Adult Stem Cells vs Embryonic Stem Cells.

[GIThruster]

The Value of a human being is not based on the few dollars worth of chemicals of which our bodies are made. In other words, it's not worth an equal weight and volume of animal flesh. The Value of a human being is based entirely on the pattern (or code) that it employees to manipulate the matter into the form and function of a sapient entity.

The essence of a human is that pattern which forms, not that which it is formed from.

you're arguing genotype is ontologically prior to phenotype. then like i said donating organs should be a crime, and we should dig up our ancestors to preserve their born marrow. all sorts of ridiculous conclusions follow directly from that assertion.

Nope. I'm not making that argument and don't hold that position, but regardless, you're misstating the position of those you disagree with and your conclusion is thus irrelevant.

[happyjack27]

i did not say that the lack of an explicit contract separating church and state neccessarily leads to despotism. i just said that in the role that a governement is supposed to play, religion simply has no practical value. and whats more, once it finds a place where it _seems_ to have practical value, well then it behooves one to seriously think about whether it has overstepped its authority; whether the actions its taking are absolutely neccessary. (and bear in mind the old saying that the road to tyranny is _paved_ with "neccessity".) and esp. given the social mentality of an organized religion, well it's a very slippery slope, and one best avoided. i admit i may have used some hyperbole for rhetorical purposes. but the point is pretty solid.

I think then we're in essential agreement. I would point out however, that it really is impossible to remove all influence of religion from how we govern ourselves. It may in fact be that religious understanding guides choices about human stem cell research, but this is not a bad thing. It is from religion, that our cultures participants in general form their beliefs about the sanctity of human life, and decisions about cutting up embryos are based upon this understanding. Government does not inform us as to values. Religion does. Whatever a person's religion, if they hold the value of the sanctity of human life, they have a right to express this value with their vote. It's thus just as wrong to say "religion has no part" as it is to say "religion will decide". What decides is hopefully, the corporate will of the people.

i would argue that religion does not inform of as to values, either. i certainly hope not. our conscience and our compassion does that. our brains are wired that way. (and i'm keeping my distance from anyone who's brain is not.) religion is just one way some of the more complex and/or counter-instinctual norms and mores are passed down in a society. and esp. to those who would otherwise lack the mental or emotional capacity for them. but point is, our values ultimately come from, well, us, and our interaction with out environment. i'm reminded of joseph campbell.... but i needn't go on. a subtlety. yes, i believe we are in agreement.

[KitemanSA]

Fact is, without the positive historic influences of religion in western civilization, we would arguably still have slavery and the inequality of the sexes you find in the unsecularized nations of the Middle East.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in this statement? "If we weren't religious, we'd be like those religious places over there". Wha???

[KitemanSA]

The Value of a human being is based entirely on the pattern (or code) that it employees to manipulate the matter into the form and function of a sapient entity.

The essence of a human is that pattern which forms, not that which it is formed from.

Nicely said!
I'm not sure that the complexity and capability of the program doesn't invite something more (a soal?) to take up residence, but it may not need to.

[Diogenes]

It is a compressed human being with it's own unique DNA. It is nothing else.

by that logic every cell in my body is a compressed human being with it's own unique DNA. every possible permutation of combinations between any two human genomes, and possible mutations of that is a compressed human being with its own unique human being. (and let me tell you thats a LOT of people!) the buried corpses of our great grandfathers contain millions of compressed human beings with their own unique DNA. does that make it a crime to donate their organs to _living_ human beings who would die without them?

Having it's own unique DNA is not what makes it a compressed human being. Every cell of the body contains the blueprint of the whole (Fractal) but only one cell contains the "execute" command. That is the Embryo.

[happyjack27]

The Value of a human being is not based on the few dollars worth of chemicals of which our bodies are made. In other words, it's not worth an equal weight and volume of animal flesh. The Value of a human being is based entirely on the pattern (or code) that it employees to manipulate the matter into the form and function of a sapient entity.

The essence of a human is that pattern which forms, not that which it is formed from.

you're arguing genotype is ontologically prior to phenotype. then like i said donating organs should be a crime, and we should dig up our ancestors to preserve their born marrow. all sorts of ridiculous conclusions follow directly from that assertion.

Nope. I'm not making that argument and don't hold that position, but regardless, you're misstating the position of those you disagree with and your conclusion is thus irrelevant.

i dont' think you mean regardless. if you're not making that argument then mistating your position is precisely what i've just done. it certainly seems that we disagree, but correlation does not imply causation. and though it doesn't follow neccessarily from the fact that i've just misttated your position that my conclusion is irrelevant. in any case, perhaps you could restate your position better, then, if you're not arguing that that which we call "life" is "contained" as unique dna; that dna is, as it were, a "compressed human being", then what is your position?

[happyjack27]

by that logic every cell in my body is a compressed human being with it's own unique DNA. every possible permutation of combinations between any two human genomes, and possible mutations of that is a compressed human being with its own unique human being. (and let me tell you thats a LOT of people!) the buried corpses of our great grandfathers contain millions of compressed human beings with their own unique DNA. does that make it a crime to donate their organs to _living_ human beings who would die without them?

Having it's own unique DNA is not what makes it a compressed human being. Every cell of the body contains the blueprint of the whole (Fractal) but only one cell contains the "execute" command. That is the Embryo.

no. it doesn't work like that.

[KitemanSA]

A Human being is a computer program written in quadrinary molecular interactions with a complex/composite Fractal algorithm overview.

no no no. there is much in the analogy that is false. not the elast of which is overemphasis on dna and likewise underemphasis on the environment and entropic processes.

I can't be SURE, but I think that is what he meant by the "complex/composite fractal algorithm overview". Just saying...

[GIThruster]

Fact is, without the positive historic influences of religion in western civilization, we would arguably still have slavery and the inequality of the sexes you find in the unsecularized nations of the Middle East.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in this statement? "If we weren't religious, we'd be like those religious places over there". Wha???

It's not a contradiction. Our beliefs about slavery and equality come from religion. There's no denying it. Western Civilization holds the values that have been supported over time in our secular society--primarily Judaism and Christianity. Without those values, there is no evidence we would have abolished slavery nor sought egalitarian relations between the sexes.

Just giving credit where it's due. Rousseau was correct. There is a proper place for religion. That does not mean it needs to be, nor should be institutionalized.

BTW, it is this same cultural heritage that has informed us about slavery and equality, that created the mere possibility of a secular society. If not for the influence of Christianity on Charlemagne, he would never have deeded the papal states to the Church and thereby laid the foundations of separation of church and state.

All secularists, and especially all atheists, have Christianity to thank, that they are able to function openly and without reprisals in our culture and certainly the same is not true of those cultures descended from Islam.

[KitemanSA]

Fact is, without the positive historic influences of religion in western civilization, we would arguably still have slavery and the inequality of the sexes you find in the unsecularized nations of the Middle East.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in this statement? "If we weren't religious, we'd be like those religious places over there". Wha???

It's not a contradiction. Our beliefs about slavery and equality come from religion. There's no denying it. Western Civilization holds the values that have been supported over time in our secular society--primarily Judaism and Christianity. Without those values, there is no evidence we would have abolished slavery nor sought egalitarian relations between the sexes.

Ok, you and I will just have to disagree about this. Slavery was SUPPORTED by religion for more than a millenium and it was the religious mainstream that were amongst the last to give up on it. It was the "cults" that were against slavery.

[Diogenes]

No, you obviously don't understand. A fertilized egg (or "fetus" as you call it) is a complete human being at the earliest stage of development, wholly unique from any other human being that has ever existed

.

Yes, but at the non differentiated stage, you can split that pile of cells into multiple piles of cells that will then all develop into not so unique human beings. So what does that say about our pile of cells there?

.

Not true. (At least not if I remember correctly.) From what I recall, once the initial embryo cell has divided to the point where seven cells exist, one may be removed and the rest can still devlope into a human being. If more are removed, the cells will not develop further.

Also, per definition a human being requires certain aspects that a pile of cells does not fullfill. The pile of cells offers the genetic makeup to turn into a human being, but theoretically you could probably do this with a couple of unfirtilized eggs as well (in the lab). Since unfertilized eggs are according to you not human, what would the outcome be then?
Also, this pile of cells by itself will not turn into a human being unless provided with the right environment (a womb, or maybe in the future an artificial womb even).
So the pile of cells by itself wont turn into a human being.

A Human being will turn into a dead human being without an environment sufficient in water heat and oxygen. The weakness of a life to exist outside it's proper environment does not make it "not a life."

[Diogenes]

wow. diogenes, i am done. until you start making rational arguments (for instance, comparing cell development with file compression?!?! that analogy is wrong in so many ways.) -- which frankly i'm not sure you're capable of (equating abortion to slavery?!?!) -- i see no point in any of this.

Really? Seems pretty obvious to me. I'm seeing Scientists constantly writing how this series of genes code for that series of proteins, and how the DNA contains entire sets of on/off switches governing gene expression.

A Human being is a computer program written in quadrinary molecular interactions with a complex/composite Fractal algorithm overview.

no no no. there is much in the analogy that is false. not the elast of which is overemphasis on dna and likewise underemphasis on the environment and entropic processes. life, far from being digital is strongly nonlinear. and contrary to popular belief, not as self-contained as we would like to believe. certainly not auto-pietic. it's essentially a dissipative structure. also the information theoretic arguments of dna as compression are wholly misguided. most of the information, on a bit-per-bit bases, does not come from the quarternary coding of dna. but ratehr the chmicals present, the structure of intermolecular forces, the stored energy in the glucose, etc. (ultimately from the sun). very little of it is actually from the dna. (try putting the dna in a cup of water and see what happens) the dna only encodes a few macroscopic growth and form parameters for the surrounding molecules. and of that it is quite far from compressed. 99% of it is junk. and the remaining 1% is highly redundant.

etc. etc.

You mean it is a highly efficient encryption algorithm!

Not being digital, and being non-linear is no reason to denounce it as a computer program. Analog computers were developed first, and they encompass both of these criticisms.

As for the "Junk" DNA. They are now saying that that "Junk" is not so unimportant as they had long believed.

[Diogenes]

i did not say that the lack of an explicit contract separating church and state neccessarily leads to despotism. i just said that in the role that a governement is supposed to play, religion simply has no practical value. and whats more, once it finds a place where it _seems_ to have practical value, well then it behooves one to seriously think about whether it has overstepped its authority; whether the actions its taking are absolutely neccessary. (and bear in mind the old saying that the road to tyranny is _paved_ with "neccessity".) and esp. given the social mentality of an organized religion, well it's a very slippery slope, and one best avoided. i admit i may have used some hyperbole for rhetorical purposes. but the point is pretty solid.

I think then we're in essential agreement. I would point out however, that it really is impossible to remove all influence of religion from how we govern ourselves. It may in fact be that religious understanding guides choices about human stem cell research, but this is not a bad thing. It is from religion, that our cultures participants in general form their beliefs about the sanctity of human life, and decisions about cutting up embryos are based upon this understanding. Government does not inform us as to values. Religion does. Whatever a person's religion, if they hold the value of the sanctity of human life, they have a right to express this value with their vote. It's thus just as wrong to say "religion has no part" as it is to say "religion will decide". What decides is hopefully, the corporate will of the people.

The corporate will of intelligent and knowledgeable people. Optimally the productive ones that contribute to the upkeep of society. The collective opinion of fools is worse than useless.

[mdeminico]

that's not including, for instance, that research was banned by the bush administration from the moment we had the technology to do it. so it's a bit like punching someone in the face and then laughing at them for having a black eye. and in any case given that that's from 2007, that one little fact is sufficient by itself. like i said, completeness.

No, Bush banned taking my tax dollars and using it to pay for embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has been going on every day since that federal funding ban took place.

[happyjack27]

Also, per definition a human being requires certain aspects that a pile of cells does not fullfill. The pile of cells offers the genetic makeup to turn into a human being, but theoretically you could probably do this with a couple of unfirtilized eggs as well (in the lab). Since unfertilized eggs are according to you not human, what would the outcome be then?
Also, this pile of cells by itself will not turn into a human being unless provided with the right environment (a womb, or maybe in the future an artificial womb even).
So the pile of cells by itself wont turn into a human being.

A Human being will turn into a dead human being without an environment sufficient in water heat and oxygen. The weakness of a life to exist outside it's proper environment does not make it "not a life."

if i may anticipate his response, i believe what he meant to elucidate was that life is not something like an "atom" where you can divide it up into tiny pieces and than in each of those tiny pieces is it's "seed" per se. at what level does it become not life? the molecule? the atom? is an atom alive or dead? (sort of like in the song "triangle man": "does he get wet or does water get him?). when we evaluate it this way we discover contradictions that tell us that the original premise is wrong. life is more like a "state of matter" than an "element". and as such, it's being what it is dependant on - nay, is inextricable from - its relation to its environment and it cannot be reduced to mere "atoms" or even "cells" or "bodies" for that matter. it is a dynamical configuration in the presence of an entropy gradient, like the convection cells of a boiling pot of water, not a "thing" vita.

erg- i correct myself. i jsut read what he wrote. i don't understand how what you wrote is at all relevant to the logical question he presented to you.