Would a clone of myself be a different person than myself?

I don't know why you would think that I would think that those two possibilities exhaust all possible scenarios. For the record, I wasn't referring to you, Chai, when I spoke of "some I have encountered here."

That said, to express utter astonishment, to the point of asking if it's a "joke, if someone aint some biology expert, does seem a little pompous and boorish to me.

I thought that because of the way you phrased it.

I did not express "utter astonishment" I asked if you were joking. I really didn't think that anyone would think clones would have the same fingerprints, or the exact same number of freckles in the exact spots, in the expact same size, etc. as that's like science fiction.

I'm no biology expert, don't know where you got that.

In any event, what did you think of the information I provided? Does it make sense now that clones wouldn't have the same fingerprints, and that clones appear naturally in nature all the time?

Why does everyone talk about using clones for spare parts? Identical twins don't use each other that way, nor do they want to.
(Except in the case of voluntary organ donation.)

Edgar is joking, of course, but the films involving clones aren't, and they always depict clones as each other's mortal enemies. That makes no sense.

I agree kolyo.

I know, I have no idea why many people automatically jump in with the "spare parts" idea.

It reminds my of that scene from Monty Pythons "The Meaning of Life"

Here, hysterical.




But I'm using it.

Come on sir, don't muck us about.

Recent years have seen reports of instances where the parents of a dying child needing a compatible bone marrow donor have conceived a new child in the hope of that child being able to be used as a donor for the dying child. Sometimes in-vitro fertilisation is used to select genetically compatible offspring. This is currently an ethical issue widely under discussion.

well the clone sure wouldnot be you, it be like having a twin, only younger.

Thread looked interesting - Each post made it otherwise.

Up from the exact moment both clones diverge in spacetime experience they stop being the same. And yes a debate between both on who is the original would be fun to watch without external moderation.

One has no identity when one comes into the world; one is pure constitution, but gains a sense of identity by a defining context. The same would be true of a clone; it would be the same constitution but would have a different sense of identity due to living through a different context. Context determines what is called forth from the constitution and what is suppressed, not unlike a word in a sentence or paragraph.

You have to be aware that there's a huge difference in ages between you and your clone. If you are 30 when he is born you will be fifty when he is twenty. No way people would ordinarily confuse the two of you.

At the moment of being cloned, you would both be you, assuming the clone has your mental and/or emotional state. Where you would start to differ is in the point of living from there. One cannot guarantee a common life experience for both, as that would require the same environmental context. One comes into this world as an anonymous constitution, meaning devoid of identity. It is only when that constitution interacts with its given environment, experiencing the slings and arrows of its outrageous fortunes, that identity forms, context defines. So, you and your clone would start to differentiate as soon as the cloning was completed, and you/both move on from there.

You are a baby, with the same inherited differences as a normally born baby, except your DNA derives from just one parent. You would likely be closer than a twin, but you would not be the parent reborn.

cmturner,

I am not quite sure of your meaning. If a clone is taken from one animal, its DNA is itself a product of the emergence of two different DNA patterns. The clone, at its creation, would be one with the cloned; it would be a constitution identical with the cloned animal. From this point on, the differences emerge in that from here, both the cloned and the product would be defined by their ongoing lived experiences, identities would be split and be defined by the lived experiences of both as the life is lived by both.

What's inaccurate:"its DNA is itself a product of the emergence of two different DNA patterns."
This is not correct for cloning (specifically somatic cell nuclear transfer, the main method used in animals like Dolly the sheep). In cloning:The nuclear DNA of the clone is an exact copy (barring rare mutations) of the nuclear DNA from the single donor animal's somatic cell.
It does not involve merging or recombining two different DNA patterns, as happens in sexual reproduction (sperm + egg).
There is a minor exception: mitochondrial DNA usually comes from the egg cell donor (the "surrogate" mother), not the nuclear donor. But this is a tiny fraction of the total DNA (~0.0005% in mammals) and does not make the clone a "product of two different DNA patterns" in any meaningful genetic sense.

The clone starts life with a genome that is essentially a genetic twin of the donor, not a new combination.
The phrasing "emergence of two different DNA patterns" better describes meiosis/fertilization (natural reproduction), not cloning.

What's reasonably accurate:"The clone, at its creation, would be one with the cloned; it would be a constitution identical with the cloned animal."
Mostly true at the genetic level. At birth, a clone is genetically nearly identical to the donor. This is why cloning is used to replicate desirable traits.
"From this point on, the differences emerge... both the cloned and the product would be defined by their ongoing lived experiences..."
This part is correct and important. Even with identical DNA:Gene expression is heavily influenced by epigenetics (chemical tags on DNA that turn genes on/off).
Environment, nutrition, experiences, microbiome, random developmental noise, and chance events create differences.
Cloned animals are not identical copies in appearance, behavior, health, or personality. Real-world examples (Dolly had arthritis earlier than expected; cloned cats/dogs show coat pattern and personality differences) confirm this.

Identity, personality, and "self" are not solely determined by DNA. Experiences shape the organism over time.

Yes a clone of yourself would be a different person from yourself...that said you clone yourself every 7 years or so...so there, food for thought!