Whew! Jones is rocking and rolling this morning, I suspect something stronger than wheaties is at work here ... You deserve some kind of stab at discussion for all this.
Cloning as a technology would seem to shed little or no light on this soul concept. A clone is just an artificial twin; natural twins have existed since time began and as we see, despite identical hardware the software can be markedly different. That said, I think that it will amaze near-future genetic researchers just how much of our behavior is due to the hardware. It is only in this way that modern science can be thought to be eroding the notion of a soul, in that it can separate out the effects of the programming from the physical mechanism. People seem unduly bothered by the whole clone business; I think outside of a few specialized industries cloning will have little effect on our culture. About the only really troubling application for cloning is also the most tantalizing, as a source for spare parts. A clone may not make your soul distributed and physically immortal, but it'll go a long way towards keeping you functioning in later life. I think the reluctance to cloning is a sales problem, and I have a modest proposal to encourage those of the "cloud dwelling egomaniacal" persuasion that cloning can be of signal benefit to religion and mankind. It is said by the fundamentalists that all will be resolved when Jesus returns to earth in a physical form. Yet, it's been 2000+ years, and no word yet. Perhaps the problem is one of lack of will on our part. Maybe it's like the monolith from 2001, a challenge of knowledge. So here's the proposal. It is claimed by the Church that relics of the saints have been preserved in various forms, hair, digits, various internal organs, etc. So it seems possible that some samples of Jesus's DNA could be recovered from the Shroud of Turin or some such thing. Now some of the relics are just pig femurs and such, but surely at least one will pan out and we'll have some Jesus DNA. Now we set to work, and implement the biblical prediction of the Second Coming. But ours will be far better. Not only will we be able to reproduce Jesus "to spec", even including a reproduction of the virgin birth, but we can MASS PRODUCE Jesus by cloning! Imagine making the notion of a personal Jesus more than just an exercise of faith, but a physical reality! Immediately most major problems of man are solved. Hunger? Just grab your neighborhood Jesus and have him whip up some loaves and fishes. Need to cross a river or ocean? Jesus water taxi! The UN could send a small army of Jesii into troubled places for peace keeping missions, who better than the Prince of Peace himself? BTW, is the plural of Jesus, Jesii? Just trying to get my nomenclature straight here. As far as this list is concerned, I'm not too sure about the energy aspects of Jesus, but it's said that he had a halo and glowed which suggests at least some sort of Cherenkov radiation, so perhaps there are nuclear reactions that Jesus can catalyze. We'll know soon enough when we have enough Jesii to experiment with. I could go on at length about this, but hey please join in yourself with more suggestions. Anyway, you can bet W. isn't going to be too thrilled when the real McCoy comes knocking en masse on the Whitehouse door ( lots of embarrassing questions to answer and dead children to explain ) but the Chinese will certainly see the benefit here despite being Buddhists and help us out. Then we could really kick out the jams and get Jesus into every home, heck I'm imagining a big Wal-Mart floor display of various models of Jesus for those everyday low prices. Big discounts right before Christmas. Cloning is not only a good thing, God requires us to pursue it so as to make real the biblical prediction of the Second Coming. So how about it, Red? Or is it the case that having a real physical Jesus around to tell you what he really thinks about your behavior just a bit too uncomfortable? Something to think about... ...and, Merry Christmas everyone! K. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:34 AM To: vortex Subject: OFF TOPIC: Sunday Sci-Sermonette Another foray into the hazy interface between science and religion, beware... If you are of a "certain age", then you probably have a famous"intro" already etched into memory - in neurons adjoining "in the beginning". Can't you (almost) hear the distinctive voice of Rod Serling from beyond the grave... "there is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone..." Is that Rod's spirit, somehow speaking into your mind's ear; and even if not, just how is memory of things long past related to the soul-concept and its ability to transfer information non-physically, whether it be it about Serling, or simply about survival? Among "Science Magazine's "The Top Ten Science Breakthroughs of 2004" and coming in at "only" Number Three is "the story that wasn't"... a.k.a. "the cloning of human embryos." Imagine that. Cloning humans these days won't even make you runner-up in the rankings of any given year ! Ha ! Actually cloning humans is not exactly what happened in Korea, but leave it to the atheistic far-left AND the religious far-right to put their own reactionary spin on anything that touches on the concept of soul. Some of these special-interest spins are almost comical in intensity. The implications of this story may appear to threaten the core of some beliefs, but in reality, should not threaten anyone with half a brain, or a soul. "Science" magazine later clarified the story to say that although other mammals have been cloned, the South Korean scientist's work was the first to demonstrate a technique which could work with human cells for other purposes than propagation. Hwang's research was not an attempt to genetically duplicate a human, but was rather aimed at creating an adequate supply of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Neither side took much notice of that. The lines had already been drawn, and the religious far-right had already decided that it would rather protect the unborn than relieve the misery of those already born but afflicted with disease - (according to the spin of the atheistic far-left) which disease which now will be cured through stem cell research (at least now that Hwang has somewhat negated Bush, the puppet of the far-right (according to the other camp) and his pre-emptive strike against stem cell technology). This story has brought out the worst of both extremes - the atheists and the religious far-right. Check out this little bit of over-stepping: "The fact it can be done begins to move us away from some of the mysteries surrounding human beings; things like the existence of a soul, which frankly is pure imagination," a British researcher glibly told the BBC News... or try this one: "Award should go instead to the so-called "creation scientists" (is that a self-contradiction in terms, or what) for discovering that all previous science is false; and in fact the world is little more than a giant ant farm amusement box, created 6000 years ago by a cloud dwelling egomaniac, who likes to play tricks like making rocks appear older than they are". But even if it had been a successful cloning experiment for propagation, which it was not, does that step (which will happen, if it hasn't already) even hint at disproving the idea of a "non-physical continuance" (i.e. the legacy which is soul) ? Well that really depends on how carefully one chooses words. The reason that successful cloning would potentially shed any at light all on the idea of the soul is that soul was formerly (pre-Sheldrake) the one thing which was said by religions to make us uniquely human, and was given to us by God (or for some agnostics and Buddhists it is a product of an evolutionary process which is god-like). Despite any similarity between a soul and an evolved Morphogenetic Field, our soul didn't need to "evolve," even if we did - or so say other spiritualists, who accept some science but not all. This is hard to distinguish from the Sci-Fi related notion that soul migrated to earth from elsewhere (with of without the cosmic road map supplied by a higher power). So instead of only two camps, two very divergent camps on this issue, there are at least seven or eight possibilities regarding a non-physical identity and recurrent legacy and vis-a-vis a creator: 1) Soul was given to a previously soul-less creature by God the standard view of organized religion a) Only appears in a human once (Western view) b) Appears cyclically with accumulating baggage (East) 2) No soul at all and no God, pure animal existence But even some agnostics accept the reality of soul 3) Soul, derived by natural process (the meme-soul) a) Step-wise progression, lower animals having substantial soul b) Critical mass reached for humans, lower animals having no comparative higher level soul 4) Soul as a universal feature, having migrated here from elsewhere a) Under the guidance of God b) By itself 5) God as being the accumulation of all-souls a) Soul preexisting but evolving rapidly (reincarnation) b) Everything is derived from laws, nothing pre-existent There is overlap here, but consequently, because of this complexity nothing that can be said which is going to please everyone. We share almost 99% of our genes with apes and chimps, but some of those on the far-right want to believe that these "relatives" have zero soul, except maybe the meme-type of transference (related to "form" not morality), in the tradition of Sheldrake. In effect, this is one reason why the reality of "evolution" is so painful to some, at least those of limited intelligence. They have yet to figure out how to deal with the idea that man evolved, much less than how soul could do something similar. And even if soul did "evolve" like the physical counterpart, that fact itself does not also imply that apes have 99% of a human soul... Or perhaps more importantly to some of those who are also card-carrying NRA members it does threaten the prospect that their favorite game quarry will now be off-limits.... such as, say the magnificent elk having 87.23% of a soul. They don't mind shooting a beautiful mature animal, even though they do not need it for sustenance, yet they will not allow stem cells to be extracted from a fetus, to advance the state of medicine. The logic astounds. If one really wants to refine the concept of a non-physical continuance or legacy, and even find some physical evidence (over and above Sheldrake) then - first and foremost, we need to get a handle on the concept of "paradigm shift," and particularly on the more basic question of our "true" identity. Are we human beings who have evolved the ability to have a spiritual experience, OR are we spiritual beings who are confined to an animalistic existence, OR are we a bit of both (or neither)? And most importantly for the future, would we (if we are spiritual beings) benefit from a better engineered "vehicle" - whether it be from genetics OR a combination of mechanical components with a mechanical brain (AI computer) more on that provocative idea later. One can think of paradigm-shift as a change from one way of thinking to another; but the concept has become far more versatile than that. True, it is a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis but not just limited to a "way of thinking." The concept of paradigm shift also applies to the underlying mechanics of transformation, and how it is driven by gradual agents of change to suddenly become different in all respects from what existed before - the "tipping point" or "critical mass" are two other ways of expressing the concept. Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us - the computer, the internet, and most important to those "select" individuals who may be reading this - alternative energy and especially "infinite energy" of the LENR or ZPE variety. Jed Rothwell's new book, and the highly speculative final chapters, got me thinking about the future and how LENR combined with advancements in personal computer and wireless communication have and will continue to impact both personal and business environments, but on a grander scale and as a catalyst for paradigm-shift in our real identity. As a society we are shifting from a mechanistic, exploitive manufacturing, dependent industrial society to an organic, service based, self-sufficient, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to advance but at an ever-increasing rate. It will be mind-boggling. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant. And that applies to our own evolution as a species. I will do Rothwell one better with the prediction that within a short period after widespread LENR implementation, some of us (all voluntary) will poised to enter the 22 Century as a new species, either as a genetically refined elite, not too different physically OR in a more mechanical appearance. And yes, the AI super-computer which controls any mechanical implementation will be equipped with a "soul" receptacle, and this will be "after" that technology has been actually proven to be able provide all the features needed for the type of continuance we seek. In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so, but now at an increasing rate. Change is difficult, and most humans naturally resist change; however, a process has been set in motion which is now poised to actually change our true identity. And, unlike drama, the process is unstoppable, despite the heroics of any future Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity. The soul is a cultural construct. That is unquestionable. It may or may not have been implemented on another (higher) level, but for some purposes that is irrelevant. It has societal benefits as long as people believe in it. When people stop believing, it will either be refined or dropped, but they will never stop believing because it is a form of identity and continuance, which will always be beneficial. >From a personal standpoint, I can't imagine why cloning has much bearing on the concept of soul. The threat to religion goes way beyond cloning. The human body is a vessel that creates a space for the soul, but there could eventually be a better vehicle of our own creation, whether it be composed of carbohydrates (through cloning) or advance materials (through manufacturing). If that is the case, then we will be compelled to redefine the God-concept in an alternative way: as cyclical, epochal, ever-advancing, recurring - as more than the sum of all present souls, but less than the many superlatives that some would like to burden the concept with. At that point the method by which the physical body is created- whether in factories, beakers, body shops, or booty calls- may well have no bearing on the resulting product. Fifteen years ago, I became very enamored with this idea that evolution was pointing the way for us humans to shed a biological identity in favor of "manufactured" identity... BUT that such a paradigm-shift did not at all require society to change its spiritual orientation much, as reactionary observers might imply. I have a 500 page manuscript to prove it, which was presented to practically every publisher in New York. I have a nice pile of rejection letters somewhere, and most of them are surprisingly complementary. But all say the same thing - where is the market for this concept - there is no target audience as it offends almost every "sensibility" - or "Sci-Fi readers don't buy philosophy." Here is a few paragraphs from one of the chapters, shortened from 25 pages to one: Pure Thought, Human Brains and "Artificial" Intelligence Of course machines can think They just don't - yet And perhaps when they can, they will choose not to; just like us. -Oliver Selfridge What is really so special about the thinking ability of an exceptional human? Until the advent of electronics, the most compelling reason to be precise in defining intelligence was pedantic, but with the introduction of advanced computers, it seems that vanity has become a revealing issue. It is clear that very shortly in time, IQ testing of the Binet variety will not provide humans with any advantage. Realizing this growing capability of machines, a few humans have exerted great effort in the past decade to try to erect a contrived barrier that would somehow "sanctify" only one kind of intelligence. The sanctification of a particular class of thinker goes beyond the limits of science, of course, but more alarmingly, it obscures the profound and consequential question: our true essence and identity. A crucial debate in twenty-first century morality will likely center on whether our future as thinking beings is irrevocably tied to the continued adaptability of an animal species; or alternatively whether technology will deliver us from that organic heritage, should it ever become unquestionably advantageous, in "our" broader identity as "sentient beings". We can scarcely afford to limit our options in this regard, given the demonstrable frailty of biological life in the face of cosmological whim.. Intelligence is certainly more than problem solving and more than admirable emotional ability combined with problem solving. The capability to observe and generalize, to form analogies, to think symbolically, to be creative, and to communicate ideas orally and visually all signify aspects of intellect. The psychologist J.P. Guilford cataloged 120 different types of responses that are associated with intellectual ability. If one could weight these factors properly, it might be possible to arrive at an adequate but overly complex method for certifying intelligence. Howard Gardner has systematically grouped intelligence into seven broad types, which has helped to structure the objective indicia. A most simplified but adequate definition has been suggested by Christopher Evans, that being the ability of a system to adjust to a changing world. A similar conclusion is Jeremy Campbell's notion of "worldliness." Yet these simple definitions may themselves be unnecessarily subjective. Defining any reasonably broad term can involve a certain amount of semantic recursion, and intelligence and information are reflexive words that can be mutually dependent upon each other for meaning. Any system that utilizes information in a goal-directed way has some claim to intelligence - and even the "goal" part of the equation is only important to demonstrate that the information, the critical element, has objective significance. Using self-contained information to alter a future state, particularly for gain (either individual gain or group-oriented gain), is the key to intelligence. But information perceived and retained, even if it is not used immediately, can also signify a latent level of intelligence. Everything gets back to "information" as a generic basis. Information has both epistemological and theological connotations, as it conveys the substance, more so than the details, of relationships from an accumulated past. Information should be distinguished from mere data - which is temporal, random, unorganized and sterile - rather, it connotes essence, record, symbol, and generalization. It is from an overly narrow perspective that data-information has been argued to useless without the subjective concept of "meaning." >From this viewpoint, Theodore Roszak asserts that "ideas create information," but there is a more inclusive level of understanding that goes the other way. In an expansive field-delineated sense, information can be seen as an end into itself, its own idea, incorporating both data and "virtual" meaning - suggestive, even, of a free-floating agency without other participation as in the meme-ideal. The 'virtual meaning" implicit in information is not only potential meaning but the ability to self-generate individual collaborators, information accumulators, over time. It will be used in this broad context throughout this analysis. The difference in perspective on the nature of information adds a new dimension to the famous solipsism of Bishop Berkeley - the one which suggested that the falling tree makes no sound if there is no human present to hear it. The pragmatist maintains that the falling tree creates an objective flurry of vibrations at acoustic frequencies, even if there is no human present to confirm a subjective sound, for several related reasons. Most obviously, it would be extreme conceit to suppose that all sentient forms, seen or unseen could be identified, if not nullified by one narrow class of observer, Homo sapiens. For the traditionalist, moreover, it negates most perceptions of divinity to suggest that "some" intelligence is not always present, as the good Bishop was aware. Secondly, despite the fact that subatomic events are minutely altered by the very act of perception (the basis of an extended uncertainty principle which is multiplied to theatrical proportions by philosophical discourse), the effect is trivial and statistically correctable to an accuracy exceeding instrumentation. Physical activity at the lowest level, where atoms bump into atoms, has a large scale continuity that is assumptive of perception rather than independent of perception). Otherwise, there would be numerous unacceptable consequences- such as lapses of cause and effect which would be quite glaring in a predominantly deterministic universe. If lapses exist, they are isolated and probably nonrandom. A few observers have argued that reality cannot exist independently from the observer based upon an exaggerated if not mocking interpretation of quantum uncertainty - aware that like atheists they can tarnish the majority opinion with little risk of being disproven. The 4D approach to the nature of information, presented here, compounds the analysis by asserting that as events recur and accumulate past a critical level, a degree of retentiveness becomes intrinsic; that is, a field emanates and propagates its own vitality. This outlook suggests that habitual activity becomes a tentative subfield which is self-perpetuating to a degree through correlation effects, having the capacity over extended duration to organize and induce its own image into its proximity. Information, then, is both virtual intelligence and causative, as it is capable of stimulating self-referential changes in 3D reality which can eventually engender a physical information accumulator. .... more later Jones Oh. And one further ironic thing about Rod Serling and his legacy, which will live-on for a long time and has already been reincarnated in such writers as Stephen King, soul or no soul. In his last interview, four months before his untimely death (from a heavy cigarette habit) Serling was asked about the soul, life after death ,and reincarnation. He said, "I don't believe in reincarnation. That's a cop-out. . . . I anticipate death will be a totally unconscious void in which you float through eternity with no particular consciousness of anything." BTW there is enough trivia about Serling for two books. Harlan Ellison, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Richard Matheson, Sidney Sheldon and J. Michael Straczynski all wrote episodes for him. The opening and closing music was done by The Grateful Dead. His cast of actors who would often work for union minimums include: Robert Redford, Ron Howard, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Carol Burnett, Charles Bronson, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, Julie Newmar, Burt Reynolds, Martin Balsam, Art Carney, James Coburn, Peter Falk, Buster Keaton, Jack Klugman, Cloris Leachman, Lee Marvin, Burgess Meredith, John Astin, Roddy McDowell, Vera Miles, Mickey Rooney and Jonathan Winters.... to name but a few.
