Ice_Phoenix87 Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Clones, are they the same as the original? Physically and medically? Yes but mentally they are different. They are like indentical twins, if you may. They share the same genetic code, but they do not share environmental or life effects or experiences, they will be different mentally. So in a way they are indeed different. Unless we can figure out some way of transfering memories, etc into the other persons mind, they will be different. Does anyone here agree with me on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeman Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Does anyone here agree with me on this one? I don't, its not nature, its nurture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 What's nurture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 The influence of environmental factors on development both physical and psychological. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, What is it that is being referred to as being the result of nurture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Actually, clones are really quite physically different. The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron in the brain. What it {can} do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them. -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 ...and the egg cell, rather than the genome, specifies the initial polarity of the embryo. So if you can't tell your arse from your face, blame your mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I don't, its not nature, its [i']nurture[/i] It think its both. Children inherit certain tendencies from their parents, and learn different things from the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 At the end of every chromosome is a telemere. At every cell division, a part of the telemere is cut off. Cells can only survive 50 divisions before they die. A clone is made from a cell that already has made many divisions, so it's lifespan is greatly shortened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Boys from Brazil - Watch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I haven't seen the movie, but if Hitler could have cloned millions of copies, the Allies would have won faster. His aggresive "strategy" was bound to fail, he didn't do anything right after the occupation of Paris starting with his decision to rest his troops while the Brits were evacuting Dunkirk. When his invasion of Britain failed, he attacked Russia, then declared war on the US (he was not obligated by treaty, as Japan wasn't attacked first by the US, and besides, when did a treaty obligation ever stop him before)? Hitler was an aggressive idiot who got lucky in the begininning, even Rommel was part of the assasination plot. If there had been a million Hitler clones he would have put them all above his Generals etc. they would have spent so much time plotting against each other, that WWII would have become the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of centralised power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olifhar Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Clones' date=' are they the same as the original? Physically and medically? Yes but mentally they are different. They are like indentical twins, if you may. They share the same genetic code, but they do not share environmental or life effects or experiences, they will be different mentally. So in a way they are indeed different. Unless we can figure out some way of transfering memories, etc into the other persons mind, they will be different. Does anyone here agree with me on this one? [/quote'] Yes, true, because you can't transplant brain states. But some (Steven Pinker for one) would probably argue that they'd share a lot of similar dispositions. Twins growing up in different parts of the world have been shown, more often than not, to have similar tastes in food, music, and a lot of other tendancies. I know, dispositions only mean so much, but you could say the same for the thought game, "If I had been born in a different place/time..." "You" would probably be an entirely different person, though I'm sure there would be a lot of subtle but important commonalities. I will agree it's experience and interaction with experience (a lot of which comes from dispositions) that defines an individual. But if they find a way to transplant the neural networks in the brain as well as "conscious" brain states, who knows. Moot point for me, personally... clones or not, people are still people, individuals are still individuals. And it's not nature vs. nurture anymore-- it's been acknowledged by most psychologists and neuroscientists that it's certainly both, the only pertinent debate is how much and to what effect. But a lot of people are afraid to admit that a lot of the mechanisms at work are inherited. No footnotes tonight, sorry. But reading Pinker's The Blank Slate will at least give one something to think about, even if you don't agree. @ecoli: I think I will watch that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now