Human cloning and human consciousness

A new article by Michael Egnor is seemingly a big mistake, for it is invalid and unnecessarily opens up a likely way for materialists to be bolstered in the culture wars. The article is "Is an Immaterial Mind a Barrier to Human Cloning":    

"The logic is simple. If abstract thought arises from the material brain, then it should be possible to clone a rational human being by material means. Cloning of non-human (i.e. wholly material) animals has been done countless times and is now almost routine. If man is wholly material and if abstract thought is merely a material power of the mind, then cloning a human being with the capacity for abstract thought is possible and ought to be achievable.

...if the human intellect and will are immaterial, a rational man cannot be cloned, because the immaterial power of the mind does not arise from matter and thus cannot be created merely by making a material copy. The power of abstract thought does not arise from DNA or protein or any matter that can be duplicated. In the immaterialist view, more than matter is needed to make a man.

It is worth noting that the evidence to date strongly supports the immaterialist view: human cloning has thus far been a scientific dead end. Despite claims to have produced cloned human embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer, the gestation of humans with growth to rational adulthood (i.e. humans capable of rational thought) has never been achieved."

From a follow-on article:        

"How could we know that a reproductive clone has a spiritual soul? Simple. A human being has the abstract immaterial ability to use language, to reason, to abstract general concepts from particular things, to use logic, to think about God, and to exercise free will. An individual without a spiritual soul would lack abstract thought but could have sensation, perception, imagination, memory, emotions, etc. That is to say, an individual without a spiritual soul would have all the powers of an animal, but would not have human intellect and free will."

It appears to me that it is only a matter of time before human cloning will be achieved. Chinese researchers unbothered by ethical or moral concerns are actively working on this right now. It may take a long time, but I think it is inevitable. I think the result will be a cloned, rational and abstractly thinking human being, but this will in no way invalidate immaterialism in theories of consciousness. 

It seems to me these articles are mistaken in their conclusions - there is a major flaw in Egnor's reasoning. Unfortunately, Egnor appears not to subscribe to the filter or receiver/transmitter theory of interactive dualism. With this understanding of consciousness, it interacts with and manifests in the physical world through the physical body via the specialized organs of the brain and nervous system. In this theory of consciousness (for which there is a lot of empirical evidence in different areas), since a cloned human being would have these specialized organs, he/she would therefore still manifest the intelligence and rational and abstract thought of a conscious entity, just as with normally born humans. 

Human cloning will be a vast moral and ethical mistake with a lot of bad consequences outweighing by far the medical research benefits, but if and when it is achieved it will not invalidate spiritual metaphysical understandings of human existence.

Clones will have full consciousness just like a twin, I think.

What I'm wondering is if the clone has access to all the memories of the original creature. Anybody tried testing it on cloned animals?

Clones will have full consciousness just like a twin, I think.

What I'm wondering is if the clone has access to all the memories of the original creature. Anybody tried testing it on cloned animals?

I would expect not, as a clone still must go through a growth cycle. However, if someone had an exact duplicate printed of them in the later years would they they retain the same memories between them?

I would expect not, as a clone still must go through a growth cycle. However, if someone had an exact duplicate printed of them in the later years would they they retain the same memories between them?

That seems like a science-fiction type of scenario. It reminds me of some ideas on teleportation which in effect involve creating a duplicate in some other location, while simultaneously destroying the original. Is the teleported object the same as the original? That's a philosophical question perhaps. But we have no idea how it might apply to living creatures.

That seems like a science-fiction type of scenario. It reminds me of some ideas on teleportation which in effect involve creating a duplicate in some other location, while simultaneously destroying the original. Is the teleported object the same as the original? That's a philosophical question perhaps. But we have no idea how it might apply to living creatures.

The trouble is if you convince yourself it would be the same person (a la Star Trek) you then have to consider what would happen if the teleporter created two duplicates.

I would expect not, as a clone still must go through a growth cycle. However, if someone had an exact duplicate printed of them in the later years would they they retain the same memories between them?

Perfect, exact duplication down to the atomic level of a living human is probably impossible. But anyway, the answer is yes if memory is entirely physical, with the data stored in the brain. 

However, much empirical evidence indicates that several seemingly bizarre processes might actually occur. 

Veridical NDEs, verified reincarnation memories and other empirical evidence indicate that human consciousness and therefore memory are ultimately separate from the brain and body. Thousands of cases are documented where young children of 2-3 years old spontaneously remember being their previous personality (usually where death was traumatic by gunshot or accident) and furnish details that are later verified, memories that usually fade away by seven years old or so. One famous case is that of James Leininger.

If this theory of consciousness is correct, then if a human spirit didn't take possession of the duplicate, it would be a blank slate until it learned everything from scratch like an adult baby, with a resulting personality entirely determined by genetics and environment.

The process for the duplicate could be complicated if a human spirit did take possession of it - then, the conscious entity in the duplicate might have some memories, but ones of the previous incarnation. In this case, the duplicate would have certain innate "soul personality" characteristics overlying the effects of genetics and upbringing.
   
This is sort of the issue that Egnor explores, though he apparently excludes the possibility of reincarnation and doesn't consider the point of view of interactive dualism that the human spirit is a mobile center of consciousness of the entity that comes into the human in the womb.

A new article by Michael Egnor is seemingly a big mistake, for it is invalid and unnecessarily opens up a likely way for materialists to be bolstered in the culture wars. The article is "Is an Immaterial Mind a Barrier to Human Cloning":    


From a follow-on article:        


It appears to me that it is only a matter of time before human cloning will be achieved. Chinese researchers unbothered by ethical or moral concerns are actively working on this right now. It may take a long time, but I think it is inevitable. I think the result will be a cloned, rational and abstractly thinking human being, but this will in no way invalidate immaterialism in theories of consciousness. 

It seems to me these articles are mistaken in their conclusions - there is a major flaw in Egnor's reasoning. Unfortunately, Egnor appears not to subscribe to the filter or receiver/transmitter theory of interactive dualism. With this understanding of consciousness, it interacts with and manifests in the physical world through the physical body via the specialized organs of the brain and nervous system. In this theory of consciousness (for which there is a lot of empirical evidence in different areas), since a cloned human being would have these specialized organs, he/she would therefore still manifest the intelligence and rational and abstract thought of a conscious entity, just as with normally born humans. 

Human cloning will be a vast moral and ethical mistake with a lot of bad consequences outweighing by far the medical research benefits, but if and when it is achieved it will not invalidate spiritual metaphysical understandings of human existence.

Interesting, I'd be curious to see if other people who ascribe to the Form/Body, Form is Soul of Body ideas drawn from Aquinas would agree with Egnor's conclusions. [I'll see if Feser is interested in taking it up.]

But even in his own arguments it seems he is mistaken - if the argument for the soul hinges on abstract thought that would suggest clones have souls not that materialism is true. Now whether the argument that abstract thought is of the Soul is another question...

If the mind is immaterial, is human cloning impossible?

Jay Richards

I share Mike’s Thomistic understanding of the human person (traditionally called hylomorphism), including the immateriality of the mind. But I think he (and materialists who also make this argument) are quite mistaken in concluding that this view implies or entails that human cloning is impossible.

As Catholics, Mike and I follow Catholic doctrine when it comes to the question of the origin of the human soul. That doctrine teaches that each and every human soul is created directly by God. Why? Because matter can’t create an immaterial and immortal thing with powers that clearly transcend matter. But the ability to produce a human being through cloning would not show this doctrine false nor would it show that we are only material.

First of all, God has clearly made our world with all manner of interaction between the material and immaterial. Chemical drugs, for instance, can impede our highest rational powers. This doesn’t show, as Mike knows and has argued, that the mind just is the brain and its chemical reactions. Rather, God has made the world, including human beings, so that both God and immaterial realities cooperate in regular ways with the physical world.

For instance, there seem to be regular psycho-physical laws governing mind-brain interaction (in the other direction too, by the way, as in the case of the placebo effect).