ParanoiA

I'm saying the first cell is a human.

Yes, I believe I read that very statement. By the way, how much do you guys get into this kind of physics in your everyday work? I'm guessing it's as mundane as any other job, with the occassional transition to more interesting work, and then that gets boring and so on... Come to think of it, I'm not really sure what kind of jobs you get as a physicist other than teaching and research.

I like it. I hope you're right. Maybe then even IMM will have to admit humans are decent...

Right..a dead human. No, no, I'm saying the embryo is already a human, the potential is about whether or not it develops into a baby human, child human, teenage human, adult human, elderly human, dead human - a form you associate as human. You all just keep leaving out the first stage - because you can't see it or relate with it. You have the potential to die and not become an adult. But you were still a human. A fetus and a corpse are human - they're dead humans. They won't be around much longer, and we would likely refer to them as "used to be" humans rather than "are" - BUT, we would also refer to their remains as human. So, how can their remains be human? You can't say their remains are anything other than a human. But the remains can't feel, can't react to stimuli, can't suffer - but we still call them human remains.

But it doesn't exist yet. It's merely potential. Potential is not existence. It's not in a different stage because it doesn't exist yet. You're trying to equate potential with existence and there is nothing to validate that comparison. By that logic, everything that will every be is already in existence since we're all walking around with the gene pool of the next millenium. I'm not sure where you think I'm saying potential human = human. I said that when you merged that nucleus with an egg cell, that it will grow into a full sized human - because the moment you merged the two, your unique genetic code is now put into action - to "grow" - the development process begins, a human was created at that moment. So then from a humanitarian standpoint, a person in a vegetative state is not a human?

Half of your genetic code is not an existing living genetic code, it's only potential. A seed is just a description of something identifying its stage in form or development. It's potentially a "fetus" or "child" but it's already human. But your skins cells won't grow into a human. The nucleus can be taken from them and "installed" in an egg cell and it will grow into a full sized human. It was a human the moment it merged with the egg cell. Yes, exactly. Good point. But, I meant more along the lines of being a human. You being you as you've described, is a more developed you. But you're a human the whole time. This is the best argument I've heard yet. My initial thought is that we go to trouble to distinguish the seed from the tree - just like we go to trouble to distinguish the child from a grownup. I don't know how genetically unique oak trees are with each other, but I would argue that, yes, it is of the oak species. The seed is the baby oak, and the tree is the adult oak. Is a baby an adult? No, it's a potential adult. But it's still human, both as a baby and as an adult. The seed is an oak, the tree is an oak - they're both of the oak species whether it becomes food for squirrels - those fluffy murdering bastards - or it's lucky enough to complete its life cycle and become a tree. I'm not arguing potentials. It's potentially a full grown human - not potentially a human. Sperm is potentially a human, so no it's not human at all yet. When a woman ovulates and does not conceive she has not commited murder because there was apparently no human to grow. An egg is only potential. And so are you. You are lump of cells that's doomed to die if you don't continually take in nutrients, breathe air, fight disease, etc. You are just as much of a maintenance burden on nature now as you were when you couldn't be seen with the naked eye. DNA is just information, but a cell is alive. The computer can't grow a human without installing that DNA into a living encoder - like a nucleus - and then implanting it in a blank egg cell. So no, a computer containing a human genome ( a binary interpretation ) is not a human. Every cell has the potential to be cloned. But it isn't cloned. And none of them will produce a human until you "re-create" the conditions for human production, which will ultimately lead to a "recoded" nucleus in an egg cell thereby initiating the human growth process. It is a human from the first cell. This is just another arbitrary line based on our insistance that nothing is human until we can interact with it somehow, or see it and relate its shape into something we can associate with ourselves. It still just seems like conditioned logic. Again, an acorn, an oak, a zygote, a grownup, a kitten, a cat...it's all just humans classifying the stages a living organism goes through. It's important to distinguish these stages for millions of reasons - but for this particular discussion I think it's a disservice that has clouded and boxed up our thinking. Just because you can't talk to it, poke it, or get a response from it that you would get from most humans doesn't keep it from being a human being. You can't get a response from a vegetable or comatose person either - and they're not capable of suffering - yet they're still human beings. So if someone removes my brain then I'm no longer human? A genetically unique lump of meat is all any animal really is. This meat contains a brain that utilizes electricity and neurons to generate what we think of as thought - the way it fires, the strengths of the various areas of the brain, the chemicals, are all influenced and molded by this genetic instruction set that started with a single egg cell, with a unique nucleus that contained everything needed to grow into a full sized ego prone human being. The moment my unique genetic code was put in motion - my first cell - is the obvious starting point, in my humble opinion. Some really great points in here, I hope this discussion stays interesting. I know it sounds like I've already made up my mind, and I have to admit I'm fairly commited to this line of thought so far, but this is part of the critical thinking process that I have to go through to be confident in what I finally decide. So far, it seems like everyone is basically saying it isn't a human because it doesn't resemble something they think of as human - just because it's itty bitty, doesn't have stuff that they have and so forth. But when you challenge your own thoughts about the line you have drawn you have to agree there is no consistency there. If you say it has to have a nervous system then when does it officially have a nervous system? How far into nervous system construction does it finally have one? One cell? A million cells? When you finally make a decision on when it's finally built, then subtract one cell and try convincing yourself that's not a human just because it's one cell shy of your line. That's what lead me to this. That perhaps, it's one cell that IS the line.

Yeah, see I like the way Greene explained best, but it still fits with what you guys are saying. He explains it by considering that everything is constantly in motion. If you're at rest, then all of your motion is directed through time. When you are traveling spatially, some of that motion through time is "re-directed" to spatial movement. As if you have some static speed that we are all traveling, and that speed is redirected to move us through space. The faster you're going, the more of your motion is diverted to space, taken from motion through time. I don't know why, but I really get that. That makes sense to me.

This still smells like ideology trapped by paradigm. If you do not interfere, it will become a chicken and will never become anything else - or dead. Chicken or dead. That's it. That's because it was a chicken all along. It simply augmented and advanced its form. The blastocyst, within the supportive system it is built for, will become a human and only a human - or dead. Because it was a human all along. Your genetic mixture is you. That makes you, you. The rest is packaging. And what does nurturing have to do with anything? A full grown human needs constant nourishment and maintenance to live as well.

Yeah, but something has to be said about the moment your unique genetic code was created - whatever absolute form it comes in.

Well, you keep looking at the obvious. Size and development. Did you ever consider looking smaller? You already know what makes a human or any creature actually comes down to the cellular level. The moment your unique dna was created is the moment you were born. Why limit your definition to that which you simply see with the naked eye? Just a point of view... human being  1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being. From dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human%20being

Well, honestly, how much further does anybody really want to go about Rush and Fox?

I'll see if I can dig it up, but I'm sure it's not any better than what you found. I thought it was common knowledge at this point. I do believe this is a good point. I remember looking up the military specs on China a few years ago, I think it was after that spyplane that went down and landed on their soil. I was shocked at how advanced they actually were. Lots of Russian equipment, old Russian equipment but still quite formidable. I imagine that's only advanced more at this point. I would never want to tango with China.

Actually they have found evidence of WMD's in Iraq. And we know Hussein had them because we sold much of it to him. The entire world knows he used them on his own people as well. Then we gave him 6 months or so to hide them while we played patty cake with the UN.

I wonder if there are any sci-fi books using anti-matter as the explanation for some far away land or setting for a story. Seems irresistable.

Well, if that's true, then I'll have to eat crow on that one. I'll look that up. Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right because at the very least they'll have to approve an 'amount' of funding.

The point I've been making, which I'm sure everyone in this forum understands, and understood about 20 posts ago, is that both sides are playing semantics. This debate isn't about the first line in the Amendment 2, it's about whether or not folks believe a blastocyst is a human or not. But people like bascule want to ignore that part of the debate. So when someone who doesn't know anything about SCNT hears both sides - all they hear is "It bans human cloning" or "It doesn't ban human cloning" - no one, and I mean NO ONE, goes to the trouble to explain WHY they are saying that. I had to read the entire freaking Amendment to find that little tid bit about SCNT. Bascule thinks I'm choosing sides. He hasn't paid any attention to my repeated view that Amendment 2 SHOULD PASS in my opinion. I don't care if it's cloning or not. What I have a problem with, is each side of this Amendment 2 initiative not explaining themselves - just repeating the same semantics over and over again. If you're a "It-doesn't-ban-human-cloning" person, then you think a blastocyst is a human and therefore the language in Amendment 2 is contradictory from the first line of it. And therefore when people say "It bans human cloning", then you obviously disagree with that. If you're a "It-bans-human-cloning" person, then you think a blastocyst is not a human, and therefore the language in Amendment 2 is not contradictory from the first line. And therefore when people say "It doesn't ban human cloning", then you obviously disagree with that. The liberal elitists don't care to grant you the right to consider a blastocyst a human being. Bascule is a perfect example of that. The conservative hypocrites don't care to listen to any logic that a blastocyst is not a human being. (And you don't see any of them picketing fertility clinics for throwing away unused fetuses, eggs and so forth - just don't take their stem cells - how stupid). I haven't seen any examples of that in this forum. Most folks in this forum grant the intellectual right to challenge the status of the blastocyst as a human or not, and therefore makes interesting debate. They use persuasion and sound arguments to try to convince each other or themselves. Others would rather stroke their ego and glorify their ignorance by pretending as if it's irrelevant, which consequently also causes people to question their other views and how thought out they actually are.

I would say no since moving my arm would attempt to accelerate past c, and nothing can travel faster than c. Although, I don't think I could fly at c anyway, since my mass would be infinite and therefore nothing could push me - actually since my mass would be infinite there would be nothing to push me. I wonder how close to c we could realisticly travel.

Well this was interesting. I think I finally got it - in fact I think I had it for awhile but as usual, I get hung up questioning the details of an example or lecture. Acceleration changes your reference frame. If we're going a constant velocity - no matter which direction we're each heading - our reference frames are symmetrical. I may not be able to physically observe you, but we are in sync in terms of time. We will observe each other's clocks moving slower, but we would be consistent and in sync with each other to a third observer with a magical instantaneous observation technique. (Although we may not be in sync with that third observer.) Once I change direction, I've accelerated and destroyed the symmetry. Now, we are no longer in sync. No matter what I do from that moment forward, we are out of sync in terms of time. And I would also venture to say, that as I keep on this new course the consequences also increase. This is what was holding me up. I couldn't understand why a simple acceleration, 2 second burst of energy to change direction, would circumvent so much time when I made it back to earth. I believe it is because the acceleration changed the reference frame, and this continues to effect time as I continue on this new direction - the longer I stay on course, the further I get from the original reference frame. Am I right about any of this?

This ignorant reply comes from a lack of depth on your part. If you're going to pretend to be an intellectual, at least read the posts you reply to. I'm not going to spoon feed you on this one. Post #75 made my views quite clear. This is the second or third time I've caught you shooting your mouth off because you didn't read something - and this is just one thread. I've lost most of any respect I had for you. That was an analysis that you deleted except for that sentence - which makes it an insult out of context. But I'll take the credit anyway. Thank you for proving your obvious self absorbed conceit that the universe revolves around you - I was actually referring to the heart of the amendment that voters need to consider. You missed the entire point if that's your answer. Again, you don't appear to have any depth to your thinking. I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. I would say so. Do human beings have cells? Do human beings have a unique genetic identity? Do human beings have boogers? Do human beings repeat themselves over and over until people quit listening? Yes they do. And unlike other human beings, I'm not going to rush to judgement on my decision on when I think a human becomes a human. And asinine one liners aren't going to convince me of anything.

Right, meaning you can't take stem cells from it. Doesn't say anything about what else to do with it does it? So, I could let cell division continue long after 14 days, I just can't take stem cells from it anymore. Gee, kinda sounds like I can continue to let the "cloned" blastocyst grow huh? The 14 day old provision means nothing and yes I read it, since it comes before the SCNT freebie provision. I don't have a view on what constitutes a human being. I'm not being intellectually dishonest about it either. You're just as bad as the politicians. You don't want to admit that this comes down to whether you believe a blastocyst is a human being or not. If you do, then it's cloning a human which contradicts the first line of the amendment. If you don't, then it's cloning a blastocyst, which isn't a human and therefore no contradiction in the amendment. When you repeat yourself by repeating the first line of the amendment only, then you're being disingenuous about the debate, which equates you to a spinster...like Rush.

Because whether or not the opponent supports the ban or not is irrelevant since it isn't up to them. It's a ballot initiative - so we get to vote on it ourselves. It doesn't matter what McCaskill or Talent thinks - it matters what the voters think. So, instead, he's doing McCaskill's bidding for apparently no good reason or he was misled into thinking McCaskill would have more to do with it. This, to me, is just like having some kid with down syndrome do an ad saying to vote for Talent because "he cares" for the disabled. It's meaningless and mentally aligns politicians with worthy causes they really have no contribution to at all. It's low down and disgusting. By the way, if he was doing an ad to promote passing Amendment 2 - the stem cell bill - then it would be consistent with pushing his cause. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that - well maybe Rush...but you'll never shut him up.

I was wondering about that word...Artilects. But the situation Woelen brings up is the classic machine vs human relationship. We humans hardly ever guess the future that right - just look at Star Trek. The only thing star trek got right was the idea of the kinds of goodies we'd like to play with. Whatever the future brings, it will probably agree with about 10% of what we're talking about here, the other 90% is going to be unexpected...obviously.

Yeah, like amendment 2 specifically bans cloning. Just keep saying that. Meanwhile, the itty bitty words that no one cares to read says it's just fine to remove the nucleus from an egg cell and replace it with the nucleus of someone's body cell to create a genetically identical blastocyst....or cloning. Whichever you prefer. But hey, keep pretending it doesn't say that at all and just repeat yourself over and over again like everybody else so that way we never get anywhere with the debate... Republicans and democrats...can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em...

Yeah, I quit listening about the same time and for similar reasons, but moreso for inconsistent ideology on Rush's part. And those are some tongue in cheek comments by Rush, but not heartless and cruel. Bad taste? Definitely. Kinda like some controversial Southpark moments - bad taste, but still funny and point taken. I wasn't listening at all during this time period, otherwise I'd be plenty pissed at Rush. I liked McCain. I thought he was in. GWB ruined it, in my mind. I was excited about McCain being the replacement for Clinton when all of the sudden I hear he's dropping out of the race. Now, I see, that perhaps the golden microphone played a role in that. The majority thinking Rush is a jerk is exactly the poison dart Fox presented by doing the ad. Anyone who criticizes him is a jerk. That Rush suggested he was "acting" is the inappropriate comment. Do you really believe that if Rush had said everything short of that comment that no one would think he is being a jerk? Please. I think this all has to do with criticizing the sick. And they knew this making the ad. Thanks to this debacle, I think we'll see more and more of this. Parading sick and deformed sad cases of "heros" to promote or denounce this or that and scorning those who oppose them in any way for being cruel and insensitive. What are you talking about? A) No, not when they're honest. B) Yes, when they're not honest.