Gathering Samples for Dog Cloning: What to Collect?

[quetzalcoatl9]

Main Entry: mys·ti·cal
Pronunciation: 'mis-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

ok, then here is one that will really make you mad arnildo:

if pre-biotic evolution is correct, then it stands to reason that all life on Earth is nothing more than the cycling of a single cell line.

is this mystical?

 

[arildno]

my claim is that twins represent two instances of the same person, occupying the same spatial and time domains (but not both at the same time of course - if that were the case then it would be just a single "person"). since each one takes a different timeline, and is subject to different events, they will have different memories and so forth. following my line of reasoning, if you took one twin and it were subject to exactly the same events - exactly - they would be a complete copy of the other twin. of course, havingn the same exact events occur is an impossibility, but the reasoning stands nonetheless.

This seems to contain your so-called "argument".
Note that in as much as the two persons should have EXACTLY the same experiences, then they must be the same person.

Thus, your argument is as follows:
Suppose that two persons are the same individual.
Then it follows that the two persons are the same individual.

It is certainly a correct reasoning, I'll give you that much..

 

[quantumdude]

no this is logic - it is called a thought experiment.

While I agree that this is not mysticism, it is undoubtedly a thought experiment of the sort used to explore the implications of physicalism/materialism. In other words, it is philosophy, not science. I don't think that's bad per se (I appreciate philosophy very much), but at at same time I can see why it's not well-received in the Biology forum. I think that the best solution would be for you to explore your thought experiment in the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum, no?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

This seems to contain your so-called "argument".
Note that in as much as the two persons should have EXACTLY the same experiences, then they must be the same person.

Thus, your argument is as follows:
Suppose that two persons are the same individual.
Then it follows that the two persons are the same individual.

It is certainly a correct reasoning, I'll give you that much..

not exactly..the problem is in the definition of "person".

we take as postulates:

1) a person is nothing more than a collection of atoms in a particular configuration
2) the configuration of these atoms will be subject to change over time according to the laws of physics - and that this is allowed in the definition. for example, the atoms that make up a human's body are turned over several times within the average lifespan - yet the configuration is roughly the same, or at least follows a typical progression with age. at no point would we consider an organism at age 10 to no longer be the same organism at age 70.

so here is what i am getting at: twins (or a clone) represent the same starting configuration of atoms, but due to each separate twin being subject to different events, the configurations amongst the two will diverge - but will not diverge more so than what we would consider the "same person".

changes in their brain configuration, ala "personality", will be different but not more different than what may be considered with any other single person.

therefore, as individualistic and different as two twins may be, it is logical fallacy (if one accepts the definition of a "person" as strictly being atomic) to claim that they are not the same person - they are the same person whose current conditions have diverged from the same initial condition.

to not accept this would lead to the following: because the atoms that make up my body at age 32 are not the same as they were at age 10, then i am no longer the same person. to negate my argument would be to imply the previous sentence.

 

[arildno]

You are no longer the same person at 32 as you were when you were 10.
Whoever told you that you were?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

While I agree that this is not mysticism, it is undoubtedly a thought experiment of the sort used to explore the implications of physicalism/materialism. In other words, it is philosophy, not science. I don't think that's bad per se (I appreciate philosophy very much), but at at same time I can see why it's not well-received in the Biology forum. I think that the best solution would be for you to explore your thought experiment in the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum, no?

tom, i agree with you wholeheartedly.

however, the claim was made that this would not be the same dog. my claim is that it is, albeit strictly in a logical sense. neither of these claims is within the realm strictly of biology, but at the same time are appropriate since the topic here is cloning - and i do not see how issues of cloning could be discussed without philosophy or ethics falling in.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You are no longer the same person at 32 as you were when you were 10.
Whoever told you that you were?

how can that make sense? do i get issued a new id card, a new name? more specifically, what has changed?

 

[arildno]

how can that make sense? do i get issued a new id card, a new name? more specifically, what has changed?

You've had sex, for example, and experienced love.
These experiences, and countless others, make you a lot different than the 10-year old you once were.