Possible? What are the implications?

[Thinkingstuff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1205677/Are-brink-creating-human-brain.html

Does anyone think this is possible? And If it is what would be the implications? And Do these scientist ever watch movies like the terminatior or the Matrix? And if a human being was ever to be cloned would it be wrong and would it have a soul?

 

[Eric B]

I always wondered what the whole ethical deal with cloning was, as it would just be a biological copy of a person's body. Though I can understand worrying about the fact that scientists may not always know what they are doing, and perhaps create a monster or something.
(Many evolutionists are the ones who believe that what we call "the soul" is just a collection of chemicals--which you can see reflected in the article in the link, so they are the ones who should worry about what they are creating, eityher with cloning, or this "articifial mind" in the article).

 

[Johnv]

... Do these scientist ever watch movies like the terminatior or the Matrix?

Those movies are fiction, nothing more. Plus, they look great in Blu-Ray

And if a human being was ever to be cloned would it be wrong and would it have a soul?

Cloning a part of a person, such as a kidney, etc, has some fantastic implications (such as growing a new kidney for a person's failing ones, thus getting them off life-support, and without the need for anti-rejection drugs). There are ethical implications that we as a society need to sort out. I don't see where cloning a part of a person would present any particular moral implications. However, cloning an entire human being presents some serious implications. OTOH, identical twins are human clones of each other, and they occur frequently.

So the answer of whether a clone would have a soul, the answer is absolutely yes. Again, look at identical twins. they're identical twins, and no one ever questions whether they have souls or not.

 

[preachinjesus]

Does anyone think this is possible? And If it is what would be the implications?

I'm not a scientist, nor am I the son of the scientist. But this is a bit outside of the realm of possibility in 10 years. Maybe down the road. The transfer between organic and digital would require more innovations than we realize imho.

The idea, that computers process while brains think is right on. Yet I can't imagine we're within 10 years of this. But then again, I'm no a scientist.

And Do these scientist ever watch movies like the terminatior or the Matrix?

Many scientists are absolutely enamored with "can I do ______" and never ask "should I do ______" the conversation about the philosophy of science is one that isn't happening but should.

Honestly I take the Dwight Schrute approach. We can build robots that are powerful but make them smaller than us, give them 6 foot power cords, and building them out of weak plastics so we can always be in control.

And if a human being was ever to be cloned would it be wrong and would it have a soul?

Completely different issue. The bio-ethical debate over this is HUGE! I'm against human cloning. I don't have a problem with organ cloning though. There is a difference. The other, profound issue, is at what point do I have or do not have a soul.

Have you watched movies like The Island or Gattaca? These are important movies to begin to understand the implications. This Island is more pointed to this.

Now if we placed an organically created, genetically replicated brain inside a digital device (sort of like Robocop 2) does that transfer humanity to the device or the brain? At what point of genetic organ reproduction do we cease being flesh and blood and begin to be soul? What are the implications of being able to replace our wearing out bodies, frankly all our parts minus our brains, and aging? Can we extend by at least 50 or 100 years the average human life span? What does that do to maintianing our humanity?

Just a few fun questions my buddies and I talk about over coffee...btw, the imago Dei is big in this debate. I believe that the "Image of God" is spiritual essence and not physical creation since God has no physical parts. But if mankind creates an entire being how does the spiritual transfer?:thumbs:

This is sort of like asking: what is time?

 

[Johnv]

Honestly I take the Dwight Schrute approach.

"You better learn your rules, or you'll be eaten in your sleep"?? :wavey:

 

[rdwhite]

...So the answer of whether a clone would have a soul, the answer is absolutely yes. Again, look at identical twins. they're identical twins, and no one ever questions whether they have souls or not.

So what are the eternal implications of a cloned human? Would they have a sinful nature? What about when they die, would death be the end of their existance? If not, would they be able to receive salvation?

 

[canadyjd]

.....So the answer of whether a clone would have a soul, the answer is absolutely yes. Again, look at identical twins. they're identical twins, and no one ever questions whether they have souls or not.

Identical twins are not clones and the process of cloning is not the same as identical twins developing in the womb.

peace to youraying:

 

[Tom Bryant]

I know it is fiction, but in these discussions I am always reminded of the line in "Jurassic Park" where they said, "They were so busy thinking that they could, they never thought if they should."

 

[Johnv]

So what are the eternal implications of a cloned human? Would they have a sinful nature? What about when they die, would death be the end of their existance? If not, would they be able to receive salvation?

Again, look at identical twins. They are clones. They both have a sinful nature, and are both capable of receiving salvation.

Identical twins are not clones...

Yes they are. They come from the same fertilized egg. During the cellular division process, one of the divided cells splits from the other, a copy of the original. It develops on its own into a fetus separate from the original cell, which developes likewise into a fetus.

 

[preachinjesus]

Again, look at identical twins. They are clones.

No they're not. A clone is a genetical replicate of another being. Identical twins are NOT genetically identical. They carry their own unique genetic coding.

I'll refer you to a February 2008 study in the American Journal of Human Genetics detailing the research findings.

They both have a sinful nature, and are both capable of receiving salvation.

As far as actual, scientific cloning goes I believe this is would be the case with a fully cloned human.

But identical twins are not clones.

 

[Johnv]

Identical twins are NOT genetically identical.

It's a little more complicated than that. What you're referring to is a difference is gene-copy count between identical twins. The initial split of the fertilized egg forms the first two cells with identical DNA. As each embryo develops from the identical eggs, there are slight variations in the number of copies of a given gene during the embryonic development process. The result is that the DNA of some identical twins are not identical (more study must be done to determine the frequency of twins that are genetically identical vs nearly genetically identical).

This variation of copy also happens in the cloning process, since clone start from a single egg containing the donor's dna. It is expected that clones would be subject to the same rate of dna-identical vs dna-nearly-identical as naturally occurring identical twins.

What's truly of concern to me is that I can remember that from my college biology class, but I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

 

[billwald]

Not yet possible because no one knows how the brain works. Recent experiments in non-causality hint there is a non-physical component to such things. Our spirit/soul could reside in an alternate dimension or some such.

Using cat scans to analyze brain function would be like using a stethescope (sp?) to analyze an engine thru the car's hood.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Those movies are fiction, nothing more. Plus, they look great in Blu-Ray

Cloning a part of a person, such as a kidney, etc, has some fantastic implications (such as growing a new kidney for a person's failing ones, thus getting them off life-support, and without the need for anti-rejection drugs). There are ethical implications that we as a society need to sort out. I don't see where cloning a part of a person would present any particular moral implications. However, cloning an entire human being presents some serious implications. OTOH, identical twins are human clones of each other, and they occur frequently.

So the answer of whether a clone would have a soul, the answer is absolutely yes. Again, look at identical twins. they're identical twins, and no one ever questions whether they have souls or not.

Yeah, until the computer brains start taking over. When will those computers think they know better than us what is good for us? I think Asimov tried to deal with this topic in his robot and foundation series. But even then they were manipulated.

I'm speaking about a human clone. Lets say I never married but wanted offspring so I cloned myself (kind of like Bobafet). Would that be ethical? Would the person have a soul would it be under the curse of original sin? etc...