A few cells in a Petri-dish

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ours are meant to be rational.

Yes.

But that is clearly fatal for your “explanation”. You claim:

Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation. Before we knew that we were an accident of the evolutionary process. So we needed something to differentiate us from the rest of the animals so it was considered that that might be a soul. Something that endows us with ‘being human’. And because the corporeal body dies and decays it needed to be eternal.

So, you claim that the goal was to differentiate humans from animals, and, because of that, people invented something that animals also had (although somewhat different)? And the goal was to make that “something” immortal - and, because of that, people invented something that is mortal for animals?

The religious view is that we are different from animals (ignoring the fact that we are animals). And whatever that something is that differentiates us must be immortal because our bodies die.

Sounds like a soul to me. What’s it sound like to you?

 

[Abrosz]

And our definition depends on conditions most suitable for development of the subject (in this case, the embryo).

We already have ongoing cases of developing human tissue and/or human organs and they are successful. This is not science fiction. There are also successful experiments (see Dolly the sheep) for cloning full organisms.

And our definition depends on conditions most suitable for development of the subject (in this case, the embryo).

No, successful conclusion of the development is what the experimenter wishes to be. It can be just some tissue (using skin grafts) some replacement organ (a new heart), or it can be a full embryo. It is not your “job” to decide which one the experimenter should pursue.

That is not an answer.

Sure is, and it refutes the idea of the “soul”.

For, you see, “detecting soul” is actually the same as “detecting life”…

Your idea of equating life with soul is just your idea. You are free to entertain it.

 

[MPat]

The religious view is that we are different from animals (ignoring the fact that we are animals). And whatever that something is that differentiates us must be immortal because our bodies die.

Sounds like a soul to me. What’s it sound like to you?

That just refuses to look at the plot holes.

And how did we get to “Sounds like a soul to me.”? For before you were claiming:

It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.

How can anything “sound” like that?!

And, of course, once again you did not answer the question why you found the possibility that you do not know what soul is supposed to be “not acceptable”.

So, now I will give an answer. First, the facts:

1. You claimed that the explanations I gave (including the one that you do not understand what soul is supposed to be) are “not acceptable”.
2. You repeatedly ignored the questions asking to explain the reason for this.
3. You did not ask what soul is supposed to be.
4. In one post you wrote “Well, I’m smart enough to not have to take baby steps in any discussion about the soul.”.

Well, the explanation is pretty simple: as you say yourself, you do think you are smart and knowledgeable and honest and so on. And you like to think so about yourself.

The problem is that this opinion is not based on some great objectively verifiable achievements. Much of its support comes from that very atheism. For it allows an atheist to think that he is smarter, more knowledgeable, more moral etc. than those silly religious people (your “explanation” makes that part clear).

And yet, as we see, the atheism itself (with all related beliefs) is mostly supported by that very superiority. Thus we get a circle. How are we supposed to know that an atheist is smart etc.? Because he is an atheist and does not believe God, souls etc. exist! And how are we supposed to know he is right to do so? Oh, because he is so smart etc.!

The other common defence is an unjustified demand for “respect”.

In other words, we seem to be dealing with phenomenon described by E. Feser in one blog post (Edward Feser: Walter Mitty atheism)…

Sure is, and it refutes the idea of the “soul”.

So, you forgot the question…? Hint: it had little to do with soul as such…

Your idea of equating life with soul is just your idea. You are free to entertain it.

No, successful conclusion of the development is what the experimenter wishes to be.

And here we seem to be dealing with the same phenomenon I mentioned. So, since your position is only supported by your competence, impartiality etc., can you support those independently?

You were mentioning Nobel Prizes - if you have won any, now would be a time to brag.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The religious view is that we are different from animals (ignoring the fact that we are animals). And whatever that something is that differentiates us must be immortal because our bodies die.

Sounds like a soul to me. What’s it sound like to you?

That just refuses to look at the plot holes.

And how did we get to “Sounds like a soul to me.”?

I think that you’re confusing me knowing what you mean by a soul and that definition making no sense to me. Then again, there have been various definitions offered in other threads. So I’ve kept what I think might be yours to a very basic definition that would probably be acceptable in tbe first instance to most Christians.

If you want to fine tune that definition then feel free. But it’s not going to make sense to me however fine the tuning.

 

[MamaJewel]

A few cells in a Petri dish are definitely not rational animals.

If those cells are “behaving” in accordance with their design and purpose, then they are in a rational existence. They might not be “rational animals”, but each cell could possibly be considered an individual or collectively the cells could be considered an “individual”.

Certainly doctors relying on a human blastocyst’s stem cells will consider the age/stage of those stem cells for timing of their experiments since there is a specific behavior consistent to the stem cell’s age/stage.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-an-individual-biology-seeks-clues-in-information-theory-20200716/

If the cells in a petri dish are the result of fertilization between two human gametes (human zygote), then the earliest origins of a human being are present.

Same applies for a human zygote traveling down a woman’s Fallopian tube. Since the human ages/stages progress on a continuum, a healthy human zygote will transition into its embryonic stage, fetal stage, neonate stage, infant, young child, tween, teen, young adult, middle age adult, and hopefully senior. Upon death, the remains will be the body of a deceased human being.

So a few growing cells ( blastocyst ) is not a human being - it could be called a “potential” human being - but ONLY as long as the DNA enables the result to procreate with an actual human being.

Yes it is an actual human being. Ages and stages
A healthy human blastocyst is a human being at one of its earliest stages of being.
By the time gastrulation begins, there is a distinct individual (primitive streak).
At gastrulation, " a small group of cells are “put aside” to later form oocytes and spermatozoa, these cells described as the primordial germ cells (PGCs). The cells migrate initially through the primitive streak into the posterior endoderm that forms the hindgut,[2] and from there later into the genital ridge that will be the site of the developing gonad."

Researchers are hoping to one day be able to extract the primordial germ cells from multiple embryos to create an entirely new human zygote. In other words, some poor human being is going to be stuck with more than 2 biological parents from individuals that were never “human beings” by some philosophical definitions.

If there is a being, which is not composed of animal cells, but is able to think and act rationally, would that being become an “honorary” human?

What if… the mature human cells had appeared in the chimera’s primordial germ cells?
a mouse-human chimera (for real)

Human-Mouse Chimera | Most Human Cells in a Chimera

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/20/eaaz0298

 

[Abrosz]

If those cells are “behaving” in accordance with their design and purpose, then they are in a rational existence.

Design and especially purpose are not applicable terms. And what the heck is “rational existence”? The term “rational animal” refers to a being who is able to think rationally.

If the cells in a petri dish are the result of fertilization between two human gametes (human zygote), then the earliest origins of a human being are present.

Just because a group of cells MAY grow into an actual human being, that is not the reason to already consider them a “being”. A pile of uranium atoms MAY become a bomb, IF the pile is larger than the critical mass. But it is not a BOMB yet.

Calling it the earliest stages is simply a confusing word play. Is the medical student in the earliest stages of becoming a doctor?

Your analysis is incorrect, because you disregard the quantitative and qualitative changes during the growth of the zygote or the Petri dish experiment.

And what if they are the result of gene-splicing?

What if… the mature human cells had appeared in the chimera’s primordial germ cells?
a mouse-human chimera (for real)

Not just that, but also a fully artificial being. It may be carbon based (organic) or may be silicon based (inorganic)? The actual building material is irrelevant when the functionality is present. Think about cyborgs, “who” are a mixture of organic and inorganic components?

The changes in technology produce new philosophical questions, which make the old definition “born to some human parents” totally obsolete.

 

[Rau]

Just because a group of cells MAY grow into an actual human being, that is not the reason to already consider them a “being”. A pile of uranium atoms MAY become a bomb, IF the pile is larger than the critical mass. But it is not a BOMB yet.

How will that pile of atoms grow to a bomb? Is it configured to do so?

 

[Abrosz]

How will that pile of atoms grow to a bomb? Is it configured to do so?

No need. As soon as the critical mass is reached, it will explode. Whether it is enclosed in a shell, or not, This is just an example that quantitative changes cab lead to qualitative changes. T

 

[MamaJewel]

Design and especially purpose are not applicable terms. And what the heck is “ rational existence ”?

Design and purpose are absolutely applicable terms. And existence is rational (ie logical and reasoned) when it is following the structured applications that establishes its being. I think you might call it “functionality” later in your response to me.

When fertilization occurs between a male and female human gamete, a bonobo zygote does not result. Neither does a dog zygote. Nor a cat zygote. A human zygote results.

Calling it the earliest stages is simply a confusing word play. Is the medical student in the earliest stages of becoming a doctor?

Calling a member of a species at its earliest age of existence by its the title of its species is not confusing word play at all. Floridians call sea turtles growing in their eggs in the nest on the beach by their name, “sea turtles”.

Speaking of Florida, medical students are in the earliest stages of being a doctor. They are not becoming doctors. They are legally licensed doctors with limited practice faculties. Because they are novices at the practice of medicine, an attending physician (called a teaching doctor, professor, or associate professor) must sign off on their work.

So, once again, no confusing play on words.

Your analysis is incorrect, because you disregard the quantitative and qualitative changes during the growth of the zygote or the Petri dish experiment.

The quantitative and qualitative changes of a human blastocyst in vitro or in utero follow a logical and reasoned (rational) progression for the age/stage of that new human being’s existence.
Just as a human being in homeostasis will also follow qualitative and quantitative changes at any other point of human existence, including up to and probably (my hypothesis) through death and initial decomposition of their human body. Even human remains quantitatively and qualitatively evidence a human being’s existence.

Those pics of little human embryos on the Carnegie Stages website evidence the existence of tiny human beings at their embryonic age/stage.

And what if they are the result of gene-splicing? …
Think about cyborgs, “who” are a mixture of organic and inorganic components? …
The changes in technology produce new philosophical questions, which make the old definition “born to some human parents” totally obsolete.

There are many ethical questions that arise as doctors combine human stem cells in the embryos of other species.

Most people would be absolutely livid if a rogue doctor conducted an experiment by injecting mouse stem cells into a donated IVF human blastocyst to be implanted in a woman’s uterus.
Even if a woman did consent, it would still be very unethical for a doctor to commit such an action.
Why? If the human blastocyst is just a clump of cells?

 

[Abrosz]

Design and purpose are absolutely applicable terms.

Both of them are religious terms, so they are not applicable.

When fertilization occurs between a male and female human gamete, a bonobo zygote does not result.

Unless it is a seriously mutated, but still viable zygote. I am talking about biology cum philosophy.

Speaking of Florida, medical students are in the earliest stages of being a doctor.

That reminds me of an old joke, when the new medical student - right after a successful entrance exam thinks that now she can grab a patient in one hand, a scalpel in the other… and she can have “at it” - because she is a “doctor”. Come on, don’t be THAT naive.

It is not nitpicking that the medical student is not allowed to practice until she receives her diploma.

Most people would be absolutely livid if a rogue doctor conducted an experiment by injecting mouse stem cells into a donated IVF human blastocyst to be implanted in a woman’s uterus.

That is not the point. Try to think outside the box.

Even if a woman did consent, it would still be very unethical for a doctor to commit such an action.
Why? If the human blastocyst is just a clump of cells?

Would it?

It all depends on the ethical system they subscribe to. If through some new gene-splicing technique we could manufacture a new mutant, who has not only lungs, but also gills, to live in and out of water, would that be a new species? Or some other super-human abilities, who could not procreate with run-of-the-mill humans, but could procreate with her own “kind”?

The question of “human being” is much more complicated than biology. The ethical questions of development and new technologies are not simple at all.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

Consider Revelation 13:18

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Consider Revelation 17:8

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

If these verses refer to human cloning (a human clone, or a cohort of clones is a beast), Revelation 17: 8 tells us that the cloned cells (in the petri dish) contain the same soul as a dead, evil, individual who was condemned to the bottomless pit.

This suggests that the human soul exists in every 46 chromosome (diploid) human cell, as the Bible sees it.

Revelation 17: 8 tells us that the soul ascends from the bottomless pit to reappear as the cloned individual…but unlike any soul in history, this soul is pre-condemned to perdition (the lake of fire). There is permanence to the soul and its destiny after judgment which cannot be undone.

The human being and soul are inseparable from conception.

 

[MPat]

If you want to fine tune that definition then feel free. But it’s not going to make sense to me however fine the tuning.

It sounds as if I am supposed to express limitless gratitude that, in your great graciousness, you gave me a permission to do so.

But why should I?

What great favour are you bestowing on me, that I did not have yet?

Seriously, what motives and goals are “in play” in this discussion, in your opinion? What do you think I am trying to do? What do you think you are trying to do?

I think that you’re confusing me knowing what you mean by a soul and that definition making no sense to me.

I think you’re confusing the definition looking completely nonsensical to you with you believing that nothing in reality fits that definition.

And, while you did not support this your claim, I can support mine (isn’t that an interesting pattern?). You were writing:

It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.

And, as I kept pointing out (and, probably, correctly, since you did not say that you misspoke or something), that such a phrase (as Chomsky’s “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”) is complete and obvious nonsense, not merely something fictional as “dragon”, “chimera”, “unicorn”, “elf” (not even something self-contradictory as “square triangle”).

And yet you did not deal with that in any way. For example, your “explanation” only tries to explain emergence of something fictional, hypothetical.

As if you do not see how great is the difference between something fictional and something completely and obviously nonsensical.

 

[Freddy]

What do you think I am trying to do?

I’m really not sure, Mpat.

 

[MamaJewel]

Both of them are religious terms, so they are not applicable.

Show me where the terms design and purpose are religious terms only, and therefore not applicable. I have shared more than enough scientific sources that evidence design and purpose (DNA and HARs) in a logical and reasoned (rational) progression of a healthy human conceptus through death of that human being at any age/ stage.

Now, I want to see your sources. If you can’t prove that those terms are used in a religious context only, then don’t tell me they are not applicable.

I am talking about biology cum philosophy.

So am I.
It’s often called bioethics or medical ethics.
Have you read the articles I have linked?
They address some of post-modern man’s dilemma when defining a human being and ask some of the very questions and observations that you have made over several threads.

Come on, don’t be THAT naive.

Please don’t take such an insulting tone toward me. You don’t know me. Nor do you know about my lived experiences.

It is not nitpicking that the medical student is not allowed to practice until she receives her diploma.

Who is nitpicking.
In my state, pre-med students are not allowed to practice medicine.
Medical students, however, are licensed physicians with specified limits on their practice faculties.
They are doctors practicing medicine, albeit within certain legal (and ethical) limitations.

I found your reference to being naive insulting for many reasons.
My medical student - primary care doctors have seen me through 8 of my 11 pregnancies. They actually delivered 2 of my children. A 3rd child was delieverd by an OB/Gyn med student. I’ve allowed med students to assist with or perform surgery or other necessary procedures on me, depending on the level of complexity.

Med students have diagnosed 2 of my 3 children that have chronic medical conditions and have also played pivotal roles in the plan of care for those children.

Do you hear what I am saying? Medical students are doctors in my state and are licensed to treat patients within the scope of practice. They are not becoming doctors. They are doctors.

 

[MamaJewel]

That is not the point. Try to think outside the box.

I am thinking way outside of the box.
I am thinking about the ethical hypocrisy in medicine that expects a doctor studying human products of conception in vitro to destroy the subject of study before it becomes a “distinct individual” (Day 14 Rule) while a doctor can take the tools of medicine to a “distinct individual” at 24 weeks gestation in utero without any concern for medical necessity.

Would it?

Currently, it would.

It all depends on the ethical system they subscribe to

If they want to practice medicine and/or be acknowledged as ethical doctors, then they will want to stay within the bounds of medical/ bioethics which govern their professional field. That would be the “ethical system” they are expected subscribe to, even under law.

If through some new gene-splicing technique we could manufacture a new mutant, who has not only lungs, but also gills, to live in and out of water, would that be a new species? Or some other super-human abilities, who could not procreate with run-of-the-mill humans, but could procreate with her own “kind”?

Do you understand that these questions are why bioethics require that medicine moves slowly, within estblished boundaries and limits, when conducting research?

To question 1) idk. If doctors spliced into HARs or DNA in a way that re-activated that design/purpose in humans, it might not be a new human species. To question 2) Knowing medicine, philosophy and law, we could probably agree that it would depend upon the “abilities” and “kind”.

The question of “human being” is much more complicated than biology.

I agree.

However, the concept of human being starts with biology because biology is currently the basic foundation for how we classify (taxonomy) living and extinct forms of life, including ourselves. Biology sets the foundation for determining a human being.

So, in biology, where does a “distinct individual” begin? Most biologists agree that it occurs by late blastocyst stage as gastrulation commences and that the primitive streak clearly indicates the presence of that distinct individual.

The ethical questions of development and new technologies are not simple at all.

100% agree.
Thus, the application of medical ethics to medical research on humans, medical devices, treatments and techniques, etc, which slows down the rates of beneficient (and malificent) advances in medicine.

At the end of the day, medicine acknowledges the right of autonomy, especially bodily autonomy, of individuals. We have the human right to be let alone, even at the hands of our creator(s).

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

Both of them are religious terms, so they are not applicable.

Show me where the terms design and purpose are religious terms only, and therefore not applicable.

I wouldn’t have thought it was a point worth discussing. If we’re talking about life itself and it’s suggested that it has been designed thus, then who else has done the designing except God?

Likewise with purpose. Any given atheist will tell you that there is no ultimate purpose to life. The universe could care less if we live or die. But all theists will tell you that there is a purpose to our existence.

 

[MamaJewel]

If we’re talking about life itself and it’s suggested that it has been designed thus, then who else has done the designing except God?

With today’s tech, it could be a doctor in a lab coat doing the designing. Thus the discussion.

Any given atheist will tell you that there is no ultimate purpose to life. The universe could care less if we live or die. But all theists will tell you that there is a purpose to our existence.

Neither can currently scientifically prove nor disprove the other’s position.
I know some atheists who believe the purpose of life is to be just because living permits one to do so.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If we’re talking about life itself and it’s suggested that it has been designed thus, then who else has done the designing except God?

With today’s tech, it could be a doctor in a lab coat doing the designing. Thus the discussion.

Any given atheist will tell you that there is no ultimate purpose to life. The universe could care less if we live or die. But all theists will tell you that there is a purpose to our existence.

Neither can currently scientifically prove nor disprove the other’s position.
I know some atheists who believe the purpose of life is to be just because living permits one to do so.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

I am thinking about the ethical hypocrisy in medicine that expects a doctor studying human products of conception in vitro to destroy the subject of study before it becomes a “distinct individual” (Day 14 Rule) while a doctor can take the tools of medicine to a “distinct individual” at 24 weeks gestation in utero without any concern for medical necessity.

I’m not sure why this lengthy post about bioethics was forwarded to me. My post was about BIBLICAL evidence in Revelation 13: 18 and Revelation 17: 8 that diploid cells (46 chromosome cells) contain the human soul.

I believe that those verses of Revelation (as well as many others) address the topic that Antichrist will be a cloned human (a beast; an abomination).

Looking closely at Revelation 17: 8, again:

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Assuming the premise of cloning is correct, “reverse engineering” Revelation 17: 8 tells us that the soul of a dead, evil, man, was judged and condemned to the bottomless pit. But, someone in a laboratory, cloning cells of that dead, evil, man (starting in a petri dish, if you like) resurrects him from the bottomless pit. His soul will reanimate each clone, and the clones are pre-condemned to perdition (the lake of fire).

Most commentators in this thread address the question of when the conceptus is ensouled or when human life begins beginning with fertilization of the ovum. As a Catholic, I believe human life begins at conception.

By bringing cloning, and Revelation 13: 18 and Revelation 17: 8 into the equation, I am only illustrating from a different Biblical angle the permanence of the soul, and how it inhabits every diploid cell of an individual.

I did not, and do not intend to launch into a general discussion of bioethics. I am talking about the Bible, cells in a petri dish, and the soul.

With today’s tech, it could be a doctor in a lab coat doing the designing. Thus the discussion.

Most likely it will be a team of scientists. PhD’s and MDs with well-funded research endowments and university administration. Could be in any country or a cooperative effort between countries. Not sure how the guilt for such collective sin will parse out. Something like creating nuclear weapons.

 

[MPat]

MPat:

What do you think I am trying to do?

I’m really not sure, Mpat.

Good, good.

And do you know what you are trying to do?