Questions about cloning...

[DainBramaged]

I'm curious, assuming that someday a human is cloned, will this be proof for the existence of a soul? I'm just wondering because a lot of the arguments that I have heard otherwise in philosophy classes have been based on the fact that genetics are what dictates what somebody does. I'm just thinking about this.

 

[chambersc]

imo, it would be exactly the opposite. it would show that despite the intricacies of the human genome, it can be duplicated and thus you are ununique and can be dupulicated. it would show that there really isn't an aura of perfection about a human being and they are just like all other animals on the planet, just more evolved.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: chambersc
imo, it would be exactly the opposite. it would show that despite the intricacies of the human genome, it can be duplicated and thus you are ununique and can be dupulicated. it would show that there really isn't an aura of perfection about a human being and they are just like all other animals on the planet, just more evolved.

But the clones wouldn't all act the same. They would all be individual people, would they not?

 

[myusername]

genetics plus environment. A clone provides no more insight into the existence of a soul than an identical twin does. IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

 

[mercanucaribe]

It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: chambersc
imo, it would be exactly the opposite. it would show that despite the intricacies of the human genome, it can be duplicated and thus you are ununique and can be dupulicated. it would show that there really isn't an aura of perfection about a human being and they are just like all other animals on the planet, just more evolved.

But the clones wouldn't all act the same. They would all be individual people, would they not?

yes, you would probably have the same genetic predispositions as your former self but considering its impossible to duplicate someone's environment, you'll be a different person

 

[Atomicus]

Wouldn't philosophy classes lean towards the notion that the environment by which the individual is brought up also influences the mind?

IMO, religious followers and leaders are against cloning because their doctrines do not deal with the issue. And if the issue is not talked about in their doctrine, they feel uncertain as to how to react. Ultimately they try to hide their insecurities about the matter by claiming cloning technology as humans trying to play God. From a Christian POV, God created Man and he multiplied. Cloning counts as multiplying, doesn't it?

 

[DainBramaged]

What about the claim that Edward Wilson makes that genetics are what makes us choose the decisions that we make? He claims that if you could read the genetic makeup of a person, you will know every decision one could make, however, if these people were born in two different years, that would be impossible.

 

[myusername]

Dain, ask yourself this: If you were to have your mind transferred into a duplicate body right now .. so that there were two bodies that thought they were you .. would you both be the same person tomorrow? How about next month? In 20 years?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

The fact that two genetically identical people have such different personalities from childhood seems to be a big indicator.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

Furthermore, many religions state that one loses one's identity in the afterlife. If so, what use an individual soul while corporeal?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

The fact that two genetically identical people have such different personalities from childhood seems to be a big indicator.

Big indicator of what, exactly? That different biological and/or environmental factors caused two genetically identical people to have differing personalities? What does this have to do with a "soul"? What is a soul, for that matter?

 

[Viper0329]

Originally posted by: myusername
IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

I think a clear distinction must always be kept. People try and combine what philosophy and science have as their goals. One must kept a very clear distinction between:

A) Science - Gathering of emperical evidence to explain how things operate and work in the universe/world. Science seeks to explain how things behave. It assumes that the subject being studied or observed exists at all.

B) Philosophy - Philosophy seeks to explain the nature of things through the use of human reason. More often than not, emperical evidence CANNOT BE USED. It wants to know the NATURE of things, if they exist at all, why do they exist, etc. NOT how they behave, that is science's job.

There are several philosophers of the 20th century that were very well versed in science. Read Whitehead, Maritain, William Wallace, and many others.

Philosophers must keep their discipline to explaining what things are, not how they behave.

Scientists must keep within their own realm of explaining how things behave, not the nature of things.

Much of the error in today's thoughts come from blurring the line between the two principles and confusing each's role.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

The fact that two genetically identical people have such different personalities from childhood seems to be a big indicator.

Big indicator of what, exactly? That different biological and/or environmental factors caused two genetically identical people to have differing personalities? What does this have to do with a "soul"? What is a soul, for that matter?

With identical twins, their environment is not that different so as to produce that much of a difference were they not two unique individuals with their own personalities regardless of their genetics. Genetics only determine the visible shell of the person, not the mental abilities and beliefs.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: myusername
IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

I think a clear distinction must always be kept. People try and combine what philosophy and science have as their goals. One must kept a very clear distinction between:

A) Science - Gathering of emperical evidence to explain how things operate and work in the universe/world. Science seeks to explain how things behave. It assumes that the subject being studied or observed exists at all.

B) Philosophy - Philosophy seeks to explain the nature of things through the use of human reason. More often than not, emperical evidence CANNOT BE USED. It wants to know the NATURE of things, if they exist at all, why do they exist, etc. NOT how they behave, that is science's job.

There are several philosophers of the 20th century that were very well versed in science. Read Whitehead, Maritain, William Wallace, and many others.

Philosophers must keep their discipline to explaining what things are, not how they behave.

Scientists must keep within their own realm of explaining how things behave, not the nature of things.

Much of the error in today's thoughts come from blurring the line between the two principles and confusing each's role.

If philosophy cannot rely on empirical evidence, then does it rely on anything more than the opinion of the philosopher? It would seem to be a very poor way of gaining insight...

 

[Viper0329]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: myusername
IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

I think a clear distinction must always be kept. People try and combine what philosophy and science have as their goals. One must kept a very clear distinction between:

A) Science - Gathering of emperical evidence to explain how things operate and work in the universe/world. Science seeks to explain how things behave. It assumes that the subject being studied or observed exists at all.

B) Philosophy - Philosophy seeks to explain the nature of things through the use of human reason. More often than not, emperical evidence CANNOT BE USED. It wants to know the NATURE of things, if they exist at all, why do they exist, etc. NOT how they behave, that is science's job.

There are several philosophers of the 20th century that were very well versed in science. Read Whitehead, Maritain, William Wallace, and many others.

Philosophers must keep their discipline to explaining what things are, not how they behave.

Scientists must keep within their own realm of explaining how things behave, not the nature of things.

Much of the error in today's thoughts come from blurring the line between the two principles and confusing each's role.

If philosophy cannot rely on empirical evidence, then does it rely on anything more than the opinion of the philosopher? It would seem to be a very poor way of gaining insight...

It relies on the use reason itself, not personal opinion. Reason and opinion are NOT the same thing. It involves a lesson in epistemology. The question you must answer is whether or not ALL knowledge must be based upon emperical evidence.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: myusername
IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

I think a clear distinction must always be kept. People try and combine what philosophy and science have as their goals. One must kept a very clear distinction between:

A) Science - Gathering of emperical evidence to explain how things operate and work in the universe/world. Science seeks to explain how things behave. It assumes that the subject being studied or observed exists at all.

B) Philosophy - Philosophy seeks to explain the nature of things through the use of human reason. More often than not, emperical evidence CANNOT BE USED. It wants to know the NATURE of things, if they exist at all, why do they exist, etc. NOT how they behave, that is science's job.

There are several philosophers of the 20th century that were very well versed in science. Read Whitehead, Maritain, William Wallace, and many others.

Philosophers must keep their discipline to explaining what things are, not how they behave.

Scientists must keep within their own realm of explaining how things behave, not the nature of things.

Much of the error in today's thoughts come from blurring the line between the two principles and confusing each's role.

If philosophy cannot rely on empirical evidence, then does it rely on anything more than the opinion of the philosopher? It would seem to be a very poor way of gaining insight...

It relies on the use reason itself, not personal opinion. Reason and opinion are NOT the same thing. It involves a lesson in epistemology. The question you must answer is whether or not ALL knowledge must be based upon emperical evidence.

If knowledge is not based on empirical evidence, then what is it based on? To be more than mere belief and opinion, knowledge requires some form of verification.

 

[OhioState]

parts is parts

now go watch The Island

 

[Viper0329]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Viper0329

Originally posted by: myusername
IME, Philosophy teachers are not well versed in hard science, and generally don't let science conflict with their little models.

I think a clear distinction must always be kept. People try and combine what philosophy and science have as their goals. One must kept a very clear distinction between:

A) Science - Gathering of emperical evidence to explain how things operate and work in the universe/world. Science seeks to explain how things behave. It assumes that the subject being studied or observed exists at all.

B) Philosophy - Philosophy seeks to explain the nature of things through the use of human reason. More often than not, emperical evidence CANNOT BE USED. It wants to know the NATURE of things, if they exist at all, why do they exist, etc. NOT how they behave, that is science's job.

There are several philosophers of the 20th century that were very well versed in science. Read Whitehead, Maritain, William Wallace, and many others.

Philosophers must keep their discipline to explaining what things are, not how they behave.

Scientists must keep within their own realm of explaining how things behave, not the nature of things.

Much of the error in today's thoughts come from blurring the line between the two principles and confusing each's role.

If philosophy cannot rely on empirical evidence, then does it rely on anything more than the opinion of the philosopher? It would seem to be a very poor way of gaining insight...

It relies on the use reason itself, not personal opinion. Reason and opinion are NOT the same thing. It involves a lesson in epistemology. The question you must answer is whether or not ALL knowledge must be based upon emperical evidence.

If knowledge is not based on empirical evidence, then what is it based on? To be more than mere belief and opinion, knowledge requires some form of verification.

What is adequate verification though? Emperical evidence does not offer proof of anything, just probability. What I'm trying to get at is that at some point, you just have to trust that what you know is obtained through the use of reason and that this reason is correct. You just have to believe that your knowledge is right to believe anything at all. If not, you become an absolute skeptic and can't even be sure that you exist at all. Look up David Hume and what he said about absolute certainty. He believed that we can never know anything with absolute certainty. You can't even be sure that you exist. It boils down to believing that we can trust our reason, and from there, we build upon that.

Empericism is putting reason to use. It underlies the scientific method. There can be no empericism without using human reason.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: chambersc
imo, it would be exactly the opposite. it would show that despite the intricacies of the human genome, it can be duplicated and thus you are ununique and can be dupulicated. it would show that there really isn't an aura of perfection about a human being and they are just like all other animals on the planet, just more evolved.

But the clones wouldn't all act the same. They would all be individual people, would they not?

it's the same situation with identical twins, i.e., two individuals, with identical DNA

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

The fact that two genetically identical people have such different personalities from childhood seems to be a big indicator.

experiences in the womb can influence the personality of the child. for example, one might be exposed to different levels of e.g., testosterone than the other. That might cause subtle differences in the brains of each twin.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It has nothing to do with souls. Every clone would have a different life experience, no matter how minute, and would be a different person. I'd assume that Christians believe that clones have souls simply because they are human beings. Identical twins each have souls do they not?

You can only answer this question at this point from a philosophical/religious point of view. There is currently NO evidence to indicate that the "soul" is anything more than wishful thinking.

The fact that two genetically identical people have such different personalities from childhood seems to be a big indicator.

Big indicator of what, exactly? That different biological and/or environmental factors caused two genetically identical people to have differing personalities? What does this have to do with a "soul"? What is a soul, for that matter?

mind, personality, whatever lol

the ego

 

[dighn]

Clone or not it's still another person. It might have similarities to the original but it would not be identical. Genes are only one of many factors that determine a person. (Not implying clones would be less than human with the usage of "it")

Personally I think the possibility of teleportation could raise some interesting questions regarding this.