View Full Version : Poll: Human cloning.. science gone too far?
From El Reg: First he brought you Dolly the sheep, now he wants to clone human beings - or at least their gooey embryos. Professor Ian Wilmut has been awarded a license to create stem cells from cloned embryos. The license, granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will allow Wilmut and researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh to study Motor Neuron Disease (MND). Thousands of people in the UK suffer from MND - many of whom die 14 months after diagnosis.
Would you support human cloning?
oh...I don´t know what to choose!
No, because it's inherently unsafe. A cloned person would still be a human being like you or me, and it's just not right that a human being should suffer or die because someone wanted to play God and failed.
[ 09. February 2005, 12:15: Message edited by: Catlantean ]
This is human lives we are talking about. This is not a black and white subject. A clone may die because of scientific error. Then again, millions of humans may be saved by cloning. Would a clone be considered equal to a human life? It feels like we would have huge racism issues with clones.
At the end of the day I believe that God creates life, and he has given us the ability to procreate our own species through reproduction which makes cloning immoral. But then again, cloning could be considered an unnatural form of reproduction... I cant say yes or no. Too many issues at hand.
Melonie Tomb Raider
I am totally against the cloning of humans. To me it's grotesque and just another effort to try to "play God". We don't know all of the side effects and bad things that could happen, and above all of that, what if people start cloning otehr people for their body parts? For example, what if some one has an unhealthy heart and needs a new one, so they clone some one and later use their heart for the person who needs a heart? I know it sounds weird, but you never know what people will do nowadays...
I've got to be against this.
I feel some form of research which will aid in developing cures for deseases would be benefitial.
The cloning of humans to produce designer children or to in fact simply have a child I feel is not right. There are plenty of children in the world who would appreciate a good family.
I heard one story which talked about a couple who had an ill child and the only way of saving this child was to produce another child (using cloning techniques) ensureing the same illness does not occur and also ensureing the new child had something (bone marrow I believe) which would help cure the first child. Which came first:
</font> The want of another child</font></font> The possibility of another child saving the first child.</font>
was not clear but it was difficult to come to a clear decision on whether something like this should be allowed. I still don't know what i'd do if I had to make the decision.
I have no moral.
It could help people in the future, so it is important to get information now.
Melonie. You raise fair points about human (clone) rights. Does a clone have rights. Can we clone folk, then keep the clones in giant refrigerators until a particular body part is needed.
But, what we must consider, is that while I may be possible to clone cells, the formation of a soul (a conscious) might not be part of parcel of the process, thus making the designer clone for body parts argument that much more acceptable.
Excuse my grammer. I'm an idiot.
I don't really know. But if humans have surpassed to a level where they can make copies of themselves, then there's no limit of what they can do for the greater good.
I am all for playing God, to say that we should not is ignorant.
Cloning may indeed yield more problems than it solves in the short term, but it will happen one day when cloning is something you do as part of your regular schedule.
It's alright to find it morally repugnant, but in time society will find it less so.
I'm for 1 & 4. People wont stop anyway, maybe it's for best and worse at the same time. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif
[ 09. February 2005, 18:16: Message edited by: Apofiss ]
I'm fine with cloning cells or organs for research that could help people. Just not whole people. Because they'll be living, thinking, feeling people who'll likely suffer from anomalies or health problems because of the way they were made. Not to mention the human rights issue...
Why would they suffer from genetic anamolies anymore than normal defective humans?
I'm against this. Catlantean well said really. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Originally posted by Draco:
Why would they suffer from genetic anamolies anymore than normal defective humans? I'm not an expert in these things, but I think the process goes something like this (how Dolly was made): you take a fertilized egg-cell and replace its nucleus (and with it the genetic material) with the nucleus of a creature you wish to clone (has to be same-race creature, obviously). It often is the genetic material of an already adult individual, and even though the DNA repairs itself some damage does occur with time. I think this accounts for the biggest part of genetical damage in a cloned creature. Then, said in simple words, the new nucleus is "merged" with the rest of the cell with an electric current impulse (not sure how big a current it is, definitely not the sort that kills you or powers your computer, but it's not exactly something that you can ignore either). This has a huge chance of actually not working, and the cell dies immediately. Even if it does work, it can do some little damage to the genetic material so add it up. Then the cloned embryo goes through the standard procedure of actually putting it into a female's womb and getting accepted there, that's not exactly a piece of cake either but let's say it all works out well and the female sheep or whatever has a healthy pregnancy, but you see the cloned embryo sheep has quite a bit of genetic disadvantage at the very start, when compared to a natural one. Defects happen naturally too, but to clone people means that you INTENTIONALLY make genetically flawed individuals. Not a good idea.
Some people think cloning's like an easy mass-production of identical creatures, well it's not. It's very hard to actually clone a creature without screwing up somewhere, especially one as complex as a human.
Dolly may be famous, but she's not a healthy sheep.
[ 09. February 2005, 19:04: Message edited by: Catlantean ]
Naturally, and those factors can and will be improved on.
Originally posted by Draco:
Naturally, and those factors can and will be improved on. Until then, cloning should be stopped.
Of course they'll be imrpoved, the way cloning whole beings is today it's just too expensive and with too much chance of failure for pretty much any sort of use.
Another thing. Cloned individuals all share the same weakness (like being overly sensitive to common flu or allergic to something), so even if the process is flawless this is still not a good idea. For the same reason inbreeding's not a good idea. Nature has a way of fixing the "bad" genes simply because of all the genetic variety. In cloning you don't have any genetic variety.
What I think you actually have in mind, Draco, is not cloning but genetic engineering. Another story completely.
Very true, in my mind cloning is only useful for organ harvesting.
Genetic Engineering is a whole other bowl of chips.
I don't think the scientific process can be stopped. The stem cells from cloned embryos can aid in the discovery of possible cures for so many diseases...I'm for it.
I don't think I'm sufficiently interested to care.
I'm all for human cloning at the embryonic stage.
I don't think humans will ever be able to perfect the science of cloning. It's not like we can create one specific individual from a soup of human genetics. I'm for it if it somehow produces cures for diseases, however, trying to clone "whole" people is a waste of money and effort.
This is a difficult one. I'm no scientific expert, but I've read about some of the potential benefits of cloaning for medicine and can see the arguments both for and against. The potential for cloaning replacement organs, and the capability to cure disease are enourmous.
But I'll leave you with these thoughts. When does a cloan, stop being a scientific experiment...and become a person? Would we naturally breed people only to serve replacement parts? Doesnt that sound like slavery and servitude to you?
I'm not religous. But I think that one of me is unique...but 10s of me or 100s of me...could diminish my identity in ways I cant event imagine.
I'm not sure this is a question I can really answer...
Well people we must except that this is the next stage in science, i think in proper use and doing it in the most human way possible to extend the human lives of those dying with this desease i say yes. These people could have children grandchildren etc, if it was yourself with this desease i am sure you would probaby say yes if you wanted to watch your children grow up..
You don't have to accept it, you never do. That's the beauty of freedom, nobody forces you to think one way or another.
I may be for cloning for science, but I don't think the people against it should just let it happen.
Fight for what you believe in.
Would a clone be considered equal to a human life? It feels like we would have huge racism issues with clones. I really don’t think that as an issue, I mean, why would anyone artificially conceived be any less of a person?! Besides, prejudice is nothing unusual in our society, just take a look at what goes on world wide... :rolleyes:
Anyway, that’s really not the question here, it’s not what stem cells are about. So should we throw away progress (curing diseases, genetic or not, otherwise remediless, growing back limbs, etc...) just because some people think of it as immoral??? The same people that would rather see other die due to AIDS than “let” them use condom and whatnot?! Personally, I think not!
And how exactly are we supposed to mature our knowledge without experimentation?! Should we wait for it to magically fall down onto our heads from the sky above?!
By the way, that image of frozen human bodies waiting to have their body parts removed like car pieces is sooo ainti-cloning propaganda... the point here is to grow (or repair) damaged/lost organs, not to “bake” a large piece of meat headed for slaughter...
Having done no research in human cloning...I have little or no information as to how its carried out and the potential threats associated with cloning.
But what I do know is that there are a lot of hoodlums out there looking for anything in sight and doing everything in their power to try and destroy the human race.
This could be a very useful and powerful weapon. It could waste the world in ways that one cant even imagine...I think we're better off without it.
I don't support human cloning. I believe that humans shouldn't try to "play God" because we have no right to do so. We procreate , not *create*. It's not our duty to create a human being out of test tubes. When those human clones grow up, and by the time they are on their teens, how are their relationship with the "parents" be and as well as the "brother or sister"? Will they see themselves as only identical copies whose sole purpose is to give away organs? If that should be the case, we might as well consider that they are true, living, and breathing humans beings with feelings. How would that "owner" of the clone feel when he or she is about to "slaughter" his or her clone? Wouldn't they grow some kind of relationship with each other? That's like saying, 'I'm willing to kill my biological brother/sister for his/her organ so I can live.' In addition to that, once those relationships are establish, parents become attached to the clones and it would even be harder for them to let go of these clones. Sure clones could save thousands of lives, but is it really worth hundreds of implantations and hundreds of attempts just so one scientist could produce ONE healthy clone?
Parents who have lost their children due to a certain disease or whatnot may decide to clone their dead child (if cloning succeeds), but would it be the same person they onced loved and cared for? These parents desperate to 'get back their children' may have the control to exclude those genes that caused disorder and choose what kind of genes their new child might have. It's an advantage to them because they've "resurrected" their child. Let's consider the fact that this clone is only a copy, totally different from the original. It may even be harder for families to love the copy because the original is what they're looking for and not all personalities and values would reside within this clone. That's one thing to think about.
Also, If scientists triumphs in cloning human beings, the clone will have to grow and that could take many years before that certain person could recieve his or her organ. Some bodies may reject younger organs and wouldn't that be a waste of money, time, organ, and especially life? Who wants to see their own faces on another being and take life away from that clone? It's very hard to bare such thought and most especially very difficult to eliminate your copy. Let's just say ... oh, it's like you committed suicide but not really.
Anyway, this issue reminds me of the book I read called "The Experiment" by John Darnton. It's all about cloning, obviously, with reasons why cloning was done and why it shouldn't be. Here's a summary of it:
"Skyler was a test subject, and the Lab was his home. Carefully attended to by physicians, he never had a reason to leave the Lab. Until he found one of the other test subjects (aka clone) dead- with his heart removed.
Jude was a journalist, and New York was his beat. Always looking for a good story, he was intrigued by the police's latest discovery. A murder victim-with its face and fingerprints removed.
Skyler escapes. Jude investigates. And now, united by the mysteries of science and murder, the two mean are forced to make sense of one startling, seemingly, impossible fact...they share the same face."
It's not your average book, I recommend it to everyone. I guess this book foreshadows the future if human clones were made. It's a bit weird too because it is written in 1999, and I'm guessing cloning were only on its first stage during that time. This book has a very great plotline though,read it. Let's see if one can see themselves living in a world where clones do exist.
Sounds like an interesting read Bad Azz Croft. Got to remember to pick that one up. Who's the publisher?
Don’t people just love to make sci-fi novels about things they don’t know? :rolleyes:
Have you even read what I wrote? Ever tried to gather info about this other than movies and anti-cloning propaganda? Sure there are lunatics all around the world just waiting for an opportunity do carry out some mass extermination, but I can’t see how cloning, or in this specific case, stem cells, could possibly help them achieve such thing...
It's not our duty to create a human being out of test tubes.Ever heard of in vitro fertilization?!
Originally posted by Bad Azz Croft:
We procreate , not *create*.Of all the animals on this planet, we are the only ones with imagination. We are the only ones who can create. You may be happy with simply reproducing, but many people want to improve life, for themselves and everyone else.
Originally posted by Draco:
You don't have to accept it, you never do. That's the beauty of freedom, nobody forces you to think one way or another.
I may be for cloning for science, but I don't think the people against it should just let it happen.
Fight for what you believe in. 90% of the world isn't covered by the American Constitutional Rights. While we here in the UK do live relatively equal lives, in terms of percievable rights... if the government chose to, they could take those rights away at any given time; and alot of things like 'Free Speech' are just not covered. Technically papers cannot simply write what they want, it can be banned and pulled for any given reason that the government chooses.
While, sure everyone can fight for what they believe in; fact remains that most of us aren't free, just given the illusion of freedom. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Human Cloning is no-biggie in my opinion. After all I don't see why it is perfectly acceptable for Cloned Pigs to be bred (and even regular pigs), for Human replacement parts; but another human would be unacceptable. I mean we're not really even talking about fully grown humans but embryo's that have been bred to the point where they would normally be miscarried / terminated. A point at which the brain would be developed just enough to be tick over but not comprehend anything... I mean it's like trying to say that a Tamagochi is alive, in the same way that a Creature from Black & White is.
Sure there is some power going around, and it can do the basics it is designed to; but your still in the prototype stages before any intelligence begins. Now if this life, is taken and culled for the purposes of understanding our own health and well being. Then surely this shouldn't be a problem?
I mean if I were to take apart a Tamagochi's source in order to understand the fundimental bugs or even be able to patch the source of my Black & White creature. I would sacrifice, those that do not understand life; to help prevent those who have made huge ripples around their world already survive bugs that cannot be fixxed currently.
Another strong point with this is, each of these embryo are inseminated. Now in the adverage year, each girl / woman will (on adverage) have 13 Eggs; which are destroyed. Men have 3-4 Million Sperm that are destroyed on each try, even a successful attempt; millions of potencials still die.
When you take into account, Still-Birth, Mis-Carrige, etc..
There are one hell of alot more 'potencial' lives destroyed needlessly by natural circumstances. Rather than let them die in vein, why not let them have a chance to enrich life even if they don't get a chance to live it.
Given certain beliefs this could simply means offsetting thier time as Human, or they immediately jump to another vessel to be reborn.
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I think people get paranoid too much about things.
a 15year Stand-off between Russian and America; simply because neither of them trusted the other with Nuclear Weaponry. The only nation ironically to every actually use a Bomb as an offensive weapon was the very nation that claimed that it was built as a deterant, and not to be used.
look at Robotics, that is constantly being pushed back; particularly Artificial Intelligent Robots, because it is worried about how much intelligence they will have.
same goes for Cybernetics. some truely breakthrough research has been made and within the next decade you will be able to replace almost anything you loose and it will react with your body. Yet there are some very strict guide-lines around the use.
While sure you want to keep people from abusing things, it is stupid to hold back the scientific community in order to keep the Macieovelian(sp?) Peace. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
just my thoughts on the matter
Of all the animals on this planet, we are the only ones with imagination. We are the only ones who can create.Some apes can make tools, lol. And my hamster makes different types of beds according to the weather, it's adorable. Ok off topic http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
I don't like the argument that cloning "plays God." We play with God all the time, from plastic surgery, getting a flu shot, heart transplants, bleaching your hair, etc. Cloning will not hurt anyone (if it remains at the embryonic level...) and could even be beneficial. Really, embryos are just a clump of DNA that can't feel or think.
Originally posted by bumb1ebee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Of all the animals on this planet, we are the only ones with imagination. We are the only ones who can create.Some apes can make tools, lol. And my hamster makes different types of beds according to the weather, it's adorable. Ok off topic http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Instinct. Even a human can pick up a hammer without ever seeing one and know what it's for.
Instinct? LOL The correct use of (and making of) tools requires imagination in order to conceive what and how to do it. There's plenty of evidence that other creatures have imagination and that they dream.
Dreams aren't tied to imagination anyway. Imagination is not required to learn how to do something.
You don't need imagination to use a stick to dig out bugs anymore than you would need imagination to use your teeth to chew them.
Monkeys dream too, as do cats (including tigers and lions), plenty of other animals. Dreams aren't tied to imagination? LOL So dreams aren't a series of images 'seen' in the mind, as imagination. OK. :rolleyes: And you can't learn how to do anything without being able to imagine it. To hold the image and memory in mind, and to associate meaning and logic to those images. Instinct is merely an impetus, the desire to do.
Stone falls on ground, hits object, object breaks. If I hit nut with stone, nut will break - requires imagining (as well as logic). To suppose it is merely an unthinking, unimaginative 'instinct' is beyond the ridiculous.
By that logic a virus has imagination.
A virus generally doesn't learn to pick up a stone to smash nuts with!
Nonetheless, from consciousness, imagination is one component of memory that allow us to remember, learn and do in 'higher' forms of life. Which is what we are talking about. A virus is a 'lower' form of life. But who is to say that a virus doesn't have consciousness, and a form of memory that allows it to 'learn'. A virus adapts. Is that not learning embodied? Is that not demonstrative of a form of intelligence? If you would assert that that is also dumb instinct, then I should hope for half the intelligence that this dumb instinct provides, because it seems damn clever (and sophisticated) to me. Can you outwit the common cold? No you can't. Seems like it's more intelligent than you or I then.
Adaptability isn't imagination. We can argue about this till the end of time.
Does a computer also have imagination? It can be programmed to adapt...aka...you guessed it instinct.
You say adaptability isn't imagination. No it's not imagination as we know it, in and of itself, but it is dependent upon imagination, which is, if you will, the hub of memory. Imagination is one thing that (for us at least) gives us the ability to adapt. I say, it also likely gives other life-forms the same or similar ability.
Indeed, it can be argued that a computer does have a form of imagination, that is, memory. A form of intelligence, that is, logic, If, And, Or.
A computer is programmed to adapt. Yes. A set of instructions that it may logically choose from. It 'sees' the choices and makes it's decision. Like we have images in mind that we see and choose from in making our decisions. Different forms of 'imagination', 'intelligence', logic.
Of course we could argue about this till the end of time. Just because we may not agree does not mean we can't enjoy the discussion. And as you know, time is relative. ;) http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
And so is truth http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
It has been verified that animals can use tools entirely out of instinct. Spiders build webs...not art, they dont know it could be art, they just do what they are innately told to do.
Computers don't make decisions either, their reactions are preprogrammed based on actions the programmer expects to occur. When a computer reaches the point where a living being would need to make a decision, it crashes.
Dogs dont see a tree and wonder what it looks like wet, they just see a tree and make it smell, it is an instinctual action, based on the need to be territorial.
Apes use sticks to dig in the ground, they also use them to clean their ears...none of those take planning, or design in any fashion. They dont see it as something they can shape things with, simply a means to accomplish a built in need.
Animals can be very intelligent, but that is not directly tied to imagination. Humans with low intelligence can have very powerful imaginations...just like genius humans can have none at all.
It's hard to debate stuff like this when there lacks a definate parameter for these concepts able to be utilized in language.
Of course I am basically making an argument for the existance of a god...but, luck can and is a factor.
Originally posted by Draco:
It's hard to debate stuff like this when there lacks a definate parameter for these concepts able to be utilized in language.That's been my point all along Draco. You seem to try to squeeze definite, and all-encompassing fact from singular opinion. Just because you are aware of no empirical evidence that animals have imagination, you decide, sweepingly, that they cannot have imagination. As well as infer they have no intelligence, and the other associated things I've introduced. You also seem to decide (or I would bet you do) that if they do not have what you consider as a valid form of imagination (i.e. if they are not the same or similar enough to that possessed by humans) they do not have intelligence and are merely subject to some unknowing, unthinking 'instinct'. This is also the typically human-centric notion adopted by many scientists in defining what is real and valid. It is a closed ended, arrogant and exclusionist kind of reasoning.
I think you have a very limited idea of what instinct is. That it is some 'dumb' force to which some are mercilessly subject to more than others. Even if there is 'evidence' that animals can use tools out of instinct, as you define it (which I very much doubt), that still does not constitute proof that instinct is this unthinking, unintelligent motivator you seem to think it is.
The spider builds the web. In this 'only humans are intelligent' frame of mind, you are so certain that it does not know what or why it is doing it. That it cannot possibly know, and is subject to a force over which it has no control. That also implies you believe even a spider has no choice. Oh what a grim world you see, all of nature is but a robot. Draco, just because you cannot see or even comprehend a different kind of intelligence, does not mean it does not exist. Just because you can't measure, photograph or scan the imagination, mind, thought of a spider or any other creature does not mean it is not present.
Dogs don't see a tree and imagine what it will look like wet? How the hell do you know? Fact is, you don't. They just mark territory? That notion is opinion, a human idea projected onto dogs as an explanation. And it's rather obvious that dogs also urinate because they simply need to. Would you assert that the dog that has a full bladder and needs to pee, has to consider it's territory and the marking of it first? Every time? In fact, if a dog is marking it's territory, that act implies intelligence, knowing where it is, which implies memory, which in turn implies imagination.
If a monkey just happens to clean it's ears with a stick and this is instinct. Then how on earth would instinct know that the stick can be so used?
LOL, you mention you are making an argument for the existence of god. I understand this is troubling for you, and am not surprised you decide to switch it to luck, because the admittance of any form of intelligence other than in humans is seemingly anathema to you.
What is it that really makes you so certain that other creature do not possess imagination? I really can't understand how you can be so absolutely sure that you know.
It's hard to debate stuff like this when there lacks a definate parameter for these concepts able to be utilized in language.Have the unique experience of trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different language, it is amazing what you can communicate via a visual means, because of a memory based key.
This is why it is so hard to communicate with someone young, thier experiences and knowlage are not vast enough at that point in order to interpret what is going on with or without language.
Picking up a hammer and using it isn't instinctive, what is instinctive is to try and use it. If you had a kettle the first thing you'd do if you had no concept of it would be to pick it up and hit it on something or try to eat it. It is how you start exporting the world around you. Trial & Error.
Apes don't use sticks to dig into the ground, but are taught from a young age that termintes and ants will instinctively crawl along them in order to reach the light quicker. As such they can use it as a tool to reach food that would normally be out of reach.
There is a tribe of Baboon in Rocky North Nigeria, who eat grass; and while the youngsters will simply grab clumps, the elder they get; they will learn a routine in which they can effectively 'mow' a line of grass to eat more efficiently, burning less in order to eat less so that the food lasts longer. If they don't when they're older they would starve.
For these animals to use language, or show the behaviour to learn linguistics atleast in a way to communicate with us... it has been proven, Dolphins, Killer Whales, and Chimpanzees will adapt to understand us after prolonged exposure; and some Chimps will even pick up sign language if used enough.
Intelligence, is silly in when you perspect it within humans... becuase the test for it reflects memory, overall knowlage (but more memory of knowlage concepts), and speed that the brain works at.
It really isn't something to be measured. While people can claim they are better than apes cause they can do alot of things better than apes.. The apes don't have to worry about any of the **** we have to. If you every learn about them, you realise they suffer from sickness less, they generally have no natural predators but tend not to over populate a given area needlessly, they don't grow crops to feed everyone as everyone will feed themselves or thier own children, power is determined in a heirachial structure based on the strongest male ruling. These are also the males that defend a territory is encrouched upon.
It seems more like they've reached a nitché of technology and state of living they're happy with. Utopia.. really. I mean best evidence of this is that when chimps are taken in and live around people, they'll adapt perfectly.. it used to be when they put chimps on for show they'd have to teach them to deliberately act up just to please those come to see the show. After all who would pay to see a table of perfectly civilised Chimps having a tea party?
While certain things will be instinctive passed down via generations in genetic memory, something we all have. (for example human eyes see up-side down for the first few months after birth, and instictively our brains will correct it in order to cohear with how everything is perceived)
But we just don't know how much is instinctive, what is a mime, and what is learnt.
I mean speech is a mime, but also learnt. You copy what people do in order to make letters, and it comes almost instinctively, but you have to learn words and thier meanings.
Heh a rant about just about nothing, but probably interesting non the less.
Net, you seem to totally ignore all I said about intelligence...
Thanks for reminding me Draco, I totally forgot about that part. All?. One small statement:
Animals can be very intelligent, but that is not directly tied to imagination. Humans with low intelligence can have very powerful imaginations...just like genius humans can have none at all.The fact is, you don't know that intelligence is not tied to imagination. But I think there is some confusion here about the term 'imagination'. You talk of intelligent humans with no imagination. That's a figure of speech for someone with little 'vision' or originality of thought say. In talking about imagination itself, that is, simply the conception of images in mind (just like dreams, as previously mentioned).
By asserting that animals, or other creatures, have no imagination (ability to conceive images in mind - which is related to memory), and that they are led by a dumb instinct, you actually assert that they are not intelligent. The one is implied in the other.
On the other hand, going with your notion of 'imagination' being the ability to conceive original thought, to imagine a proposed, possible situation and/or course of action (the ability to reason, deduce), my points still stand. Have you ever owned a pet, watched it try to figure something out? The display of reason (and as such, imagination) is self-evident. A dog sees a cake on the kitchen table. There is a chair next to it. The dog is going to look at the situation and reason that to get on the chair would enable it to get the cake. Would you tell me instict, and not reason (imagination) would so propel the dog?
[ 16. February 2005, 12:42: Message edited by: Neteru ]
Did you know that many animals create their own languages, just like humans?
Well I can see I'm not goin to win this debate, but I stand by my assertations that intelligence and imagination are no synonamous. I probably was preemptive in stating that humans were the only creative creatures on the planet, but nobody can argue against that we are certainly the most creative by far.
...but nobody can argue against that we are certainly the most creative by far.Wanna bet? :D OK Draco, I'll leave it. Thanks for the discussion (though you didn't answer much http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif ), I really enjoyed it, even if we don't agree. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.