite different from the ineffecient and expensive gas and ruby lasers (among other types).

A million copies of Marilyn Monroe would be possible. Personally, though, I would prefer to procreate my OWN children. Even though they might not end up looking like MM, they'd still be my children passed on by the combination of my wife's and my DNA. And to me, that's more special than a clone of someone else.

I'm sure some people would prefer to make a clone rather than normal sexual reproduction, but even if it became easy and inexpensive I just think that they would be a minority of the population. But what do I know? YMMV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 02:43pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3186 of 3209)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Bob,

You probably shouldn't use the term, "nuclear fusion technique," in this forum. (Some wacko is going to think clones actually can reach critical mass! :P )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Perez - 03:50pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3187 of 3209)

Bob Janitor:

Cheap and easy cloning using the current painstaking and low-yield methods? I doubt it. But will the current painstaking and low-yield transplanted-nuclei techniques be the last idea we can think of? I doubt this also.

I know that PlayStations don't have big klunky ruby or gas lasers in them. But that's my point: we found a much more cheap and efficient way of getting what we wanted. We (humans) always do, one way or another. That's our shtick. We'll do the same thing with biotech.

You want to procreate the old fashioned way? Hey, God bless. I agree, this will be number one on the charts for a long time. But I wouldn't dare to presume that this will be the exclusive attitude of all people for all time. Even a small minority of 6 billion people can constitute "millions." And that would be weird enough.

Anyway, there's something creepily fascinating to me about the notion of the ephemeral phenomena of "fame" and "celebrity" reaching down and distorting the actual genetic fabric of the human race, via mindless consumerism. It's a sort of high-tech, post-modern devolution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Perez - 04:09pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3188 of 3209)

And, people being the perverse things they sometimes are, how long before we would see clones of Jeff Dahmer, or Divine, or Johnny Holmes, or--God forbid--Buddy Hackett?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:01pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3189 of 3209)

Keith Fosberg: I still maintain that "intentional pacing" is not possible without some kind of "star chamber" tyrany. Of course a "natural" pacing may occur if society resists the notion of cloning stringently enough!)

I agree. Social resistence (which, by definition, is more widespread) performs better as a controlling device that fascist means (which I think actually pushes progress.)

David Decker: I can prove the physical and intellectual spheres.

Really? How do you do this when all you know has been processed through your perceptions? IOW, as babel dispersus has posted, nothing may be real.

David Decker: Are we to halt the march of progress because of a BELIEF held by 3/4 of the world may or may not be true.

Isn't this what democracy's about -- majority rules?

Bob Janitor: to make an organism that was just an organ, you'd have to do a lot of genetic engineering that we don't know how to do.

Not just that, we'd have to control the development of the organ (ie coordinate the chemical signals that cause differentiation.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:02pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3190 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: And to make a clone organ that was 100% compatible with a person... well, that's going to happen about the same time Microsoft products don't have bugs.

Bugs??? I literature says they're features ;)

Bob Janitor: HOW tough you are or how well you can regenerate, YOU WILL DIE. Everything dies

To define "death," one must define "life." Do bacteria die? One can argue either side.

Brett Roberts: Kahauanu, are these bodies we're cloning going to be without souls?

I think the post suggested that clones will have souls independent of the cloned.

Noel Yap: Then how are we able to imagine what happens after death? One possible (scientific) answer is that certain images are hard-wired into our brain (just like chicks now how hawks look and act.)

Bob Janitor: Nonsense. This was produced via selective pressure by the predators to favor those with a paranoid predisposition to large flying shapes with a certain wintip direction.

I didn't state how these hard-wired images came to be, just that they exist.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:02pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3191 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: Death is not a selective pressure to impart knowledge of what's beyond that. It's flawed logic.

Perhaps something else (maybe blind luck) selected these images in. Are you taking the stand that everything we have has or had a reason to exist? If so, please prove it.

Bob Janitor: Imagine a picture of a ball. Now imagine a ball bouncing.

OK, so let's go to ten or eleven dimensions.

Noel Yap: What controls the brain?

Bob Janitor: Don't you understand how a neural network WORKS? Nothing controls the brain!

My post was regarding cause-and-effect. Input causes the brain to change.

In fact, something (perhaps abstract) must control the brain in the manner you're speaking. If not, we'd all be having seizures all the time.

Bob Janitor: Because not only do they fire with sensory input, but can also cause each other to fire, you get "thought" that is independent of senses-- thinking, if you will.

But the thoughts are still affected by the senses. If you trace the firings back, they stem from an original source.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:03pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3192 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: That bit about reflexes in incorrect as well. The input coming from the periphernal nervous system causes EPSP and IPSP, which cause neural cells to fire, which provide an electrical "jolt" to muscles they control.

My comment was about the brain (not) controlling everything. Your post confirms mine.

Bob Janitor: I would venture to say that because they go up in smoke, they are dispersed over a larger area than say, the radiation from chernobyl, which is primarily concentrated in a small area (relative to how far smoke goes).

Then how are nuclear plants "better" for us (radiation-wise) than coal burning?

Bob Janitor: And I have another one for you: suppose we made a transporter like on Star Trek, which can theoretically exist. When you transport and your old body is destroyed, are YOU transporting, or are you committing suicide and creating a perfect copy that appears to be you to everyone else and every scientific instrument?

The latter. When you transport, you create a whole new being (ie the original "you" doesn't have to be destroyed.)

Joe R. Caldwell: It has NOTHING to do with religion...This is SCIENCE!!!

Religion and science balance each other.

Joe R. Caldwell: We have never allowed the fear of the unknown or the idle threat of "Meddling in God's business" to slow the advances of the Sciences...THANK GOD!!!!

Yes we have, thank science. We've known for decades now that unchecked growth leads to death.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:03pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3193 of 3209)

Glenn Curry: See what antiquated superstitions can do if allowed to?

The keyword here is antiquated.

Nick Lazazzera: Cloning of humans should be absolutely and strictly prohibited.

I disagree. It should be paced.

Nick Lazazzera: We have not yet learned to deal with the people we are in original form, let alone creating duplicates to complicate the process.

Creating duplicates can help us learn more about the "original form." When programming computers, copying existing, working code is sometimes the fastest way to learn something new.

Nick Lazazzera: We are just not mature enough, as a species, to handle the responsibility of cloning ourselves.

Not yet, but this is even more of a reason not to strictly prohibit research and experiments.

babel dispersus: What? Noel, you are a very strange person; you make arguments out of nothing, and nothings out of argument.

Perhaps you just don't see where I'm going. You were arguing against the existence of free will. I had misunderstood your flow and thought you were arguing for its existence. Since the brain is physical, it abides by the same laws as everything else. Free will has no room to exist in such a world view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:04pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3194 of 3209)

babel dispersus: Nothing controls the brain. From what I have learned, it is a series of chemical reactions that are caused by the external world exchanging energy with the body (light hitting the eyes, sound vibrating the hairs in the ear, molecules impacting the surface of the skin, chemicals stimulating the nose or tongue).

I guess I was using a broader definition for the word "control." I should have asked, "What affects the brain?"

babel dispersus: Again with nothings... the very definition of determinism is a single consequence mapped to a single cause; a 1 to 1 onto function. That is also the definition of reality that science has given us.

This isn't so. I've already given you examples with chaos theory, complexity theory, and Heisenberg's Principle. I could throw in relativity, too. Science claims that the universe is a one-to-one mapping function.

babel dispersus: Thus, it logically follows that reality and determinism are one in the same.

I've already shown how your assumptions are wrong. But, assuming they are correct, I don't follow your logic.

babel dispersus: If this relationship were not 1 to 1, if it were not onto, and if it were not a function, then science could not exist since the result of an experiment would randomly change.

I see, so you're saying we can actually predict the weather 100% since theoretically we can know the exact initial conditions of the entire universe. Not only is this impractical, but, it's also impossible theoretically.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:05pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3195 of 3209)

babel dispersus: In fact, without these attributes, such things as humans could not exist, or even a molecule, since it requires a fixed set of physical laws to not break down randomly or interact randomly with random consequences.

I guess you're also saying that we can predict when electrons jump states, exactly when quantum tunneling occurs, exactly when a neutron will decay, ...

babel dispersus: It is not non-deterministic, it is chaotic.

You're right, sorry for the misuse.

babel dispersus: Chaos is deterministic; it is just unpredictable to us because we do not have the means to track every variable.

No, due to Heisenberg's Principle, it is impossible for us to track every variable to its minutest detail.

Noel Yap: So, where does free will come from?

babel dispersus: Are you not reading the text on your screen? I just said that free will does not exist... therefore it does not come from anywhere.

My mistake. Most people have their introductions at the beginning of their posts, not in the middle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:12pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3196 of 3209)

babel dispersus: Determinism is a 1 to 1 onto function of cause to consequence. Cause is the domain, consequence is the range. There is at least one and not more than one cause to each consequence, in the most basic of interactions -- that is determinism.

It seems you've avoided any discussion about quantum mechanics.

Noel Yap: And since we presumably live in a closed universe...

babel dispersus: Nothings... the universe is irrelevant except for the immediate environment of the person. Stop making things more difficult than they are.

You're the one who said there are no new things. This is only possible when considering a closed system.

babel dispersus: You obviously meant that reality is definite, and that we interpret it differently.

Whatever. I guess you're also the authority on what other people were thinking.

Cliff Beall: all I said was that Bob was another Tom Anderson, only smarter and more knowledgeable.

The adjective "Tom Anderson" is a very encompassing one -- no offense intended, Tom :)

Cliff Beall: I try to attack ideas rather than people. I don't always succeed. You do.

Naaah, Tom Anderson and Bob Janitor have done an excellent job in refuting my insanity ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:13pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3197 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: Why is human death worse than animal/plant death? Because killing a human is killing a sentient, highly intelligent being.

No. We have no problems killing dolphins, octopi, dogs, chimpanzees, ... Killing a human is "wrong" 'cos it is killing one of our own.

Bob Janitor: How then are humans and animals/plants different?

They're not human.

Bob Janitor: Humans are more intelligent. Where is intelligence? The brain. What if the brain never existed? Then the human would be a mass of cells just like a plant.

This logic follows if you accept its premise.

The cell does not make any decision. Yes, whether it fires or not is based on the neurons in it's near vicinity, but it does not decide anything.

AFAIK, the firing also depends upon the level of neuro-transmitters (and other stuff better explained by Bob.) In a sense, it does decide whether to fire or not. IOW, each neuron can be thought of as a complex if-then processor.

OTOH, the claim that it can be modeled as a processor supports babel's arguments. He may not have the details, but his assertions of no free will haven't been knocked down.

Bob Janitor: That's how things are done in a democracy.

Unfortunately (or fortunately,) we're not governed by a democracy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:13pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3198 of 3209)

Darien Hager: working of the brain is a branching subject, but lets try to keep to cloning.

Isolating problems doesn't solve them. All problems exist in context. Religion, neurons, maybe even reality of self, are part of this context.

Bob Janitor: I was forced to waste board space by proving my point as fact

I don't consider it waste (specially when compared to my posts.)

Even so, people knowing the truth is far preferable than someone spreading lies.

Bob Janitor: Everyone should know these principals of how the mind works down to the individual neural cell...

Or at least how the brain works ;)

Darien Hager: Occams razor would say that we have free will (IMHO) because it would be a lot harder to explain all the wacky things we end up doing at some time or another in our daily lives.

Tom Anderson (possibly on some other board) had previously posted this opinion, too. I disagree with it. One might as well say that Occams razor would say there is a God.

Darien Hager: If we had no free will and were governed by our genes, we would have a lot less suicides.

We would have as much free will if we were governed by our environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darien Hager - 05:15pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3199 of 3209)

Okay okay, so maybe everthing I say and do IS totally wrong, but I don't have to energy to argue about it right now 8^) What I meant was that celbrity cloning is a possibility, or at least I think so.

And about brain transplants, tell me if I am wrong (never mind, you will anyway bob :P) but I mean a fully adult brain into a genetically similar body, Aren't there problems with getting the right connections? You don't want someone who kicks the leg when the try to bat their eye or something do you? Or will the brain automatically compensate, and how well does it do that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------