Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23080)	8/18/2001 7:51:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The problem, IMO, is mixing science and -- well, call it metaphysics or philosophy or religion or whatever you will -- in an area science isn't yet, if it ever will be, able to understand. That is, what is the nature of human self-awareness or consciousness or soul or whatever term you want. Science so far has no theory to explain when that attribute which distinguishes humans from all other species develops, or how. For a while there was a theory that it was strictly a function of the number of neural connections, but that seems not to be valid based on what we now know. What this means is that ultimately science is unable to define what it is that constitutes being human vs. being non-human. Since science is unable to answer that question, the answer must be left to non-science. Which leaves it totally open. At least where science has--or believes it has--answered various questions, you can look at them and either believe in them or not believe in them. But if you believe in the scientific approach, and believe in the science itself which is involved, you have answers (at least until further science proves, as it often does, those answers wrong and other answers right). In the question of what defines being human and not being human, science offers no help. So we are all left to stumble around on the basis of our beliefs. And since there is (as yet) no coherent, generally agreed on approach to belief, there is no way to find a generally agreed on answer. It's a dilemma I see no way out of, personally.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23080)	8/18/2001 11:20:26 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

It's too bad this thread is not interested in sometimes translating some of these wonderous and distinguished discussions....into investment or trading ideas. Prior to the Bush decision some stem-cell stocks bid up on a completely irrational exuberance... One stock called STEM bid up almost 100%.. the chart doesn't show it , yet this company called STEM bid all the way up to $7.50 after hours that night siliconinvestor.com where we shorted and watched it come crashing back down to earth the next day, falling almost 3 1/2 points or 40% the following day. small fortunes were made on those plays the other day, we did wonderously well with STEM in particular...

To: Lane3 who wrote (23080)	8/19/2001 1:29:56 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There's a word biologists use to describe a cell, or group of cells, that by itself can develop into a whole animal or person: That word is "embryo." Each random bunch of eight to 10 human ES cells is nothing more or less than a "naked" human embryo -- that is, an embryo without its pre-placental "coat." Perhaps I should look in to this more. If I become convinced that stem cells or clumps of stem cells actually are embryos all that will do is make me firmly against any embryonic stem cell research including privately funded research. At this point you may be thinking, how hard can it be to distinguish between what's alive and what's dead? To which I say, consider what happens right after a man is shot to death with a bullet to the head. We can all agree that he is dead, but for at least a few hours, 99 percent of the cells below his neck are still very much alive. Indeed, his organs can continue to function for many years if they are transplanted into the bodies of other people, and some of his cells can survive forever in laboratory incubators. When I say that the person is not alive, it is in the sense that he no longer exists as a sentient being. But when I say his body is still alive, I am using the same word "alive" in a general cellular sense. A person who's brain is destroyed by a bullet to the head no longer functions as an organism. The cells die off as the body can no longer support them. Neither the body as a whole nor its dieing parts will become a new human life. The embryo is a new human organism at a ver early undeveloped state. It is alive both in the "general cellular sense" but also in the sense that it is a living developing organism. Is a one-week-old human embryo alive? The answer is clearly "yes" if we use the cellular or vegetative definition. And it is just as clearly "no" if we use the definition of sentience. Sentience is not a definition of life or atleast not a good or widely used one. An ant is alive as a functional unified organism not just in a "general cellular sense". If we could create a sentient computer (and I'm convinced that we can eventually create one even if it doesn't happen any time soon, and I also think it likely that some alien civilization somewhere in the universe has created one) it would be sentient but not alive. Until recently, the most persuasive secular argument for protecting embryos had been that embryonic cells are different in some fundamental way from all other cells in your body because they alone have the potential to form a sentient being. The assumption was that all other cells were irrevocably chained to the narrow task assigned to the particular tissue or organ in which they were placed. But within the past three years, this view of cell biology has been proven false. Scientists have discovered the molecular keys required to unlock an amazing plasticity in cell identity. Brain cells have been turned into blood cells, fat cells have been turned into bone, muscle and cartilage, and other examples of cell conversions are flooding the scientific literature. Of course, none of this is referred to as cloning, although that's exactly what it is. It is only a matter of time before scientists uncover the mother of all molecular-conversion keys: the one that transforms an adult cell directly into an ES cell. In philosophical quarters, that discovery should be a lethal blow to the idea that potential alone is a sufficient criterion on which to base the granting of respect and protection The normal adult cells have the same type of potential that ova have. If something hapens to them they could become a new organism. The embryo already is the new organism. If an embryo is created by cloneing then I would have it protected the same way I would support protecting an embryo that was created by normal fertilization of ovum. Tim