Eru wrote:On the topic of possession, haven't we discussed the possibility of Sheeana donning the skin, in which case her control over the new worms/trout may diminish the risk?
That both sounds familiar and makes sense.

Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Eru wrote:On the topic of possession, haven't we discussed the possibility of Sheeana donning the skin, in which case her control over the new worms/trout may diminish the risk?
SandChigger wrote:Omphalos wrote:No, it most certainly would not. First, none of Leto's memories would be in there. Second, a recopied Leto would be no more Leto than the sheep Dolly would be of its "mother." The potential is there, but you could not guarantee (or probably even realize) a photocopy of Leto by cloning his DNA. DNA is potential, not blueprints. Any geneticist will tell you that. We could clone Thing a million times and have a million different individuals.
Wait, are you talking Real World or Duniverse here? Real World, right?
I'm confoosed now.![]()
A clone/ghola of Leto II (by Duniverse "rules") should have the potential of remembering his memories up until the time the DNA sample was taken (or death if it's a ghola grown from cells harvested after death ... from the carcass by the river?), but wouldn't actually remember them until some trauma designed to awaken them ... just like any other ghola/clone.
Omphalos wrote:A Thing of Eternity wrote:That is certainly true, though as was pointed out earlier the question isn't actually how much of Leto is in his "pearls" the question is whether those pearls hold any of his DNA. If they do hold his DNA, then the DNA (in the Dune universe, not the real one obviously) would hold a full and complete copy of Leto's mind., regardless of how functional/complete the pearl is.
No, it most certainly would not. First, none of Leto's memories would be in there. Second, a recopied Leto would be no more Leto than the sheep Dolly would be of its "mother." The potential is there, but you could not guarantee (or probably even realize) a photocopy of Leto by cloning his DNA. DNA is potential, not blueprints. Any geneticist will tell you that. We could clone Thing a million times and have a million different individuals.
SandChigger wrote:Venturing into whacky Duniverse genetics/science, I see two possibilities (let me know if you see more!):
(1) Leto was a true hybrid of human and sandworm, meaning mixing of DNA; or
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longest-piece-of-dna-yetScientists today announced that they have crafted a bacterial genome from scratch, moving one step closer to creating entirely synthetic life forms--living cells designed and built by humans to carry out a diverse set of tasks ranging from manufacturing biofuels to sequestering carbon dioxide.
Nekhrun wrote:Omphalos wrote:A Thing of Eternity wrote:That is certainly true, though as was pointed out earlier the question isn't actually how much of Leto is in his "pearls" the question is whether those pearls hold any of his DNA. If they do hold his DNA, then the DNA (in the Dune universe, not the real one obviously) would hold a full and complete copy of Leto's mind., regardless of how functional/complete the pearl is.
No, it most certainly would not. First, none of Leto's memories would be in there. Second, a recopied Leto would be no more Leto than the sheep Dolly would be of its "mother." The potential is there, but you could not guarantee (or probably even realize) a photocopy of Leto by cloning his DNA. DNA is potential, not blueprints. Any geneticist will tell you that. We could clone Thing a million times and have a million different individuals.
That's why I don't get why there are laws agains cloning humans.
Maybe you could snag the memories from Leto until he merged at age 9? But they'd have to be reawakened like a ghola right?
I always thought it would be strange that the last OM memory that you'd have from your male ancestors would be doing your female ancestors, maybe it would be just one or two days before the doing. You'd remember it as your mother though right? Either way, sexy.
Robspierre wrote:I wonder how Heinlein would of worked that angle.....
Rob
Serkanner wrote:Robspierre wrote:I wonder how Heinlein would of worked that angle.....
Rob
Rob, you disappoint me
Serkanner wrote:Robspierre wrote:I wonder how Heinlein would of worked that angle.....
Rob
Rob, you disappoint me
MrFlibble wrote:Serkanner wrote:Robspierre wrote:I wonder how Heinlein would of worked that angle.....
Rob
Rob, you disappoint me
Sorry to stray off-topic, but this phenomenon of writing of instead of 've caught my attention recently. I've encountered cases of mixed up homophones - I occasionally mix up two/to/too or suchlike words myself when I'm not careful while typing, but this case seem slightly different to me in that there's a drastic contrast between of and 've in terms of grammar, and the result almost looks like a new verb form (?). So is this case the same as other mixed-up homophones, or something else might be behind this phenomenon?
Robspierre wrote:So no, it is not a case of mixed-up homophones, more a case of how people speak, on occasion, that continues to find its way into how people write.
MrFlibble wrote:Robspierre wrote:So no, it is not a case of mixed-up homophones, more a case of how people speak, on occasion, that continues to find its way into how people write.
Well, if could've and could of are pronounced the same, and are confused in written speech because of this, then it's the case of mixed-up homophones (both 've and of in this case are not stressed and are thus enclitics).
MrFlibble wrote:Robspierre wrote:So no, it is not a case of mixed-up homophones, more a case of how people speak, on occasion, that continues to find its way into how people write.
Well, if could've and could of are pronounced the same, and are confused in written speech because of this, then it's the case of mixed-up homophones (both 've and of in this case are not stressed and are thus enclitics).
TheDukester wrote:Jesus wept ... technically, y'all need to get some more poontang into your lives. Soon!
![]()