Cloning Can Not Succeed

[Unfortunately]

On 1/12/2008 at 4:20 AM, Omnaka said:

Father said, "Science Is Playing God With out a Proper Degree". (I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be Quoting God)

Don't worry, you aren't. There is no evidence to support this.

On 1/12/2008 at 4:20 AM, Omnaka said:

What this means is Because Father and Mother (God) Put The spirit in the body, He will not Put one in A clone, And it will be doomed to Failier. Without a spirit which has been properly Unconditionally loved By God First , If another spirit jumps in to this body , it would inherently Be doomed to be Evil

There are spirits Which after this life, Shied away from Fathers love Light, which will stay earth bound untill the Last day, These spirits, would be the likely candidates For jumping in to a Clone.

Please don't get Me wrong, THere are Good Earth bound Spirits also, that interact with Us every day, But after Death, These sirits which can Travel between Both worlds Heaven and Earth, Have after Death of the body, Joind with Fathers love Light. Many will backpeddle away from this light ot of shame or fear.

Those who pass through the veil, can pass back To continue Loving his bro On Earth as well as in Heaven.

(Funny My disclaimer is longer than my OP)

Love Omnaka

I can appreciate the fact that you have your own opinions but stating all this is personal heresay, not factual. (I mean no offense, that's just an observation since you haven't provided articles or anything along these lines).

In order to determine whether a clone has a soul or not one would have to understand what a soul is, since that currently isn't possible outside of personal opinion it is difficult to say whether a clone would have one or not.

[Omnaka]

On 4/21/2018 at 1:06 AM, Unfortunately said:

Don't worry, you aren't. There is no evidence to support this.

I can appreciate the fact that you have your own opinions but stating all this is personal heresay, not factual. (I mean no offense, that's just an observation since you haven't provided articles or anything along these lines).

In order to determine whether a clone has a soul or not one would have to understand what a soul is, since that currently isn't possible outside of personal opinion it is difficult to say whether a clone would have one or not.

There has Not Been a human clone made. Let me know if you find one.

It's ok if you don't believe me.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Omnaka

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Omnaka said:

There has Not Been a human clone made. Let me know if you find one.

It's ok if you don't believe me.

Its purely an ethics issue, nothing to do with your claims of souls. 

[Mr Walker]

On 01/04/2018 at 10:09 AM, Piney said:

I don't eat beef. I stated that a few posts up. 

Algonquian Northern variety tobacco will kill you in months. The commercial stuff is Southern variety which takes years but will still kill you.

 I think my comment was meant to be sarcastic All tobacco is carcinogenic although commercial additives make it more so 

 

The industry has hundreds of additives in its arsenal to make cigarette smoking a more pleasant and addictive experience. Some of these additives are carcinogenic. But good ol' natural tobacco, particularly when burned, has upwards of 40 known or probable carcinogens that trump any harm done by additives

https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html

[Mr Walker]

On 03/04/2018 at 12:51 PM, JMPD1 said:

I think the clones of walker would chose opposing views just to be ornery. I can imagine the three of them arguing that the other two don't actually exist.

Of course it would come to  sad ending as each tried to blast the other with psychic powers......

I was trained, both as a child, and during my education, to deliberately take many viewpoints, prepare arguments for each, and debate them internally, to find the strongest position.

I don't need clones to do that.

Anyone can divide their mind into separate compartments, construct opposing beliefs or views in each compartment eg one based on logic another on instinct and a third on emotion, and then argue them to find the most productive choice  .

One of the reasons i cause havoc here is that i see and introduce different viewpoints to many issues.  This is legitimate Ie i am not trolling,   as i want to investigate and argue them out.  

[Unfortunately]

7 hours ago, Omnaka said:

There has Not Been a human clone made. Let me know if you find one.

It's ok if you don't believe me.

Did you even read my post? At no time did I state that a human clone had been made, that claim is entirely irrelevant to my point.

[Piney]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 I think my comment was meant to be sarcastic All tobacco is carcinogenic although commercial additives make it more so 

 

The industry has hundreds of additives in its arsenal to make cigarette smoking a more pleasant and addictive experience. Some of these additives are carcinogenic. But good ol' natural tobacco, particularly when burned, has upwards of 40 known or probable carcinogens that trump any harm done by additives

https://www.livescience.com/7914-warning-homegrown-tobacco-deadly.html

and you quoted me with the obvious and linked a article I already read because of why? 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

and you quoted me with the obvious and linked a article I already read because of why? 

  On 01/04/2018 at 2:20 AM, Piney said:

"Probably" is not proof and processed anything is bad.

Which one?  Because I know it wasn't Ellis-Behnke.

 

Mr Walker

Yea and home grown and harvested tobacco is not harmful   

 

The science on this is really indisputable   and  while it is largely  based on statistics that is the same for most things. There are some established direct, identified, links as well.

However i would never tell another person they had to eat/drink/ not eat drink anything As long as an adult is informed they have a right to make choices until those choices begin to affect others if you hunt and cook your own game, just make sure not to char it, as there is an established link between charred meat and cancer  

 

 

....................................................................................................................

...

  On 01/04/2018 at 10:02 AM, Mr Walker said:

The carbon is proven to be carcinogenic, but there are strong statistical links between red meat and cancer, as well as other health problems.  I don't eat any red meat ( Unless served it by a friend while visiting)  but we do eat some chicken and fish  If you are going to eat anything including fruit and veges the healthiest alternative is fresh home grown or caught  Just had a feed of king George whiting  caught the same day by my brother in law   (selling for $70 a kilo this weekend or a bit cheaper direct from a market.) Finished off with fresh pears and apples from the garden . 

I don't eat beef. I stated that a few posts up. 

  On 01/04/2018 at 9:49 AM, Mr Walker said:

Yea and home grown and harvested tobacco is not harmful   

 

Algonquian Northern variety tobacco will kill you in months. The commercial stuff is Southern variety which takes years but will still kill you.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

I was agreeing with you but was a bit concerned you might not have realised that my comment about home grown tobacco being harmless was sarcastic, not serious, despite the smiley i put after it  

i used the quote to show my real opinion, and the facts it is based upon, and to show i was agreeing with you  

 

 

I was

Edited April 23, 2018 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

On 4/23/2018 at 2:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

I was trained, both as a child, and during my education, to deliberately take many viewpoints, prepare arguments for each, and debate them internally, to find the strongest position.

I don't need clones to do that.

Anyone can divide their mind into separate compartments, construct opposing beliefs or views in each compartment eg one based on logic another on instinct and a third on emotion, and then argue them to find the most productive choice  .

One of the reasons i cause havoc here is that i see and introduce different viewpoints to many issues.  This is legitimate Ie i am not trolling,   as i want to investigate and argue them out.  

Walker

You are assuming that your clones would be the same as you, they may interpret your life experiences in very different ways and argue your perspectives vehemently against you.

jmccr8

[Rlyeh]

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 2:44 PM, Omnaka said:

There has Not Been a human clone made. Let me know if you find one.

It's ok if you don't believe me.

You haven't made one single accurate statement about human biology. Using your same reasoning, you never will make an accurate statement.

[Rlyeh]

On ‎21‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 4:53 PM, Omnaka said:

I Was just checking back, a few years later to see if anyone could prove me wrong. 

You have nothing to disprove. No surprise after ten years you're still just as clueless. 

[Nnicolette]

Yesterday my 6 year old son asked me if the twins he saw at the fair were human clones. It was adorable. He thought they must be clones because they were identical.

Here' an interesting thing I learned researching this topic. Clones are not identical. In fact if you clone a cat the resulting copy will have different markings than the original. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Nnicolette

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker

You are assuming that your clones would be the same as you, they may interpret your life experiences in very different ways and argue your perspectives vehemently against you.

jmccr8

No Ive made it clear this would require the transfer of my existing "self awareness"  into those clones  Either the y would be created without consciousness, or that would have to be wiped (creating an ethical dilemma) 

 in reality this could be achieved using android hosts and sufficiently advanced artificial minds 

 Thus, 6 clones would have an identical self, immediately after consciousness transfer. Each would BE me   However, over time, each would diverge and become a different self That is a good thing  because each could experience and learn new things, then, say once a year or two, all the minds could be remerged so that each one knew all that the others had learned  If one host was killed then only the memories since last upload would be lost. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No Ive made it clear this would require the transfer of my existing "self awareness"  into those clones  Either the y would be created without consciousness, or that would have to be wiped (creating an ethical dilemma) 

 in reality this could be achieved using android hosts and sufficiently advanced artificial minds 

 Thus, 6 clones would have an identical self, immediately after consciousness transfer. Each would BE me   However, over time, each would diverge and become a different self That is a good thing  because each could experience and learn new things, then, say once a year or two, all the minds could be remerged so that each one knew all that the others had learned  If one host was killed then only the memories since last upload would be lost. 

Hi Walker

Ooookaay if you say so. A guy who can't resize a pic but you know for certain how cloning will work in the future. 

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

25 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Ooookaay if you say so. A guy who can't resize a pic but you know for certain how cloning will work in the future. 

jmccr8

I am aware of current technologies, and work in the area, plus where that  will lead.

   You don't have to be a molecular, nuclear, biologist  to understand their work,

You just have to talk to one or read some of their papers  . Same with anything; read enough and listen to experts, and you will have a good general knowledge and understanding of that area.

The Chinese have already successfully cloned primates There are a few issues, both biological and ethical in cloning humans but i suspect that, again, the Chinese, are very close to it.

T transfer of human memory and consciousness is being worked on in centres across the world, including america china and Europe  Most of the experts working on it give a time frame beginning now and extending out to about 2070 ie some elements are already being trialed and achieved but it is still early days.

http://www.popsci.com.au/robots/will-people-alive-today-have-the-opportunity-to-upload-their-consciousness-to-a-new-robotic-body,377254

But is it even within the realm of possibility? Phase one - creating a robot controlled by a human brain - is already well within reach. In fact, DARPA is already working on it via a program called "Avatar" (which, incidentally, is also the name of Itskov's project) through which the Pentagon hopes to create a brain-machine interface that will allow soldiers to control bipedal human surrogate machines remotely with their minds.

And of course there are all the ongoing medical prosthesis projects (DARPA is involved in a few of these as well) that have shown that the human nervous system can interface with prosthetic enhancements, manipulating them via thought. Itskov draws a clear arc from what we have now to the consciousness-containing holograms that he envisions. All we have to do is attack the technological obstacles in between, one at a time, until we get there.

If only it were that easy. But Itskov also makes a valid point. In the past decade alone we've witnessed brain-machine interfaces emerge from the realm of nascent, futuristic ideas to mechanisms firmly rooted in reality. There's still so much we don't know about the brain, but better technology (and an abundance of funding in this field spurred by the horrific neurological and extremity injuries inflicted on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan) is expanding the envelope of possibility every year.

What Itskov is really saying - though in a very ambitious way - is that we've already started down the road toward shedding our corporeality via prostheses that interface with our nervous centers. If you can interface a brain with a hand, and then a brain with an entire arm, why not a brain with two arms? With two legs? With everything else? The question now is figuring out where the limitations lay - just how far down that road we can go.

 

https://www.livescience.com/37499-immortality-by-2045-conference.html

• MORE

Some futurists predict humans will be able to upload their consciousness to computers in the near future.

Credit: BrainGate 2, www.braingate2.org

NEW YORK — By 2045, humans will achieve digital immortality by uploading their minds to computers — or at least that's what some futurists believe. This notion formed the basis for the Global Future 2045 International Congress, a futuristic conference held here June 15-16.

 

Kurzweil — an inventor, futurist and now director of engineering at Google — predicts that by 2045, technology will have surpassed human brainpower to create a kind of superintelligence — an event known as the singularity. Other scientists have said that robots will overtake humans by 2100. [Super-Intelligent Machines: 7 Robotic Futures]

According to Moore's law, computing power doubles approximately every two years. Several technologies are undergoing similar exponential advances, from genetic sequencing to 3D printing, Kurzweil told conference attendees. He illustrated the point with a series of graphs showing the inexorable upward climb of various technologies.

By 2045, "based on conservative estimates of the amount of computation you need to functionally simulate a human brain, we'll be able to expand the scope of our intelligence a billion-fold," Kurzweil said.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I am aware of current technologies, and work in the area, plus where that  will lead.

   You don't have to be a molecular, nuclear, biologist  to understand their work,

You just have to talk to one or read some of their papers  . Same with anything; read enough and listen to experts, and you will have a good general knowledge and understanding of that area.

The Chinese have already successfully cloned primates There are a few issues, both biological and ethical in cloning humans but i suspect that, again, the Chinese, are very close to it.

T transfer of human memory and consciousness is being worked on in centres across the world, including america china and Europe  Most of the experts working on it give a time frame beginning now and extending out to about 2070 ie some elements are already being trialed and achieved but it is still early days.

 

Hi Walker

Until there is physical proof of transferring consciousness then it is speculative at lest. There is not actual data to support you interpretation of how it will work.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Until there is physical proof of transferring consciousness then it is speculative at lest. There is not actual data to support you interpretation of how it will work.

jmccr8

Actually there is.  We know enough to know that not only is it possible, it is achievable in the next century or so,  but we will need some big advances in computing power plus a better understanding of neurology.   Those two things are also inevitable unless civilisation self destructs. Progress wont just stop. The train is already speeding down the track. 

What you are saying is that, until something is actually achieved, no one knows if it is possible That simply is  demonstrably wrong, and science doesn't work like that.

it sometimes takes decades of theory and practice before we achieve something  like splitting the atom,  cracking the genetic sequence or   developing a functional plasma weapon or a cure for cancer   But you know well before hand that you can achieve it 

So far we can construct and insert artificial memories, selectively remove current memories, transmit images and worlds over distance using a computer algorithm, remotely operate machines of many types just by thinking, so we KNOW that thoughts are transmissible over distance and recordable  . 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually there is.  We know enough to know that not only is it possible, it is achievable in the next century or so,  but we will need some big advances in computing power plus a better understanding of neurology.   Those two things are also inevitable unless civilisation self destructs. Progress wont just stop. The train is already speeding down the track. 

What you are saying is that, until something is actually achieved, no one knows if it is possible That simply is  demonstrably wrong, and science doesn't work like that.

it sometimes takes decades of theory and practice before we achieve something  like splitting the atom,  cracking the genetic sequence or   developing a functional plasma weapon or a cure for cancer   But you know well before hand that you can achieve it 

So far we can construct and insert artificial memories, selectively remove current memories, transmit images and worlds over distance using a computer algorithm, remotely operate machines of many types just by thinking, so we KNOW that thoughts are transmissible over distance and recordable  . 

Walker

A clone will not be created as a fully grown Walker it will at this point of tech grow from a baby Walker into an adult that will grow up in a clinical environment. It may not interpret your life experiences the same way and have memories and experiences of it's own.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

On 25/04/2018 at 10:07 PM, jmccr8 said:

Walker

A clone will not be created as a fully grown Walker it will at this point of tech grow from a baby Walker into an adult that will grow up in a clinical environment. It may not interpret your life experiences the same way and have memories and experiences of it's own.

jmccr8

While that is one way of doing it, it would also be feasible ( and more humane)   to grow that clone to adult  (or more probably to an older child )    in a sensory deprivation  environment, so it had no mind or consciousness  of its own  Thus there would be no thoughts to interfere with your own when they were implanted , or  to override,  in order to establish your own identity . 

On the other hand, it would be interesting ( if  potentially terrifying)  to try your suggestion, where your mind is inserted into that of another  conscious human being. I would not do that,ethically, but some might. 

Another very real possibility is to insert your consciousness into an artificial intelligence, in an android body. That might not appeal to everyone, but to someone like me, it would be ideal and much better than simply dying .   

I had not thought about it much, because ethically i don't like the idea, but it would be feasible for several consciousnesses to share the one brain  Eg when you got married you might  "exchange/share consciousnesses" with your partner in a true, "marriage of the minds",  so that you had no secrets from  each other   

Mmmn!  The basis for an interesting short story, at least, there. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

While that is one way of doing it, it would also be feasible ( and more humane)   to grow that clone to adult  (or more probably to an older child )    in a sensory deprivation  environment, so it had no mind or consciousness  of its own  Thus there would be no thoughts to interfere or override. 

On the other hand it would be interesting ( if  potentially terrifying)  to try your suggestion, where your mind is inserted into that of another  conscious human being. i would not do that,ethically, but some might. 

Another very real possibility is to insert your consciousness into an artificial intelligence, in an android body. That might not appeal to everyone, but to someone like me, it would be ideal and much better than simply dying .   

Hi Walker

So you don't see and ethical issue with raising a human child in a sensory deprived environment? For me that would be unacceptable just in the same way that wiping a adults mind and overwriting their memories, and again that may not be as successful as you think. There could be residuals that could cause some form of psychosis.

jmccr8

Edited April 26, 2018 by jmccr8
Changed mind on additional response

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So you don't see and ethical issue with raising a human child in a sensory deprived environment? For me that would be unacceptable just in the same way that wiping a adults mind and overwriting their memories, and again that may not be as successful as you think. There could be residuals that could cause some form of psychosis.

jmccr8

I didn't say there wasn't an ethical issue.

However, not allowing a self awareness to evolve would be more humane than allowing it to evolve, then terminating it    This is why so many nations/states allow abortion of the unborn but not killing of a young child.

It is also why such abortions are more often legal, and common, when it is known that a child will be born mentally incapable of development 

 Arguably, depending on how you define human, It would not BE a human child if it had no awareness. (This argument was successfully used to legalise abortion on demand)   It is probable that such ethical issues will hold back these things longer than problems with  technology will, but the Chinese, and others with a different value on human life, will certainly experiment, and then nothing will stop others from  doing the same.. No one is going to allow the Chinese a mandate on    what will be, virtually, human immortality 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I didn't say there wasn't an ethical issue.

However, not allowing a self awareness to evolve would be more humane than allowing it to evolve, then terminating it    This is why so many nations/states allow abortion of the unborn but not killing of a young child.

It is also why such abortions are more often legal, and common, when it is known that a child will be born mentally incapable of development 

 Arguably, depending on how you define human, It would not BE a human child if it had no awareness. (This argument was successfully used to legalise abortion on demand)   It is probable that such ethical issues will hold back these things longer than problems with  technology will, but the Chinese, and others with a different value on human life, will certainly experiment, and then nothing will stop others from  doing the same.. No one is going to allow the Chinese a mandate on    what will be, virtually, human immortality 

Walker

WTF was that? You do realize what the difference between an embryo and a child is, right? This is a fine mix of the Walker shuffle with a twist of your unique blend of bent logic did you even think about what you wrote or did you just speed read it after you remote wrote it?

Social perspective is why cloning has taken this long to develop and is still not done with humans no matter what country it is. I am shaking my head in awe and may even suck down a few cool ones to see if it looks any better drunk.

jmccr8

 

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker

WTF was that? You do realize what the difference between an embryo and a child is, right? This is a fine mix of the Walker shuffle with a twist of your unique blend of bent logic did you even think about what you wrote or did you just speed read it after you remote wrote it?

Social perspective is why cloning has taken this long to develop and is still not done with humans no matter what country it is. I am shaking my head in awe and may even suck down a few cool ones to see if it looks any better drunk.

jmccr8

 

I think i just pointed out the legal difference between an embryo and a child.

One is not considered a legal human entity while the other is (This status changes over time and space around the globe) 

 A non aware  5 year old could easliy be legally considered the same as a non aware embryo.  Personally i consider all embryos to be embryonic humans with rights of their own .But practically those rights must be weighed against those of an adult woman.  However in many jurisdictions an embryo has no rights of its own and a woman can abort for any reason or none. 

I've thought about this for over 50 years. ive read about it , studied the ethics,  social and legal ramifications etc.

the issue of embryonic rights is about the closest we have come to the rights of a non self aware cloned human.

  An embryo once had the same right to life as any human,  but over time for many  reasons, ( social economic and political) that right has been eroded, until in some places it is non existent . 

The chinese simply dont attach the same values to human life as western democracies and theist countries do.

Abortion was used for decades, in China, as a mandatory form of population control. 

They execute people to harvest their organs and charge the family the cost of the execution.

  IMO the y will be the first to undertake human cloning.

They also have the most advanced  technical capacity to do so, having successfully cloned other primates 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mr Walker

[lauralou]

There has never been the mention of the word "science" in the Bible.

[danydandan]

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 Arguably, depending on how you define human, It would not BE a human child if it had no awareness. (This argument was successfully used to legalise abortion on demand)

What would the child be if it had no self awareness? It's most definitely human or do you think it's a sub-species of human?

Where was this legal argument regarding this?