1. Yes. My clone is most definitely, absolutely a human.

2. My clone has exactly as much soul as I have. (We jam a bit. My clone definitely busts out the funk.) Clones are like identical twins. If identical twins each have as much soul as anyone else, then so do clones.

3. Since the word "soul", to me, doesn't reference exactly 'one true concept of soul', then I'd say this would depend on your definition. For most ideas of soul, though, I would say, resoundingly, 'no'. If I have a soul, then my clone would have a separate soul.





Given inevitable minute variations in neurologic structure, we will never have clones that think exactly like we think.


Also, we occupy two different bodies.

Also, from the moment of (hypothetical) memory transfer onwards, we have different memories. We are differentiated the same way identical twins are differentiated - we just have a different 'amount' of differing memories.

Metalwing wrote:



Exactly.

Pela wrote:



I find this statement surprising. Why do you say this? What do you base this on? There are some differences: cloning is very much like deliberate, in vitro twinning.



You don't believe in it? You don't believe it happens? You don't think it should be done?




Oh my!!! There is a doorway to great evil. If people think that clones lack souls, the gates are open to horrendous treatment of clones.

I'm told that there was a time when many sophisticated white people didn't believe that black people had souls.

Oh, man, you beat me to the punch.



line

Nobody owns a soul?

I beg to differ.

One Halloween, I dressed in my best witches robe, I went out and collected 25 souls before midnight. People willingly sold their souls just for the privilege of making a wish. (Their wishes were pathetic too, and things that they could have manifested for themselves.) They signed a contract to boot. So maybe I own a few souls if any of their wishes came true.

The only thing you are replicating when creating a full clone is DNA. By the time the manipulated cell begins to divide it goes through the exact same process of any naturally furtilzed egg. This means it must develop a central nervous system which includes a brain. A fetus needs a functioning brain in order to continue to develope and survive.

So the only philisophical question in the OP that can actually be addressed would be -

Would it be ethical to replace the brain of a new born child with that of another person?

The answers may include objections based on ideas of soul but other than that I can't see the relationship between the questions in the OP and philosophy.

I know a set of monozygotal(sp?) twin boys on an intimate level. They are no more identical in thought than they are in behaviour(s), even though they are as close to exact copies as can be. They each have their own set of personal taste and personality.

We have long known that both genetics and environment play a role in who one is, there is no apparent reason to suggest that it would be any different with a cloned 'twin'...

Is there?

Define 'soul'.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that unless you are assuming that the brain is the person. What does replacing the brain of a new born have to do with the clone questions?

The philosophy has to do with defining "self" and "point of view." and whether or not there is anything like a "soul" involved with a living being.

Most people who don't believe in a soul, identify a "person" by their brain, their body, etc. But if you have two identical brains, and bodies and you could even transfer memories into the clone, then what makes that person a different person if there is no soul or nothing that distinguishes "self?"

Now my intention is not to get into the specifics details and facts about the real cloning process, this is strictly a science fiction hypothetical situation.

You meet two identical people, they are the same in every way including personality and memories. One is a clone. You can't tell the difference. They both think they are the original.

How can anyone tell who is the original? (apart from scientific testing for the clone.) And worse yet, how can the clone or the original know which one is the clone?

If there is no soul involved, then are they the same person?

Worse yet, what if they had telepathic communication and could see through each others eyes and share experiences?

Would that indicate that they were one soul with two bodies?

I agree.

I recently took a course called "Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality"

In that course it was made quite clear that it would not be possible to actually 'clone' yourself using biological means.

In other words, genes and genetics, are not the sole determining factor in the 'creation' of a human being. The environment during fetal development plays a huge role in which genes will be turned on and off during development, etc.

So the DNA program for human development is not carved in stone. It's extremely sensitive to environmental factors. This continue even after birth.

So even if two identically fertilzed eggs were set in motion, they would not develop into perfectly identical humans including and probably most important in terms of a brain which would be one of the latter things to develop in the fetal process.

About the only way to genuinely make a perfect copy of yourself would be to use something like a Star Trek Teleporter where the original person is just used to scan a copy of the pattern and when the process is finish there are two idential copies (including memory) They would basically both believe they are both the 'original person'.

And for all intents and purposes they would be. At least at that particular instant in time. But even they would begin to diverge over time. They would both experience the world from different vantage points from there on out and begin to form different opinions and ultimately end up disagree with each other just like everyone else.

Yes I remember a star trec episode where one of the characters did get replicated in transport without their knowledge and they indicated that same idea.

Ive also seen movies where several clones were made and they were girls but they did even look exactly alike, just more like twins.

I see two more possible philosophical questions:

1. Would it be ethicalto replace he brain of a new born child with the brain of the clone of this new born child, provided his/her clone exists?

2. Why did the Mets replace the running quarterback in the fourth inning with a picture of Jehaun Gimlot, Mormon preacher and husband to twenty-eight wives?

These are quite interesting question JB. And they challenge the idea of 'karma'. But they don't necessarily interfer with it.



If they are identical in every possible way including memories then at that very instant they are the same 'person' in a sense. However, if "karma" is to retain any true meaning, then they would each necessarily have a seperate 'soul'. Absolutely.

If the concept of 'soul' is indeed a valid concept, then by cloning someone, a new 'soul' has indeed been 'created'.



Unless they had been marked in the process of cloning it would be impossible to know. There would also be no scientific test that could be performed to tell. (assuming that the cloning process was indeed perfect and complete)



That all depends on how you define "person".



That's a very real possiblity since they would indeed be so closely identical in brain form (including memories and all). This would never occur in a biologically cloned individual. This could only happen via something like a Star Trek transporter where the whole individual is copied in tack with memory and everything.



Not in my way of thinking because they would begin to diverge from that point forward. Their karma would then change accordingly, and over a period of time they would become quite different from one another.

Basically what would have been done from a 'technical point of view' in terms of karma is that the a karma field would have simply been copied and split into two diverging karma fields.

So if the karma field is the soul then a new soul would have indeed been created. It would be like dividing a river and asking if the two new rivers are still the same as the old river?

That's an interesting thing to ponder right there. But this comes close to the Tao. All you're doing is dividing the Tao like a river at a fork. You've taken a single karma field and split it into two diverging fields. That may very well be the whole reality of all existence right there.

I think could fit in with Taoism seemlessly.

I seriously hope that people never get to a point where they view a clone as nothing more than an empty biological robot to be used as spare parts.

In the case of a brain transplant why bother anyway? If the clone's body is health may as well just leave the brain in that body, it's going to be the same brain no matter which body it's in.

Besides, if it's the brain of the baby that needs to be replaced, I think that baby is already 'dead'

I think if we are interfaced to some sort of spiritual essence, that interface would indeed be through the brain. I doubt that it's through our big toe.

But that's just my guess.

In the OP you wrote:


Unless you destroyed the currently functioning brain in the newborn your would simply be ADDING material (memories) therefore the child is not you because you do not have the memories OR the same brain patterns as that child.



Then just ask what people think a soul is. Simple is better.






Then this is neither a subject of philosophy or of science and another forum might have been a better place for your discussion.



This is what I meant by simple is better and it is also the reason I think it belongs in another forum – is it strictly amusement, speculation and opinion driven.

Brain transplants:

What if you could transplant brains from one person to another? If souls or memories are involved and if they are in the brain or if there is an organ in the brain that attaches to the soul... then would it be a new person in a different body?

I saw a movie like that. It was the first brain transplant. The new person was acknowledged by who the brain was rather than who the body was. It was very strange for the relatives of the person who donated her body for transplantation.

So are you the forum police?


Everything in this entire club is for amusement as far as I am concerned.

Simply asking if people think there is such a thing as a soul is so boring the idea is putting me to sleep.

You threw me off with your example of transplanting a baby's brain. I am talking about fully grown up clone bodies with memory transplants, not babies.

Well goodnight folks.

soul is such and arbitrary term that it is hard to produce any real rationalizations through deductive reasoning, however if soul exist in life and your clone is alive... then to fit the conditions of a soul it must contain one....

all living things have souls
all clones are living things
_____________________________
all clones have souls


...maybe..? lol

No - just thought I'd mention it in case any are watching.


True and I like to be amused with philosophy and science.


Me too! that's why I'm in this forum and not the religion forum.



And I reaponded with:
As I mentioned you cannot exchange memories between clones because even the process of doing so would include unique and individual experiences which would not be included in the exchange. Thus you would still have two completely unique individuals.

Clone souls, the newest science