people often forget that epigenetic differences will likely occur in clones too.
without some kind of artificial interference process, your own clone would have different fingerprints and retinal patterns than you do, and additionally they would like exhibit stochastic differences in neurological processes and psychology, and would be less identical to you as a person than your own twin, because they wouldn't even have an identical birthing or upbringing environment
people often forget that epigenetic differences will likely occur in clones too.
without some kind of artificial interference process, your own clone would have different fingerprints and retinal patterns than you do, and additionally they would like exhibit stochastic differences in neurological processes and psychology, and would be less identical to you as a person than your own twin, because they wouldn't even have an identical birthing or upbringing environment
also see: the boys from brazil.
So both twins will be equally strong in the Force?
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Hey Pony, I was reading this and I thought of you.
Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism): Not everyone is in favour of human enhancement and the prospect of greater-than-human intelligence. Nor is everyone in favour of extending personhood outside the human sphere. These 'human exceptionalists', a group that includes anti-transhumanist Wesley Smith, argue that being human is what matters, and that to give equal moral currency to non-humans is a violation of human dignity and worth. The opposing viewpoint to this is that of Non-Anthropocentric Personhood -- the notion that nonhumans, be they animals, robots, or uploaded minds, have the potential for personhood status, and by consequence, are worthy of moral consideration.
people often forget that epigenetic differences will likely occur in clones too.
without some kind of artificial interference process, your own clone would have different fingerprints and retinal patterns than you do, and additionally they would like exhibit stochastic differences in neurological processes and psychology, and would be less identical to you as a person than your own twin, because they wouldn't even have an identical birthing or upbringing environment
also see: the boys from brazil.
So both twins will be equally strong in the Force?
not necessarily
clearly genetics plays into midichlorian count in some way, since the children of parents strong in the force exhibit strength with the force, and apparently the force can either conceive a child spontaneously, or can be used to cause a virgin birth (depending on who you believe)
but is midichlorian count truly genetic, or epigentic? Scientists would agree that in west philadelphia, born and raised, on the playground i spent most of my days. chillin' out, maxing, relaxing all cool...
no
i'm not going to do this
fuck this thread.
Pony on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Basically what I was building up to was Fuck You Jacen
Fuck You up your ass you Emo Shit
You're the fucking Hot Topic customer of Sith Lords
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
this struck me for some odd reason while reading this thread...
If/When human cloning openly occurs does it lead to the implication that christianity's and many other religions' belief in the enternal soul and human spirit is wrong and therefore pretty much prove there is no god in the sense that they believe.
Like I said for some reason this thread sparked that line of thought in me and I haven't really given much thought to it beyond typing it out.
No, the religious groups will claim that the cloned individuals are some kind of abomination/mark against God. The thing is, Christian faith cannot admit that it is wrong, or else the basis of the religion (the infallibility of God) is put into question. Close-mindedness is irremovable from the Faith. Then again, people don't always pay attention to the actual Organization that runs the religion.
Way to make a blanket statement about a belief system that doesn't actually say "don't think" and that has has countless followers for thousands of years.
Also, I like your heavily-flawed logic where a human theologian can't go "oops, that was wrong" without it implicitly meaning that God was wrong.
How about a simple "no, cloning does nothing to disprove 'souls' or whatever."
But hey, you know what, it's cool to be a fuckin' idiot, so keep going with that.
I don't think I've ever loved you as much as I do right now.
Hey Pony, I was reading this and I thought of you.
Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism): Not everyone is in favour of human enhancement and the prospect of greater-than-human intelligence. Nor is everyone in favour of extending personhood outside the human sphere. These 'human exceptionalists', a group that includes anti-transhumanist Wesley Smith, argue that being human is what matters, and that to give equal moral currency to non-humans is a violation of human dignity and worth. The opposing viewpoint to this is that of Non-Anthropocentric Personhood -- the notion that nonhumans, be they animals, robots, or uploaded minds, have the potential for personhood status, and by consequence, are worthy of moral consideration.
Yeah, I'm not a total Human Exceptionalist, I'm a Human Supremecist. There's a slight difference, in that while Exceptionalists consider humans alone the only species of true worth, I hold humans up as the ideal to which any other creature which desires to be considered a person should aspire. As a result I could, for example, come to see an artificial intelligence or an alien lifeform or a genetically constructed animal-human hybrid as a "person" if only they exhibited a satisfactory capacity of human qualities and traits. I would still consider them not entirely equal to humans, but I would consider them above say, animals or possessions. It's a status they would have to earn.
Pony on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon, Broken Angels and Woken Furies explore that idea a bit. Good cyberpunkish books. Dynagrip hates them.
I do, but I will let you get suckers to waste their money on his shitty crap. Because you are a good forumer despite your shit taste in science fiction.
Hey Pony, I was reading this and I thought of you.
Human Exceptionalism (aka human racism): Not everyone is in favour of human enhancement and the prospect of greater-than-human intelligence. Nor is everyone in favour of extending personhood outside the human sphere. These 'human exceptionalists', a group that includes anti-transhumanist Wesley Smith, argue that being human is what matters, and that to give equal moral currency to non-humans is a violation of human dignity and worth. The opposing viewpoint to this is that of Non-Anthropocentric Personhood -- the notion that nonhumans, be they animals, robots, or uploaded minds, have the potential for personhood status, and by consequence, are worthy of moral consideration.
Yeah, I'm not a total Human Exceptionalist, I'm a Human Supremecist. There's a slight difference, in that while Exceptionalists consider humans alone the only species of true worth, I hold humans up as the ideal to which any other creature which desires to be considered a person should aspire. As a result I could, for example, come to see an artificial intelligence or an alien lifeform or a genetically constructed animal-human hybrid as a "person" if only they exhibited a satisfactory capacity of human qualities and traits. I would still consider them not entirely equal to humans, but I would consider them above say, animals or possessions. It's a status they would have to earn.
This is almost exactly my position, Pony.
Although if AIs or aliens could truly demonstrate what I took to be sentience I think I'd be ready to put them at an even level with me.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Does anyone have the link where the SA goons built a re-enactment of 9/11 that continually loops just to see how much they could cause surrounding property values to plummet?
This link must be brought to light.
No, seriously folks
this is kind of important
Ledneh on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
I love how Perry is totally a misogynist
Oh, 50's gender relations
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
The only X-Men comic I have ever read is The Uncanny X-Men 306
I have also read X-Men 2099 3.
the second statement renders the first one untrue.
Well I don't know if X-Men 2099 is considered an X-Men comic.
I don't really pay attention to comics really. I mean I'v got copies of Batman 497 and 500, a bunch of random comics I got as an X-Mas gift years ago, and a couple of random Thor comics (my parents called me Thor while I was still in the womb). But I don't really pay much attention to comics as a whole.
But atheism isn't a lack of belief. It's not what you "don't believe in."
There's another wrongsumption right there. Atheism goes from abscence of belief in dieties, to active disbelief, to active stamping out of religions, to being a complete know-it-all-dickbag.
Uh, no, actually, that's not a "wrongsumption" unless "wrongsumption" means something along the lines of "correct statement." Atheism means believing that there does not exist a god or gods. Maybe people become atheists by starting with a lack of theist beliefs and then gradually forming strongly-held atheist convictions, but that doesn't change that atheism isn't merely a lack of belief; it is an active disbelief.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, atheism means:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So when we are talking about atheism in the context of religions, the word can most certainly refer to a specific belief or doctrine.
Defining it as merely "lacking belief" is insufficient in that context, because a person who never thinks about religion and/or doesn't care about the subject will not believe that god exists, but that same person will not believe that god doesn't exist. Putting that person under "atheist" joins him with people who have a belief that he does not share.
Posts
it's okay raneados
people often forget that epigenetic differences will likely occur in clones too.
without some kind of artificial interference process, your own clone would have different fingerprints and retinal patterns than you do, and additionally they would like exhibit stochastic differences in neurological processes and psychology, and would be less identical to you as a person than your own twin, because they wouldn't even have an identical birthing or upbringing environment
also see: the boys from brazil.
not necessarily
clearly genetics plays into midichlorian count in some way, since the children of parents strong in the force exhibit strength with the force, and apparently the force can either conceive a child spontaneously, or can be used to cause a virgin birth (depending on who you believe)
but is midichlorian count truly genetic, or epigentic? Scientists would agree that in west philadelphia, born and raised, on the playground i spent most of my days. chillin' out, maxing, relaxing all cool...
no
i'm not going to do this
fuck this thread.
Fuck You up your ass you Emo Shit
You're the fucking Hot Topic customer of Sith Lords
Silly humans.
I don't think I've ever loved you as much as I do right now.
Yeah, I'm not a total Human Exceptionalist, I'm a Human Supremecist. There's a slight difference, in that while Exceptionalists consider humans alone the only species of true worth, I hold humans up as the ideal to which any other creature which desires to be considered a person should aspire. As a result I could, for example, come to see an artificial intelligence or an alien lifeform or a genetically constructed animal-human hybrid as a "person" if only they exhibited a satisfactory capacity of human qualities and traits. I would still consider them not entirely equal to humans, but I would consider them above say, animals or possessions. It's a status they would have to earn.
Although if AIs or aliens could truly demonstrate what I took to be sentience I think I'd be ready to put them at an even level with me.
shoe
shoe
spiderman.
thank you people for what you are gradually turning me into
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
wanna know a secret pony
it's a doozy
the hyphen thing
it's a joke, it doesn't bother me
my philosophy doesn't have a specific name, but there are three rules
1. use your brain
2. be decent to people
3. don't get caught up in a lot of bullshit and extraneous posturing
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
Fuck rules 1 through 3.
I have also read X-Men 2099 3.
the second statement renders the first one untrue.
4. Wolverine sucks ass on toast.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
Tell your whore mother to keep what happens in the bedroom IN the bedroom.
Also, fuck rule 4.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
this is kind of important
Oh, 50's gender relations
I don't really pay attention to comics really. I mean I'v got copies of Batman 497 and 500, a bunch of random comics I got as an X-Mas gift years ago, and a couple of random Thor comics (my parents called me Thor while I was still in the womb). But I don't really pay much attention to comics as a whole.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
Uh, no, actually, that's not a "wrongsumption" unless "wrongsumption" means something along the lines of "correct statement." Atheism means believing that there does not exist a god or gods. Maybe people become atheists by starting with a lack of theist beliefs and then gradually forming strongly-held atheist convictions, but that doesn't change that atheism isn't merely a lack of belief; it is an active disbelief.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, atheism means:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So when we are talking about atheism in the context of religions, the word can most certainly refer to a specific belief or doctrine.
Defining it as merely "lacking belief" is insufficient in that context, because a person who never thinks about religion and/or doesn't care about the subject will not believe that god exists, but that same person will not believe that god doesn't exist. Putting that person under "atheist" joins him with people who have a belief that he does not share.