Robert J. Bradbury
bradbury at aeiveos.com
Thu Feb 26 19:26:22 UTC 2004
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> DNA cloning does not duplicate people. It is just another way of
> reproducing a human from a single cell. But that human would not be closer
> than we two brothers are right now. There may not be any way to tell which
> of us were cloned, because the clone would not be any more similar to one
> brother than the other.
Harvey (and Adrian) I understand this. My best guess right now is that
genetics would only get you 50-60% of an identity. But that is a start.
I probably have most of my financial records in detail for about 20 years
(so one could easily determine "what has Robert done?"). I have (or the
net could provide) many of my email posts dating back perhaps 20-25 years.
Combine this with photographs of where I have been and what I have seen
and done and one starts to come up with a Robert-B that knows much if
not more than what Robert-A knows about what he has done.
Place this on top of a genetic profile that determines motivations,
feelings, etc. and one starts to develop a personality that determines
who you are, how you act, etc. I would assert that that would be much
better than a face recreation on top of an actor. I have no problem
with the fact that twins are different -- but a relatively detailed
simulation of the end-point personalities/life-styles, etc. should
reveal how/when/where there was a divergence (if enough information
Doesn't anyone out there have any friends, significant others, etc.
where you *know* "If I say this -- they will say that?". That seems
to suggest that human beings behave in a relatively deterministic
fashion. That would imply you can backtrack development processes.
(Just as one futuretracks moves when playing chess.) I would
suggest if humans did not behave in a relatively deterministic
fashion that society could not have developed to the extent that
More information about the extropy-chat