Danse is your Grandson

[Talwyn224]

@ Athansa & Moraelin

 

 

http://troll.me/images/good-guy-tyson/fascinating-really-fascinating.jpg

 

 

:thumbsup:

[Moraelin]

@Athanasa

I notice that in all that, you haven't mentioned a single logical fallacy that I supposedly did. I'll even help you out there: List Of Logical Fallacies

 

Though I see you have now edited that message, including the trollish "spoiler", so I guess now you're dropping that claim instead of supporting it? Well, that works too.

 

Well, if we're supposedly back to discussing DNA and being logical about it, here's the problem: the whole discussion of exactly how much DNA is identical is at best a textbook case of Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. Namely,

 

P1: You share a lot of your DNA with a descendant.

P2: You share a lot of your DNA with X.

C: Therefore, X is a descendant.

 

All that handwaving about exactly what the numbers are for chimps or bananas is not addressing the core issue, namely that just sharing DNA is not a part of the definition of descendant. And there is no limit where it becomes so. That's what I was trying to point out.

 

The most trivial example is: you share 100% of your DNA with an identical twin, but that doesn't mean you're each other's son. And even though one fetus is literally created out of a cell from the first one that didn't stay put, they're considered siblings, not parent and child.

 

The other trivial example is: you share the same 50% of your DNA with your father as with your son. That doesn't mean your father is your son.

 

If your father had a son with another woman, you'd share the same amount of DNA with that half-brother as you do with a grandson. That doesn't make him your grandson.

 

Etc.

 

Until you address that issue, the whole discussion of sharing DNA is just irrelevant, because you don't even have an actual sound argument to refute. Before worrying about whether my numbers are exactly right when I poke fun at that nonsense argument, you first have to show that you actually have a valid argument where those numbers would make any difference at all.

 

The second issue I was pointing out is that you're extending the notion of paternity to a constructed machine. Again, you first have to show that you actually have an argument there.

 

We are already at the point where we CAN include pieces of biological tissue in some construct. E.g., we already used rat brain tissue to drive a small vehicle, just to show that it can interface with a machine and learn to use the inputs and outputs. It would be trivial to do that with human cells, although it would make a lot of people go butthurt. But if some of my DNA were used to create such a machine, would that count as my son? By what definition?

 

Or even more trivially, cell cultures are used to test drugs or perform cancer research. Or modified cells are used to produce certain enzymes. If I donated some cells for a tissues culture in a machine that produced, dunno, insulin the old fashioned way, would that machine count as my son? How?

 

You simply postulated that sharing DNA with such a machine makes it a descendant, but I don't see any definition of descendant that would so automatically apply.

[Athanasa]

I was going to write a whole post addressing that you're wrong... but then I realised.

You've written a large post attacking my usage of the words son / grandson, and actually showed you don't even understand the difference between parental and offspring DNA. You've left your banana drama behind. That's progress, at least.

The other trivial example is: you share the same 50% of your DNA with your father as with your son. That doesn't mean your father is your son.

[...]

If your father had a son with another woman, you'd share the same amount of DNA with that half-brother as you do with a grandson. That doesn't make him your grandson.

Etc.

Until you address that issue, the whole discussion of sharing DNA is just irrelevant, because you don't even have an actual sound argument to refute. Before worrying about whether my numbers are exactly right when I poke fun at that nonsense argument, you first have to show that you actually have a valid argument where those numbers would make any difference at all.

I do not NEED an argument to refute that your father is not your son based on DNA. It's a fact that your father is not. Why would someone even try to force an argument on that? Why should I have to address this point?

I can't even begin to explain why this doesn't work. It's like trying to explain to someone why right isn't left.

 

 

However, as for the content of the OP... My intent was to point out that romancing and sleeping with Gen 3 synths is - on a genetic level - incest. However, if I put my original post as "Sleeping with Gen 3 Synths is Incest", the thread could well get the entirely wrong sort of replies. thatsmyfetish.jpg and whatnot. You attack me on my choice of words by saying Grandson, but I feel that commenting directly on incest would be grossly inappropriate.

 

Well, if we're supposedly back to discussing DNA and being logical about it, here's the problem: the whole discussion of exactly how much DNA is identical is at best a textbook case of Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. Namely,

 

P1: You share a lot of your DNA with a descendant.

P2: You share a lot of your DNA with X.

C: Therefore, X is a descendant.

 

I'm sorry, no. You misunderstood me there.

 

P1: You share a lot of your DNA with a descendant.

FACT 1: Your descendant's DNA comes from your own DNA.

P2: Your descendant shares a lot of DNA with X.

FACT 2: X has DNA coming from your descendant. [You are explicitly told this in The Institute]

C1: Therefore, X is genetically the offspring (or bloody close to) of your descendant. [shaun is even CALLED Father in the Institute. It's not just a title.]

C2: Therefore, X is a descendant.

This is the correct information I was portraying. Not what I was trying to portray. This is common knowledge. Or it should be. Even if Synths do not count (through semantics) as grandchildren, they're certainly genetically closer than nieces/nephews or cousins. The difference here is it involves going sideways then down the family tree, rather than directly down then branching.

This whole relations thing probably means more to me as I'm playing a female PC. My female PC probably shares the entirety of her mitochondrial DNA sequence with every Gen 3 synth in the Wastelands.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Scribblesix]

Athanasa, thanks man; your posts are both entertaining and educational. Much appreciated. Your point about Shaun's suspected mental illness is probably a bit superfluous however, as theirs no way a synth's brain functions even remotely like a human or indeed an animal one. Put simply, all stages of development are necessary to allow a functional, let alone healthy neural architecture. Furthermore due to the importance of micro factors such as myelin sheath thickness I cannot imagine how even the institute's apparent ability to 3d print nerve cells could enable them to create functional human brains.

[Athanasa]

Athanasa, thanks man; your posts are both entertaining and educational. Much appreciated. Your point about Shaun's suspected mental illness is probably a bit superfluous however, as theirs no way a synth's brain functions even remotely like a human or indeed an animal one. Put simply, all stages of development are necessary to allow a functional, let alone healthy neural architecture. Furthermore due to the importance of micro factors such as myelin sheath thickness I cannot imagine how even the institute's apparent ability to 3d print nerve cells could enable them to create functional human brains.

Thank you for this information! I'm not a neuroscientist, most of what I know is through my mother who specialises in child mental health and psychological development. I was assuming that the lack of years of development as a child would result in... different brains. The fact that Gen 3 Synths are able to talk at all the moment they emerge from the goo suggests something's pre-made up there.

 

Relating to your points and my own observations, there are many snippets of information about the Institute suggesting that Synth-Shaun is more emotionally advanced than other Synths. This could be because people are comparing him against other humans of similar age (rather than against adults, as they would compare adult Synths) which is more favourable, that humans project more because of his young appearence, or - the most interesting option - because his 'young age' has allowed his brain to adapt and 'construct' itself better to become closer to human.

 

 

My observations regarding Autism / Aspergers are from my own experience. It takes one to know one and all that. Increased logic, reduced social understanding. I was looking at Danse's actions and conversations, and those of some of the other Synths. It struck me how similar their behavioural patterns were to individuals with high functioning autism / aspergers, especially Danse, 'cause he's my Gatling laser toting man-waifu. His often stilted choice of words, the way he says some sentences, his tendency to vomit a thesaurus ("This area is in disarray.") when he could say it in far less words... I'm primarily interested because the Institute seems to have created Synths to have a high 'academic intellect' (easy to create with computers) but a low 'emotional intelligence' (which is non binary and confusing as hell). But, that's me rambling because it's something that interests me specifically. Some Synths don't exhibit these features, although some of those seem to be running off a well rehearsed script (Diamond City mayor) in a role they were programmed for.

 

[Aintiarna]

@moraelin Is your PC having fun times with Curie? Is that what all this is about? I think maybe you just need to make peace with it. It's post-apocalyptia, who cares about a little grandad-grandaughter incest. :tongue: After all, it's just the body. Her mind was some sort of Handy or something similar so it you're alright with that...

 

I'm kidding okay. Don't take it to heart.

 

As for the science, I'm not going to reiterate or reword the arguments given by @Athanasa, but I'd make the same arguments myself. Most non-scientific stories and so-called "facts" about DNA and inheritance are misleading at best. Going by the lore in game, most 3rd gen synths are more or less your biological descendants in a chromosomal DNA sense, and probably contain exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as you do.

 

When my character became director of the institute and synths started wandering around DIamond City, they called my character "Mother", although to be fair, I think "Grandmother" would be more accurate. In fact, given the lack of third-party DNA being used, they probably had more genetic commonality with my PC than a regular grandchild would have.

 

But if it makes you feel better, you could always think of the gen 3 synths as your cloned brothers and sisters instead. Curie is your sister. Danse is your brother. Inheritance titles are really just an outdated concept to indicate birth order in humans after all. :whistling:

Edited December 27, 2015 by tirnoney

[Moraelin]

@Athanasa

 

 

I do not NEED an argument to refute that your father is not your son based on DNA. It's a fact that your father is not. Why would someone even try to force an argument on that? Why should I have to address this point?

 

No, of course. You don't need an argument for that, since that was the absurd part of an ad absurdum. You need an argument to meet the burden of proof for your original claim. Sorry, since you brought logic and fallacies into it, that's how it works: you get to support your positive claim with a sound argument, not to claim victory unless someone else disproves it.

 

And yes, it's a fact that your father is not. That's why it's an ad absurdum take on trying to force descent based on the amount of shared DNA. The whole idea of an ad absurdum is to take a statement to a logical, but blatantly false conclusion.

 

 

FACT 1: Your descendant's DNA comes from your own DNA.

FACT 2: X has DNA coming from your descendant. [You are explicitly told this in The Institute]

C1: Therefore, X is genetically the offspring (or bloody close to) of your descendant. [shaun is even CALLED Father in the Institute. It's not just a title.]

C2: Therefore, X is a descendant.

 

Your rewording it doesn't change the fact that it's an undistributed middle. The canonical form of it is:

 

P1: All A is X.

P2: B is X.

C: therefore A is B.

 

In your case, A is "descendant", X is "the set of things that carry your DNA", and B is "Danse".

 

But so would using some of my pancreas tissue in a culture in a container to produce insulin the old fashioned way. And nobody would call such a machine my son, even if it's 100% carrying my DNA and in fact my cells. I don't see how that's different for a robot created by 3d-printing tissue.

 

Or, again, the perfect counter-example is an identical twin. ALL the DNA for one of them comes from the other. Only one zygote was originally created, the other is what happens when a cell doesn't stay stuck to the others in one of the first divisions. Literally 100% of the DNA for one twin comes from the other twin, yet if I had an identical twin, nobody would say that one of us is the descendant of the other. I'm pretty sure we'd count as siblings, not as father and son.

 

Or if someone found a Kleenex full of my, *ahem* genetic material, nobody would say "oh, it has your DNA, coming from you, congrats, that mess is your son." Other than as a joke.

 

As for Shaun's title, yes, it is a metaphorical title. Same as Ataturk literally means "father of the Turks", yet nobody would literally mean that he sired every single Turk. Or priests are called "father" all the time, yet nobody takes it for real that he plowed every single woman in the village. Shaun is called Father even by people who have no literal descent from him, including the non-synth researchers (including, e.g., Virgil in his notes)and more importantly by Dr Li, who wasn't even there until recently. It's a metaphorical title, not a statement of his being literally a father.

 

You're just following a metaphor too far. All metaphoric language is supposed to convey SOME common attribute as information between the two domains, but it doesn't mean equivalence. E.g., I could cite Shakespeare like Rex and say "all the world is a stage", but that doesn't mean that there is a curtain hanging in front of it.

 

Basically, if you want to say that Danse is kinda, metaphorically speaking, like a grandson (well, ok, that was a simile), and I'd have no problem with that. In the same way one could say that Rhys is married to his job, or that Preston is a true descendant of the original Minutemen. Which, given his race is unlikely to be LITERALLY true, but it conveys a certain information nevertheless. But, to return to the synths, what I object to is taking it literally.

[Moraelin]

@moraelin Is your PC having fun times with Curie? Is that what all this is about? I think maybe you just need to make peace with it. It's post-apocalyptia, who cares about a little grandad-grandaughter incest. :tongue: After all, it's just the body. Her mind was some sort of Handy or something similar so it you're alright with that...

 

I'm kidding okay. Don't take it to heart.

 

As for the science, I'm not going to reiterate or reword the arguments given by @Athanasa, but I'd make the same arguments myself. Most non-scientific stories and so-called "facts" about DNA and inheritance are misleading at best. Going by the lore in game, most 3rd gen synths are more or less your biological descendants in a chromosomal DNA sense, and probably contain exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as you do.

 

When my character became director of the institute and synths started wandering around DIamond City, they called my character "Mother", although to be fair, I think "Grandmother" would be more accurate. In fact, given the lack of third-party DNA being used, they probably had more genetic commonality with my PC than a regular grandchild would have.

 

But if it makes you feel better, you could always think of the gen 3 synths as your cloned brothers and sisters instead. Curie is your sister. Danse is your brother. Inheritance titles are really just an outdated concept to indicate birth order in humans after all. :whistling:

 

Well, as I was saying before, I'm not really into romancing NPCs :p

 

As for mitochondrial DNA, given that it comes from the mother only, nah, in my case they ain't having mine. Maybe Nora's, but not mine :p

[Aintiarna]

 

Or if someone found a Kleenex full of my, *ahem* genetic material, nobody would say "oh, it has your DNA, coming from you, congrats, that mess is your son." Other than as a joke.

 

 

If someone donated sperm, you wouldn't call the sperm your son, but it could well result in hundreds of offspring if that sperm was used in say IVF. The resulting offspring would by any definition be considered your sons and daughters surely?

Edited December 27, 2015 by tirnoney

[Aintiarna]

 

 

Well, as I was saying before, I'm not really into romancing NPCs :tongue:

 

 

I know, that's why I was kidding. And I still think you should try out some Bioware romances. :wink:

 

Don't worry, no one will take your mitochondrial DNA... unless it's creepy aliens from Mothership Zeta.