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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (506822)	12/9/2003 5:19:06 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I didn't say there was a problem --- at least, not from my point-of-view. But, as I said, the day is nigh upon us when this procedure is technically possible. IMO, less than 10 years. And I say big deal. The day is not here and should it ever arrive it will present not a single problem. OK... but there would be several significant physical differences. 'Earnest's' nuclear DNA would be identical to that of his 'parent'.... Which only means the new "Bob" is just a self-actualizing copy of one who is self-actualizing. Both are human entities, separate self-expressing entities undergoing different influences, occupying space in time. No problem at all, Buddy. However, 'Earnest' would not be the product of sexual reproduction... but of asexual reproduction. He would however have nuclear DNA from one parent, and mitochondrial RNA from another individual. None of this matters at all. He is undergoing the same self-actualizing process that marks every single one of us as uniquely human. He is just copied humanity, a closer copy of one instance than perhaps most of us, but a copy nevertheless like all of us. Big deal. That's more than a little VAGUE. What do you mean by 'express'? In this example does that mean 'we exist'? To put it simply, there is a process of development, of biological progress, of life and death, that all humans experience - every single one of us. It makes us one thing. Well, perhaps you should look to the imprecision of your own words first. What you said was: "...ever expressing in space-time of their own." There is still nothing here about "creating" space-time. You just spouted more leftist dishonor - and you know it. It is not at all unreasonable --- from YOUR words --- to draw the conclusion that perhaps you were trying to say something like 'people 'own' space-time around them'... or that they 'create space-time'... or some such. Otherwise, what does "space-time of their own mean"? Dear me. You actually took the words "express in space-time of their own" and gathered from it a meaning that people "create" space-time. That is just plain stupid, Buddy. If anything, you ought to have gathered that people exist within space-time that is their own unique space-time. You have NO RATIONAL BASIS to conclude from my statement anything about people "creating" space-time. Your thinking is just sloppy and clouded with a bunch of heathen stupidity. I do weary of it. I'm serious here. Don't waste your time looking for 'leftist plots' (Ha! I'm a Libertarian and fiscal conservative...) when the vagueness of your words elicit simple questions seeking clarification. Well it is obvious that you cannot handle greater precision than what I have given here, since you so often impregnate words with meaning that simply cannot logically exist in them. (I asked 'do you mean we create space-time of our own. because you SAID "...ever expressing in space-time of their own. Such heathen stupidity and dishonor. It seems that if you are not saying that people 'create' space-time, then you are implying that they 'own' it? That is a more reasonable assumption to make, due to the original wording. This idea of "creating" space-time is just stupid. Yet that is where you ran. And then you laughed, as if it was obvious that I had claimed the creation of space-time by individuals. Heathen dishonor. You really are not being honorable, Buddy. And it is no pleasure to lock horns with you. Steve Dietrich - now there is a pleasure. The guy comes right at you, no crap at all - at least not yet. You simply are filled with dishonor. And I'm tired of it. Either way, it's a curious construction. Perhaps it is. It still does not grant you the latitude to go off on a dishonorable leftist tangent. We shove an awful lot of characters down each other's throats on these forums. Sometimes things don't come out exactly as we intend. Rather than jump to stupid, comprehensively irrational conclusions about things we don't quite understand, and then imply that the stupidity is what was meant, we ought simply be honest. <G> You jump to 'conclusions' without any supporting evidence. I never said that I was puzzled by anything in the thought-experiment.... You didn't have to say anything. You asked for my choices, as if the choice wasn't completely obvious. That is quite funny. One thing I am sure of, though, is that human systems of morality will ever have to come to grips with here-to-fore unexplored possibilities that science and new technologies usher in. Technology will alter nothing if it fails to alter our fundamental biological nature. If technology comes into existence and we remain essentially as we are, then human morality will not alter at all. Okay! Now I will have to allow you the last word.