BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones

Subject: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 07:53 PM

Well here comes one of the prime "cult" fringe groups vying for centrstage for 21st century theatre. I mentioned them earlier as one of the "listed" contributors to the so-called "libertarian" march organization. Well now they've cxome out off their alien-directed labs and announced they have indeed created the first human clone and , in no small part , as their "right" as a "religious sect" to commercialize cloning to help fund their greater purpose of promtoing human cloning in order to fulfill the fiat of their cult leader ,one Rael formerly known as French journalist Claude Vorilhon.

Dare I continue the steroetype by saying "Leave it to the French"
to come up with the last word in *designer* cults whom believe it is the destiny of man to be cloned and that it falls to Rael and his followers to be the "chosen" Prometeans of this latest twist to the New World Order.

This beats the Hale-Bop Comet cult which only left behind the most macabre Nike advert ever conceived after committing mass suicide.
You'll have to just do a search on the Raelians and make up your own minds , but this group just hit the publicity lottery "big time".

Welcome to the 21st century.
Beam me up. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:04 PM

You can clone the body...but you can't clone the soul. They may have overlooked that, methinks!

It's just like...you can manufacture identical cars...but you can't manufacture their human drivers, each one of whom is unique, and in a quite unpredictable manner.

Now let's say you clone the body of Marylin Monroe...and it is then entered and given sentient life by the soul of Catspaw49 or R. Crumb or Richard Nixon? What happens then? Do we really want to know? :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Stewart
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:18 PM

From "What's New - by Robert Parks" http://www.aps.org/WN/
"HUMAN CLONING: RAELIANS ANNOUNCE THE BIRTH OF BABY "EVE." Do you recall the controversy stirred up by physicist Richard Seed, PhD Harvard '53, when he announced his intention to clone the first human? We haven't heard anything from Seed lately, but today the scientific director of Clonaid says her company has created the first human clone. Clonaid was founded by Raelians, a religious group that believes extraterrestrials created humans. There are no details on how the supposed cloning of Eve was achieved, but physicist Michael Guillen, PhD Cornell, has been selected by Clonaid to verify the claim. Guillen has just the credentials Clonaid needs. In 1997 as the science correspondent for ABC Good Morning America, Guillen did a three- part series, "Fringe or Frontier." Of precognition he concluded "these guys are not flakes"; on astrology, "I think we're just going to have to suspend judgement"; on psychokinesis, "you have to take it seriously". Indeed, Guillen covered everything from James Patterson's cold fusion cell to Kirlian photographs of the human aura with the same credulity. A PhD in physics, after all, is not an inoculation against foolishness. We called ABC, but were told emphatically that their relationship with Guillen ended nearly a year ago."

Very Skeptical, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:25 PM

Interesting you should say that, Little Hawk. Given that a soul is the entity (as believed by me) which has a body, rather than having the emphasis other way 'round, how does a clone enter into that belief system? Could it be that the body 'acquires' a soul with its first physical breath? Surely it wouldn't mean that a cloned body would not have all the attributes of other human beings? Including the soul?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:26 PM

Scientists are not yet convinced the child is actually a "clone" of her mother (that is, completely matching in DNA to the one parent).

I dunno why such a "designer cult" should be French, though -- Hubbard, James Jones, the Appleby guy and numerous other cult leaders have been US born and corn-bred!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MAG
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:50 PM

Those Hale-Bop people were supposed to be real intelligent -- they just didn't have the common sense of a gnat. I'll suspend judgement on whether they've done it, and just worry myself sick over who may control this. Nightmarish scenarios ensue.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:08 PM

The silly season now extends right round the year, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:08 PM

(quote)
"I dunno why such a "designer cult" should be French, though -- "

I dunno either , but there it is.
I'm also just playing on the predominant impression of the French predelection for contrarianess as such a point of pride especially attributable to them.

Then again they produced Rene'Descartes and the cult of Cartesian science that provided the foundation for Science as an aethestic *religion* unto itself from which the fashionable "enlightenment" arose ; an elightenment that led to le Revolution and unleashed "the Terror" .
Then again the French are not unacquainted with the cult of power for power's sake under Napoleon which the Terror successfully prepared the way for.
Lest we also forget the father of science fiction : Jules Verne.

Yeah , I never suggested that there be any reason that the Raelian cult "should" be French , but after this off-the-cuff list pedigree lineage whom here is at all surprised .


(quote)
"Hubbard, James Jones, the Appleby guy and numerous other cult leaders have been US born and corn-bred!"

Oh no doubt. I'll match y'all with other U.S. Grade A certified cult flakes ( David Koresh comes to mind ) , but I'm sorry the Raelians are just who they are and that can't be changed now.
Rael even dresses as if he's out of central casting from a canceled Star Trek episode while giving his impression of some
California version of Captain Nemo.

This is a pure ,dyed-in-the-wool ,French cult leader at the forefront of perhaps "the" most chillingly contraversial issue at the dawn of the 21st century ; *commercial" human cloning for profit. Can a French version Ridley Scott's TYRELL Corporation
be far behind.

" Where have you gone Eric VonDonnikan...
our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
woo , woo , woo "

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,boweaver
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:14 PM

-
I can see the T-Shirts now:

"I ain't no ordinary screwed-up human.

"I was cloned."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:16 PM

what's a 'soul'?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:30 PM

Mr. Happy, the part of you that loves. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: TIA
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:38 PM

Don't worry, they're full of crap. You heard it here. Take it to the bank. What they're talking about is not truly "cloning" anyhow, so their ignorance is on display.

Saw the leader interviewed, and he said the purpose was immortality -- i.e. clone yourself, then "transfer the data from your mind into the clone". Now THAT'S the tricky part. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

Scary part is that someday, someone will actually do it, so perhaps it's good if these kooks spur us to work out all the ethical issues now.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:18 AM

Well, you'd have to prove that the nervous system was where data was retained. I doubt it in light of the number of details an individual can potemntialy recall and the completeness of memory records which seem to be available. I am skeptical of even a hologramic system storing that much information in the number of binary sites in the brain. Even the whole body. But I think someone ought to do a more precise estimate. One problem is, there is no full developed model for mapping nerves or brain to memory data. 'S far as I know the best we have so far is a rough map of where some kinds of activity seem to show up as active areas. The whole process is so poorly understood I'd be shy of asserting any physical model with any confidence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:07 AM

If a person is cloned and the X or Y chromosome is altered so the clone becomes the opposite sex of the original person and that person then has sex with his or her clone: Is it masterbation or incest?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:17 AM

Don, that's a real puzzlement. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 07:06 AM

It's funny you know, but when I see the word "cult" used in this context,I always think it's a spelling mistake.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MAG
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:57 AM

Science fic has explored these themes quite thoroughly, including the ethics of producing a human as a spare parts bank or entire body.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: allanwill
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:17 AM

Mr Happy

"what's a 'soul'?" - the opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

All Aboard! All Aboard! For a cruise down The Alimentary Canal!


Chorus:
Come take a cruise
' just takes a day.
The Alimentary Canal,
it'll whisk us away.


The canal will amaze you
as it changes in size.
We'll see many organs
along the ride.


The first stop's the mouth
where saliva and teeth
chew and prepare us
for the things we will see.


Chorus


We'll travel the esophagus
to a big spot.
They call this the stomach.
It holds quite a lot.


Then on to the intestines,
first small and then large.
They'll expand as we pass
and make room for our barge.


Chorus


Some special juices
will make our trip smooth.
We'll slither along
and slowly move.


And for this cruise
what do we pay?
Our blood takes our nutrients
by the end of the day.


Chorus

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:35 AM

This subject seems to affect me a bit differently than it does others....it brings up a chain of thoughts that it is impossible to do justice to in a short post, but here are some brief parts of it.

It is certainly 'possible' to clone a person, though I seriously doubt that this group has really done that.......but....if they have, of if anyone does, the person will have just as much 'soul' as any of us...exactly none.

We are a complex organism--complex enough that we are capable of reflecting on our own existence and postulating about causation, and every possible theory has been advanced by someone or some group. Having a 'soul' which supercedes the body and lives beyond it is certainly a pretty and entertaining idea, but it is no more than that. What we 'are' is created BY us, and beauty, love, happiness, art, joy etc., are real enough without recourse to artificial constructs.

The universe does not care what we are or what we do...only WE care, and with all our complex nature, we are not clever enough as a group yet to see what our place is, and what it will take to keep ourselves functioning until the laws of physics eventually end all this.

Cloning is foolish--not because it is "against God's law" or "tampering with the soul"..etc, but because we are not smart enough to use the ability sanely and fairly. IF we are ever able to treat humans born naturally with dignity, and control their numbers, then possibly cloning could serve some function, but right now it is 90% just a parlor trick that we try to do because we might be able to do it. The other 10% is understandable, but misguided.

I am sorry for childless couples who want kids, but there are other alternatives, and in the future, if we want to survive as a species with any hope of a decent life, many more people will have to limit or forego having children. I do not expect that those who think differently will cease trying to clone people, but they are just adding unnecessary problems to a world that can't cope with the scientific abilities they already have.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: allanwill
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:43 AM

Sorry, forgot to put this acknowledgement in my previous post.

Many thanks to Sara Jordan for permission to publish these lyrics.
© Sara Jordan Publishing. All rights reserved.
This song is performed on "Healthy Habits,"
Available from Sara-Jordan.com

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

BillD;

One healthy out-of-body experience can cure that, mate! The role of soul is as much a part of the mix as the role of energy itself, I suspect. Not for me to tell ya what to think or anything, but I'd be shy of throwing out babies with bathwaters as they say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:20 AM

well, Amos....I suspect that when I leave my body, it will be because I am NOT healthy...*big grin*.....(and I am not telling anyone what to think, either...not that it would do any good anyway.)

as to.... "The role of soul is as much a part of the mix as the role of energy itself, I suspect."........I can see 'energy' on a meter..(I get a bill each month for one type, and I watch other types manefested in various ways every day)...but in the 50 years I have been seriously looking, I have not seen anything ....repeat, with emphasis, **ANYTHING**....that could not be explained some other way besides referring to a soul. (Yeah, yeah, I have been told that I unfortunately didn't get 'wired' properly...*even bigger grin*)....but I have never seen a ghost, a flying saucer, an aura, or heard 'voices' or "felt a spirit move over me"... I HAVE experienced many emotions and seen things I couldn't see the immediate causes of, but it simply never occurred to me to attribute them to the supernatural.   

*shrug*....You can guess how many times in 6 years here I have NOT bothered to post my bemused sceptical viewpoint....

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:26 AM

oh, BTW..."babies and bathwater" as a metaphor in this case escapes me. I can SEE babies.

Occam's Razor is a bit easier for me to relate to.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:30 AM

Interesting thread!

One thing is certain - "soul" is something that resists all the efforts of the mind to prove or disprove it. The great thinkers - like Socrates and Plato - have been trying for millenium and it hasn't worked yet. It just produces endless, brain-twisting arguments that imo are a total waste of time.

Similiarly, "soul" is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically. Every time a scientist comes close, the 'evidence' is discredited by attitudes like Very Skeptical S. in Seattle, above - "A PhD in physics, after all, is not an inoculation against foolishness".

Well, Galileo and Christopher Columbus were considered pretty foolish, crazy - even 'heretical' - in their day too.

So I can only rely on personal experience. And for what it's worth, my experiences have 'proven' - but only to me of course - that Dr. Wayne Dyer is exactly right when he says "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience".

If people really want to know the truth, they need only let go of all pre-judgements, keep their minds open and find a personal 'method of investigation' that WORKS, for them. It comes from the heart, not the mind, though - because there is a big difference between 'knowledge' (the 'mind-stuff') and wisdom (the 'heart-stuff' gained through experience AND knowledge). And I suspect that will be true for 'clones' as well!

Thanks for the chance to share my thoughts - daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:01 PM

For an updated list of news articles on the Raelian clone topic:
http://www.factnet.org/LatestCultNews.htm?FACTNet

The Raelian cult actually has its headquarters in Canada. You can read more about them here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/raelians/raelians26.html
------------
QUOTE IN PART:
In the small farming community of Valcourt (northeast of Montreal) the group has established UFOland as their
headquarters and embassy to the world. The building itself is part office complex and part museum. For two weeks every summer Raelians gather
there for meetings and meditation.

In 1998 Vorilhon announced to his followers that the alien creators of Earth would soon return to Earth and it was necessary to expedite preparations
for this second coming. One of the essential first steps was the recruitment of a number of young women members into the Order of the Angels to
serve as hostesses and sexual mates for the arriving progenitors of humans. Within this order was a select group who agreed only to sleep with the
aliens and their prophets, including of course Vorilhon. Vorilhon, however, emphasizes that the angels are under no pressure to sleep with him,
since the Raelians teach sexual freedom and not coercion.

The movement thrives on media attention and Vorilhon deliberately seeks it out, especially on sex issues. For example, to protest a 1992 decision in
Quebec barring condom machines at certain Quebec high schools, the Raelians passed out condoms to students from a van adorned with large
spaceships. The group also bought billboard space in Toronto to welcome extraterrestrial visitors. Vorilhon also makes pronouncements about some
world-shaking events which will take place but which only true Raelians will know of. Like others who make such statements, those which have
become known are sufficiently vague to meet almost any chance occurrence. ..... "
------------------

More information can be found on this page:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/raelians.html

Claude Vorilhon, the cult leader and founder, uses the classic techniques of control exhibited by totalistic cults. He recruits using psychological manipulation and undue influence, the ideology is made more important than personal human rights, with sexual partners being recruited for his use by convincing them that their compliance is part of the sect's belief system.

The Raelians are only one of many, many cults using psychological coersion, undue influence, and other unethical tactics to recruit and retain members. Our freedom of belief in the US is one of our greatest strengths and also our Achilles heel, because anyone can start a religion based on anything. People who are vulnerable to persuasion and influence can be led into groups like this and used for the leader's purposes. It happens every day, to intelligent, talented people. With the right "hook", someone can easily be led step by step into a cult, if what the cult is offering is an "answer" to the person's particular dilemma or search at that time in their life. Cult thinking is akin to the fundamentalist fanaticism that is behind terrorism.

The current administration is completely naive about the problem of cults. The Washington Times, owned by the Moonies, is deliberately using its influence to gain more power in the US for Sun Myung Moon. The Bush family has been used many times as a front for the Moonies. Other cults are less public but just as insidious in draining away the financial resources, talent, time, and labor of their recruits.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:04 PM

Cue new cliche.....

Like mother like daughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:10 PM

Thanks, Alice, for a well balanced report. You are the resident expert on cult related things here, and your research is always impeccable. I also appreciate the "matter of fact" way you always present it. This gives it a great deal of credibility.

Obviously you, or someone you love, had an experience with a cult. Whatever the case, you have come out the other side in a very positive way, and as a very effective voice. Congratulations.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:32 PM

"If people really want to know the truth, they need only let go of all pre-judgements, keep their minds open"

"'proven' - but only to me of course "

" find a personal 'method of investigation' that WORKS, for them"

*sigh*...as long as subjectivity is accepted as a valid basis for 'truth', there can be 6 Billion 'truths' operating simultaneously, many of which are totally contradictory.

I consider my mind to BE open...I have read the Bible, Edgar Cayce, The Upanishads, Ohaspé, The Urantia Book(well, parts of it...I wonder who has read it all!), Hegel, Kant, Schroëdenger, and countless other philosopher & theologians, innumerable science fiction stories which I'd LOVE to believe.....and 1000s of posts by well-meaning Mudcatters, and I see Christians at odds with each other, pagans who believe in witchcraft at odd with Christians, rationalists at odds with ALL of them...etc.

I KNOW the feelings refered to as 'heart-stuff', and I respond to them, but I have no way of knowing that they are not just 'mind-stuff' that I can't understand..(and indeed, much recent evidence suggests that a lot of what we 'are' IS pre-programmed by chemistry and neurological wiring!)...could I be wrong? Perhaps....to me, an open mind means being always open to new proofs, but to me, also, 'proof' means something that is NOT different for person to person.

I KNOW, of course, that one person's life and subjective relationship to the universe is not the same as others, but there is big difference between saying that I operate more comfortably with certain 'models', and saying that my models are 'true'! "Truth" should be a word reserved for facts that are replicable and demonstrable, not a Sophistic way of making YOUR belief system seem more solid than other's.

(why is this important?...because there are folks out there killing each other every day because they don't get my point! "Gott ist mit uns" is simply a more extreme example, taken to excessive conclusions.)

well...I shan't keep this up indefinately, as it serves to convince no one, probably. It is mostly a way of helping myself condense and explicate what I think. And, perhaps, a germ of an idea may get passed on.....stranger things have happened. And who knows....maybe **I** will have an experience that changes my mind...*sly grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:45 PM

Hi, Mick, in 1992 I began looking for information on how people start destructive cults and why people join them. I knew a family that was in an apocalyptic cult. The cult had moved from California to Montana - the three year old girl in the family was raped by one of the cult members. It was a motivation for me to find out how to inform people so they would not put themselves and their children in the hands of unscrupulous groups and leaders.

By the way, one of the methods cult recruiters use is to keep telling people to keep an open mind. The subtle or not so subtle pressure is to accept everything they are told, or they will be labeled "intolerant" or "close minded". People will go to great lengths to be accepted as open minded, to the point of not thinking reasonably, rationalizing information that is inconsistent, adapting to the group think in order to not make waves, conforming to new behavior and ideas in order to not appear prejudiced.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:49 PM

"The subtle or not so subtle pressure is to accept everything they are told, or they will be labeled "intolerant" or "close minded"."

Amen...well...you know what I mean...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:53 PM

Bill, you probably won't convince anyone. Just wanted to say that I agree with you all the way.

I'm sure that you've probably read Carl Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World'?

I've given a copy of that book to a few people. Didn't change any minds though. A shame.

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:27 PM

No one with this organization, according to everything I have thus far read, has any experience with the science of fertility. So, there are PhD's in the field who say that we are not ready to clone a human being, but these cultists have managed it?

As for the soul of a clone...

Clones are no different than identical twins genetically. They are different people with the same gene sequences. Environment and experience can make for totally different people, regardless of what genes you start with. The only real issue here is whether or not the people who are cloned will have the same sort of medical problems that animal clones have presented. For me, that is the only ethical question...that, and whether or not the eejits in government will allow slavery and worse by interperting the laws to say that clones are not truly human, and therefor don't have any rights.

Additionally, what this cult is looking to do is engineer ("create") life, as they believe we have been engineered by aliens. Cloning is no more a creative thing than taking the Mona Lisa off the wall and photocopying it. They seem to believe that Aliens are the source of life, and that evolution and creationism are useless theories that their "knowledge" refutes.

My only question then is this: How did the Aliens come to be? Sooner or later, any sentient creature will need to take another step back and realize that they have been focusing on the egg, but forgot to ask who laid it, and what egg did that chicken come from, and who laid *it*? Their religious theories are shot through with holes, as is their science.

And, considering all of this, the juries out (for me, at least) until the Mother and Daughter are tested by a completely unbiased medical team.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:41 PM

The only real issue here is whether or not the people who are cloned will have the same sort of medical problems that animal clones have presented.

And if they have, what is the culpability in law of those carrying out the work? Are we talking murder, grevious bodily harm or merely a breach of some regulation incurring a fine well within the resources of a group who - if this is genuine - obviously have a lot a cash at their disposal?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:45 PM

People who accept everything they are told for the sake of appearing 'open-minded' are in for some unpleasant surprises and some very hard knocks, to be sure. That's not what I meant by being 'open-minded'. I meant being flexible enough to investigate different ideas and methods, without getting too attached to any of them! I've had some experiences with cult-like groups and charismatic 'guru-types' myself, and I'm grateful that I still have an interest in spiritual matters at all after those experiences! The most important thing I've learned is to TRUST MYSELF. And to guard the trust I give to others MOST carefully!

If I told you about my personal 'spiritual experiences', most likely they would mean NOTHING to you - because they are specifically tailored to/designed by MY OWN PERSONAL HISTORY, EXPERIENCES and NEEDS, which are not the same as anyone elses! As yours are for you.

So it's probably wisest to say nothing at all. I should have known better - pardon me.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:05 PM

PS - When I studied the Bible at university, the first thing the professor did was distinguish between 'fact' and 'truth'. She said that while all 'facts' are necessarily 'truth', not all 'truths' are 'facts'.
Therefore, while much of what is in the Bible is NOT 'fact' (ie. we can't prove it scientifically), that doesn't mean that it's not 'truth'.

Now, there's an exercise in 'open-mindedness'!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:07 PM

And how would one prove 'truth?'

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:45 PM

The only way I know of is to experience it directly, to reflect on that experience and then test it by applying it to my own life in practical ways. If it IS valid, then it WILL 'work'! Then I KNOW it must be 'truth'.

I don't know of any way to 'prove' it to someone else, though. I've found that even trying to do so is counter-productive because it just leads to arguments, ridicule and disbelief.

And probably thread-drift too...

daylia

PS if something must be physically demonstrable and REPLICABLE in order to be 'truth', does that mean that 'truth' itself must be 'cloned' in order to be proven????

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ed.
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:09 PM

*day-liah*,

I don't think that your message is 'thread drift' at all. It addresses the very hub of the issue.

I am of the view that, in order for something to be 'true' it does need to be physically demonstrable and REPLICABLE.

I'm quite sure that individuals have had astonishing, even unbelievable experiences. However, when it's only the word of one individual, then it's completely useless, as we have no way of deciding if they 'made it up' were mislead or whatever.

Science differs from religion in one profound way. Science wants to be proved wrong. It is always a 'best guess' and is happy to admit error when some further experiment shows something that doesn't fit with the current theory.

Religion (or any belief system) is fundamentally different, in that the basic world view is fixed, and any new discovery is moulded into the belief system as it alrealy stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:43 PM

well....ummm....problem...'validity' is a technical term. It means something necessarily follows from an argument...

"If you write a good song, everyone will like it....I wrote a good song, therefore everyone will soon be singing it"

..but the VALIDITY of an argument...that is, it's internal logic, has nothing to do with the 'truth' of the conclusion, as most of would agree, looking at the song example. The trouble is, IF the premises are incorrect, you can make almost anything follow. I might be quite mistaken that I wrote a good song, and VERY mistaken that being good guarantess success...but it can still be a 'valid' argument, if constructed correctly. On the other hand, the conclusion can be true, but have an INVALID argument leading to it. So it requires a lot of care to even discuss some things.

Look at this one...

A-"God is, by definition, an absolutely perfect being"
B-"An absolutely perfect being must have existence as one of it's attributes"
C-Therefore, God exists.

your mind 'should' tell you there is something wrong with that, but it is not easy to explain why to some people, though there are entire book written trying to do so! The problem is, even if God does exist, the argument is not sufficient to prove it.

What is happening when we post messages about 'truth' or 'validity'...etc..is that we may be using the words differently, and the very common phrase "true for ME" may satisfy some and cause others to wince.

*trying to think of an example that might illustrate this*
.....hmmm...If I say that wall is green, and you say it's gray, there may be no doubt YOU see gray, but...you may be colorblind. If I say that 27 readings with carefully calibrated instruments all show that wall reflects light in the 847-849 milli-angstrom range, then we 'should' agree to accept it, and all that remains is to decide what name to give that general range of colors.

So, applying a test in one's "practical experience" to see if it 'works' may be useful, and it may not. If a man who is red-green colorblind always stops his car correctly at the traffic light, he has applied a test, but he STILL may not know what color he is stopping at! And if he tries to choose a tie by trying to match the shade he thinks he saw at the traffic light, his friends may get a good laugh.

(gee...it sure is not easy to do this when I have not gone thru the details recently....the only thing I am trying to do is explain why **I** choose not to accept certain things that I have NEVER seen evidence of...and IF I 'see' something, to want some external verification/measurment/test of it.) It might be fun to read thru a few things like this page and see if any of it makes sense.

If my cousin Emmy says she sees ghosts, and no one else can see them, it is probable that Emmy IS having some kind of experience that is 'real' to her, but it is NOT certain that there was indeed a 'ghost' there. Some events are simply generated internally, from memories, fantasies, stress, injuries, hunger, brain tumors, or just plain 'wishes'.

Or....Emmy may be the only one who is 'open' enough to see ghosts!..but,please forgive me if I suspect otherwise, 'cause I can't see 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:05 PM

Cloning of humans is inevitable. How the clones will be handled (cell research-gene splicing route or allowing the copies to grow to maturity) will not be decided for a generation or two.

We need someone to write a clone version of "I'm My-My Own Grandpa-grandpa."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:35 PM

Bill and Ed, I just lost the post it took me half an hour to write in response to both of your most thoughtful and interesting posts above. AARRGGGHHH - will you believe me if I can't demonstrate or replicate it for you???? :-) Shoulda CLONED the darn thing ... gotta go eat ... get back to this later.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:47 PM

Bill D - The things you don't believe in are not supernatural. They're just unfamiliar to you (in terms of direct experience, I mean). Nothing is supernatural. If you wish to believe you don't have a "soul", well, I can't see that that will cause any more problems than if I wish to believe that you do have a soul. In either case, you will go on being exactly who and what you are, regardless of your belief or mine, and so will I.

Soul = consciousness = awareness = life. Shoot a person in the heart and his soul leaves his body. The body is still there, but it is devoid of consciousness, awareness, and life...because the soul has separated from it. The soul has not been shot, and is perfectly all right, but the body is no longer useful to it, or workable for it, so the body is abandoned and becomes lifeless. You are that soul, and it is that very soul which has the consciousness and the freedom of will to believe anything it wants, even that it is only a body or a mind tied irrevocably to a mortal and limited body. This is what is termed in most religions "the fall", that when souls descended into pyhsicality they became lost in that physicality and forgot that they were anything BUT physical beings.

And...you leave your body when you dream...although you are still connected to it to some extent, as is evidenced by the fact that your dreams trigger physiological responses in the body, just like they do in your dog's body.

The things you experience in dreams are experienced in the astral worlds, which are nonphysical realms of existence. They are not real physically, but they are real astrally. They are forms of energy you cannot see with the five senses, but you can see them with another sense entirely, and you DO!!! Every night. That other sense is centered in the area of your "third eye", between the eyebrows.

And no, I can't prove it. The only things I can prove are things which, frankly, don't interest me a whole lot because they are so dull and utterly obvious and prosaic that I can hardly be bothered with them anymore. You don't read "Dick and Jane" books when you're in college.

Bill, you don't realize it, but your beliefs are based on FAITH... rock solid faith that your five physical senses are the only available gates through which to observe reality. This is like having faith that everything you learned in Grades 1 to 3 comprises the sum total of All Knowledge in the Universe.

You are a rationalist's equivalent of the born-again Christian, Bill. The simplicity of your faith is seamless and like a rock.

And your mind will never deliver you out of that rock, because your mind is limited. In fact, it is the product of the very belief IN limitation that brought you into being. Your soul is not. "Bill D" is just a temporary, mortal adventure that your immortal soul is having, and will presently be done with.

And I expect we shall continue having these debates from time to time, because people defend their postion of faith most zealously, whatever it may be! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:29 PM

daylia...aww yep! I DO know that frustration of having a post 'get away'....the smart folks tell me to compose in a word processor, but I never think I'm gonna mess up...maybe later...I read your comments with interest, as you obviously HAVE though about all this a lot....better luck next time.


Little Hawk,,,,tsk...nope...my beliefs are NOT based on faith... I am NOT "rock solid" certain that my five senses are the "only available gates".....but neither do I see any reason to 'open' myself, for the reason mentioned above by Alice.

We, Little Hawk, are doing what I referred to in my last post, that is, we are using words like 'real' differently. Like Ed, I have a pretty narrow definition of 'real' and 'true'...comes from 120-130 hours of Philosophy, I guess...I must be a Philosopher...I made a total of $2000 doing it as a graduate teaching asst.!

In your post, you make, as if they are not disputed, several statements that simply don't track for me, about "third eyes" and "astral planes" and such. I have no idea if you believe in Tarot, or Ouija boards or Astrology...or elves....but there are plenty of folks who take ALL of those things quite seriously....and others who sort of give it lips service without admitting belief, like some Christians.

I really do TRY to be 'open' to possibilities, but if this means I have to become 'suggestable' and try to see things I truly do not see, why then it seems silly to me.

(and if you think YOU have problems getting me to accept the 'higher reality' of things, you should see the frustrated Jehovah's Witnesses leaving my door...they are simply not trained to counter viewpoints like mine, and they ask me to read MORE tracts and quote more scripture at me using circular logic. When I try to explian that I do not accept the rock-bottom, basic premise of their system, they resort to just stating "it IS", and we have to quit talking.)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:25 PM

So...anyone who does not believe in the existence of the "soul" is functioning on the psychological/emotional equivalent of a third grade level? Please pass the Kool-Aid and Tonka Toys.

I have witnessed "ghostly" activities and experienced ESP events. Some I have recounted in other threads. Some I prefer to keep to myself. None proves the existence of a soul. All point to a knowledge/science which we have yet to uncover. Even "near death experiences" can be attributed to the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain.

As to Eve. The articles I have read on cloning all mention a high rate of "defects", both physical and mental, which appear over time in cloned animals. That alone makes me skeptical of the recent claim of the birth of a human clone. Until a reputable scientific organization tests the baby and concurs that she has been cloned, we have little more than a media sideshow.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 12:19 AM

Is the earth "true"? Sure, it's demonstrable, but replicable??? I have my doubts. But then I don't subscribe to that notion of what's "true".

TIA wrote «Saw the leader interviewed, and he said the purpose was immortality -- i.e. clone yourself, then "transfer the data from your mind into the clone". Now THAT'S the tricky part. Nuts, nuts, nuts.» Tricky indeed; it's called parenting, or childrearing. ;-)

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's Advocate
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 01:47 AM

Bill D and Ed,

One of the problems is that far more than we admit of what we call "scientific truth" is actually taken on faith by the vast majority of people. Here's a pair of questions I ask my students

1) how many of you have looked through an electron microscope and seen atoms?

(usually three or four hands go up)

2) how did you know what you were seeing?

(answer: this scientist-guy told us.)

The existence of atoms is taken on faith (that is, on someone else's authority) by almost everyone who believes in it. This is precisely the same way that the belief in God is instilled in most people. So what's the difference? A science-supporter would say "well, if I went to school to get a Phd. in Physics, and got a job at a lab, I COULD look into an electron microscope, and then I would have the background to know what I was seeing." But a theologian would counter: if you gave yourself over to prayer for six years, you would come to know equally surely that you were communing with God.

Bill D , you say you can measure energy, and you pay for it monthly. But you really pay whatever the power company tells you to pay. You do not independently confirm how much energy you have used. Even if you did, you would do so by using equipment pre-made, and could not confirm its accuracy, or even that it was measuring anything. Add to this the fact that the concept of "energy" as a catchall that includes motion, heat, elecricity, light, height above a gravitation source, chemical explosive potential, is a human-made concept, not a physical reality. We use it because it is convenient, not because a certain amount of light "equals" a certain height above the suface of the earth (gravitational potential energy). You can convert one to another, but you can also convert matter to energy and we don't generally consider them to be the same thing. Thus, the way "objective" science categorizes the world is by convention, not the necessities of reality, and most of the world accepts it on faith without having any direct experiences that confirm what science tells us.

On the other hand, many people do have experiences that intuitively suggest the existence of the supernatural. They feel encompassed by an all-loving light, or are attacked in bed by dark figures that press them down. These experiences, it has been shown (principally by David Hufford, a Medical School professor at Penn State) are cross-cultural, so people have them whether or not their culture has a system of supernatural beliefs to support them.

So what do we expect people to do when they are accustomed to accepting on faith most of the knowledge that is supposedly "scientific" but then have a direct experience that suggests a communion with God? The problem with authors like Sagan is: they ask you to discount the authority of others when it tells you (for example) that ghosts exist. They ask you to discount your own experience when it tells you that ghosts exist. They ask you to accept the authority of others when it tells you that atoms exist. And they ask you to accept your own experience when it tells you that atoms exist. In other words, they have a complete double standard when it comes to evidence.

I understand that this is because the scientific method demands certain things of evidence, in particular that it be reproduceable. But unfortunately the scientific method is arrogant. It assumes that Humans are the most powerful beings in the universe, and that if we wish to "prove" the existence of any other beings, they have no choice but to be found. Most people, however, believe that supernatural beings are more powerful than we are, and can avoid being found if they wish to. So any "experiment" involving the supernatural is doomed to fail and results will never be reproduceable. Science will never accept them, because it cannot. Science, as a creative endeavor of mankind, is limited by the conventions we have set so that it cannot accept the existence of beings who can evade capture. Does this mean that the supernatural does not exist? No. Science could not accept the existence of giant squid until fairly recently, because humankind did not have the power to find them. Science considered the Giant Squid a supernatural legend. But fishermen have kept axes in their boats for generations because they KNEW the giant squid existed.

Sagan, by the way, willfully distorts case studies from other peoples' work to make them look ridiculous. Then half his work of claiming there is no evidence for the supernatural is done. I don't have my books handy, but I love to compare the passage in The Demon Haunted World where Sagan cites David Hufford (you can find it in the index) with Hufford's own case study from The Terror that Comes in the Night. From word one, Sagan distorts and misreports every particular, in order to make the person being studied look like a crazy person.

Anyway, my point is this: the absence of scientific evidence for the soul is an artifact of human creativity, not physical reality. Humans decided what counted as scientific, and in recent years have steered that definition until it cannot accept the existence of beings without bodies. This does not even suggest that those beings can't exist, it simply means that people who require scientific proof wouldn't even believe in ghosts if they saw one.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 10:46 AM

Ed...

Evolution is still called a "theory" for that very reason. It is not something replicable in the lab. Science is the practice of recreating cause and effect.

So too for Paleontology. It involves theory, but no fact.

How can you recreate time...the past...in a lab? You can't, so both of these "sciences" relies on guesswork from clues.

In essence, as I see it, they are both closer to religion than science, as they rely more on theory than on provable scientific methodology.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

Hmmm, I'm sure I studied Newton's Theory of Gravity at school, and its predictions were certainly repeatable. The word 'theory' as used in science isn't quite the same as the normal English definition.

Devil's Advocate's problem is a widespread one. At school in the UK, I used to argue we had no evidence Australia existed, because no-one in my class had been there.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 09:35 AM

Re the existence of 'soul' - from Webster's Deluxe Dictionary:

SOUL: 1. the immatierial essence, animating principle, or
          actuating cause of an individual life
       2. the spiritual principle embodied in human beings,
          all rational and spiritual beings, and the universe ...

There's more to this definition, but I feel the first two entries are most relevant to this discussion.

My point is perhaps very obvious - that while the methods of the physical sciences are wonderful tools for exploring the PHYSICAL universe, they are ill-suited for investigating spiritual matters which are, by definition, IMMATERIAL ie) non-physical, therefore operating under a totally different set of 'laws'.

And while philosophy and the methods of logic are excellent tools for exploring and developing mental abilities, they are also ill-suited for explorations of spiritual matters. It is the nature and purpose of the mind to debate, to analyse, to fragment and dissect, to categorize and generalize, to criticize, and to produce endless opposing alternatives (as any insomniac knows very well!) in an attempt to draw useful conclusions about whatever one is focussed on.

I've heard it said that the mind is a excellent tool, but a very poor master - again, as any insomniac knows only too well! Spiritual matters, operating under different 'laws', transcend the mental. That's why philosophers, inspite of all their expertise and brilliance, have always been frustrated in their attempts to prove or disprove the existence of 'soul' or of 'God'. It simply takes more than the mind to do that!

There also appears to be great confusion between what is 'psychic' and what is 'spiritual'. In my understanding, phenomena like ghosts, UFO's, ESP, the occult 'sciences' etc. belong to the psychic (ie. emotional/intuitive) realms of experience. Again, what is spiritual - although linked to these as well as to the physical/mental - goes beyond what is merely psychic. There are plenty of talented psychics out there who are anything BUT spiritual - believe me, I've met my share!

Organized religions DO affirm the existence of 'soul', but imo are so (necessarily) focussed on socio/political/economic agendas that they often do more to distract their followers fron what is truly spiritual than to help them discover it for themselves. After all, if everyone knew they could 'commune with the divine' on their own, the world religions would soon be out of business. What is spiritual is NOT synonymous with what is 'religious'! Religions are social institutions.

So, how does one go about discovering the truth about 'soul'? Again, the only way I know of is to directly experience oneself AS SOUL, to reflect on those experiences and to apply what one discovers to one's own life in practical ways. If the experiences are valid - and by 'valid' I mean NOT the product of imagination, indigestion, suggestion or whatever - then they WILL 'work' in practical, healthful and BENEFICIAL ways in one's daily life. Guaranteed!!

There's plenty of different ways/methods out there today to help one develop awareness of one's own spiritual nature. If you really desire to know the truth, check them out and find one that suits your temperament and your needs. But a word of caution here, if I may paraphrase Ted Andrews from 'Psychic Protection' - the first, last and ongoing test/challenge for any spiritual 'seeker' is to hone the ability of DISCRIMINATION. By that I mean the ability to distinguish

1. False spiritual 'Teachers' and true ones
2. Truths, half-truths and plain old lies
3. Spiritual experiences and flights of fancy etc.

Not an easy task! It's a life-long process (according to some belief systems, a process that takes many, many lifetimes to achieve). And it's not for everyone, either. Physical life has so many exciting and important and wondrous areas to explore without even touching on the 'spiritual' - imo that's why we're here!

Just don't expect that your 'spiritual experiences' will be demonstrable or replicable. How could anyone replicate a 'near-death experience', for example? More importantly, why would anyone WANT to? You gotta be dying to have one! 'Astonishing' experiences usually seem to require that the physical body be weakened somehow.
That's why people fast and go on 'vision quests' etc. to have 'revelations'. Not something I'd choose to subject myself to every day!

Fortunately, most 'spiritual experiences' happen in very simple, healthy and 'mundane' ways. We only need learn how to recognize them in our daily lives.

These are the conclusions I've drawn from my own experiences and studies to date. I certainly don't consider myself to be any kind of 'expert' on the subject! So again, thanks for the chance to express my opinions!

Blessings to you all - clones included! :-)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:07 AM

Daylia has the rights of the matter -- we have a very strong legacy of hanging our acceptance on repeatability of test situations, but the repeatability of psychological or spiritual states is not the same at all as the repeatability of physical ones.

In such matters the simplest and most reliable way to prove the truth is to be it.

This debate raises an interesting question. If the metaphysics implied by LH and daylia and others is true, then each of us is a spiritual being operating a body, with the dramatic difference that some of us perceive this and others do not. The explanations that could account for this are several, and I suppose they fall in tot wo large classes: (a) variations on the proposition that there is a mechanism (cumulative trauma or cultivated unawareness or whatever) which varies from individual to individual and occlude awareness of own nature; or (b) Spiritual perceptions are projections of desire, and those who don't have them are simply not projecting wishful thinking.

One of the reasons that this area gets so wrapped around the axle is that actually both things are true -- there are mechanisms which reduce self-awareness, AND projection is a powerful self-convincer. So the truth of an individual person's case is probably a mix of those things and sorting out which is which is certainly a valid path of therapy.

Personally, I find that the creation of conviction, to a very large degree, brings about experience. Including the experience of "not experiencing" some things. As to how such convictions get created... that's another thread, perhaps. But there are clearly a number of phenomena -- chiefly, understanding itself -- for which no mechanistic description can offer a sufficient model.




A