Human cloning

[theapportioner]

Should we do it? I personally think it's less ethically problematic than human embryonic stem cell research, and I'm all for the latter.

[ziggytrix]

How is it less ethically problematic? I see it as moreso. I mean, at least in embryonic research, we have the argument of "they're not really human YET" but with an actaul living, breathing, eating, shitting clone it's a little trickier to say we aren't "playing God".

[theapportioner]

I. Therapeutic cloning - somatic cell nuclear transfer does not occur in nature, as far as I know. Therefore you are not interrupting the natural course of events. SCNT requires a causally significant act - implantation - in order for a child to develop. However, the destruction of a pre-embryo could be construed as a causally significant interruption of the development of human life.

II. Reproductive cloning - you are creating a human life, not interrupting it, in the case of embryonic stem cell research. This is supposing that you consider a pre-embryo a "human life".

III. The "argument" that cloning is repulsive is not an argument at all. It is stupid.

[ziggytrix]

which means fuck all to your average bible belt voter.

[theapportioner]

What do you guys think about the idea that "human life begins at conception"?

[ziggytrix]

i think it's bullshit but a LOT of people disagree :(

[theapportioner]

Why do you think it is bullshit?

One has to admit that there is a certain "tidiness" to defining human life as beginning at conception. None of that slippery slope stuff. Robert George argues that a zygote has the "intrinsic capacity" for developing into a human being, so it therefore is already a human being. Remarks?

[Sethomas]

You've read my coeternalist stance, so I guess I don't really need to repeat it. I personally think that there should be no legal qualms about cloning, since it doesn't destroy life, but at a personal level it falls to religion to call it immoral or whatever. I see it sort of like pornography... religion can say it's bad, but it's not so socially destructive that the state should ban it.

But yeah, I oppose embryonic stem cell research as an idea in MOST circumstances for reasons of that dreadful slippery slope. However, I don't oppose current research into it since there is no legislation that would make it sensible to throw away such stem cells.

[ziggytrix]

Why do you think it is bullshit?

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html

I like #4. But I think I'm too uniformed to convicingly argue for any particular point. I think it's bullshit to latch onto some arbitrary point though and say "this is human, this is not".

We, as a people, really don't know, if we're being honest.

[Helm]

Defining life calls for context. In what context? Socially? Biologically? Philosophically? 'at conception' doesn't cover everything. At best, it's an argument for biological definition. And that DOES have slippery slopes to it even there. Life, self-awareness and freewill all come into play for more challenging philosophical or social definitions.

I am not against human cloning 'for parts' as they say. Cloning a fully aware human being is a whole different thing. If we DO clone him, body harvesting him is wrong under my morality. But if not, such a clone does call for a host of new definitions of what he is, and how he compares to natural humans.

[Helm]

By the way I like 4. as well. A useful convention if not something scientifically uber-defensible.

[theapportioner]

We, as a people, really don't know, if we're being honest.

We can't settle for that. Defining when a human life begins is important in deciding whether the entity in question should be granted legal and moral rights, such as the right to not be killed.

[AChimp]

I say we kill them now, and in a few decades after we've cured cancer and every disease known to Man, we erect a statue in their memory. No harm done.

[sadie]

i wonder what cloned humans will think like? can you clone a soul? a mind? will they have minds? or consciences?

i think if the technology's accessible, it's bound to happen sooner or later. banning something just makes it more desirable.

[theapportioner]

I don't know what a soul is. Mind, consciousness, sure they would have that.

One could make the point that there isn't any demonstrable benefit to reproductive cloning. It's not like IVF, which helps many couples have a child, and be able to make sure that child doesn't have serious genetic diseases.

[Xenogil]

What do you guys think about the idea that "human life begins at conception"?

I believe that human life begins when a human becomes a sentient lifeform. Human life beginning at conception? It is to some extent because a human organisim is created, but at that point in time, it's just a rapidly growing clump of cells.

[sadie]

soul is real. but i, of course, can't back up my opinion with factual evidence. it's one of those knowing things.

[theapportioner]

I believe that human life begins when a human becomes a sentient lifeform. Human life beginning at conception? It is to some extent because a human organisim is created, but at that point in time, it's just a rapidly growing clump of cells.

Why sentience? Someone in a persistent vegetative state isn't a "human life" then?

[Helm]

To some extent (especially regarding euthanasia) I'd say that, while alive, the person in a 'persistent vegetative state' is no longer a human being, with all the moral implications that this might carry.

[sadie]

following that reasoning, would a person with limited cognizance be less human?

[Helm]

No. It is dangerous to attribute 'levels' of cognition to 'levels' of humanity. Not only this brings problems of the type "if someone is really really drunk out of his head, is he 'human' at that period of time?", on the other end this gets drawn into an epistemological debate of who exactly then is 'aware' on all relevant levels, so as to serve as an example of a complete human.

Better then that when all higher-level brain function has stopped, we can discuss if that person is indeed still a person in a legal and ethical sense.

[sadie]

i see what you're saying.

so legally, people in a vegetative state aren't classified adults, at least, since they're unable to make decisions. they're still legally human, though, hence the illegality of euthanasia.

i wonder if clones will have the same rights as regular people?

[ziggytrix]

Why sentience? Someone in a persistent vegetative state isn't a "human life" then?

We have the science to keep the clinically braindead "alive" for years and years (see the Terry Schiavo autopsy results), but should we? 10 years from now, I'll bet we could keep a fresh cadaver "animated" just as easily, but I certainly don't think we should.

The real catch is gonna be when we have something like the ability to repair massive brain damage. Where will we draw the line between repairing and replacing a "life"?

If I had my druthers we'd spend all the research money on digging up and reanimating Mary Shelly so we could ask her.

[The One and Only...]

I think we're looking at the question the wrong way. We need to worry less about defining when human life begins, and worry more about defining a human. Whenever the developing fetus fits the definition of a human, it should be given human rights.

As far as cloning goes, I'm all for it on the condition that cloned humans be given the same rights as humans that were given birth.

[kellychaos]

If you were to a Jetson's-style adult-to-adult cloning, surely all the physical development of the brain would follow but would all the records of sensory experience be transferred?

Assuming that there is a soul, for the sake of argument, would this, then, be two different physical beings sharing one soul?

Did I just ask the same question twice?

[Helm]

the sum of a human being. holistically speaking, even if you clone me right now perfectly, the very first second we breathe as different bodies, we can no longer classify as the same person. In fact, just by holding different physical space, we've already upsetted any chance to be considered the same. There is no easy dualist distinction between 'body' and 'spirit'.

[ziggytrix]

If you were to a Jetson's-style adult-to-adult cloning, surely all the physical development of the brain would follow but would all the records of sensory experience be transferred?

That's not knowable without a much greater understanding of neural processes, but my money is on "yes". Assuming you got an exact replication of not just every atom, not just every proton, but if you got it down to identical vectors for every single lepton, I bet you'd have the same exact memory record, but the abilty to do anything like that is pure science fiction.

[theapportioner]

If you were to a Jetson's-style adult-to-adult cloning, surely all the physical development of the brain would follow but would all the records of sensory experience be transferred?

You mean memory? Of course it would.

[theapportioner]

That's not knowable without a much greater understanding of neural processes, but my money is on "yes". Assuming you got an exact replication of not just every atom, not just every proton, but if you got it down to identical vectors for every single lepton, I bet you'd have the same exact memory record, but the abilty to do anything like that is pure science fiction.

You don't need to go down that far.

[kellychaos]

How could you know that? I'm not being a smart-ass. Cite please, if you have it.

I.E. What sub-atomic particles would comprise memory of sense-experience? Not a simple download, I imagine.

[ziggytrix]

Who knows what affect a quark flipping has on the path of an electron that might impact your thought proccesses? Maybe something, maybe nothing. *shrug*

Those were only my conditions for a wager, anyway. Cuz I only bet when I know I'll win. :P

[Big Papa Goat]

who knows how many angels can dance on the end of a dendrite?

[Helm]

The Demiurge does.

[sadie]

the demiurge does.
the demiurge does.
the demiurge does 'cause he sprinkles us with soul
to make the world feel good.
:O

[ziggytrix]

mmm, soul :yum

[Helm]

Traitorous demiurge!

[The One and Only...]

Why the fucking gnostic references?

[kellychaos]

How many googles did it take in your attempt to seem intelligent?

[Helm]

because oao

who knows how many angels can dance on the end of a dendrite?

[The One and Only...]

Not enough for me to fulfill my love of slaughter.

[sadie]

you wanna kill the little angels? >:

[kellychaos]

What's a dendrite? :(

[kellychaos]

Google ... google ... google ... oh, OK :lol ... nevermind. :/

[theapportioner]

How could you know that? I'm not being a smart-ass. Cite please, if you have it.

I.E. What sub-atomic particles would comprise memory of sense-experience? Not a simple download, I imagine.

Removing a subatomic particle here or there has no impact on memory, just as it wouldn't make a bookshelf any less of one. It's irrelevant, and you've gone too far with reductionism.

The "records of sensory experience" are encoded by the properties of ion channels, synapses, populations of neurons etc., all of which are "physical". If you copy the former you have copied the latter.

[kellychaos]

I guess that's fair since the abilities to do such was assumed in my question, Mr. Schrödinger. :)

Would two such people be of a shared "soul", then?

[sadie]

I don't know what a soul is.

[kellychaos]

How could you know that? I'm not being a smart-ass. Cite please, if you have it.

I.E. What sub-atomic particles would comprise memory of sense-experience? Not a simple download, I imagine.

Removing a subatomic particle here or there has no impact on memory, just as it wouldn't make a bookshelf any less of one. It's irrelevant, and you've gone too far with reductionism.

The "records of sensory experience" are encoded by the properties of ion channels, synapses, populations of neurons etc., all of which are "physical". If you copy the former you have copied the latter.

I predict that there will never be an end to how far (sub-sub-sub atomic particles?) they break down atoms and to what practical point anyway?

[theapportioner]

Look, if you change a few subatomic particles in you you are still human. If you do the same to your neurons it won't make one damn difference to your memories.

[CaptainBubba]

Sadie were you being sarcastic with the previous questions about clones having souls and rights and whatnot?

Like seriously?

:(

[kellychaos]

Look, if you change a few subatomic particles in you you are still human. If you do the same to your neurons it won't make one damn difference to your memories.

I see a profound difference in saying that sub-atomic models (a human invention) REPRESENT ourselves and that these same representations ARE ourselves and, usually, I have more faith in science than theology. I just have a hard time accepting a scientific model's superiority over that of dynamic life ... and I'll attempt to explain this in my awkward, sub-par, amateur-philosopher type way. I'm working off-the-cuff here, so give me, if not a break, at least constructive crtiticism.

Hume’s claim is that no one ever perceives his or herself. The self whose existence seems certain is not to be met with in experience. Hume writes:

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I
always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” (Hume, Treatise, Book I, Part IV, Section 6.)

At best, our view of the sub-atomic world is based on scientific models, scientific theories that have been proven exhautively and technology that we developed. Nonetheless, not direct empiric perception. Could we be fooling ourselves with our own pride?


Hume’s claim must be understood within the context of his strict empiricism. He is claiming that he has no idea of the self. His basis for this claim is that he has no sense impression or perception of the self. Why does it follow that he has no idea of the
self? It follows given Hume’s copy principle: every idea must be derived from a sense impression or perception.1 This principle is characteristic of Hume’s radical empiricism, his belief that all knowledge must ultimately derive from the senses and
our mental operations on sense impressions.

I am not so naive as to accept that microscopes do not supply an enhanced view of sense perception but must admit to a lingering hesistancy in accepting all atomic theory and anything that reaches too far beyond the light of empiricism, yet I do try to keep an open mind and am, to this point, open-minded and willing to indlude the metaphisical as well as science into the fold.

Hume’s claim must be understood within the context of his strict empiricism. He is claiming that he has no idea of the self. His basis for this claim is that he has no sense impression or perception of the self. Why does it follow that he has no idea of the
self? It follows given Hume’s copy principle: every idea must be derived from a sense impression or perception.1 This principle is characteristic of Hume’s radical empiricism, his belief that all knowledge must ultimately derive from the senses and
our mental operations on sense impressions.

Hume’s ideas influenced later ‘scientific’ thinkers, such as Georg Lichtenberg (1742-1799) and Ernst Mach (1838-1916). Georg Lichtenberg is a fairly minor figure inwestern philosophy, but he is famous for his challenge to Descartes’ cogito. His challenge to the cogito may be paraphrased as follows:

‘We should not say ‘I think’, but ‘Thinking is going on now’.
1 For the term ‘copy principle’ and more details on Hume’s epistemology, see Don Garrett, Cognition
and Commitment in Hume's Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1997).

The justification for this dramatic claim could be Hume’s idea that one never does perceive oneself: one just perceives more and more perceptions.


Even accepting advances in sub-atomic theory, I still see these as more and more in-depth, perceptions of ourselves, assuming these sub-atomic particles ARE "ourselves". The more in-depth we go, these perceptions are more apt to become perceptions of perceptions ... building theory upon theory but increasingly beyond the realm of empiricism.

More later as I attempt to compose a more coherent thought about what I'm trying to say with more research.

[theapportioner]

Hey no problem - sorry if I've offended you or anything. I just don't see how you could come up with a useful hypothesis for memory formation and storage involving subatomic particles. There's systems neuroscience, cellular neuroscience, and molecular neuroscience, but no subatomic neuroscience.

If you're curious about proposed mechanisms for memory formation, check out the wikipedia article on long term potentiation (LTP), for starters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation

[sadie]

Sadie were you being sarcastic with the previous questions about clones having souls and rights and whatnot?

Like seriously?

:(
i can't remember who held the reins at that point.

[kellychaos]

While having a firm stake in empiricism, I do tend to question whether it is the end all. I do believe in the scientific method and discovery to the point where it becomes a bit too theoretical for my tastes and too heavily reliant on models and technology that we, ourselves, developed the further the investigation goes along. In the way that a tangential angle, while first coming close to the topic, moves farther away as more assumptions based on previous discoveries are made. Who really reads the fine print for the early acceptable margins of error?

I believe, and I'm paraphrasing in a large way here, in Kant's theory that there is sort of a matrix that governs our view of the world and which largely governs most of what we can sense empirically (with a little a priory knowledge like mathematics, morality, ect thrown in). What ultimately controls us that we cannot perceive, and probably won't be able to conceive being, pretty much, a closed system? I don't know. Call it theology. Call it the metaphysical. I believe that there is a force behind life with a direction and a purpose. We are largely beings that move along by sensation but what provides the direction and purpose ... call it "will" or whatever. I refuse to believe that we are static models. At the same time, I refuse to believe in fairy tales half-based on pagan ritual and theological dogma which largely smack of common sense, altruism, humanism and the Golden Rule while giving too much credit to deities based on our own arrogance which we've cleverly managed to hide from ourselves.

[kellychaos]

I didn't mean to get too heavy with this.

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and have probably bitten off more than I can chew here.

[Big Papa Goat]

So the empirical scientific method is too theoretical, but Kant's metaphysical notion of some kind of soul isn't?

[kellychaos]

What I'm saying is that I have more faith in an empirical scientific method to a point where it becomes too theorectical. When discovery upon discovery is based on, at least, pseudo-empirical scientific observation, proveable mathematics, proveable logic, ect. I am fine with that. However exhaustively tested and proven, the more things become dependent upon or, at best, layered upon theories that are not empirically observeable (or observable under technology which I, as a layman, cannot understand) it becomes just as much as a faith-based belief as does theology. That being said, I would tend to lean toward the scientific.

[kellychaos]

An interesting counter-point/op-ed piece to my arguments (second article down by Leonard Susskind):

Evolution wired us with both hardware and software that would allow us to easily "grock" concepts like force, acceleration, and temperature, but only over the limited range that applies to our daily lives — concepts that are needed for our physical survival. But it simply did not provide us with wiring to intuit the quantum behavior of an electron, or velocities near the speed of light, or the powerful gravitational fields of black holes, or a universe that closes back on itself like the surface of the Earth. A classic example of the limitations of our neural wiring is the inability to picture more than three dimensions. Why, after all, would nature provide us with the capacity to visualize things that no living creature had ever experienced?


LINK TO FULL ARTICLE (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan05/horgan05_index.html)