SteveThaiBinh Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 But what would you say if you did revive a person, and they were no longer what you had known them as? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The dogs in the experiment had no apparent brain damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would turn out OK with humans. If the 'revived' people turned out to be brain damaged, then the procedure would stop being used fairly quickly. The unlucky experiments would be cared for as everyone with brain damage is cared for, but I can't imagine a reason for continuing the experiments. There will be robot soldiers soon enough. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Kaftan Barlast Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 I liked you better before you died? " DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
11XHooah Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 But what would you say if you did revive a person, and they were no longer what you had known them as? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The dogs in the experiment had no apparent brain damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would turn out OK with humans. If the 'revived' people turned out to be brain damaged, then the procedure would stop being used fairly quickly. The unlucky experiments would be cared for as everyone with brain damage is cared for, but I can't imagine a reason for continuing the experiments. There will be robot soldiers soon enough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Robot Soldiers? I doubt they will ever take humans out of war. Although we are currently employing robots for tasks such as cave searching and mine detecting, as well as a new model that will provide combat support. We are using robots in conjunction with Soldiers, which I think will be the furthest it will go. Just think. You have a whole entire army of robots. Just one well placed EMP could take them all out just like that. Unless they design robots that are impervious to EMP's. And besides, it would cost a fortune to build an entire army of robots. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
Bytor Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Robot Soldiers? I doubt they will ever take humans out of war. Although we are currently employing robots for tasks such as cave searching and mine detecting, as well as a new model that will provide combat support. We are using robots in conjunction with Soldiers, which I think will be the furthest it will go. Just think. You have a whole entire army of robots. Just one well placed EMP could take them all out just like that. Unless they design robots that are impervious to EMP's. And besides, it would cost a fortune to build an entire army of robots. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then have you considered the possibility of clones? "I tried the most potent Noise Amplification spell once upon a time. Mavellous spell. I could hear the birds speaking to one another in trees over the horizon, I could hear the rustlings as the clouds rubbed against each other in the sky. I could hear the sound a rainbow makes as it arches it's back over the world. Then a dog barked behind me and I burst my left eardrum."
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Then have you considered the possibility of clones? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
11XHooah Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Robot Soldiers? I doubt they will ever take humans out of war. Although we are currently employing robots for tasks such as cave searching and mine detecting, as well as a new model that will provide combat support. We are using robots in conjunction with Soldiers, which I think will be the furthest it will go. Just think. You have a whole entire army of robots. Just one well placed EMP could take them all out just like that. Unless they design robots that are impervious to EMP's. And besides, it would cost a fortune to build an entire army of robots. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then have you considered the possibility of clones? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't be surprised if we actually do make a clone army (this is sounding way too much like Star Wars :D ) But isn't cloning still rudimentary? I keep hearing of all these failures to keep the clones alive. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
SteveThaiBinh Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Robot Soldiers? I doubt they will ever take humans out of war. Although we are currently employing robots for tasks such as cave searching and mine detecting, as well as a new model that will provide combat support. We are using robots in conjunction with Soldiers, which I think will be the furthest it will go. Just think. You have a whole entire army of robots. Just one well placed EMP could take them all out just like that. Unless they design robots that are impervious to EMP's. And besides, it would cost a fortune to build an entire army of robots. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then have you considered the possibility of clones? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clones are people, so they don't have the advantages of robot soldiers, which are that no-one cares when they get 'killed' and they are cheap to produce. Or probably will be, by the US at least (economies of scale and so on). I doubt an EMP-proof robot is far away - legions of Pentagon scientists are probably wasting your tax dollars on it at this very moment. The soul is a tricky issue for religions as science pushes the limits of life and death ever further. Will there come a time when the existence of the soul is disproved? That would probably involve duplicating a consciousness, something that smacks of mass production of human beings. Pretty horrifying. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
metadigital Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 And even more would be saved if no more invasions was launched. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Bytor Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 I know that it's not possible today, but the future is likely to have clone armies. Think of all the benifits: 1. You don't have to remember anyone's name 2. If anyone dies just make more 3. They will all be cloned from someone with the best characteristics and the most appropriate soldier's mentality. 4. Everyone is the same blood group so less trouble for transfusions Yet if clones are used, maybe this will distance people's views of war, and perhaps make it seem not so bad if there is little cost to human life. "I tried the most potent Noise Amplification spell once upon a time. Mavellous spell. I could hear the birds speaking to one another in trees over the horizon, I could hear the rustlings as the clouds rubbed against each other in the sky. I could hear the sound a rainbow makes as it arches it's back over the world. Then a dog barked behind me and I burst my left eardrum."
11XHooah Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Robot Soldiers? I doubt they will ever take humans out of war. Although we are currently employing robots for tasks such as cave searching and mine detecting, as well as a new model that will provide combat support. We are using robots in conjunction with Soldiers, which I think will be the furthest it will go. Just think. You have a whole entire army of robots. Just one well placed EMP could take them all out just like that. Unless they design robots that are impervious to EMP's. And besides, it would cost a fortune to build an entire army of robots. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then have you considered the possibility of clones? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clones are people, so they don't have the advantages of robot soldiers, which are that no-one cares when they get 'killed' and they are cheap to produce. Or probably will be, by the US at least (economies of scale and so on). I doubt an EMP-proof robot is far away - legions of Pentagon scientists are probably wasting your tax dollars on it at this very moment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only advantage that I could see from cloning is to add numbers to your military. Remember how in Star Wars the clones were trained from a young age in combat? Perhaps we could do the same and train the clones to be Soldiers from the start. Edit: I see Bytor beat me to it. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
Roger Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 How do you know that you don't lose your soul each time you fall asleep? After all, your consciousness could've been recreated each night, and the current you might be a entirely different person than you were yesterday, only with the same memories. :D That's a leap of faith I'm willing to take. Otherwise, it will go to such extremes where one is afraid to blink, fearing that the world might dissapear. I mean, famous thought experiment: assume that I replaced your neurons one by one with electronic neurons that served the exact same purpose. At what point do you "lose" your soul, assuming that the transistors do the exact same thing and that the result is a person with the equivalent neuronal connections?Actually, I've known some people whose personalities have been fundamentally changed by blood transfusions and cardiovascular surgery. That experiment with neurons might not end well at all.
metadigital Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 But what would you say if you did revive a person, and they were no longer what you had known them as? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mean like Stephen King's Pet Semetary (sic) ? Have you met people who have been brought back to life after a heart attack, with a defibrilator? How about those who have a new heart (actually it's better to transplant a heart and set of lungs, there is a better rate of recovery than just a heart) ? What about a new liver? Eyes? New eyes? There are distinct neuronal parts to the eye ... I think you are being a little juvenile. Perhaps if you are talking about bringing back someone from years ago ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
metadigital Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 I mean, famous thought experiment: assume that I replaced your neurons one by one with electronic neurons that served the exact same purpose. At what point do you "lose" your soul, assuming that the transistors do the exact same thing and that the result is a person with the equivalent neuronal connections?Actually, I've known some people whose personalities have been fundamentally changed by blood transfusions and cardiovascular surgery. That experiment with neurons might not end well at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eh? A blood transfusion that changes someone's personality? You'd better write that up and send it in for peer review! That sort of discovery is revolutionary, to say nothing of the social implications! Forgive my skepticism, but how can that be? What mechanism is changing the brain functions? Different blood type? New Antibodies? That is very difficult to believe. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Bytor Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 The only advantage that I could see from cloning is to add numbers to your military. Remember how in Star Wars the clones were trained from a young age in combat? Perhaps we could do the same and train the clones to be Soldiers from the start. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with 11XHooah. Clones would be essentially human. A soldier needs to think on his feet rather than work from a programmed mind. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom, and these clones would be more able to adapt and improvise. So for a practical army- Vote Clones "I tried the most potent Noise Amplification spell once upon a time. Mavellous spell. I could hear the birds speaking to one another in trees over the horizon, I could hear the rustlings as the clouds rubbed against each other in the sky. I could hear the sound a rainbow makes as it arches it's back over the world. Then a dog barked behind me and I burst my left eardrum."
SteveThaiBinh Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 ... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Certain countries are engaging in policies which increase rather than decrease the number of terrorist recruits - we could refrain, if we chose. There will always be arguments and disputes, but these can be solved by diplomacy, not by war. Gingerbread is not a durable construction material, and fares poorly in wet weather. Lollipop Lane is a perfectly good name - there may even be one somewhere. While chocolate and mud are superficially similar, a simple taste test should be enough to tell the difference (this does not include Cadbury's). "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 You mean like Stephen King's Pet Semetary (sic) ? Have you met people who have been brought back to life after a heart attack, with a defibrilator? How about those who have a new heart (actually it's better to transplant a heart and set of lungs, there is a better rate of recovery than just a heart) ? What about a new liver? Eyes? New eyes? There are distinct neuronal parts to the eye ... I think you are being a little juvenile. Perhaps if you are talking about bringing back someone from years ago ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, when the revolution comes, you're gonna regret that you said that...and I think the only valid point you have is the primary one, which shouldn't be the first, because the impact lessens after you read the others... because the others are only part of the body, but I admit, some are very vital to the being. And remember it was a hypothetical, maybe even rhetorical question... :D
Darth Flatus Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 depression is not unknown amongst heart op patients, it may seem like a different personality but this is probably due to issues with confronting mortality. With any head trauma or related operation there can be a varying chance of brain damage, and depending on which part this can also result in a personality change. However this does not mean the old soul escaped and was replaced with a new one.
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 ... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't forget the afternoon tea meta, don't forget the afternoon tea...
Lucius Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 And even more would be saved if no more invasions was launched. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What is it with you and war? Do you enjoy it? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
metadigital Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 depression is not unknown amongst heart op patients, it may seem like a different personality but this is probably due to issues with confronting mortality. With any head trauma or related operation there can be a varying chance of brain damage, and depending on which part this can also result in a personality change. However this does not mean the old soul escaped and was replaced with a new one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I strongly suspect that when science can re-animate the intellect of a dead person, we will see no appreciable difference in their personality ... after all, the only difference to the intellect is that they have a new body ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Darth Flatus Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 What is it with you and war? Do you enjoy it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WAR IS INEWIDDABOO
SteveThaiBinh Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 I strongly suspect that when science can re-animate the intellect of a dead person, we will see no appreciable difference in their personality ... after all, the only difference to the intellect is that they have a new body ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The technique described in the article freezes the body so that it is preserved intact - so in theory, I guess the information stored within the brain is preserved, too. So it will probably become possible to revive that body in the near future. What will happen is that the clinical definition of death will be revised to take this into account, and slowly all our perceptions of what death means will catch up. Transfering the consciousness from one body to another is a little while in the future yet. I'll worry about it a bit nearer the time. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
metadigital Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 And even more would be saved if no more invasions was launched. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... And there were no more terrorists, and no more arguments and disputes, and we all went to live in the gingerbread house at the end of lollipop lane in the land of chocolate ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What is it with you and war? Do you enjoy it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did that come from? No, actually, I don not enjoy it. (My father fought in WW2: in both the European and Pacific theatres.) I do see it as inevtiable -- at least for the foreseeable future. And creating clones for warfare is just nonsensical. For a start, the clones will need to be taught, much like our children are, for a decade at least, to be able to understand their function and perform it well. It would be cheaper and easier to use some other mechanism, like a killer virus that all the "friendlies" have been vaccinated against ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
11XHooah Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Like I always say: As long as man exists, so will war. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
Darth Flatus Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 I strongly suspect that when science can re-animate the intellect of a dead person, we will see no appreciable difference in their personality ... after all, the only difference to the intellect is that they have a new body ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So long as the brain and body survive 100% intact and that the patient can deal with the trauma of apparently dying and subsequently being resurrected.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now