clone3200

Noel Yap - 05:16pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3200 of 3209)

Darien Hager: [Neurons] are the transistors of the brain.

Yes, a non-linear conducting device is a better analogy.

Darien Hager: I believe this is a similar example of the human brain, from what I have seen.

Computer neural nets are loosely based on biological neural nets. I heard the basis is so loose that neuro-biologists say it's completely different.

Darien Hager: In a sense, they are the transistors of the brain.

Bob Janitor: A VERY misleading analogy.

How so?

Bob Janitor: 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.

Are you talking about at the level of the neuron? Or, can you study the behaviour of neural nets in general and therefore learn more about the brain?

Bob Janitor: The laws of physics inhibit some of our free will (you can't cast magic spells, for instance), and the laws of man other.

What about the laws of group dynamics? Your definition is fine when speaking of humans at the human level, but it breaks down when you go to a larger system. For example, by your definition, a neuron has free will, however, it must still work in conjunction with other neurons so that the brain functions properly. When looking at it from the brain's perspective, the neurons don't have free will.

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

Noel Yap - 05:16pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3201 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: "Free will" is just semantics.

Yes.

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

Good one.

Bob Janitor: The brain is a complex parallel network of analog neural cells; a computer is a primitive collection of transistors that work by binary logic.

Yes, but in the end, the neuron is either on or off. One can also (depending on fan-in and fan-out limitations) increase the number of inputs to and outputs from a transistor. A computer can have a parallel architecture as well. If analog/digital is all that's different, then we can also go back in time and start using analog computers again.

Bob Janitor: First of all, we didn't leap ahead recklessly with nuclear weapons.

I agree, although I think we did leap ahead with nuclear reactors.

Bob Janitor: They saved over 1,000,000 American lives during World War II.

And killed many more Japanese lives.

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

Noel Yap - 05:17pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3202 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: Secondly, nuclear weapons prevented World War III-- hence the cold war-- because no one wanted to use the damn things or get nuked themselves.

This is what it seems in hindsight, but at the time, it was a gamble.

Bob Janitor: Nuclear weapons are actually pretty destructive.

Yup.

Bob Janitor: But, a nuclear war certainly would not be the end of the world.

Perhaps the end of our civilisation, though.

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

Mike T Jones: Good God, please don't give Bill Gates any ideas...

Yeah, God knows what kind of bugs he'll come up with.

Bob Janitor: 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.

My thoughts exactly. I also think the "appalling" factor is used mostly by teens and the fringe of society. Most people will act within the norm.

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

Noel Yap - 05:17pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3203 of 3209)

Bob Janitor: if it became easy and inexpensive I just think that they would be a minority of the population.

I agree.

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

Petra Johnston - 05:22pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3204 of 3209)

Personally I do not believe in cloning for any reason. That includes cloning cows for the drugs in the milk. If we keep on cloning and cloning we are going to keep getting the same cow again and again and therefore we will end up having the same genetic flaws. Also, how do they expect to clone a grown cow when it doesn't have any cells in it that have not yet differntiated to form only a certain thing in the body..ex: a neuron can not become a heart cell. Because of this, I don't think that it would be possible to clone an animal and also, it is not ethical b/c soon they will want to clone humans and who gets the say in who should be cloned or not?

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

Bob Janitor - 05:40pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3205 of 3209)

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 )

Ahh! Two clones holding hands! Everyone duck and cover! :-)

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.

Sometimes, the most cheap and effecient way is not always the best per se. Look at military laser weaponry. Yes, they actually developed laser weaponry under that wonderful waste of taxpayer money they called the SDI program (aka "Star Wars", gotta love Reagan). They even started working on particle beam weapons and X-ray lasers (which worked by superheating a carbon atom that would produce a soft x-ray)

They developed a chemical laser called the MIrACL-- medium infrared active chemical laser. Basically, as the chemicals combust, a LOT of laser radiation is produced. The one they are developing for planes is a megawatt class laser. A MW class laser can cut an enemy plane, tank, nuclear warhead or satellite clean in half. Ouch!

Meanwhile, the most powerful laser diode we have is perhaps 200mW-- milliwatts-- a half billion times weaker than the MIRACL laser.

But I digress.

But I wouldn't dare to presume that this will be the exclusive attitude of all people for all time.

I never said that!

Even a small minority of 6 billion people can constitute "millions." And that would be weird enough.

Quite true. But you have to figure what, 10% of the world's population controls 90% of its wealth? Cloning *might* be in the reach of middle class Americans, but I think it's unobtanium for most of the population out there, even if they did want to do it.

And, people being the perverse things they sometimes are, how long before we would see clones of Jeff Dahmer

I think we've established on the board alrea

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

Bob Janitor - 05:48pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3206 of 3209)

(con't)

already that clones, like identical twins, will grow to become mentally quite different from their twin.

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

Keith Fosberg - 06:29pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3207 of 3209)

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

I will take a "stab" at the neuron game :)

The transistor analogy is bad because a transistor regulates current.

No electronic component works very well, but a zenar diod is probably closest.

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

Bill Perez - 06:29pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3208 of 3209)

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

Hmmm. Seems to me that a hell of a lot of people have absolutely no problem with killing humans. They can find all sorts of good reasons why it's downright imperative. Check out the "Iraqi Standoff" board for a refresher.

Bob Janitor: I never said that!

Never said you did. I was just saying what I wouldn't presume.

Noel Yap: I also think the "appalling" factor is used mostly by teens and the fringe of society.

Oh? "Fringes" sometimes have a way morphing into the "norm." People very often pride themselves on their unpredictability, especially in the US--the popularity of gangsta style, media violence, fake toy snot, tinted muscle-car windows, tattoos, habanero sauce, piercing, Rikki Lake, meth, etc., etc.--satisfy a large (granted, young) section of the consuming public's urge to be feared and shocking. At any rate, what is "fringe" and what is "norm" is in constant flux, and varies from society to society (is it "normal" to burn your bride if she isn't working out? To communally stone an adulteress to death? To train your children to publicly beg? To commit suicide if you've dishonored your family? To eat dogs? To drink hard liquor during a business meeting? To endure beatings from your employer?). I would expect the same to occur with regards to cloning, over the long haul.

Noel Yap: Most people will act within the norm.

Now would that qualify as a tautology?

Bob Janitor: Cloning *might* be in the reach of middle class Americans, but I think it's unobtanium for most of the population out there, even if they did want to do it.

Well, again, we might be surprised. There are poverty-stricken villages in India where you can't find antibiotics--but you can find several places to get cheap ultrasounds. Why? Couples want to know whether they're having a daughter (abort) or a son (celebrate). A recent issue of

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

Bill Perez - 06:31pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3209 of 3209)

(cont.)

A recent issue of Wired (I know, I know, don't climb all over me--someone said I had to read this article) reported how sub-Saharan Africa is just blooming with cheap ISPs. The "3rd world" is starting to acquire technology at an ever-accelerating rate. And, again, in the long run, are you willing to say that cloning will never get cheap enough for any but the very rich?

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

Aaron Brager - 07:56pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3210 of 3216)

I think that humans should defintly be cloned if they had no intellect, and were colored green or something. Cheap slave labor! Of course, we'd have to program the three laws of robotics or something...

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/dnrc

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

Aaron Brager - 08:00pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3211 of 3216)

So many people have asked me about the three laws of robotics... here they are:

1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm in any way.

2a. A robot must obey all orders given to it by its owner, unless the order conflicts with the first law.

2b. Same as 2a, but for other humans-- the owner takes priority.

3. A robot may not harm itself, or, through inaction, allow itself to come to harm, unless that is in direct confliction with the first or second laws.

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

Bob Janitor - 08:16pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3212 of 3216)

And about brain transplants, tell me if I am wrong (never mind, you will anyway bob :P) but I Well, I *have* to.

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?

You can take an adult brain, in part or all, and can plop it into a different species, provided you regenerate the axonal connections! And it will work, and the organism will be able to control itself! Almost sounds like sci-fi... but it's not. Neural networks are amazing.

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

I *knew* someone was gonna be anal about this one. Yeah, we live in a Republic where we elect representatives, etc... but we like to think of it as a democracy.

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

According to Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, you cannot non-destructively glean all the information needed for a transportation.

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

Easy. The fuel rods are compact and portable, and solid, and easy to carry down and dump by the barrel in Mexico (just kidding).

Provided good safety measures are taken, it's virtually impossible to have a Chernobyl. That only happened after an already horribly unsafe and poorly made design was taken to the brink to see how far they could get it without causing a meltdown. Ooops.

Furthermore, you can generate power from non-fissionable nuclear material (aka nuclear waste) by a thermopile or via solid state means. The latter is patented, and the former is being used on the NASA probe going to Saturn.

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

No, you said that re

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

Bob Janitor - 08:17pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3213 of 3216)

(con't)

No, you said that reflexes were not controlled by the brain. They are. You sense something. The signal is carried from the nerves that sense it to the brain. The neural cells in the brain collective gather this information, and decide to say, stimulate muscles in the leg, so that when someone hammers you in the kneecap, your leg kicks slightly.

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

Yes... but point being, you think thoughts unrelated to the current data input from the senses.

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.

I still fail to see how you think we have had images of the afterlife magically implanted in our heads.

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

As you said yourself, Noel, we don't live in a democracy.

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

Ug. Please, no arguments on the qualification of life or death... we could go on forever. I think we all have an intrinsic sense of "life" and "death"... and I'll leave it at that. And yes, bacteria die. But a better argument is, do viruses die? And are they ever alive?

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

Ahh, but imagine if there were zorkoids. Now, a zorkoid looks like a floating, giant jellyfish... only it can talk, see, hear, and has a brain almost exactly like a human. Although zorkoids and humans first didn't like each other, out of fear and ignorance, we have come to recognize we are both intelligent species, and despite our physical differences, we are very much the same and do the same neolithic type activities. Imagining that this WERE true, don't you think it would be realistic

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

Bob Janitor - 08:18pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3214 of 3216)

(con't)

to assume murder would legally also apply to zorkoids?

IOW, each neuron can be thought of as a complex if-then processor.

Yes, quite a good analogy. If voltage = -50mV then goto fire. But there is something outside this if-then statement-- analog inputs, swaying the voltage a little bit one way or the other.

Or at least how the brain works ;)

Brain=mind. Mind=brain.

Yes, a non-linear conducting device is a better analogy.

No!

Sure they do. They gather information, make a decision (will), and execute this will freely (free will).

Yes, but in the end, the neuron is either on or off.

No! The neural cell is somewhere between -70 and -50mV! Once it gets to -50mV, it fires and releases a neutranmitter that affects other neural cells' voltage one way or the other.

And killed many more Japanese lives.

Incorrect. The fission bombs dropped on Japan didn't come close to 1,000,000 causaulties, let alone "many more" than that.

Perhaps the end of our civilisation, though.

Even Rome fell. Our civilization is relatively new.

ex: a neuron can not become a heart cell.

Sure it can. Ever heard of regeneration? Dedifferentiation?

No electronic component works very well, but a zenar diod is probably closest.

Actually, a non-existant capacitor is probably closer. This is what the capacitor does:

-it starts out at a certain voltage -little magic zappies from other capacitors cause the capcitor to be raised closer or futher away from the voltage at which the capacitor discharges -once the capacitor

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

Bob Janitor - 08:19pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3215 of 3216)

(con't)

discharges, it release little magic zappies that slightly change the voltage of other capacitors around it one way or the other

And, again, in the long run, are you willing to say that cloning will never get cheap enough for any but the very rich?

No. Actually, as technology marches on, the need for slavery, many children, and dictatorships will fade. Technology got us out of mideval europe with the industrial revolution, and got us out of farming as a main career in America. It makes life... easier... and allow for more career specialization. Though I don't say that when my computer crashes and loses an important document I'm working on :-). (if I posted what I said when that happened, CNN would probably delete my post)

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

Cliff Beall - 09:38pm Feb 10, 1998 ET (#3216 of 3216)

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

This will be a short one folks. Noel sent me the source code for a very interesting program and I have decided to see if I can port it to Windows. (Noel doesn't approve, but I am a Gates fan.)

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

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

Well, all I can say is: Let the legislating begin!

I suppose, Newt, it is time for me to admit that you were right and I was wrong. For those who don't know, Newt and I have had this disagreement. He said the folks on the cloning message board were incorrigible and would never listen to reason. I maintained that we were reasonable people and would shape up as soon as the ax began to fall.

I was sure it would turn out okay in the end. I was wrong. (What I had not counted was the extent the "appalling" factor would play in the discussion.)

Be sure and say hello to Bill and Hillary for me, Newt, the next time you see them. I trust the government will continue to work together for the betterment of mankind even it the cloning board has hit a new low. I'm sorry it had to turn out this way. I guess you win some and lose some. But cheer up, Newt, it isn't all that bad. This way you get to pass some new laws.

(I'll probably be back in a week or so, folks. Cheers.)

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

Darien Hager - 04:46am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3217 of 3247)

Petra Johnston: Also, how do they expect to clone a grown cow when it doesn't have any cells in it that have not yet differntiated to form only a certain thing in the body..ex: a neuron can not become a heart cell. Because of this, I don't think that it would be possible to clone an animal

But they DID clone an animal!

To expand on bob's answer in #3214: Well, with dolly they took the nucleus of a mammary cell from her original, an adult, and inserted that nucleus into a egg that had it's cell removed, then with some chemicals and a small current, (I won't get too technical) the "reset the clock" making the cell think it was a newly-fertilized egg. I suppose you could do this with other cells similarly, since they all contain the same deoxyribonucleic acid strands,(I love long words)or at least the same sequences (approx.)

Also, they didn't NEED a particular cell, why would they want to turn a nueron into a muscle cell? What they needed was an egg with the same genes. But you wouldn't be able to do it with a cell with a nucleus that is too large... Is there cell nuclei size differentiation? I'll look it up later.

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

babel dispersus - 05:11am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3218 of 3247)

...omega

Bob Janitor: You HAVE no understanding. You have no credentials, and anyone with access to an encyclopedia can prove you wrong.

I beg to differ. You should check your facts before engaging in false condescension. You do not know of what degree I hold and in which fields. You are assuming far too much.

Bob Janitor: All neural cells...

Right, that is all correct. You described the reaction of a neuron adequately.

Bob Janitor: Neurons integrate info from a variety of sources and then make a fire/no-fire decision based on these inputs. They're not a wire!

You are making an inference about the qualities of the cell that you can not get from the premises. The neuron does not make a decision; it does or does not fire depending only on the external conditions of the cell, not of a thought process within the cell.

A copper wire transmits a current (flow of electrons) only if there is a voltage or current imposed on it from the outside. Similarly, a neuron transmits a current (flow of chemical potentials) only if there is a chemical signal imposed on it from the outside. No signal originates within the cell.

Now, please calm down and think about the terminology you are using. Obviously "decision" is not the word you should be using to describe why a neuron fires. There are only two actions of a neuron, either it fires or it does not. Your description of why it fires was adequate up until you used the word "decision" because there is no "decision" ever involved in the process.

Bob Janitor: I was forced to because someone else was presenting misinformation.

I was not presenting misinformation, you were mispresenting correct information. I just made the point of it and you bit my head off.

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

babel dispersus - 05:13am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3219 of 3247)

...omega

Darien Hager: Occams razor would say that we have free will

No it doesn't. Free will is another entity that is not necessary.

Darien Hager: 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?

Free will has little to do with genes. It has to do with whether we make choices or whether it simply appears to us that we do. I have previously proved the latter.

Bob Janitor: The laws of physics inhibit some of our free will

Not only does physics inhibit free will, but prevents it all-together.

Bob Janitor: Every day we integrate information from different sources and make decisions based upon it.

That is what people would like to believe. However, the truth is that information is integrated from different sources by our brain, and that results in an action. However, there was never any choice in the matter... the resultant action is dependant solely on the direct sensory information and on prior experience.

Keith Fosberg: Complexity is not an issue, but non-interactive systems are unless you artificially limit the scope of the system under consideration.

How so?

Keith Fosberg: 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.

We can live perfectly well with the illusion, but the knowledge of the ultimate reality is very important to science, philosophy, and beliefs.

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

babel dispersus - 05:15am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3220 of 3247)

...omega

Noel Yap: 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.

Only the (deterministic) laws of nature, just as with any structure. A building refrains from falling on itself due to physical laws... the same reason we don't spontaneously seizure.

Noel Yap: If you trace the firings back, they stem from an original source.

Precisely.

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

Actually, I recall an episode where that happened... Riker transported and left himself behind as well. The "clone" later took the middle name. I hope people don't start thinking that this has anything to do with nuclear injection technology.

Noel Yap: Religion and science balance each other.

Noel, that is not very logical. Science uses hypothesis to determine a likely cause of a consequence, and then deduces whether that hypothesis was correct by using experimentation. This results in knowledge that is reliably correct. Religion is simply the clinging to a fictional doctrine that has little bearing on reality. The two are in no way related, and we can easily do without religion.

Noel Yap: 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.

Now you are understanding!

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

babel dispersus - 05:17am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3221 of 3247)

...omega

Noel Yap: I've already given you examples with chaos theory, complexity theory, and Heisenberg's Principle.

These things are irrelevant to determinism, they are all deterministic.

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

You have not shown any flaws in my logic; I have made no assumptions beyond that all of the relevent science has been proven sufficiently. The logic showing reality is deterministic is a simple deduction (all S are M, all M are P, therefore all S are P). Read it again in that context.

Noel Yap: 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.

Once again, this has nothing to do with prediction. It has nothing to do with people. It has only to do with the nature of reality. It matters not what we can predict.

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

It does not matter what WE can track; only what occurs, no matter whether we watch or not.

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

It is irrelevant.

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

babel dispersus - 05:19am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3222 of 3247)

...omega

Noel Yap: You're the one who said there are no new things.

I said no such thing. I said that there are no spontaneous thoughts. You can have infinitely many new things (an open universe) and still have determinism. It is analagous to arithmatic: you can add "one" to infinitely many numbers, but the structure of addition will always cause there to be one result for each sum (and each number can only be the result of the addition of "one" to one specific number, namely one less than itself).

Noel Yap: I guess you're also the authority on what other people were thinking.

I'm sorry, I only meant that it clearly appeared as though that is what you meant, and I cannot see how you could have meant otherwise. The context of your statement seemed to confirm it. Structuring what you later said you meant into the original context just does not make any sense.

Noel Yap: This logic follows if you accept its premise [that intelligence is in the brain].

Noel, Bob's premise is very well proven, and unrefuted logically or scientifically.

Noel Yap: IOW, each neuron can be thought of as a complex if-then processor.

Precisely... an if-then statement is deterministic. No decision involved.

Noel Yap: He may not have the details, but his assertions of no free will haven't been knocked down.

Thank you, Noel. BTW, the reason I did not state the details is because they are unimportant, and I figured that Bob already knew them anyway.

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

Darien Hager - 05:20am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3223 of 3247)

Minor note, I believe most reflexes such as the knee tap=kick don't even reach your brain. The nerves have a turnaround point, and the charge made by the sensory nuerons end up stimulating the muscles fairly directly, without the brain coming into play.

Another thing, who has read any of David Brin's Uplift Series? One of the things cloning may open up is the ability to hasten other species along the track or sapiency (assuming people are intelligent and that it was evolved and that stuff). Clone a few dolphins or some other creature of apparently high intelligence and you can work with the clones and make a clone of the one that seems most intelligent, do some artificial work on the brain, test it, mix the genes two of the dolphins with the most apparent intelligence...etc.

Not that we would do such a thing today, but it is possible. We would have to think of animals as creatures on the evolutionary road to sentience, assuming external conditions would start to evolve sentience, and that WE are sentient, and that sentience is really a good thing (I'm making a lot of assumptions here). <endlessly babbles for a few more minutes>

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

babel dispersus - 05:23am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3224 of 3247)

...omega

Bill Perez: Now would that qualify as a tautology [that most people will act within the norm]?

I would have to say yes, if you agree to the premise that the "norm" is always defined as "that which most people do".

Aaron Brager: A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm in any way.

Ethically, this one applies to humans too.

Bob Janitor: According to Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, you cannot non-destructively glean all the information needed for a transportation.

If you would please not to bite my head off, I would like to be begging a difference. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle deals with a particle that is free of any external forces on it which is moving in space with a certain velocity and momentum. The act of measuring either of these properties changes the other one, so neither can be known simultaneously. However, the cells in the body do not depend on the exact atom composing each structure, but a hydrogen can be replaced with another hydrogen and so on. In addition, these atoms are held strongly in a constant relative position by the forces of the atoms in near vicinity to them. Therefore, HUP does not preclude the measuring of the information (which cells and where, and even which molecules and where) as it would apply to the particle in space. In effect, we are zeroing out both the momentum and the velocity so that we can measure the exact relative position.

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

Marv Dyck - 05:24am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3225 of 3247)

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

Uhh.. if we don't have free will , that means somebody else controls our will , which means that the deaths we have listed as suicides are actually murders.

"The Olde Fashion Way" vs Cloning

The old fashion way is more pleasurable and being free will always be less expensive than cloning irreguardless how much it goes down in price.

(uhh.. maybe not some people have to pay to participate in the original sin and governments might figure out how to tax it)

Cloning on the other hand is the ultimate safe sex, no partner no problem (no fun)

New Idea

Somebody mentioned "How would you tell them apart?"

Somebody else mentioned about numbering them for example "Cindy Crawford #49865"

How about putting that number on a computer chip and implanting it in every newborn's forehead. Should workout, except for that poor "soul" with the number #6666.

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

babel dispersus - 05:26am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3226 of 3247)

...omega

Bob Janitor: You sense something. The signal is carried from the nerves that sense it to the brain. The neural cells in the brain collective gather this information, and decide to say, stimulate muscles in the leg, so that when someone hammers you in the kneecap, your leg kicks slightly.

Noel was speaking of a shorter reflex arc which does not involve the brain. Knee-jerk responses do not arrive at the brain until after an intermediate interneuron in a modulator such as the spinal cord has already directed the correct response back to the necessary effector neurons. But then again, I can't have known what Noel was thinking ;o)

Bob Janitor: Yes... but point being, you think thoughts unrelated to the current data input from the senses.

Not entirely unrelated. They are related in some small way, but are also compared to all relevant previous experience, the multitude of which may make the current data insignificant in comparison. However, all previous experience originated externally. The comparisons are made through the associative nature of the neural network, but I'm sure you understand all of that. The structure of the network holds the information, but that information is useless unless it is stimulated from the outside. As Noel pointed out, if you trace back all of the associations, you will arrive at the single event outside of the system which caused it.

Bob Janitor: But a better argument is, do viruses die? And are they ever alive?

Better still... is fire alive? It meets most definitions of life; it metabolizes and procreates.

Bob Janitor: No! The neural cell is somewhere between -70 and -50mV!

And your average computer wire is somewhere between 0V and 5V, but we still consider it digital because the only thing that matters is whether it is at 5V or not, just as it only matters if the neuron fires or it does not. In either case, there are only two discrete actions (0/1).

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

Darien Hager - 05:41am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3227 of 3247)

Small note Babel, when you say you have proved we have no free will (I think we do), It sounds a little arrogant to me (no offense) you might have proved it to yourself however. It can be argued both ways, thus I'd rather just leave it out of the conversation, except that it has a lot to do with the morals of cloning.

It is a little pointless try to understand anything in the universe for more than a minute anyway :P . I mean today, we say "Oh, those people believed that maggots came from rotting meat and that comets were portents" and chuckle about it. 200 years from now they'll be saying "Those people believed in quarks!"....

Also HUP, although originally meaning particles, can actually be interpreted in various situations. I think what Bob meant was that it was necessary to destroy some of the body in order to acquire the information. How would you know how glass breaks withough dropping some? Sure you could do simulations, but then you'd need to know some things like density and stress lines, which you might have to DRILL for... and using laser refractions might melt it slightly, no matter how weak the laser....etc. Many things can happen.

There is no such thing as passive observation. Even photons will move the position of atoms, albeit slightly, sound waves, more so, everything on the electromagnetic spectrum has an effect. Even using a camera, the camera would block air currents or start them with the small flick of the lens, electricity in wires would attract-repulse ions..... you get the idea.

And fire, we have no true guidelines that are accepted as to Life and non-life. If we did, this board wouldn't exist 8^).

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

Jonathan Allen - 09:07am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3228 of 3247)

Technologically, cloning could be our worst enemy in the short term and our best hope for the long term. I am speaking of the fact that at present rates of growth, India will surpass China in overpopulation, and the United States could easily grow much faster if we allow cloning to become an unregulated reproductive panacea. However, as we kill off and toxify our environment, we will reach the point where we need to clone ourselves or die out. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we should plan to ban or severely limit the practice of cloning for now to keep the gene pools of all species maximally diverse so that when we are forced into cloning we will have the biggest assortment to clone (engineered variants hopefully will be better by then, but I'll believe them if I ever meet them and their clones).

I am not trying to imply that there are not plenty of other important considerations to this question, only that if an advancement is technically costly, then that determination should not be ignored for short term gains. We are having enough problems with growth without the added complication of cloning.

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

Keith Fosberg - 10:57am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3229 of 3247)

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

babel dispersus,

I think at least part of the problem is that we are employing at least three definitions for "free will" in this argument. :P

The specific instance of a quanta is neither deterministic, nor in fact fixed until the "information" propogates beyond the Planc (I always spell his name wrong :( ) limit. Since "events" at this scale don't technically exist they can hardly be termed "deterministic." It is only when structure begins to emerge that deterministic reality exists (but you weren't talking about this, were you?)

About neurons: Of course they do not individualy have free will! A nueron that does not "fire" when properly stimulated is malfunctioning!

Free will at the sentient level is a deep phylosophical debate. The main question at issue is; Do we "create" or do we simply exibit infinite integrations of existing data? What if I purposely choose to react inapropriately? Say, resist the habbit to properly place my foot while walking? Does it effect this test if I am in contention with you regarding free will and wish to employ this as an argument to support my possition?

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

Joseph S - 11:09am Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3230 of 3247)

Do any of the regular contributors to this board actually have any experience in this research?

Chemistry 101, Scientific American, _The Emperor's New Mind_, and Star Trek does not add up to expertise. But I guess if you guys have nothing better to do...

Does anyone know if there are any forums where real live researchers converse in laymen's terms about current research?

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

Bob Janitor - 12:28pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3231 of 3247)

I beg to differ. You should check your facts before engaging in false condescension. You do not know of what degree I hold and in which fields. You are assuming far too much.

Please, enlighten us oh great babel.

If you want to anally prattle on about semantics, be my guest-- but I'm right when it comes to semantics. The point is, neural cells get input from senses and other neurons, a weighted priority is assinged to each input via an analog voltage, and a decision-- firing-- is reached, based on the input. That is no different from a decision in a higher level brain function-- except we enjoy the added benefit of memory.

For instance, smacking another guy. Now, this guy is really pissing you off. But, you have enough self control to not hit him. Suddenly though, he insults your mother. SMACK! What happened? There was more weighted excitatory influences-- that is, influences supporting whacking the guy, than inhibitory-- or not hitting him. Emotions and testosterone are, of course, definately excitatory influences.

There are only two actions of a neuron, either it fires or it does not.

Yes, but the most important property of neuron is that neurotransmitters influence membrane permeability in an analog fashion, although you can brush off the whole process as "binary", you're simply ignoring the primary reasons a neural cell works.

you were mispresenting correct information

Oh really? Nothing I said was misrepresentative, nor incorrect. And no one has disagreed with my assessment of how neural cells work except you... hate to lose babel?

Not only does physics inhibit free will, but prevents it all-together... there was never any choice in the matter... the resulta

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

Bob Janitor - 12:29pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3232 of 3247)

(con't)

resultant action is dependant solely on the direct sensory information and on prior experience.

You are ignoring varyability and symbolic reasoning, and the ability to reach a decision! This might apply to an individual neural cell, but not the brain as a whole.

there are no spontaneous thoughts.

I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility that, for whatever reason-- malfunction or otherwise, maybe a higher starting resting potential-- "misfiring" occur and could be spontaneous thoughts.

There are also random chemical fluctuations-- such as drug use-- and your current "train of thought" analyzing past sensory input stored as memory is influenced by current sensory input.

However, the cells in the body do not depend on the exact atom composing each structure

And exactly how do we determine the exact location and composition in every molecule of the body non-destructively?

Better still... is fire alive? It meets most definitions of life; it metabolizes and procreates.

Procreation isn't necessary for something to be alive.

See above.

Do any of the regular contributors to this board actually have any experience in this research?

I don't need a PhD to state the world isn't flat no more than I don't need a PhD to describe how neural cells work. They're both simple, scientifically irrefutable facts.

Does anyone know if there are any forums where real live researchers converse in laymen's terms about current research?

Yes, it's in between the "military intelligence" forum (requires a password) and the french virgin forum. If you scroll down you can find the ethical lawyer's forum and the honest politician's forum too, which I

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

Bob Janitor - 12:30pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3233 of 3247)

(con't)

regularily visit.

-The Almighty Bob

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

W. Keith Beason - 01:58pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3234 of 3247)

Most of what has been said is philosophically interesting, but of little real value. The point is that throughout history whenever ANYTHING has become scientifically possible it happens! Either commercially or subculturally, but it happens.

It means nothing if the US Congress decides to ban human cloning. France will allow it, or China, or Brazil, or somebody else. HUMAN CLONING WILL OCCUR!! Even if it takes place "underground".

I see an industry developing in the next 50 years. Have yourself cloned. Stored for future use. Then (here's the tricky part) disconnect and reconnect your actual brain into the clone. Big money in that if neuroscience continues to develop at its present rate.

Beyond this issue, however, there is something even more fundamental happening here that relates to human society as a whole. Notice there was little or no debate on this issue until confimed cloning of mammals occurred. THEN the debate started.

Point is CHANGE itself is accelerating at a rate that is way beyond the ability of any society's cultural infrastructure to react. This will continue. With new frontiers emerging like cloning, nanotechnology, and others things are going to start happening VERY fast.

Sheshunoff Information Services recently estimated that by the year 2020 or so workers will have to be retrained to do their jobs every six weeks. In other words, training and working become seamless. Our government and religious structures simply can't handle that. What does one do when an event occurs and is finished before we have time to debate it? That's the bottom line implication of human cloning.

Its not a brave new world. Its a world where, at last, possibility overtakes mystery as the key to a human sense of wonder.

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

David Zellner - 02:56pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3235 of 3247)

It seems to me that some posts reflect concerns that border more on paranoia than logic. Ethical applications of science and technology have always had as a primary goal the improvement of people's lives. I suspect that improving lives is a primary (if not the primary)goal of those involved in cloning research. Hence, I am generally supportive of the concept. However, I am very sensitive to religious arguments surrounding the use of "waste fetuses" to facilitate this research. I cannot support the use of a "waste" fetus.

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

Noel Yap - 04:55pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3236 of 3247)

Petra Johnston: who gets the say in who should be cloned or not?

Money.

Bob Janitor: I think we've established on the board alrea already that clones, like identical twins, will grow to become mentally quite different from their twin.

But they may have genetic predispositions towards certain behaviour (ie violence.) What they do with that predisposition (ie join the army) is mostly up to their environment.

Bill Perez: Hmmm. Seems to me that a hell of a lot of people have absolutely no problem with killing humans.

I speaking on a human level. When different societies clash, the rules no longer hold (ie they aren't human.)

Noel Yap: Most people will act within the norm.

Bill Perez: Now would that qualify as a tautology?

Accch, you caught it! It's not really a tautology, more a property of normal (as in normal curves in probability) distributions.

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

Bob Janitor: I *knew* someone was gonna be anal about this one. Yeah, we live in a Republic where we elect representatives, etc... but we like to think of it as a democracy.

Sorry if I insulted your intelligence, I just wanted to post it for those who "know" it's a democracy.

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

Noel Yap - 04:55pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3237 of 3247)

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

Bob Janitor: According to Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, you cannot non-destructively glean all the information needed for a transportation.

That's more of a reason that the copied version is a whole different individual.

Bob Janitor: No, you said that reflexes were not controlled by the brain. They are.

From what I learned (which may be obsolete), reflex signals travel only up to the spine (?) If it needed the brain to make a decision, it would take too long.

Bob Janitor: you think thoughts unrelated to the current data input from the senses.

Then these thoughts can be traced back to some other stimulus.

Bob Janitor: I still fail to see how you think we have had images of the afterlife magically implanted in our heads.

I don't, I just proposed it as a possible explanation.

Bob Janitor: don't you think it would be realistic to assume murder would legally also apply to zorkoids?

Yes, but then intelligence would not be the only criteria by which we gauge morality. Zorkoids would, abstractly speaking, be exactly like humans (ie behave as humans do.)

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

Noel Yap - 04:57pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3238 of 3247)

Bob Janitor: Yes, quite a good analogy. If voltage = -50mV then goto fire. But there is something outside this if-then statement-- analog inputs, swaying the voltage a little bit one way or the other.

But a transistor is exactly this. We just designed it so that the threshold between on and off is wider so that there's no guesswork. The only difference between computers and brains is how those elements (transistors or neurons) are connected and, as you've said, the "inaccuracy" of the decision-making in neurons.

Noel Yap: Yes, a non-linear conducting device is a better analogy.

Bob Janitor: No!

I guess I overgeneralised here.

Bob Janitor: They gather information, make a decision (will), and execute this will freely (free will).

Again, you're sticking to the level of the neuron.

Noel Yap: Yes, but in the end, the neuron is either on or off.

Bob Janitor: No! The neural cell is somewhere between -70 and -50mV! Once it gets to -50mV, it fires and releases a neutranmitter that affects other neural cells' voltage one way or the other.

Pinggg! I think I'm (finally) beginning to understand your point. I'm still wondering, though, whether this makes much of a difference between how a computer neural net behaves and how our brains behave.

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

Noel Yap - 04:57pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3239 of 3247)

Bob Janitor: I suppose, Newt, it is time for me to admit that you were right and I was wrong. For those who don't know, Newt and I have had this disagreement. He said the folks on the cloning message board were incorrigible and would never listen to reason. I maintained that we were reasonable people and would shape up as soon as the ax began to fall.

I think you are right, it just takes more time (sometimes infinite) for some people.

Bob Janitor: (What I had not counted was the extent the "appalling" factor would play in the discussion.)

This is part of the human factor.

babel dispersus: [the neuron] does or does not fire depending only on the external conditions of the cell, not of a thought process within the cell.

According to Bob, the neuron has state (ie charge.) Depending on this charge and external factors, the neuron will fire (or not.)

babel dispersus: No signal originates within the cell.

This may be so, but the information generated by the cell is partially dependent upon it's internal state.

babel dispersus: Your description of why it fires was adequate up until you used the word "decision" because there is no "decision" ever involved in the process.

Yes there is. It depends upon your perspective.

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

Noel Yap - 04:58pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3240 of 3247)

babel dispersus: there was never any choice in the matter... the resultant action is dependant solely on the direct sensory information and on prior experience.

Unless you take into consideration Heisenberg's Principle.

Keith Fosberg: 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 agree.

babel dispersus: We can live perfectly well with the illusion, but the knowledge of the ultimate reality is very important to science, philosophy, and beliefs.

I'll agree that it's important to science. Philosophy will go on inventing new truths. Beliefs will go on searching for truths that comfort an individual.

babel dispersus: Noel Yap: Religion and science balance each other.

Science uses hypothesis to determine a likely cause of a consequence, and then deduces whether that hypothesis was correct by using experimentation. This results in knowledge that is reliably correct. Religion is simply the clinging to a fictional doctrine that has little bearing on reality. The two are in no way related, and we can easily do without religion.

They both have their purposes. They don't have to be related to balance each other.

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

Noel Yap - 04:59pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3241 of 3247)

Noel Yap: 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.

babel dispersus: Now you are understanding!

As I said before, I just misunderstood your original stance. You and I agreed on the outset (regarding free will, anyway.)

babel dispersus: These things are irrelevant to determinism, they are all deterministic.

Heisenberg's Principle is not deterministic. A quantum event is completely random (ie tied to no other events) as far as we've seen. Are you now going to hide behind, "We just haven't found anything yet," just like the people defending their beliefs in souls and God?

babel dispersus: I have made no assumptions beyond that all of the relevent science has been proven sufficiently.

This itself is a flawed assumption. First, there'd be no working physicists if this were true. Second, we thought the same thing around Newton's time.

babel dispersus: The logic showing reality is deterministic is a simple deduction (all S are M, all M are P, therefore all S are P). Read it again in that context.

This itself is an assumption that should be proven (specially in the quantum world.)

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

Noel Yap - 05:00pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3242 of 3247)

babel dispersus: It does not matter what WE can track; only what occurs, no matter whether we watch or not.

It sounds like you're using the Copenhagen Interpretation. This particular interpretation is full of holes (ie sentient beings are able to change the flow of events.) Why not take Heisenberg's Principle for what it says, particles don't have exact position and exact momentum at the same time. There are other dual properties for which this pertains.

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

babel dispersus: It is irrelevant.

Again, you've proven my point. Anything beyond your knowledge (yes, I'm presuming) is irrelevent.

Darien Hager: I believe most reflexes such as the knee tap=kick don't even reach your brain.

Thanks. I was certain this is what I had learned. Again, Bob, if there have been developments in this area we don't know about, please educate us (or point us to some sites you know of.)

babel dispersus: The act of measuring either of these properties changes the other one, so neither can be known simultaneously.

You are using the Copenhagen Interpretation. Of all the interpretations out there, I prefer the Transactional Interpretation. It's more minimal than the others.

Anyway, measurement has nothing to do with a particle's properties' fuzziness. Nor does it have anything to do with the occurence of an event.

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

Noel Yap - 05:04pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3243 of 3247)

Back to the brain-computer analogy. Although I think the transistor is a good analogy to the neuron (they're both non-linear, binary functions of their inputs and internal states), today's computer is not a good analogy to the brain. Their architectures are completely different. If, however, one were to "wire" a computer the way computer neural nets are architected, one should get a very primitive brain.

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

deleted Joseph S - 05:16pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3244 of 3247)

"I don't need a PhD to state the world isn't flat no more than I don't need a PhD to describe how neural cells work. They're both simple, scientifically irrefutable facts."

Sure, Bob, but does anyone know where I can get away from your dull prattle and read an open-minded discussion on current research and it's implications? I'm interested in the real-world scientific and political issues of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Is it possible for researchers to direct this cell to become a skin cell or a muscle cell rather than a fetus? Bob, even if you think you can answer this, don't (I honestly have no use for sophomore level chemistry and physics married with freshman level philosophy [with a good bit of arrogance no less!?]).

I have no issue with the science fiction or metaphysical aspect of the discussion. It's when people confuse fantasy with reality, belief with knowledge, and religiously defend some shallow philosophy of life that I grow irritated.

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

Dawn Willis - 06:13pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3245 of 3247)

Joseph S. My credentials: PhD, former cloner of genes but not animals or people.

The Bond/Frist/Gregg bill (S.1599), to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning, is coming up this week on the Senate floor with no committee hearings or mark-up. I have in front of me a draft of comments from concerned scientists who believe that the bill as written will imperil biomedical research to generate customized stem cells to treat disease, if the research involves somatic cell nuclear transfer. If a researcher could create a human zygote to start a customized stem cell line with DNA identical to that of a patient, it might be possible to create an unlimited supply of non-rejectable progenitor cells for: cardiac muscle, skin, spinal cord neurons; brain cells, pancreas, bone marrow, blood vessel endothelial cells, liver cells, cartilage cells, lung epithelial cells, retinal cells, etc. Still, the mass of cells created will be an embryo, even if never implanted. I don't have a problem with this, but others might.

The bill also bans the production of an embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer if it contains a fertilized nucleus, not a cloned nucleus with DNA identical to that of a previously existing person. This technique is being used currently to prevent mitochondrial diseases in offspring. Depending on your views, write your senators!

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

Bill Perez - 06:25pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3246 of 3247) 45

Bill Perez: Hmmm. Seems to me that a hell of a lot of people have absolutely no problem with killing humans.

Noel Yap: I speaking on a human level. When different societies clash, the rules no longer hold (ie they aren't human.)

Okay, speak on a human level, then. A glance at the murder and suicide (and, some would say, abortion) statistics for the US suffices to conclude that way too many people are not sufficiently disgusted with the prospect of killing a human, even without the benefit of any "societal clashes." Even many people who consider themselves "Pro-Life" see no problems with death penalties or lethal clinic bombings and doctor assassinations.

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

Joel Cooper - 07:06pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3247 of 3247) 46

Good or bad, clonning humans cannot be stopped. We need to take the next 50 years to figure out ethical, cultural and societal issues.

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

Kurt Schoedel - 08:12pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3248 of 3262) 3247

Dawn, SR1599 was just shelved today (or was it yesterday) over just the issue you have brought up. I have long argued in this board that the most significant and beneficial impact of cloning is to produce stem cells for the regeneration of human tissue. I'm happy that this bill has been tabled, because it would have restricted the development of this technology.

The Feinstein/Kennedy bill sounds much more reasonable, because it would prohibit only reproductive cloning, making it more worthy of support. I used to be a strong republican, only to find that the party is being hijacked by religious fanatics(nuts).

I fail to understand how anyone in thier right mind could ever be opposed to the use of cloning for therapeutic, NON-reproductive purposes.

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

deleted Bob Janitor - 08:16pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3249 of 3262)

Sure, Bob, but does anyone know where I can get away from your dull prattle and read an open-minded

A personal attack? I don't think you're capable of an "open-minded discussion".

discussion on current research and it's implications?

We have been having one. At first everyone came in and stated their beliefs, and arguments ensued-- the messages on the board today are an evolution of these first arguments. Occasionally, someone will pop in here, state their beliefs and leave.

I'm interested in the real-world scientific and political issues of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Is it possible for researchers to direct this cell to become a skin cell or a muscle cell rather than a fetus?

At this time... no. But cells have the capability.

Bob, even if you think you can answer this, don't (I honestly have no use for sophomore level chemistry and

I haven't heard the resident PhD, Dawn, disagree with any of the facts I've presented... so please don't insult my intelligence or education.

physics married with freshman level philosophy [with a good bit of arrogance no less!?]).

I see... insult me, a heavy contributor to the board, and then tell me what to do. Who's the arrogant one here?

Joe, read the board rules. No personal attacks. How do you expect to have a good board when YOU don't follow the community rules?

I agree... despite your immature personal attacks.

If, however, one were to "wire" a computer the way computer neural nets are architectre, one should get a very primitive brain.

This is true to some extent. Mark Tilden has patented a primitive nervous network using transistors called the "MicroCore". You can look it up at http://patent.womplex.ibm.com. Of course, biologis

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

deleted Bob Janitor - 08:19pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3250 of 3262)

t hate the fact he uses the term "nervous" or "neural" because the design paradigm differs to significant degree from that of a biological neural net.

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

deleted Joe R. Caldwell - 08:47pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3251 of 3262)

I am really saddened by the last 80 or 90 messages that I've read. When I posted my first message, I thought this was a legitimate discussion of issues. The issue being "Cloning of Humans". The vast majority of postings that I have read have been nothing more than a lot of babble and yap reminiscent of first year medical school neurology. One would think we could at least address medical ethics.

Joseph S.---I agree!

Dawn...thanks for you input.

Now how about somebody finding a janitor to clean this mess up and the rest of us can seek some more civil inteligent discussion in a sleazy chat room!

I think I will leave this comedy of errors to you "smart people" LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!

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

deleted babel dispersus - 08:50pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3252 of 3262)

...omega

Marv Dyck: if we don't have free will , that means somebody else controls our will

That is a common fallacy. You are multiplying entities. There can simply be no free will, and nobody controlling anything.

Darien Hager: when you say you have proved we have no free will (I think we do), It sounds a little arrogant to me (no offense) you might have proved it to yourself however. It can be argued both ways, thus I'd rather just leave it out of the conversation, except that it has a lot to do with the morals of cloning.

No, I do not mean that I proved it to myself... I presented a proof which nobody has been able to come even close to refuting. Unless you can show that one of my premises is wrong or that one of my inferences is wrong, free will is proven to not exist. It cannot be argued both ways until you attack my proof, you cannot simply disregard it. If you think that we do have free will, then you must defend that position against mine.

Keith Fosberg: The specific instance of a quanta is neither deterministic, nor in fact fixed until the "information" propogates beyond the Planc (I always spell his name wrong :( ) limit.

A quanta is not an event, it is a discrete measurement. I think you mean Planck. And as far as information propagation is concerned, you are of course speaking of Copenhagen, which is a disproven induction. None of this effects my argument.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 08:53pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3253 of 3262)

...omega

Keith Fosberg: Since "events" at this scale don't technically exist they can hardly be termed "deterministic." It is only when structure begins to emerge that deterministic reality exists

Scale is relative to an interpreter, and irrelevant to determinism. Like Noel, you seem hooked on the observance of the universe rather than the reality of it. It does not matter what people can observe, only what occurs no matter whether we are watching or not.

Keith Fosberg: Of course they do not individualy have free will! A nueron that does not "fire" when properly stimulated is malfunctioning!

Correct, but try telling that to Bob :o)

Keith Fosberg: Free will at the sentient level is a deep phylosophical debate. The main question at issue is; Do we "create" or do we simply exibit infinite integrations of existing data?

Well, I already presented my philosophical proof, and I answered your questions in it.

Keith Fosberg: What if I purposely choose to react inapropriately? Say, resist the habbit to properly place my foot while walking? Does it effect this test if I am in contention with you regarding free will and wish to employ this as an argument to support my possition?

This is exactly the point: you cannot purposely do anything. Each action is simply the result of some external stimuli and all of your previous experience. If you "purposely" misplace your foot it is because of all of your external stimuli (for instance, this discussion) and your previous experience (for instance, learning how to walk, upholding previously held beliefs (aka interpretations of your experience), et cetera). Nothing in your "decision" to take a mis-step comes from internally. Therefore there was no free will involved, since it was not will at all, but rather external factors.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 08:56pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3254 of 3262)

...omega

Joseph S.: Does anyone know if there are any forums where real live researchers converse in laymen's terms about current research?

Researchers converse in laymen's terms? You're joking, right? There's no such thing as laymen's terms for this subject, nor most scientific topics. This discussion board is as close as you'll get.

Bob Janitor: If you want to anally prattle on about semantics, be my guest-- but I'm right when it comes to semantics.

No, you're not. You cannot use the word "decision" to describe the action of a neuron. You are wrong.

Bob Janitor: The point is, neural cells get input from senses and other neurons, a weighted priority is assinged to each input via an analog voltage, and a decision-- firing-- is reached, based on the input.

Firing is based on input, but it is not a decision. It either fires or it does not fire, and this depends on the input, but there is never a choice in the matter. If the sufficient input is there, then it fires, otherwise it does not. No choice, no decision.

Bob Janitor: That is no different from a decision in a higher level brain function

Right... but don't tell me you are assuming the brain has the capability to choose. The brain cannot make a decision any more than a single neuron can. If you believe otherwise, then I am awaiting your proof of this, and your disproof of my argument against free will.

Bob Janitor: Emotions and testosterone are, of course, definately excitatory influences.

You are speaking as if they are two seperate things. Emotions are hormones, or the effects thereof. From someone who can see that there is no such thing as a soul, you certainly act as though you believe there is one.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 08:57pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3255 of 3262)

...omega

Bob Janitor: Yes, but the most important property of neuron is that neurotransmitters influence membrane permeability in an analog fashion, although you can brush off the whole process as "binary", you're simply ignoring the primary reasons a neural cell works.

No, the most important property of a neuron is whether or not if fires, and the fact that these are discrete actions. The reasons it fires has nothing to do with its purpose. It is like trying to say that the most important property of a bridge is that it is held by tensile and compressive stress, when the most important property is only that it gets cars across the river. You are confusing issues. The point is that a neuron is deterministic... it does not have free will, and nor does a group of them.

Bob Janitor: Nothing I said was misrepresentative, nor incorrect.

Yes you did; you said that the action of a neuron firing is the result of a decision, but it is not.

Bob Janitor: This might apply to an individual neural cell, but not the brain as a whole.

How is a group of neurons any more capable than a single neuron in creating free will? It is simply more complex and therefore creates a better illusion of free will.

Does the weather have free will? People often speak as if it does, they even personify it. But, I think you will agree that every meteorological effect we witness is directly caused by some group of factors that is simply more complex than we can possibly keep track of. The fact that we cannot predict it does not mean that it is non-deterministic though, it is just complex. The butterfly-effect happens in brains as much as it does in the weather.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 08:59pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3256 of 3262)

...omega

Bob Janitor: I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility that, for whatever reason-- malfunction or otherwise, maybe a higher starting resting potential-- "misfiring" occur and could be spontaneous thoughts.

You refuted your own proposal by that simple phrase in the beginning: "for whatever reason". You see, there was still a reason, still a determining factor. This is not free will.

Bob Janitor: your current "train of thought" analyzing past sensory input stored as memory is influenced by current sensory input.

Not only influenced, but entirely dependent.

Bob Janitor: And exactly how do we determine the exact location and composition in every molecule of the body non-destructively?

I did not claim it is technologically feasible at this time, only that it is not inherently impossible. However, consider such things as Computerized Axial Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as possible starting points.

Bob Janitor: Procreation isn't necessary for something to be alive.

Perhaps not, but it is in most definitions of life. But anyway, how do you differentiate between fire and bacteria in respect to possessing life? Does one and not the other?

W. Keith Beason: Our government and religious structures simply can't handle that.

Our government need not handle technology, only uphold rights. And religion cannot handle new information at any rate.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 09:01pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3257 of 3262)

...omega

Noel Yap: Petra Johnston: who gets the say in who should be cloned or not? ...Money.

Not even that; the parent is the one who gets the say. Money will become a non-issue.

Noel Yap: This may be so, but the information generated by the cell is partially dependent upon it's internal state.

Even if your statement were true, it would not lend any credence to the idea that the cell somehow has a choice... it will or will not fire depending on the external stimulus. Anyway, all neurons have the same resting potential (or very nearly so).

Noel Yap: Yes there is [a decision]. It depends upon your perspective.

Perspective is irrelevant. The cell cannot choose to disobey the laws of physics. Nothing can. When there is sufficient stimulus, it will fire, it must fire.

Noel Yap: Unless you take into consideration Heisenberg's Principle.

That has nothing to do with anything! I already told you, perception is irrelevant.

Noel Yap: I'll agree that it's important to science. Philosophy will go on inventing new truths. Beliefs will go on searching for truths that comfort an individual.

Philosophy does not "invent" truths, it uses induction from facts to determine likely truths, and it uses deduction from facts to determine absolute truths.

Noel Yap: Heisenberg's Principle is not deterministic.

The only thing you can conclude from Heisenburg is that you cannot measure something without in some way changing it. It has to do with human measurment, not with determinism. Please, once and for all, just take the limits of human perception out of the discussion, it is not relevant.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 09:03pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3258 of 3262)

...omega

Noel Yap: A quantum event is completely random (ie tied to no other events) as far as we've seen. Are you now going to hide behind, "We just haven't found anything yet," just like the people defending their beliefs in souls and God?

What the heck are you talking about? Define a "quantum event". Nothing is random. You are into computer science aren't you? Why do you think it is impossible to make a computer pick a random number? Because there is no such thing. We can only have it use a very complex equation that appears random.

Noel Yap: This itself is a flawed assumption. First, there'd be no working physicists if this were true. Second, we thought the same thing around Newton's time.

You are missing two things: "relevant science" and "proven sufficiently". Physicists on the bleeding edge are not studying the tried and true science that my proof is dependent upon. Also, something which models a physical event with less than a hundredth of a percent error is sufficiently proven. We base all our technology (such as your computer) on these sufficiently proven scientific facts. Computers perform millions of operations per second without error, and how many times have you seen a computer spontaneously fail without cause? That is sufficiently proven science.

Noel Yap: This itself is an assumption that should be proven (specially in the quantum world.)

Again you speak in nothings. It is not an assumption, it is a deduction. And please define "quantum world".

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

deleted babel dispersus - 09:06pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3259 of 3262)

...omega

Noel Yap: It sounds like you're using the Copenhagen Interpretation.

No, it is you who incessantly implies that perception effects reality, not me. I will ask you again to leave the limitations of human perception out of the discussion, it is NOT relevant.

Noel Yap: Again, you've proven my point. Anything beyond your knowledge (yes, I'm presuming) is irrelevent.

Not only are you making a very big presumption, but you are doing it while your own understanding of quantum mechanics is severely lacking. Quantum mechanics rests on the solid foundation that radiation is quantized; that is, it is discrete. It deals also with the equivalence of energy and matter, space-time curvature, subatomic particles, and the conservation of energy. However, it does not deal with determinism and free will.

Noel Yap: babel dispersus: The act of measuring either of these properties changes the other one, so neither can be known simultaneously. ...You are using the Copenhagen Interpretation. Of all the interpretations out there, I prefer the Transactional Interpretation. It's more minimal than the others.

No I am not! I am simply defining the Uncertainty Principle. Alternatively, it can also mean that the more you know about the energy of a particle, the less you know about the time of the energy. This all has only to do with human measurement and the ability of people to know things about certain particles, it does not have anything to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Personally, I prefer no interpretations, but use induction to analyze the facts accordingly. But, again, this has nothing to do with our argument.

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

deleted babel dispersus - 09:08pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3260 of 3262)

...omega

Joseph S: I'm interested in the real-world scientific and political issues of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

That is what we are discussing here. However, there are a lot of implications of the direct issues to other things such as the definition of life, the seat of consciousness, and the determination of free will. You have joined late in an involved conversation. Go back and read this board from the beginning if you want to find out how we got to this point in the discussion.

Bob Janitor: I haven't heard the resident PhD, Dawn, disagree with any of the facts I've presented... so please don't insult my intelligence or education.

I do not disagree with your facts either, only that one interpretation of the facts that you have inferred beyond logical ability to do. I hope by now you have seen my point. All in all, I agree with your posts.

babel dispersus

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

Cliff Beall - 10:00pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3261 of 3262) 3248

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

Joseph S: I'm interested in the real-world scientific and political issues of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Is it possible for researchers to direct this cell to become a skin cell or a muscle cell rather than a fetus?

Joseph, I believe what you are really after is whether it is possible to clone an individual vital organ. If this is what you want to know, I believe that Dawn has already answered that question. The answer is no. On Feb 5 at 05:39pm, she posted the following.

We cannot as yet replace a bad gene with a good one. 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.

Basically, what this means is that current technology does not have the capability of a one-to-one modification to the gene structure in a cell. I believe that if asked, Dawn would confirm that this would be required to "direct this cell to become a skin cell or a muscle cell rather than a fetus."

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

Cliff Beall - 10:02pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3262 of 3262)

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

In addition, on Feb 9, at 04:38pm Dawn posted the following:

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.

In this post, Dawn was simply expressing approval of a post by Bob providing other reasons why an organ can not be individually cloned for transplanting. The explanation I believe she was referring to, specifically, was Bob's post on Feb 9 at 03:32am. Bob's explanation was as follows:

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 transplanted?

Joseph, I am about as likely to be skeptical of what Bob may say as you are, generally, but when Dawn puts her seal of approval on it, I think it can be trusted.

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

deleted Bob Janitor - 10:06pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3263 of 3264)

babel,

I can see now that we do agree on the mechanisms for how neural cells work... but you have applied a very pessimistic philosophy to your discussion. I doubt many share this philosophy that we do not have free will... whether this is because they are afraid of the view you present, which I must admit is certainly logical, or they simply disagree with you, I cannot say.

Nonetheless, I'm going to keep on believing that we have free will... so there ;-P.

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:29pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3251 of 3253) 50

Located in Taipei Taiwan

If anything the brain processes data at least in a parrallel process or probably more akin to a hohographic process.

Other parts of the nerve system are proveably serial in nature.

Transistors opperation in the digital mode are set to obey the laws of thought in that a 1 is a 1, a 1 is not a 0 and the output is always a 1 or a 0.

Where this is not possable then error correcting can handel bad or miss behaveing elements. Even in a parallel sence the parrallel machines today are deterministic. (at least most of them)

The nerve cells can be ealily influenced to "fire" at different levels of stimulation. Thus the brain must have an extremely complex coding process to remain stable. The system must process data with randomness levels far greater than any transistor system I have ever heard about.

If you could cause the brain to behave in a deterministic way then you could be said not to have "free will", but as long as the individual elements behave as they do, you have the scientific equivelent of free will. Even in chaos theory the solutions are deterministic. They are just so complex that it is very hard to follow them.

If you insert a truly random stream of data into a deterministic process of decision making, three things can happen. First you wont be able to predict how the problem gets solved. Second the machine may evolve a new way to analize the problem. Third the new way may have never occured to anyone before and be more efficent.

Since a single nerve fireing can cascade to involve virtually the entire brain and that fireing is largly non deterministic in nature, humans can be said to have free will in the scientific sence. IMHO

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

Cliff Beall - 11:28pm Feb 11, 1998 ET (#3252 of 3253) 51

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

Kurt Schoedel: I used to be a strong republican, only to find that the party is being hijacked by religious fanatics(nuts). I fail to understand how anyone in thier right mind could ever be opposed to the use of cloning for therapeutic, NON-reproductive purposes.

As a republican, I fully agree. Like you, I am somewhat troubled by the party's current tilt to the right. Also, I am really not that much interested in human cloning for reproductive purposes, except I assume it will be done at some point. And when it is done, if it is done, I want it to be done by the best people. My reading is that the best people are not interested at the moment, because they are too busy with the medical applications of the technology.

But this deal about brain dead zombies from which organs for transplant could be harvested, that Tom and Bob think is so wonderful, or, at least, that they think is acceptable, just makes me puke. It is not acceptable to me. Given a choice between those two extremes, I would go with the religious crowd any day.

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

CNN Community Staff - 12:23am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3253 of 3253) 52

From CNN Interactive Community:

The topic of this board is CLONING. All posts must represent a clear and direct relationship with the topic and the comply with the guidelines regarding inflammatory language and personal attacks.

When no clear and direct relationship with the topic "CLONING" exists, the post will be deleted without further comment.

Thank you,

-Staff

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

Bob Janitor - 01:46am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3253 of 3270)

Please elaborate on WHY you feel this way. My viewpoint has already been presented, and I'd like to know your logic that let you arrive at this conclusion-- as I'm sure others would as well.

What I think he was asking is if you can get one cell to replace another cell-- such as in cloning-- can you "coax" a cell to dedifferetinate and then differentiate into another type of cell. The answer to this is: not yet. Cells can do this-- as in regeneration-- but we humans don't know how to artifically induce this yet.

Joseph, I am about as likely to be skeptical of what Bob may say as you are

:-(

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

Tom Anderson - 02:43am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3254 of 3270)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

CNN Staff,

There is no such thing as a discussion that has a "direct" relationship to the single worded topic. The entire point of having the discussion is to discuss the indirect relationships to cloning. There are no direct relationships because they would only involve technical problems of cloning itself, which has already been done. Only the indirect relationships (ie politics, religion, human nature, et cetera) are worth discussing.

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

These are loaded questions, and not an answer exists that does not require an indirect relationship. Once a discussion begins which is based on one of these indirect relationships, other direct and indirect relationships of those relationships are also a necessity to discuss. All discussions must evolve in this fashion in order to gain any ground.

Killing the conversation because it is progressing is counter-productive and contradictory to the purpose of a messege board system.

I've been following this discussion closely, if not directly involved lately, and I have seen relevance in nearly all of the posts. I find your judgement premature and uncalled for.

Tom Anderson

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

Darien Hager - 03:57am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3255 of 3270)

American student in Hong Kong

I strongly agree. We were talking about the workings of nuerons to help gain a definition for free will, self, spirit, and such ethical considerations as that which would influence the eugenics of cloning. Also, on the message board, I agree that we have conformed to topics about cloning and related to such. If we are denied any freedom to consider other issues relating to cloning, it can only restrict the free flow of ideas. We need to make a base of reasonable facts to support individual decisions on cloning, as no informed decision may be made otherwise.

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

Darien Hager - 07:09am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3256 of 3270)

American student in Hong Kong

Small amendment to my last message. Although I still believe we have not strayed from the topic, I agree that some "personal attacks" and "inflammatory language" has been posted here. I would like to plead some tolerance to the personal attacks, since they have centered around credentials, which are somewhat important for concise information. However, I have no argument against the inflammatory language.

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:13am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3257 of 3270)

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

Tom, Darien,

All I can say is ditto

For all of the joy it has brought us, I think we can drop the contest to see who can identify the most appropriate electronic component to use as an analogy for a neuron. No discrete component fits the bill, a device (and a complex one at that) would be required.

It has occured to me (don't shoot me Cliff) that this recent thread exploring the basics of thought and free will is part of the "search for the soul." The real basic question being explored is "what makes me, me?"

All of the posts discussing (sometimes in jest and sometimes in fear or disgust) Cindy Crawford #14290.12v7 miss one very basic facet of reality. Each event in the universe, (you can think object, but event is more accurate) no matter how similar to any other event, has the property of identity. An absolutely perfect clone (or ST transporter "copy") of Cindy will still not be Cindy.

Incedentally, I agree that theraputical applications of cloning are far more significant than reproductive applications of cloning. Given this, I would readily sacrifice the practice of human reproductive cloning (in the legal arena) to save cloning for research and theraputical purposes. I think the "oogy" factor will become a non issue that way.

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

W. Keith Beason - 08:39am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3258 of 3270)

Simple question: WHY is Bond/Frist/Gregg being proposed in the first place? What is the motivation for these specific restrictions on human cloning?

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

MollieO - 10:54am Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3259 of 3270)

"the procedure at issue could someday be valuable in treating cancer, Alzheimer's disease,spinal cord injuries, diabetes and many other serious diseases."

If a person has a disease or disorder, replacing tissues will not change the fact that they have this problem. Replacing does not cure the problem.

"if the cloned cell is grown under special laboratory conditions, it does not become a baby but a specific tissue, such as muscle, nerve or skin, that can be used to make genetically identical tissues and organs for treatment of a vast array of diseases."

What they mean to say is, they will not see it as an embryo, but a tissue host....a factory if you will.

"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 "

Exactly. Face it folks. There is nothing nice about this, and there are no concrete facts pointing to a CURE( not a treatment...a temporary fix)for anything by cloning. If a disease/disorder overcomes the body once, then implanting a new group of cells,tissue or organ, there is nothing to prevent it from happening again. Then, it is all for naught........

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

Bob Janitor - 12:34pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3260 of 3270)

"the procedure at issue could someday be valuable in treating cancer, Alzheimer's disease,spinal cord injuries, diabetes and many other serious diseases."

If a person has a disease or disorder, replacing tissues will not change the fact that they have this problem. Replacing does not cure the problem.

Actually, fetal neural tissue grafts have been VERY effective in Alzheimer's disease treatment-- I don't think follow up grafts have been necessary. Spinal cord injuries, once healed, are extremely unlikely to come back, because they are physical trauma.

I fail to see how it would help diabetes... which is a problem that goes far deeper than replacing a few cells.

What they mean to say is, they will not see it as an embryo, but a tissue host....a factory if you will.

In a manner of speaking... yes. But, as we were discussing before the CNN "Staff" so rudely interrupted us, without a neural network, sentience never forms... and the developed person only superficially LOOKS human. We were discussing the base unit of the neural network-- a neuron.

An absolutely perfect clone (or ST transporter "copy") of Cindy will still not be Cindy.

Yes it would... "Cindy" is a mass of molecules... it doesn't matter which atoms are in these molecules, just that they're all in the same locations and are the same molecules.

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

Keith Fosberg - 02:27pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3261 of 3270)

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

I beg to differ Bob.

Two perfect identical copies of anything are still each unique events. For them to actually be the same they would have to not only be perfectly identical, they would have to occupy the same space-time.

The two "Cindies" in the example would certainly be able to identify themselves as unique from each other even if no other intelligence could do so.

Of course, as we all know, you don't get perfectly identical copies from cloning anyway.

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

Bob Janitor - 03:01pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3262 of 3270)

All I'm saying is, after the perfect copy was created, they would be identical-- at that instant. Regardless of their physical location. But after that point in time, the different environments would lead to differentiation.

Of course, as we all know, you don't get perfectly identical copies from cloning anyway.

Do we, as in the public, all know this? Some people didn't even know that identical twins are genetically identical.

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

L W FIndley - LaRoucheite - 06:10pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3263 of 3270)

I personally don't fancy the idea of "hostile" activities against labs and scientists where clonings take place. Whoever does fancy such has my blessing.

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

Bill Perez - 06:13pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3264 of 3270)

Bob Janitor: Some people didn't even know that identical twins are genetically identical.

Even this begins to break down early in life, does it not? I'm no immunology expert, but it seems to me that certain stretches of the genome are highly variable, coding for various antigen-receptor domains in antibodies expressed in lymphocytes, correct? So identical twins' genomes begin to diverge as they are exposed to slightly different concentrations of antigens, and as their immune systems pick random epitopes to recognize. Perhaps someone who knows a lot more than me about immunology can help me out here, or set me straight.

Also, the ova of female twins will have different random combinations of meiotically shuffled genes, no?

And let's not forget the genomes of all the various fellow-travellers, e.g. the eyelash mites, the E. coli, etc. Will these necessarily be identical? When and where do infants get the various flora and fauna that will be with them the rest of their lives?

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

Noel Yap - 07:09pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3265 of 3270)

Keith Fosberg: I think at least part of the problem is that we are employing at least three definitions for "free will" in this argument. :P

I agree.

Keith Fosberg: About neurons: Of course they do not individualy have free will! A nueron that does not "fire" when properly stimulated is malfunctioning!

Again, the neuron doesn't know how it fits into the big picture. The analogy is that a neuron is to the brain as a human being is to society or an ant is to a colony. When looking at it from the individual's POV, it thinks it has free will, but when looked upon from the conglomerate's (or higher) POV, it doesn't.

Keith Fosberg: What if I purposely choose to react inapropriately? Say, resist the habbit to properly place my foot while walking?

You are still reacting to internal states and external stimuli that are governed by the (true) Laws of physics (as opposed to the laws of physics we know of today.) Any internal states have been set previously by external events.

Bob Janitor: If you want to anally prattle on about semantics, be my guest-- but I'm right when it comes to semantics.

Even I agree with this.

Bob Janitor: although you can brush off the whole process as "binary", you're simply ignoring the primary reasons a neural cell works.

When dealing with larger systems (ie carbon-based brains and silicon-based brains) one has to abstract out the details of how the components work. IOW, one doesn't have to duplicate the brain in its minutest detail to get something that works like the brain.

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

Noel Yap - 07:09pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3266 of 3270)

Bob Janitor: You are ignoring varyability and symbolic reasoning, and the ability to reach a decision! This might apply to an individual neural cell, but not the brain as a whole.

I would disagree with this if the Laws of Physics were deterministic.

W. Keith Beason: Most of what has been said is philosophically interesting, but of little real value.

What is philosophy's real value? ;)

W. Keith Beason: The point is that throughout history whenever ANYTHING has become scientifically possible it happens!

This isn't true. Culture and historical events shape technological progress as much as (if not more than) scientific knowledge. For example, a few years ago, scientists discovered a new way to use waves to power ships. Ancient civilisations had the science and the technology to do this, but they never saw it.

W. Keith Beason: It means nothing if the US Congress decides to ban human cloning. France will allow it, or China, or Brazil, or somebody else.

Our government is around to control our population. It shouldn't go around trying to control others'.

W. Keith Beason: HUMAN CLONING WILL OCCUR!! Even if it takes place "underground".

Murder will occur. Therefore we should make it legal?

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

Noel Yap - 07:10pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3267 of 3270)

W. Keith Beason: Point is CHANGE itself is accelerating at a rate that is way beyond the ability of any society's cultural infrastructure to react.

I agree. But since technology is meant to benefit society, there's no reason to move at a pace that's faster than what society can handle.

W. Keith Beason: Sheshunoff Information Services recently estimated that by the year 2020 or so workers will have to be retrained to do their jobs every six weeks.

I pretty much do this now.

W. Keith Beason: What does one do when an event occurs and is finished before we have time to debate it?

In the end, when it starts to move "too fast," society will react and slow it down. These are what all the "religious" and "emotional" reactions are.

David Zellner: It seems to me that some posts reflect concerns that border more on paranoia than logic. Ethical applications of science and technology have always had as a primary goal the improvement of people's lives.

See above.

David Zellner: I suspect that improving lives is a primary (if not the primary)goal of those involved in cloning research. Hence, I am generally supportive of the concept.

Blind faith is dangerous. One should either make informed decisions or no decision.

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

Noel Yap - 07:10pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3268 of 3270)

Dawn Willis: The Bond/Frist/Gregg bill (S.1599), to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning, is coming up this week on the Senate floor with no committee hearings or mark-up.

The government is jumping the gun on something they don't understand (like they did with the CDA.) I believe, as scientists gain more power, this will happen more frequently.

Bil Perez: A glance at the murder and suicide (and, some would say, abortion) statistics for the US suffices to conclude that way too many people are not sufficiently disgusted with the prospect of killing a human, even without the benefit of any "societal clashes."

And you would say this is the norm? When speaking of any group of individuals, one makes generalisations, exceptions are bound to occur.

Joel Cooper: We need to take the next 50 years to figure out ethical, cultural and societal issues.

Society 50 years from now will be unimaginably different from today. 50 years to figure out ethical, cultural, and societal issues is way too long.

Kurt Schoedel: I'm happy that this bill has been tabled, because it would have restricted the development of this technology.

Me, too.

Kurt Schoedel: I used to be a strong republican, only to find that the party is being hijacked by religious fanatics(nuts).

To paraphrase Tom Robbins: "Republicans are Halloween. Democrats are Christmas. One controls the people through fear, the other through gifts."

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

Noel Yap - 07:11pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3269 of 3270)

Carl Nicolai: Even in a parallel sence the parrallel machines today are deterministic. (at least most of them)

Parallel machines are, by design, asynchronous. This makes them non-deterministic. Any synchronisation (and therefore determinism) they have are forced (ie through protocols, synch clocks, ...)

Carl Nicolai: The system must process data with randomness levels far greater than any transistor system I have ever heard a bout.

Any one neuron (except for some of them) can be removed without affecting the functioning of the brain. I can't say the same for transistors in computers. The reason is that the brain stores information within its overall structure while computers store the information within the transistors themselves.

Carl Nicolai: If you could cause the brain to behave in a deterministic way then you could be said not to have "free will", but as long as the individual elements behave as they do, you have the scientific equivelent of free will.

Interesting. Either the deterministic world of classical physics is able to bring about a non-deterministic system, or, the non-determinism comes from the quantum world.

Carl Nicolai: Since a single nerve fireing can cascade to involve virtually the entire brain and that fireing is largly non deterministic in nature, humans can be said to have free will in the scientific sence. IMHO

This is the most convincing argument I've heard, yet. So, since we and clones do have free will, murdering a clone for parts (however impracticle) is still murder.

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

Noel Yap - 07:12pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3270 of 3270)

Cliff Beall: But this deal about brain dead zombies from which organs for transplant could be harvested, that Tom and Bob think is so wonderful, or, at least, that they think is acceptable, just makes me puke. It is not acceptable to me.

Bob Janitor: Please elaborate on WHY you feel this way. My viewpoint has already been presented, and I'd like to know your logic that let you arrive at this conclusion-- as I'm sure others would as well.

The thing that many atheists don't accept is that logic isn't the only way to arrive at a conclusion for most people (including some atheists.)

Tom Anderson: There is no such thing as a discussion that has a "direct" relationship to the single worded topic. The entire point of having the discussion is to discuss the indirect relationships to cloning. There are no direct relationships because they would only involve technical problems of cloning itself, which has already been done. Only the indirect relationships (ie politics, religion, human nature, et cetera) are worth discussing.

I couldn't've said it better myself. I might also add, in simpler terms, that topics don't exist in isolation.

MollieO: If a person has a disease or disorder, replacing tissues will not change the fact that they have this problem. Replacing does not cure the problem.

No, but it does buy some time until we find a way to prevent the problem to begin with.

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

Cliff Beall - 08:48pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3271 of 3274)

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

Okay, Bob, you asked why I find the growing of "brainless" clone zombies for the purpose of harvesting their organs abhorrent. I shall tell you as well as I can. Perhaps you will bored with my commentary, or, perhaps, you will be shocked and. Maybe you will find my logic illogical. Whatever. Like everyone else, I am a product of my genes and my environment. The following is something I believe.

First, I grew up with religion, and while I have, myself, departed from it in large measure, I think I understand it, and I continue to find value in some of its teachings. It depends, I think, on how one understands it. For example, consider the commandment: Thou shalt not kill." What does it mean? Is this an absolute? In context, I think it is clear it was intended to mean "Thou shalt not kill one of us." But when we add this qualifier, "one of us," we have to define it. For example, what did the Hebrews mean by "one of us"?

A parallel question, and one more important to our discussion, is: what do we mean when we say "one of us." Does that mean the people in the United States or perhaps the people in the western hemisphere. Does it mean white people or does it mean all of mankind?

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

Cliff Beall - 08:50pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3272 of 3274)

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

Second, I have a concept of law and the purpose for law. Why do we legislate against the killing of "one of us"? Suppose John decides to kill James, why should I care as long as John does not kill me? But, that is the point. To prevent John from killing me, I agree to a law which prevents him, and me, and every other member of the group, from killing any member of the group, however we define "group." And if he does it, the law provides that he be punished. Isolation of offending individuals from the group to prevent reoccurrence for specified periods, and punishment, itself, as a means of attempting to prevent future occurrences of this mischief by that individual, and others, is, in my opinion, justified.

In some respects, the perception of the nature of the damage caused by killing has changed over time. For example, in OT times, among the Hebrews, killing a woman was considered different than killing a man. Killing a man robbed him of his life. Killing a man's wife or daughter robbed the man of his wife of daughter. In both cases, the primary crime was considered to be against the man. In modern society, a woman is considered a person in her own right, and the primary crime of killing of a woman is considered to be the robbery of the woman of her life.

This is as it should be. But, the former idea remains and is also valid. If someone kills my wife, in addition to robbing my wife of her life, he has also robbed me of my wife. If he kills my son or daughter, in addition to robbing them of their lives, he has also robbed me of my son or daughter. What about the unborn fetus? That human fetus might well be my grandchild. Killing a fetus can rob me of a grandchild as surely as killing my grandchild after he or she is born.

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

Cliff Beall - 08:53pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3273 of 3274)

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

Also, the intentional damaging of a fetus can potentially rob me of the health of my grandchild as surely as damage to the child after he or she is born. To insure, or, at least, to promote the protection of the fetus that might be my grandchild, I oppose the damaging or killing of fetuses generally.

The fundamental question is, what does the phrase "one of us" mean in our day and time. In the Tuskeegee experiment, I have no doubt but that the perpetrators of that horrible crime did it on the basis that a black man in the south were not "one of us." If he was not "one of us," than what was done to him could, after a fashion, be "justified," at least in the minds of the experimenters. With respect to the intentional damage at the embryonic stage of a clone and the eventual killing of same when the organs are harvested, the rightness of this too, in someone's mind, depends substantially on whether the clone is considered to be "one of us."

Remember that anything that can be done to a clone can also be done to an invitro fertilized child. Should we allow a man or woman to cause a severe birth defect in an invitro child with the plan to eventually kill that person when the organs of that person are harvested? If a man used his own sperm to impregnate an egg, the result might not be quite as close genetically as his clone, but it might be close enough. After all, modern science is rapidly overcoming the "rejection factor." And just think of the advantages to the man. When his heart or liver gives out, he could kill his brain-dead son or daughter and save his own life. Would you buy that? I don't, and I don't buy it with respect to clones either. It is my opinion that clones will be "part of us" and will need and deserve the same protections as any other person who is "one of us."

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

Cliff Beall - 08:53pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3274 of 3274)

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

If you still disagree, first tell me if you think it would be permissible to perform this atrocity on an invitro fertilized child. If so, defend it. If not, explain the difference.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:13pm Feb 12, 1998 ET (#3275 of 3275)

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

Keith Fosberg: It has occured to me (don't shoot me Cliff) that this recent thread exploring the basics of thought and free will is part of the "search for the soul." The real basic question being explored is "what makes me, me?"

Why would I want to shoot you. I agree. I had no problem with the discussion. I was disappointed in one respect. Sometime ago I read a book about memory. The point made in the book was that the brain saves/uses different kinds of information than a digital computer. A digital computer saves/uses specific data, but, according to the book, the brain does not. Instead, by specific arrangements of neurons, it stores "feelings." The reason it does this, the author explained, is that in an evolutionary sense, data does not enhance survival where feelings can. Thus, the brain makes no effort to save the content of an event, but instead saves the emotion associated with the event. And from the emotion, the brain is able to rationalize the memory of the event, however, never perfectly. In this sense, memory is a creative process. And, of course, some people's memory is more "creative" than others.

The theory presented in the book was convincing to me. However, assuming it is correct, I am disappointed that the theory is not better known. On the other hand, if it is not better known, it may be that it has not been accepted due to a problem of which I am not aware, and may not be correct after all. If that is so, I am disappointed again.

W. Keith Beason: Simple question: WHY is Bond/Frist/Gregg being proposed in the first place? What is the motivation for these specific restrictions on human cloning?

A better question is: why was it shelved? I would suspect that it was because of the effects it would have on medical research was noted and cooler minds prevailed. In short, it didn't have the votes.

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

Bob Janitor - 12:35am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3276 of 3288)

If you still disagree, first tell me if you think it would be permissible to perform this atrocity on an invitro fertilized child. If so, defend it. If not, explain the difference.

I would first like to say I agree with much of what you've said. However, I have "twisted logic" and have reached a somewhat different conclusion.

I think it would be possible to sugically prevent the brain from being formed on an invitro fertilized child. I do not consider this an atrocity.

What I consider to be an atrocity is the killing of a sentient being-- or letting one die. At that point in development, there are only a few neural cells-- sentience hasn't occured yet. I can't tell you WHEN sentience occurs, but a few neural cells at this stage are not sentient.

Furthermore, you point out that this would be preventing a sentient being from being born. This is true. However, contraception, abortion, and a woman not getting pregnant every nine months also do this. I suppose this is more of a direct approach because it actively prevents a specific organ from forming.

Also, the benefit to the whole thing is, it keeps an existing sentient being alive longer. If the fetus is genetically engineered to fix most/all genetic problems, and have no cap on its lifespan, only one fetus would be needed as a brain transplant could be performed.

One might argue this is immoral, since we have a natural lifespan. Yet, the Christian bible hints at lifespans in excess of 800 years (with no medical technology or anything that's risen the life expectancy in the last century)... and the specific limitations on our life span such as telomer limitations and a lack of regneration in neural and muscle cells due to chemical inhibitors makes me think our lifespans may be artificially getting cut a little short.

But... just my opinon... feel free to disagree.

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

babel dispersus - 02:08am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3277 of 3288)

...omega

Well, since the Staff has decided to delete my last ten or so postings before most people even got to read them, and since most of the people arguing against me do not have a handle on logic (I mean in the structured sense), I will be departing. One idea I will leave you with is this: do not be content the the belief of anything.

...at last... it was almost inevitable... babel has fallen.

Later,

babel dispersus

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

Darien Hager - 03:54am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3278 of 3288)

American student in Hong Kong

No offense babel, but one thing that sort of struck me about your alias is "Babble Disperses" :P.

In terms of creating "brain dead zombies" I would consider it wrong to either cut out or otherwise remove/stop from growing the brain of a invitro fertilized embryo. However, if we change the genes to leave out a brain, (they can make headless rats) then it never really had a brain in the first place. We would just have engineered a very complex fungal growth or something to that effect.

We would have created a creature that has no brain, by removing the instructions for it in the genome, so you have a cell that turns into a bunch of cells, with no brain. When I say remove the brain, I mean in such a sense that the medulla and such would remain for the vital functions.

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

Keith Fosberg - 05:20am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3279 of 3288)

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

Bob,

I was going to make Cliff's point (although I had only planned on dedicating about a paragraph to it.) Since you have no fundemental problem with preventing the development of a brain no matter how the fetus is concieved, I think we will all have to "agree to dissagree" on this.

I will drop the debate on the property of identity, we are arguing from different perspectives, and it isn't all that pertinate anyway.

It seems to me that a better approach to the idea of the "body harvesting" debate is to turn our attention to the recipient. Wouldn't it be preferable to concentrate our resources on developing theraputic techniques that work in-situ, without invasive procedures? It seems to me that both the application of tissue cloning and the boon to genetic knowledge that will come from having cloning available as a tool for research will give us far greater benifits than a "Trac Human" parts system.

Sorry Cliff, I was thinking of Glen and wrote your name in error (as regards the "don't shoot me" comment.)

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

MollieO - 09:26am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3280 of 3288)

Noel Yap: We already have ways of buying time. Would you like to buy more time so you can prolong pain and suffering for you and your family, or would you rather find a CURE or PREVENTION. As said before by someone, fetal tissue transplants in Alzheimers patients have so far been "successful", but we are talking about such complex systems here that bandaging the boo-boo will not cure the ailment. The whole idea of "brainless" blobs being grown is revolting. Can we say "God complex"?

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

Keith Fosberg - 10:00am Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3281 of 3288)

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

MollieO,

I have a personal problem with the idea of "organ farming" also, but can't actually refute Bob Janitor's logic in his argument.

I can attack the usefullness of "organ farming" however. :)

The premise upon which this idea is based is that a non-sentiant clone of you will have vital organs that are genetically compatable with you. You have two practical problems in utilizing this:

1.The "farm organism" has to be healthy and "age compatable" when you need it. (That would be a range of ages where it is sufficiently mature, but not "age degrading.") 2.Removal of a "vital organ" would obviously end its utility (and life.)

The other use offered for non-sentiant humans was as complete replacement bodies. This particular "imortality" scheme contends that you can have produced for you, an endless stream of "new" bodies to use when your current body wears out.

This, although it sounds quite bizzare today, is a more viable idea (as long as you don't blow the timing) since your life span can be predicted with enough accuracy to syncronize the transfer.

This makes two very large assumptions:

1.Brains don't "wear out." 2.Brain transplantation will work.

In the first asumption we do not know what the capacity for development and storage the human brain posses. It is not unreasonable (it is unknown) to posit that there is a definitive limit to the usefullness of a brain as it collects experiance.

I will grant (since I don't have a crystal ball) that the second asumption will eventually be proven.

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

Bob Janitor - 12:25pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3282 of 3288)

We would just have engineered a very complex fungal growth or something to that effect.

Does it truly matter whether this is accomplished via splicing the genes or preventing brain growth?

And if you don't let the head form, you miss out on the possibility of a brain transplant... so with your method, the overall lifespan will be shorter, any disease or other problems in the body will still be present, and multiple "headless clones" would be needed, whereas with a brain transplant you'd only need one of "Bob's Atrocities". Furthermore, the new body wouldn't die under my approach, but would under yours.

Wouldn't it be preferable to concentrate our resources on developing theraputic techniques that work in-situ

I think we should focus our resources on what's most easily attainable... because even that will be extremely difficult to achieve.

Would you like to buy more time so you can prolong pain and suffering for you and your family

Fine, if you want kill yourself, go ahead. But I want to live. If my family doesn't like me living, I'd consider cutting my life insurance. (has anyone on life insurance NOT died?)

The whole idea of "brainless" blobs being grown is revolting.

Why, because it hasn't happened, no one has told you what to think, and people hate change? Do you eat meat? Wear leather shoes? Give me a break.

Can we say "God complex"?

The traditional reaction to knowledge and progress by the ignorant.

1.The "farm organism" has to be healthy and "age compatable" when you need it. (That would be a range of ages where it is sufficiently mature, but not "age degrading.")

Start the procedure... survive 20 years or so (I don't know exactly at what time the brain cavity would be large enough). And, enabling aggressive regeneration (they're already mapping the genomes of creatures with regeneration... it's just a matter of time until they find the regeneration gene(s)) and telomerase production will ensure you onl

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

Bob Janitor - 12:25pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3283 of 3288)

(con't)

only need one clone.

2.Removal of a "vital organ" would obviously end its utility (and life.)

MY method doesn't kill the clone! It only kills your old body. That's where the brain transplant comes in.

1.Brains don't "wear out."

Everything dies-- including the brain. The key is to enable regeneration (or, more primatively, use fetal neural tissue grafts) so that an individual dead neural cell can be replaced without affecting the overall brain structure.

2.Brain transplantation will work.

All neural transplant operations in humans, which have just been tissue up to this point, have been 100% successful. And even CROSS-SPECIES brain transplants have been 100% successful in lower organism. Researchers swapped parts of brains between two different animals and got some VERY weird behavioral results.

Brain transplants: http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/shufflebrain-book05.html

Regeneration: http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt http://www.med.umich.edu/mhri/res/95/goldman/goldman.htm

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

Medi Lord - 04:16pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3284 of 3288)

If everybody understands the law of nature then cloning would be legal. Without the a soul, a body is just a material but when two combines, life occur. From my perspective, if cloning is legal, then someone in the future time will definitely be able to drag the medical technologies to the point beyond the fountain of youth. But then again, a politician is not a scientist, a scientist is not a physician, a physician is not a metaphysician. They disagree with each other and how can this bring the enlightenment of an aquarian age? Someone tell me. :O)

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

Noel Yap - 06:09pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3285 of 3288)

Bob Janitor: One might argue this is immoral, since we have a natural lifespan.

We've already way surpassed our natural lifespan.

Bob Janitor: our lifespans may be artificially getting cut a little short.

It's the other way around. We've been artificially extending our lives. Telomeres (sp?) are part of nature? I'm not positive, but I would think we're not the only ones with telomeres.

babel dispersus: most of the people arguing against me do not have a handle on logic

I saw no flaws in logic, only flaws in assumptions (as I have replied to some of your posts.)

Darien Hager: if we change the genes to leave out a brain,

This has much less of an "eccch" factor than Bob's suggestion. OTOH, we can surgically removed neural tissue today; I don't think we can GenEng an anencephalic fetus, yet.

Keith Fosberg: I think we will all have to "agree to dissagree" on this.

I agree.

Keith Fosberg: Wouldn't it be preferable to concentrate our resources on developing theraputic techniques that work in-situ, without invasive procedures?

Yes, it seems we've been concentrating our efforts on external means to health (ie drugs, surgery, radio-/chemotherapy, ...) Although the tide is switching on this paradigm (with more acceptance of holistic medicine, ...) we're not completely there, yet.

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

Noel Yap - 06:09pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3286 of 3288)

Keith Fosberg: It seems to me that both the application of tissue cloning and the boon to genetic knowledge that will come from having cloning available as a tool for research will give us far greater benifits than a "Trac Human" parts system.

I agree.

MollieO: Would you like to buy more time so you can prolong pain and suffering for you and your family, or would you rather find a CURE or PREVENTION.

How do you propose to cure or prevent without going through the steps of learning how the body and other complex systems work.

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

Bob Janitor - 06:58pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3287 of 3288)

It's the other way around. We've been artificially extending our lives. Telomeres (sp?) are part of nature? I'm not positive, but I would think we're not the only ones with telomeres.

It's both; we've been artificially extending our artifically short lives :-).

Every time the DNA strand is copied, you lose telomers. After a while-- 50 cell divisions in fact-- you run out of telomers. And then, that cell can no longer mitosis... which means you, as an organism, are screwed.

There is a substance, however, called "telomerase". This nifty stuff replentishes your telomers in a cell. Researchers have already found the gene for it (boosting that company's stock price 44%). Most cancers like to enable this, because that means after 50 cell divisions the cancer won't die. Some people surmise that our inhibited telomerase production is defense against cancer; this is wrong, IMHO.

I'm going to look again at a wonderful little critter we call the hydra. This guy is immune to cancer. And, they aggressively regenerate, and are pretty much immortal (obviously, you can kill them, but not easily). They produce telomerase. So what makes them immune to cancer?

Regeneration. For some reason, an animal with aggressive regeneration is immune to cancer in its body parts that can regenerate. For instance, most species of lizards can detach their tails.... and their tails regenerate. And although a lizard can get cancer elsewhere in its body, it almost impossible for it to get it in the tail. Old humans have been shown to regenerate teeth. I've heard of breast cancer, but I've never heard of tooth cancer. I've heard of cancer of the lip, tongue and gums... but again, not the tooth.

But, our cells lacking telomerase isn't the only reason we die of "old age". Many of the most important cells in our body absolutely CANNOT mitosis or divide. And because all your cells will die, this is what screws you over. Muscle cells and neural cells are among those tha

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

Bob Janitor - 07:00pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3288 of 3288)

(con't)

that don't divide.

Researchers have found that the reason neural cells don't mitosis is due to chemical inhibitor. They've also found an inhibitor-inhibitor that enables regeneration and is showing results in the lab.

Tip of the day: regular exercise will greatly slow muscle death.

And there's no reason I can think of why they shouldn't, on an individual level (ie, not worrying about overpopulation). It's just a dumb design.

And for another bad design, look at our eyes. Talk about totally ass-backwards...

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

Darien Hager - 10:25pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3289 of 3293)

American student in Hong Kong

Bob, bob.... I never said anything about leaving out the head, just engineering it to not have any of the higher functions. The brain CONNECTIONS would be there, the cavity, and all the little hookups and the medulla and things that control the basics. Just none of the more complex areas like frontal lobes. Quote:

However, if we change the genes to leave out a brain, (they can make headless rats) then it never really had a brain in the first place.

I left in the headless rat function as an EXAMPLE that such things are possibly feasible. I never said "Leave out the head of the clone"

Here is another idea, instead of trying to get our brain cells to mitosis throughout life, we could push back the time at which they stop dividing in the lifecycle, remember, the reason babies are so small and take time to attain their faculties is that if the baby had a head to fit a full grown brain, the baby wouldn't be able to squeeze out of the womb. So our bodies compensate by leaving most of the growth to happen after we are born.

If our cells continued to mitosis throughout our life at the rate they did when we were infants, our heads would likely burst (exaggeration. don't attack me for it). at any rate, uncontrolled mitosis in a brain that already takes up 25% approx. of our bloodstream? I leave it to someone else to list the consequences.

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

Darien Hager - 10:30pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3290 of 3293)

American student in Hong Kong

Note, when I say

Uncontrolled mitosis in a brain that already takes up 25% ....

I mean compared to the normal zero-something growth rate. You could let the brain grow at a slow, nice rate with the appropriate cues. (inhibitors, anti- inhibitors,etc.)

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

Cliff Beall - 11:52pm Feb 13, 1998 ET (#3291 of 3293)

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

Bob Janitor: But... just my opinon... feel free to disagree.

Bob, I must say I appreciate the civil response. But now I'm sorry I wasn't more civil in my...tirade. I could have replaced the word "atrocity" with the word "procedure," a few places and got the point across just as well. I'm sorry I didn't do it now.

babel dispersus: Well, since the Staff has decided to delete my last ten or so postings before most people even got to read them...at last... it was almost inevitable... babel has fallen.

In case anyone is interested, I copied each of babel's posts that were deleted to my word processor for reading off line a few minutes before they were deleted. If anybody is interested in reading them, I would be happy to forward the contents of the text to you by e-mail. BTW, I know that Bob saw them because I have his last reply to babel also. Basically all he said was that although he could find no fault with babel's logic, he continues to believe in free will. I will include it. My email address is [email protected].

Darien Hager: In terms of creating "brain dead zombies" I would consider it wrong to either cut out or otherwise remove/stop from growing the brain of a invitro fertilized embryo. However, if we change the genes to leave out a brain, (they can make headless rats) then it never really had a brain in the first place. We would just have engineered a very complex fungal growth or something to that effect.

Darien, in case you are wondering, this would not pacify me. I wouldn't want my grandchild born without a head. And the idea of it being born without a head due to an invasive technique--any invasive technique--is not, for me, a pleasant thought. (Notice how I avoided any inflammatory language. God, I am so proud of myself!)

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

Cliff Beall - 12:04am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3292 of 3293)

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

Keith Fosberg: Sorry Cliff, I was thinking of Glen and wrote your name in error (as regards the "don't shoot me" comment.)

Keith, you bugger, I knew you would get me back for that "politically correct" remark. I just didn't know how you would do it. (Have my remarks really become that intemperate?)

MollieO: The whole idea of "brainless" blobs being grown is revolting. Can we say "God complex"?

The answer to your question is No. Your question also constitutes an unwarranted personal attack. I agree the idea is "revolting," but nothing in any of Bob's posts that I have read--and I think I have read them all--gives any indication whatever of a "God complex," in my opinion.

Keith Fosberg: I have a personal problem with the idea of "organ farming" also, but can't actually refute Bob Janitor's logic in his argument.

Well...neither can I. If you assume the premises, the logic is sound. I am not fully convinced of at least one of the premises. But even if the premises were proven to be sound. I would still oppose the idea.

Bob Janitor: The traditional reaction to knowledge and progress by the ignorant.

Another unwarranted personal attack. MollieO's insult was not justified, but neither was this one justified. I think the two of you ought to apologize to each other. Both of you can tell me to bug off if you wish, however.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:05am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3293 of 3293)

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

Bob Janitor: And if you don't let the head form, you miss out on the possibility of a brain transplant... so with your method, the overall lifespan will be shorter, any disease or other problems in the body will still be present, and multiple "headless clones" would be needed, whereas with a brain transplant you'd only need one of "Bob's Atrocities". Furthermore, the new body wouldn't die under my approach, but would under yours.

I did not address the idea of a brain transplant in my post. Somehow, the idea of growing a "brainless" zombie for the purpose of receiving an existing brain from a "worn out body" is more palatable to me than the idea of growing the zombie for the purpose of "organ harvesting." However, I am not clear as to exactly when you think the "surgery" could be performed. I had previously understood (or assumed) you intended it to occur prior to implantation, and that the skull would have to be rebuilt prior to, or during the brain transplant. Is that correct?

Bob Janitor: Start the procedure... survive 20 years or so (I don't know exactly at what time the brain cavity would be large enough).

Now you are talking about a brain cavity (empty, perhaps,?).

Bob Janitor: But, our cells lacking telomerase isn't the only reason we die of "old age". Many of the most important cells in our body absolutely CANNOT mitosis or divide. And because all your cells will die, this is what screws you over.

So how can you say that "with a brain transplant you'd only need one of "Bob's Atrocities"."

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

Bob Janitor - 01:56am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3294 of 3297)

I wouldn't want my grandchild born without a head.

Nor would I. But a specially created clone wouldn't be your grandson anyway... most children are delibertly created, and if they're not, they're killed out of convienience-- abortion-- which horrifies me. I can justify killing out of survival... but not convienience.

Furthermore, as I've been saying, the "grandson" is not mindless mass of tissue. The "grandson" is a sentient intelligence-- the brain-- which the body supports. From a certain point of view, the body's only purpose is to support the brain.

However, I am not clear as to exactly when you think the "surgery" could be performed. I had previously understood (or assumed) you intended it to occur prior to implantation, and that the skull would have to be rebuilt prior to, or during the brain transplant. Is that correct?

No... I would prefer to prevent the central nervous system from forming, because if that happened, when transplant time came, you would be killing a sentient being... not just filling a hole. I believe from what I've read this could be best accomplished by removing the existing CNS neural tissue, and grafting epidermis tissue on the brain stem to prevent any possible regrowth, and then removing this tissue and either using fetal neural tissue or a regeneration inhibitor when it came time to move your brain into the body.

Another unwarranted personal attack

Sorry, my bad.

So how can you say that "with a brain transplant you'd only need one of "Bob's Atrocities"."

Because we use genetic engineering that we learn from mapping the genome of creatures with regeneration, which is already in progress, and prevent "dying from old age/natural causes"... which is what happens when the lack of telomerase and non-regenerating cells cause enough cells to die so that your body can no longer support your brain and it dies.

So, do I have a possibility? Or just good logic and bad assumptions? Did anyone check

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

Bob Janitor - 01:57am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3295 of 3297)

(con't)

out the links in my last post? Isn't it hard to defend the technical and moral possibility of something that doesn't exist :-) ?

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

InGen - 02:44am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3296 of 3297)

I don't think that right now is a good time to clone a human. I think that we need to master the field of genetics and use it for good things, like re-populating endagered species like the Bald Eagle. I am working on my Ph.D in genetics and would someday like to do this.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:25am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3297 of 3297)

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

Bob Janitor: So, do I have a possibility? Or just good logic and bad assumptions? Did anyone check out the links in my last post? Isn't it hard to defend the technical and moral possibility of something that doesn't exist :-) ?

Bob, I did check out the one link that was new to me and by backtracking to the "Shufflebrain" homepage of Paul Pietsch, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Indiana University, I found a wealth of information from what appears to be an excellent source. I didn't review it in any depth since I wanted to respond to your post fairly promptly. I have added the address to my favorites. In case anyone else is interested, click the address below:

http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html.

<A HREF=" http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html"> http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html</A>.

You're right, it is difficult to defend anything new, particularly if it still can't quite yet be done. So many questions, so many possible pitfall. And when you add a blockhead like me who keeps interrupting you, I can see your problem :-)

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

Bob Janitor - 05:08am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3298 of 3300)

"InGen"--

Merely cloning the bald eagle would not solve the reason it's going away in the first place-- which isn't lack of reproductive success. I'm sure any good environmentalist could tell you all about the bald eagle problem.

Furthermore, creating a cloned species is pretty damned stupid unless you want to introduce them to the Chernobyl area, because they would have zero biodiversity and a single disease could kill all of them.

Cliff:

Thanks for the pointer... I certainly hope this site is factual... mammilian muscular regeneration due to new myotube formation... fascinating!

But, we still don't grow arms back, and our muscles still die en masse as we get older...

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

Bob Janitor - 05:41am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3299 of 3300)

And when you add a blockhead like me who keeps interrupting you, I can see your problem :-)

Cliff... you're not a blockhead. You have good logic, a lot of knowledge, and are one of the best people to represent the opposite side of this issue.

And after reading his credentials at http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/cv.html, I just have one thing to say:

We've gotta abduct this guy and take him to the cloning board :-).

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws