Support NeoGAF

[Falcs]

Additional generic fuck my/yourself joke

 

[MetalAlien]

Too many people already... how about we start sterilizing people unless they can pass an IQ test?

 

[PSYGN]

My sleepy eyes read "Human clothing" and I laughed at the absurdity.

 

[Tesseract]

there can be only one

 

[Rentahamster]

Good, there's hope for you yet.

Here's my expectation for cloning:

1. Someone manages to grow a complete human in a lab.

2. They realize you can keep a body alive artificially but can't endow it with a soul.

3. However, so long as the lab human can pass the Turing test, no one will know any better.

4. A combination of brain-stimulating hardware and AI software allows the lab human to resemble a real person in casual interactions, and
technological miniaturization allows the components to be stored discreetly within.

5. We find out this has all actually been the case since the late 1980s.

On what grounds do you base any of this speculation?

 

[TheGreatYosh]

Nobody has a soul. Souls aren't real.


It depends on the situation, though.
If the clone is an entire body, meaning it has thoughts, then it's essentially a human - no different from an identical twin. In that case, what you're describing would be morally wrong, and also a crime.


If "the whole thing" is just a collection of cells, without any brain and no thought patterns, I don't really see an issue with it.

How do you know?

 

[I_D]

How do you know?

I assume you're asking about the "souls" part?

I know there's no such thing as soul in the same way I know there's no such thing as unicorns.
They have the same level of evidence to support them: None.

Is it technically "possible" that a soul exists? Sure.
It's also technically "possible" that a grasshopper crossing your yard is the world's oldest man. That doesn't make it likely.




If you're not talking about the souls part, and are instead referring to some other part of my post... I don't know what to tell you.
There's not much in there to be debated. It's pretty concrete.

 

[Foamy]

What if they were to only clone exceptional human beings.
I'm thinking a hundred Albert Einstein's working together could make incredible advances.

 

[TheGreatYosh]

I assume you're asking about the "souls" part?

I know there's no such thing as soul in the same way I know there's no such thing as unicorns.
They have the same level of evidence to support them: None.

Is it technically "possible" that a soul exists? Sure.
It's also technically "possible" that a grasshopper crossing your yard is the world's oldest man. That doesn't make it likely.




If you're not talking about the souls part, and are instead referring to some other part of my post... I don't know what to tell you.
There's not much in there to be debated. It's pretty concrete.

You used a lot of words to tell me you don't know.

 

[Ovek]

Other than proving you have the biggest dick in the scientific community and having full on Dr Frankenstein "because I can" moment, there isn't any point to full human cloning.

Cloning individual organs for zero rejection transplants is the future of human cloning.

What if they were to only clone exceptional human beings.
I'm thinking a hundred Albert Einstein's working together could make incredible advances.

Problem is that even great people are shaped by their life experiences (good and bad) from birth, a cloned Albert E even with the best efforts and intentions would not turn out like the original.

 

[Despera]

What if they were to only clone exceptional human beings.
I'm thinking a hundred Albert Einstein's working together could make incredible advances.

Why clone a human with random genes when we could manufacture genetically perfect ones?

 

[iconmaster]

On what grounds do you base any of this speculation?

Just a dumb joke.

I know there's no such thing as soul in the same way I know there's no such thing as unicorns.
They have the same level of evidence to support them: None.

If you demand empirical evidence for things which by definition are not empirically known, then you’ve merely assumed your own position and disregarded thousand of years of thinking on the subject, not all of which is Christian. For example, if you believe men ought to tell the truth, even when to their own hurt, then you believe in an ideal which has no empirical basis. For Plato, the certainty of these ideals is evidence that there is something beyond the empirical in us as well.

 

[O-N-E]

Cloning tech isn't at the level some of you think it is.

The cloned embryo still has to be implanted in a woman's womb and go through the pregnancy process.

So far, the spark of life is necessary.

 

[I_D]

If you demand empirical evidence for things which by definition are not empirically known, then you’ve merely assumed your own position and disregarded thousand of years of thinking on the subject, not all of which is Christian. For example, if you believe men ought to tell the truth, even when to their own hurt, then you believe in an ideal which has no empirical basis. For Plato, the certainty of these ideals is evidence that there is something beyond the empirical in us as well.

The two aren't even comparable.

"People should X" is an ideal.

"People possess a soul" refers to a measurable object.


One of them is far more provable than the other.

 

[iconmaster]

"People possess a soul" refers to a measurable object.

Why measurable?

One of them is far more provable than the other.

Interesting. You think you can prove the existence of abstract ideals but not souls. But surely neither is "measurable."

How would you prove the existence of an ideal? For example, George Berkeley denied that they could exist.

 

[I_D]

Why measurable?



Interesting. You think you can prove the existence of abstract ideals but not souls. But surely neither is "measurable."

How would you prove the existence of an ideal? For example, George Berkeley denied that they could exist.

You have it backwards.
Proving ideals is far more difficult than a soul.

If people "have" a soul, it must be somewhere in the body. If you claim it's outside of the body, that's a whole other realm of unbelievability.

Even ideals are technically (and, eventually, realistically) provable. We can measure brain activity and so forth. Theoretically, specific thoughts will eventually be measurable.

Souls have to be a measurable object, because otherwise people can't have them. The brain is an object, hearts, etc. If the soul is the part of the body, it's measurable.
But I will admit I'm begging some questions here, as we haven't really clarified what you mean by "soul."
I'm presuming a religious element to it, which means a soul is a person's "being" which transfers to an afterlife and so forth.

If you're instead referring to something else, like just a person's personality or something, then we're on different pages. And if you're referring to it as something as simple as that, then yeah, it's not any harder to measure than an ideal.

 

[SentientStone]

It will be pretty awesome; I will finally be able to do my magician disappearance act where I literally sacrifice my clones for the sake of others' entertainment only to have one of the clones eventually go against me and take over as the real me.

 

[Filth]

if we are about to start cloning humans then i believed it probably has been going on for the past 10-20 years already.

 

[GymWolf]

We started the topic with some science and we finish with fairytales about souls?

 

[Ballthyrm]

There's a good minute earth videos about the problems with human cloning



Even if you manage to clone yourself, the moment he/she is born it will not be you. You'll get a totally different baby version of you.

It won't have anything in common with you apart from the same set of genes, it will be your identical twin with a big age gap...

 

[-YFC-]

I wanna clone myself but I want the clone to have a vagina. Then I'd could bang myself. Man I'm a genious.

 

[Greedings]

Cloning is very 80's. There aren't really any good reasons to clone people, and it was always more of a proof of concept than something with real world applications.
Super accurate gene editing is the cool new stuff.

 

[iconmaster]

You have it backwards.
Proving ideals is far more difficult than a soul.

If people "have" a soul, it must be somewhere in the body. If you claim it's outside of the body, that's a whole other realm of unbelievability.

I don't make either claim, because location cannot be a property of a soul (or an ideal).

Even ideals are technically (and, eventually, realistically) provable. We can measure brain activity and so forth. Theoretically, specific thoughts will eventually be measurable.

Souls have to be a measurable object, because otherwise people can't have them.

In either case brain activity is merely a symptom of something else, not the reality itself. An ideal of "honesty" cannot be merely my brain activity, because if it is you and I could not share the same ideal. You would have one ever-changing pattern of brain activity and I would have another. If you believe we can both think of and talk about the same thing, and return to talking about it both now and later (long after our bodies have changed and developed through cell growth and loss, etc), then you believe in something beyond our brains -- regardless of its exact ontological status. (Platonism may not be the only solution, but I contend it has to be accounted for.)

If you're instead referring to something else, like just a person's personality or something, then we're on different pages. And if you're referring to it as something as simple as that, then yeah, it's not any harder to measure than an ideal.

It is at least your personality, certainly.

 

[LordKasual]

It would be cool to have a clone of myself (or identical twin) but i feel like the novelty is mostly gone when you aren't able to mature alongside said clone/twin.

Otherwise, its another child that's going to look exactly like me and probably share alot of the same sensibilities.

But unless i'm raising it, it's probably not going to be anything like me. There are identical twins that grow up in the exact same household who become nothing alike.


so if I have to raise this thing, i'd much rather just knock up my girlfriend


EDIT:

Oh, as for whether or not it's morally right......i don't see why it matters as long as you get consent from whomever you're cloning to actually go along with it.

But I really don't see the value in cloning entire humans. Sounds like an unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming research study, and any human born as a result of cloning obviously must be given the same rights as any natural born child, so it's not as though we'll legally be able to use them as lab rats.

Outside of proving that we can do it (and there's zero reason to suggest we can't), it seems to be a waste of resources.

 

[V4skunk]

just curious

It's already been going on for 60 years!
If a human being is modified by more than 0.5 percent! They are no longer a human being and have zero human rights.
Nearly all chimera experiments are done in the South Pole, mostly by China.
Super soldier genetic experiments are very real! Modifying the body to increase oxygen intake for more stamina! Modifying the stomach to be able to digest grass and other none digestible "food" etc......
Shit goes on that you cannot imagine!
If you don't believe me just go research about the nazi and japanese ww2 medical experiments to get it in your head that to some people any thing goes.

 

[Keihart]

It is at least your personality, certainly.

gotta check some science, personality it's certainly attached to the brain, there is overwhelming evidence of it. If you think it as part of the soul, then your soul it's the brain activity.
But personality it's certainly brain.

i just had a good discussion on the topic of souls with Airola a couple of days ago. I think it's fine to believe in a soul, but even philosophy leans towards monism instead of dualism. So it's a really unlikely position, just as all of those ideas that can't be proven because of how they are defined.

nice video about science on the subject

 

[iconmaster]

gotta check some science, personality it's certainly attached to the brain, there is overwhelming evidence of it. If you think it as part of the soul, then your soul it's the brain activity.
But personality it's certainly brain.

i just had a good discussion on the topic of souls with Airola a couple of days ago. I think it's fine to believe in a soul, but even philosophy leans towards monism instead of dualism. So it's a really unlikely position, just as all of those ideas that can't be proven because of how they are defined.

Yes, of course if you assume material monism then you have to explain the soul in those (imo reductionist) terms. You could also...not do that. Look at your own video link: if we assume material monism, then consciousness must be a "hallucination." I suggest this is nonsense. We deal with mental realities every day, so let's not try to explain them away.

Edit: in response to Anil Seth, I agree the brain is indeed a very sophisticated datum manager that depends on our nature and can't be reproduced in software. I'm glad to hear a scientist say it! But the "ideal" problem remains. We talk about things like honesty and justice and compassion as if they were realities around which we ought to orient our lives. If they are shared hallucinations only, they can have no morally binding effect and we should stop talking nonsense.

The other possibility, if you do not exclude dualism out of the gate, is that they are immaterial realities which can only be perceived by an immaterial soul.

 

[Keihart]

Yes, of course if you assume material monism then you have to explain the soul in those (imo reductionist) terms. You could also...not do that. Look at your own video link: if we assume material monism, then consciousness must be a "hallucination." I suggest this is nonsense. We deal with mental realities every day, so let's not try to explain them away.

it's also practical i think. Because, what are you gonna do when machines becomes self aware or the inevitable probe humans become a reality? i mean, what it's gonna be the criteria to give them or not rights.

Some say that machines are never gonna be self aware because of a lack of this soul and the same for clones(lab created humans) but in practicality how are you even gonna be able to tell? I think this a very practical problem too and not just a metaphysical one.

 

[iconmaster]

Some say that machines are never gonna be self aware because of a lack of this soul and the same for clones(lab created humans) but in practicality how are you even gonna be able to tell? I think this a very practical problem too and not just a metaphysical one.

It's still science fiction for now so I don't trouble myself about it -- burn that bridge when we come to it. But I think humans are better at perceiving other souls than most think (even dualists).

 

[Fbh]

I don't see the point.
Except maybe for medical uses but then I'd only be ok with it if we can make clones with no brain or something.

 

[The Pleasure]

I can't wait. Once the millionaires can purchase cloning services for practically anything every other problem the world faces will look microscopic in comparison to what they do with cloning.

The 2040 Lakers will win everything with Bryant A, Bryant B, Bryant C, Bryant D, and Bryant E.

We need some shaqs in there to constantly complain about passing the ball.

 

[Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool]

I don't see the point.
Except maybe for medical uses but then I'd only be ok with it if we can make clones with no brain or something.

you know that they need to clone with everything.. including brain, because they need to do a breakthrough, for science!

 

[I_D]

I don't make either claim, because location cannot be a property of a soul (or an ideal).

Then how are you defining what a soul is?

 

[Birdo]

I've always wanted to look at my asshole without a mirror.