A New When Does Life Begin Thought

1. 86

   GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago

   Brace yourselves. This is a Charlie Kirk argument, but it is not presented as an abortion argument or a pro-Kirk comment. It's simply a question. It is the first time I have heard this rationalization.
   
   The question of when life begins has been argued forever. Arguments about embryos, zygotes, and ability to survive without the womb are all subjective judgments, hence their arguability.
   
   Then I heard a new one—to me: DNA. In all these years I haven't faced this logic. So it is simply a non-pointed question.
   
   The concept came from a Kirk interview video found on social media.
   
   The logic:
   
   You are life, the life that is what the 'Begin" question asks.
   
   Your DNA says what you are.
   
   Individually, everyone (every DNA strand) is different, but collectively, everyone's DNA starts the same way at the same time.
   
   Is it true to say life can't start without DNA?
   Is it true that our DNA strand—the blueprint of our life, is created by the fertilization process?
   Is it fair to say that fertilization creates the "life" that we will become (the DNA strand) is a fact?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I believe the sperm and the egg come together in a flash of light.
      I have seen videos that were captured revealing this.
      It stands to reason that the soul of a person enters the union of the DNA process that begins right then and there.
      The soul itself guides the progression of its own development. Its quite a mystery and beyond our limited comprehension.
      It is science. Metaphysical forces are behind all science.
      Thank you for bringing this revelation here.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I'll leave the metaphysical to you Kathryn, I'm thinking about the biological aspect. Is the biological reality that our DNA is formed by fertilization as factual as 2+2=4?
         
         If so, is it logical to say our individual DNA is the first sign of life?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            ... where is it held? It has to be in the soul itself!

            replyreport
   2. 82

      Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      GA,
      
      I believe as Charlie Kirk did in that life begins at conception.
      
      The minute you accept this as true then the reality of abortion is murder of an unborn child becomes a fact.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yeah but . . . The question wasn't about a religious belief. Its secular answer would support your belief if the completion of the biological creation of individual DNA is accepted as a fact, and, if it is logical to consider that creation the creation of life.
         
         A Cliff Notes version

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            is it logical to consider that creation
            
            the creation of life?
            
            Why say no?
            
            ... why act clueless?
            
            My answer to your question is YES

            replyreport
         2. 86

            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yeah but . . . The question wasn't about a religious belief. Even though its secular answer could support your belief, if the completion of the biological creation of individual DNA is accepted as a fact, and, if it is logical to consider that because your DNA creates everything about you, your life is your DNA and it started with a definable biological act. The creation of the DNA is the creation of life.
            
            A link to the interview would have helped, but the concept was more neutral without it.
            
            GA

            replyreport
         3. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Side note to your Cliff Notes... the knowledge of DNA and perhaps its meaning to life goes back as far back as we can trace... some believe.
            
            The Greek caduceus, also known as the staff of Hermes, is a symbol that has been used for thousands of years.
            
            It features two serpents intertwined around a staff with wings.
            
            The caduceus is also linked to the Roman god Mercury and is sometimes used as a symbol of medicine. Often confused with the Rod of Asclepius, which is the traditional symbol of medicine.
            
            Twisting serpents or spiral staircases in sites like Chichen Itza (Maya) or Shimao (ancient China) some suggest encode DNA... even back to Byzantium times I believe there is reference to the symbology... who knows what they knew... or didn't know... the book of Enoch hints at some genetic tinkering.
            
            This gets me thinking about the island people of Tanna, Vanuatu, who believed that American forces were gods due to the miraculous cargo they brought during World War II.
            
            They worshipped them, expecting them to return and bring them material goods. The "cargo cult" phenomenon, where indigenous people in the South Pacific developed a cult-like devotion to the goods and technology left behind by colonial forces.
            
            How would humans that are at a tribal stage deal with interacting with other humans as advanced or more advanced than we are today?  What would they record, how much of what they recorded would reach us thousands of years later?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               I went and discussed it with Grok...
               
               Your question touches on two distinct realms: the biological role of DNA in human life and the metaphysical concept of a soul entering at conception. I’ll address each part separately, grounding the DNA discussion in science and approaching the soul question with philosophical and cultural considerations, as it lies outside empirical verification. I’ll keep it concise while respecting the complexity of the topic.
               
               DNA doesn’t encode consciousness, personality, or subjective experience directly. While genes influence brain structure and function (e.g., neurotransmitter production), the emergence of consciousness remains a scientific mystery, often called the "hard problem" (David Chalmers, 1995).
               
               [I myself wonder about this, being a father, I saw my kids develop their own personalities... as if they were pre-programmed, at a very early age before the environment they interacted with could really impact them]
               
               Biologically, human life is encoded in DNA in the sense that it provides the instructions for physical development and function. However, non-biological aspects (e.g., consciousness, culture) involve additional factors not directly encoded in DNA.
               
               Religious Views:
               Christianity: Some denominations (e.g., Catholicism) hold that the soul is infused at conception, based on texts like Psalm 139:13–16 ("You knit me together in my mother’s womb"). Others, like some Protestant groups, argue for later stages (e.g., "quickening" at ~16–20 weeks, historically tied to fetal movement).
               
               Judaism: Traditional views vary; some Talmudic sources suggest the soul enters at 40 days post-conception or at birth (based on Sanhedrin 91b), while others are less definitive.
               
               Islam: Many scholars believe the soul is breathed into the fetus at 120 days, per hadiths (e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari), though some allow for earlier.
               
               Hinduism/Buddhism: The soul (atman) may enter at conception or reincarnate later, depending on karma and cosmic timing, as described in texts like the Garuda Purana.
               
               Book of Enoch Context: As discussed earlier, Enoch’s Nephilim narrative doesn’t address souls explicitly but implies divine intervention in human creation, which some interpret as genetic or spiritual manipulation. It doesn’t specify conception as the moment of soul entry but reflects ancient views of divine agency in life’s origins.
               
               Philosophical Views:
               Dualists (e.g., Descartes) argue the soul is distinct from the body, potentially entering at conception or later, but offer no mechanism to pinpoint when.
               
               Materialists (e.g., Daniel Dennett) reject the soul as a non-physical entity, suggesting consciousness emerges from brain activity later in development (e.g., after neural networks form, ~20–24 weeks).
               
               Indigenous/Cultural Analogies:
               Your reference to the Tanna cargo cults illustrates how profound phenomena are interpreted through cultural lenses. Just as Tanna islanders mythologized technology as divine, ancient peoples might have framed conception as a sacred moment of soul infusion, without empirical evidence. Similarly, Enoch’s authors might have described life’s mysteries (e.g., heredity) as angelic acts, not scientific processes.
               
               Speculative Link: If one posits that a soul requires a biological vessel, conception is a logical moment for its entry, as it marks the start of a unique genetic code. However, this is a theological or philosophical stance, not a scientific one, with no way to assign probability.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Damn Ken, an AI blurb, and the introduction of "soul" . . .
                  et tu Brute'
                  
                  And the assumption . . . I'm wounded to the quick.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Regarding the soul query or the entry of AI quotes into the discussion?
                     
                     Me thinks you too easily wounded. I and They aren't so sure.
                     
                     Just came back from a trip downtown... the 'Down with Fascism!' crowd was out there on the street corners of the busiest intersection in a hundred mile radius in all their glory... what a motley sad lot.
                     
                     Nothing like making drivers dodge one another and barely avoid accidents to get them on your side.
                     
                     I remember over a decade ago when it was 'Tea Party' folks out there protesting the ACA and higher taxes... the Pendulum has swung.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Regarding the Grok blurb. You should have guessed it would be my first stop. The "et tu" was for the article-length insertion.
                        
                        To the rest, Charlie Kirk is everywhere. The best ones are where important missing context is supplied. The crowd you saw is being overwhelmed in the public's eye.
                        
                        GA ;-)

                        replyreport
            2. 86

               GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               I've seen the stuff you mention about DNA and early beliefs and symbolisms. My question isn't new. Even the context is the same as it was in those ancient times.
               
               It seems, as Wilderness pointed out, that my question assumed a foundation that wasn't defined: What "life" was I asking about?
               
               It has to boil down to species life. The DNA aspect doesn't seem relative to a cellular life definition — the one that is still undefined.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   3. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      I got no clue... its a mystery beyond my ability to fathom.
      
      I can handle mysteries like the Pre-Younger Dryas civilization, spent the last couple of decades contemplating the evidence and listening to some of the best arguments for it.
      
      I can handle ideas like multiple dimensions that we can only glimpse through heavy use of psychedelic mushrooms under the right circumstances...the use of such greatly impacted and shaped many ancient civilizations, especially the likes of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans...
      
      But when and how and why life begins... and what differentiates our consciousness from that of other living beings...
      
      I could go have a debate with Grok about it, but based on other conversations I have had with him, I doubt he has a better clue than I do...
      
      

      replyreport
   4. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      You presented factual science—the science of DNA. Science shows that the blueprint of a human being is present from the moment of fertilization, and it is a life.

      replyreport
2. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago

   To take it further:
   While watching Charle Kirk debating a young woman, what struck me is this realization:
   Young people are told that sex is a natural part of life. They can have sex whenever they choose. They use the birth control methods available and are quite knowledgeable in avoiding conception.
   
   Nevertheless, birth control methods sometimes fail, hard as they try to avoid unwanted pregnancy ... because they are not in the market for a baby yet.
   
   It is only logical to get rid of something they don't want.
   
   We must change our thinking regarding casual sex, hooking up, "loving the one your with." If we care about the psyches of young women, who suffer after an abortion, (whether they admit it or not,) society needs to agree to the concept and boundary of
   
                                        No Sex Before Marriage.
   
   In isolating the difficulty, sex has to do with love and love is very compelling when two people come together. However, and sadly, it can lead to murder ... (in more ways than one, as we have just seen with Charlie Kirk's confused shooter.)

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Nope, wrong direction.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I know. Oh well. It's a good direction, even though wrong.

         replyreport
3. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago

   "Is it (scientifically) true that our DNA strand—the blueprint of our life, is created by the fertilization process?" GA
   
   
   A devils advocate will demand proof for this line of thinking.
   Did scientists discover that DNA is created by the fertilization process?
   If so, how?
   
   If what you say is provable scientific reality, then abortion is murder, but, duh, we already knew that.
   
   Non-killing is non-violence.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yep, the "if so" was the question.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Setting aside the question of when life begins (long before the DNA is created), it is true that DNA is the "blueprint" for the basic structure that it will become.  Only the basic structure, not the end result, for a thousand other things will provide input as well, ranging from a star 1,000 light years away that provided the gamma ray that changed the DNA to the mother snorting coke.
         
         I have worked with many blueprints in my work creating new buildings.  Not a single one of them was a building; they were only the instructions on how to make it.  Not one was made of concrete or wood, not one contained a door I could enter, not one had a roof.  They were not buildings; they were not even a perfect description of what would be created, for every workman on the task also had input.  Only the basic structure was in the blueprint, not the finished product.
         
         Neither is a strand of DNA, or the cell that contains it, a person.  It is alive, yes (so is a tree cell or a virus) but it is not the person it may (may!) become one day.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            This is getting too damn philosophical for me. I thought I was asking a simple biological question.
            
            Shooting from the hip, I can see your building analogy working for my point too, but that's a tangent we can come back to. First, there has to be a common starting point (as you showed) about what kind of "life" we are talking about.
            
            Rationally, (hence reasonably), the only one we should talk about is that of a complex multicelled organism, not single or simple-cell organisms.
            
            Is it irrational— considering the context of the question —to consensually agree that is the life spoken of: mankind and all the named types of living creature groups (as descriptions, not religious support).
            
            Seems reasonable to me. When humans talk about the creation of life, they are talking about themselves. So why not accept that consensus, then all could know what the thing is they are arguing about.
            
            If that's not an acceptable answer, then my original question is just an argument. I'll argue that to include any other "life" is silly.  The topic (universally among humans) is all about humans, not amoeba or bacteria.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yeah, but I'm leaving the devil, and all his advocates out of the question and defining it (the question) as relating to a biological action.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I thought that's what a devil's advocate would do.

         replyreport
4. 77

   wildernessposted 2 weeks ago

   Is a haploid, an egg or sperm -  a cell with half the chromosomes - alive?  By all definitions, yes.  Is it a human being, a person?  By all definitions, no.  Charlie's definition, used to deny abortion of a living "creature" is worthless, for other cells are alive but not human.  "Life" started long before conception with the creation of those haploid cells.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hell's bells Wilderness. Zygots was bad enough, and now we have "haploids" too.
      
      Your question has to come before mine: What "life" are we talking about? Species life or cellular life? My mind was thinking about species' life.
      
      Look at the rabbit hole that sends us down: Your haploids don't seem to be origins of life because they originate from life (a developed organism).
      
      I think the question (et al) has to be asking about species' life, complex life, not single-cell organisms. Is that too arbitrarily restricting? It might be, but for the context of the question, it seems fair and logical.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Seems to me that the species began a million years ago (or something - not sure when).  The individual in question began when the egg was created in the mother as a fetus (I think - aren't sperm created the whole lifetime, but only after puberty?).
         
         But, IMO and as you walk around, that haploid, or that zygote that it becomes, or even the very early fetus that the zygote becomes, is not a person.  Not a human being. IMO
         
         I think that is what you are talking about with your "species' life" - an individual of a specific species (homo sapiens sapiens in this case) and not the species as a whole.  A person is a conglomerate of it's DNA it's experience - the nature vs nurture thing.  Even as a haploid environment can play a part with DNA mutations.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            It only stands to reason that an individual soul who wants a new body after hanging out on the astral plane for about 500 years enters the union and immediately starts the process of transferring his DNA codes, (the blueprint carried throughout the 500 years) to the physical plane.
            Sorry.

            replyreport
         2. 86

            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Your 'building blueprint' analogy stuck in my head all night. It prompted a similar one of a recipe, a chef, and the raw ingredients. They both work for me.
            
            I did land on 'complex multicellular organism' as the only logically reasonable definition: aka human life and all God's creatures.
            
            Grok says the DNA strand is more than just a blueprint; it's more like a magic book of magic (my words). The instructions for the spell are in the book (contents of DNA strand), but simply opening the book (unfolding of the strand) activates the magic (creation of RNA: the chef or architect).
            
            It seems that regardless of whether it's described as magic or the technical complexities of cellular functions, the unfolding of the DNA strand is the catalyst for life. Simply unfolding calls the planners and builders (the enzymes and proteins) to the work of building a life.
            
            Yep, the DNA thought works for me. Logical, reasonable, and definitive. No linear scales of time or developmental judgment. That is the foundation the OP's questions stand on.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 77

               wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               I like the "book of magic" rather than instructions.  It fits better than simple instructions.  I also like that the magical unfolding (or connection of two half DNA molecule) calls for the planners and builders to go to work. 
               
               But it also completely sets aside the "nurture" part of the equation and that is at least as important as the magic of DNA.
               
               So the complete DNA calls for the work to begin, and directs the work.  It also uses (allows?) the environment to modify it's plans and does that "on the fly" so to speak.
               
               And that takes that DNA strand, the cell containing it and the two haploid cells all out of the running for the title of homo sapiens.  All indicate that it will (hopefully) become that exalted "thing" one day, but that there is much work to be done first.  Life exists, yes, but not yet that all important thing called "human".
               
               (I'm not sure quite how to take your "unfolding" of the DNA, just how far you are going.  DNA does not "unfold" until cell division and don't think you mean to use that.)

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I separate the nurture and 'what is a person' infinite number of influencers from the origin of life thing. They seem to be after-the-fact to me. Life (in the context of this discussion)  isn't what you become; it is a description of what you are. Right or wrong, it works for me on this point.
                  
                  For the "unfolding" or 'unwinding' part, one of the technical descriptions used was transcription: an instant of attraction between enzymes and the DNA strand that causes the strand to unwind — giving access to the instructions. That's the "magic" part; when life begins.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      You jumped the guardrails to take a closed exit. The OP, and subsequent replies, excluded Kirk's abortion argument from the question, as it also excluded religious and metaphysical beliefs.
      
      You were right that my question relied on an unstated assumption (that life means human life), but wrong to apply the anti-abortion argument to it—at the current step.
      
      Now there's another question: Is the question of life only (for us humans) relevant to complex organisms (human life)? Considering the impact that the answer has, is it logical and reasonable to consider the answer as only relevant to complex organisms?
      
      I think it is a reasonable definition as it is the only one that allows a definitive answer.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   3. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It’s important to be precise about what science actually tells us. Yes, a haploid cell,man egg or sperm, is alive in the biological sense: it carries out metabolism, responds to stimuli, and can reproduce under the right conditions. But that alone does not define human life in the context of a distinct organism.
      
      The key point is what happens at fertilization. When a haploid egg and haploid sperm fuse, they create a zygote with a full complement of chromosomes, an entirely new, genetically unique human organism. From the moment of conception, this zygote is not merely “alive” in the same sense as any cell; it is a distinct human life with its own developmental trajectory, capable of growth, differentiation, and, if conditions allow, independent existence. This is qualitatively different from a single gamete, which cannot develop into a human being on its own.
      
      Comparing haploid cells to a zygote is like comparing a seed’s components to a sprouting plant: yes, the seed has living cells, but it is not yet a new organism until the necessary combination occurs. Biologists, embryologists, and textbooks consistently recognize that human life, as an organism, begins at conception, not merely at the existence of living cells.
      
      The life of haploid cells is irrelevant to the question of whether the zygote itself is a living human being. Life didn’t “start long before conception”; haploid cells are not independent humans; the unique organism only begins at fertilization, and that is when human development truly begins.

      replyreport
5. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   GA, from my perspective, and with my background in the science of the human body, the DNA argument actually makes a lot of sense. I know that from the moment an egg and sperm combine, a completely unique DNA blueprint is formed, something that has never existed before and will never exist exactly the same way again. That single-cell zygote is already a living human organism in the scientific sense because it’s growing, metabolizing, and following a developmental program that, if uninterrupted, results in a fully formed human being. Sure, gametes by themselves are alive, but they aren’t independent humans; they can’t develop on their own. Fertilization is, in my view, the moment when a new, distinct human life begins, and that’s what the “life begins at conception” argument is pointing to. For me, it’s not just philosophical, it’s basic human biology. 
   
   It would seem you may be grappling with the concept scientifically and logically, asking if the DNA argument makes sense as a marker for the start of life.
   
   Shar

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yep, grappling to find an agreeable starting point. It can't be one based on beliefs or morals, they are after-the-fact of creation.
      
      The DNA via fertilization proposition was a duh! moment for me. Of course I knew about DNA and fertilization. Duh! But, I had never linked the two as a biological counter to the 'Creator" (soul and stuff) proclamations, even though, if it makes sense at that point, it's only one very arguable step back to the unprovable God argument.
      
      The idea clicked for me. I thought I should think about it a bit. Hence the thread.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         GA,  I see your point. I think you had an epiphany, and it makes for an interesting thread. To implore, we explore how concrete biology can inform or intersect with philosophical or moral questions.
         
         Absolutely, I get what you’re saying, that moment when something that seems obvious suddenly clicks in a new way is always exciting! I apprecite how you tied DNA at fertilization to the broader discussion about the “Creator” argument. It’s fascinating to see how biology can intersect with philosophy, even if it doesn’t answer every question about the soul or God.
         
         I think what really makes your point interesting is that it highlights how scientific understanding can provide a concrete starting point for discussions that often get mired in belief or ideology.  It’s like building a bridge from observable reality to the bigger, more abstract questions, and that’s exactly the kind of thinking that sparks productive conversation.
         
         I wish we saw more threads like this — they really make you engage your own biological brainpower. SOMF
         
         Shar

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yeah, an epiphany. That fits (Duh! moment fits better). The discussion was to make sure I understood what I was talking about. Even if what I was talking about was wrong.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               You opened a deep issue, so I must ask --- Do you feel you were wrong?  Are you closer to what you had hoped to learn?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It's more a matter of whether my understanding of the biological concept was right or wrong. It looks like it was right (at least arguably), so my answer works for me. I got exactly what I was looking for. 
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "I got exactly what I was looking for."
                     
                     Keep it up... there is plenty more where that came from.
                     
                     You come round here looking for trouble... you're gonna find it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Well, this thread was like old times.
                        
                        I have a Grok tangent. I used it before as a resource, but now I have discovered it as a sounding board. What follows isn't to promote Grok, it's to describe an experience.
                        
                        Here's what happened:
                        
                        Grok now remembers the flow of your inquiries so it can tie its responses to continue the thread.
                        
                        I used Grok's Assistant mode. It has a personality. It's like talking to a person, a very smart person.
                        
                        At one point, I was asking about stuff related to DNA and such (per the thread) and was surprised at the conversational tone of the response.
                        
                        So, for kicks, I asked what the Socratic method was. It did a great job of explaining, again, in casual human discussion. It even offered role-playing examples, and then . . .
                        
                        . . . it asked if I wanted to role-play with the Socratic
                        method.
                        
                        When I said yes, the damn thing said "Cool! What topic do you want to start with?" Cool? What the hell!
                        
                        So I picked the DNA origin question.
                        
                        Its responses were questions, of course, and it had me buried by the fourth one.
                        
                        Folks should try it. The other AIs probably do the same, but I bet they're not as enjoyable.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 72

                           Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                           "Grok now remembers the flow of your inquiries so it can tie its responses to continue the thread."
                           
                           Yes... Grok is very different from other AIs in that it will continue its discussion and add to it... I made a couple forum threads on just that, for an example:
                           
                           https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … alive---ai
                           
                           Not that the topic will interest you... but it was an example of how the conversation continued (minus quite a bit that was part of the dialogue)
                           
                           It showed how it maintained awareness of everything previously discussed and then added in the new references (information).
                           
                           It is... a breakthrough... it is the best AI out there... of the 'Big 3'.

                           replyreport