Which bit of you is you?

[Lobsang]

If you take the short snappy title literally the answer is 'all of it'. So what I mean is, which bit of the common definition of 'you' (your whole body) is the sentient bit?

More specific than 'the brain'. Is there a part of the whole brain that is still 'you' if you take the rest away? If you don't count life support how much of the loose definition of you could you take away before what's left stops being you/sentient?

Or to put it another way, how small a bit of you could you take out and put in another body (to sustain it as an organic thing) and it still be you?

Would you still be you if you suddenly lost all your past memories?

[ITR champion]

It seems to me that there is no answer, and that our society agrees on this, and I'm not aware of any society that doesn't. If I get my pancreas removed, I am still the same human being. If I have a leg amputated, I am still the same human being. Some epileptics have half their brain removed, but they remain the same human being. Alzheimers patients may lose nearly all of their memories, but they are still the same human being. There is no situation where a living human being ceases to be a human being due to the loss of a physical part of a mental ability.

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there.

In short, the self must be something that is not grounded in any physical structure or mental function.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Well, it definitely has to reside in the brain. The rest is just life support apparatus and data input bits.

How much of your brain do you need to still be you? That is wide open to question. You have the likes of Terry Schiavo who while physically alive would be argued that "she" was no longer there. Her brain, the higher functioning bits, were mush.

On the other hand there have been people with hemispherectomies (sp?) who had half their brain removed (literally) and live rather normal lives (when it is done to them as a child...their brains seem still able to rework themselves enough).

If you lost all your past memories I would argue that you are no longer "you". Essentially we are nothing but the sum of our past. That said what are memories? Even people who have lost their abilities to recall the past still seem to retain their personality (or at least they have a personality). While they may not remember the past they obviously function, retain language and other skills so seems a lot of "them" is still in there somewhere. This one is a lot harder to call I think.

[toadspittle]

I think we have to say the brain is the seat of identity. That's not to say it can't be damaged, but it's still us. If you remove any other portion, it's still the same person. If you remove the brain, it's not.

The wrinkle in this is that it's impossible at the moment to sustain a human brain outside the body, so when the brain is removed, the person is dead, and we keep referring to the body as the person, and the brain as just an organ that was removed. If we get to the point where a brain can be removed and either put into another body or into some variety of robot, then I think we'd say that the brain's location is now the person, and the old body is not ... though the body would still, presumably, be the property of the person (the brain).

Of course, what happens if you could split the brain down the middle, keep it alive, and put it into two separate bodies? Who the heck knows.

Ugh. Now my brain hurts.

[Elendil's Heir]

Well, it definitely has to reside in the brain. The rest is just life support apparatus and data input bits....

Don't forget the naughty bits. Sometimes they're what makes life worth living.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there.


I disagree that Schiavo was still "there". I think that was the whole point of the case. She was not there and allowing this rather soulless shell, almost zombie if you want, was not a good thing. Schiavo as a distinct entity was no longer there. Sure people still used her name but what else would you do? There was no higher brain function at all left in the poor woman. Just enough was left to keep the life support package functioning. Nothing else.

[toadspittle]

If you lost all your past memories I would argue that you are no longer "you". Essentially we are nothing but the sum of our past. That said what are memories? Even people who have lost their abilities to recall the past still seem to retain their personality (or at least they have a personality). While they may not remember the past they obviously function, retain language and other skills so seems a lot of "them" is still in there somewhere. This one is a lot harder to call I think.


Good point. And there is, I think, a difference between the philosophical definition of a person and the legal definition of a person. If you lost all of your memories, or your brain was turned to mush, you, philosophically, would cease to exist. But, legally, your body is still there, and owns various possessions and is bound by contracts, etc.

[smiling bandit]

I have to disagree here, at least a little. If I lose a finger, Yes, I am still me in the sense I am not someone else. But I have also lost part of me. That part of me has died. I won't be whole again until I die, too, making me one complete dead guy. Have your brain removed? Well, yeah, you are still you. Just the part without a brain. Which granted, isn't very useful and pretty pointless, but still the rest of you.

In Purgatory, you're probably sitting there going "Crap! I'm just a brain floating in the afterlife!" (Probably not.)

[hotflungwok]

Alzheimers patients may lose nearly all of their memories, but they are still the same human being.
Are they? One of the most common things you hear about humans suffering from Alzheimer's is that they're not themselves.

There is no situation where a living human being ceases to be a human being due to the loss of a physical part of a mental ability.
That's not really what he asked. He didn't ask what makes you a human being, he asked what makes you 'you'. There are several things I can think of that might make you not be you anymore, and a nice massive loss of memory is one of them.

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there.
Well, no, that was the entire problem. Her brain was gone, she couldn't function, so although she was technically a human being, she really wasn't Terry Schiavo anymore. That's why her husband wanted her to be allowed to die. People called her Terry Schiavo because that was the easiest way to refer to her.

In short, the self must be something that is not grounded in any physical structure or mental function.
Again, no, we have no evidence that the self is anything but physical. We have found lots of things that can alter basic traits against a person's will, implying that these things are encompassed in something physical. If you have evidence that there is something that makes up or interacts with a human mind that is not at all physical, please present it.

[Lobsang]

In short, the self must be something that is not grounded in any physical structure or mental function.

If this were true, how or why is it 'tied' to the physical self?

[ITR champion]

The point I was making is that there's a consensus on acting as if a person in a case like that still exists alive, even though some people hold in an intellectual case that she's not. Legally, a person is a person until death. In some cases we may declare them incapacitated, meaning that they've lost some of their abilities, but we never declare them to be unpersons. As far as government and business are concerned, a person simply is a person according to that commonly accepted definition. If you're doing a census, or counting people for any other reason, you count all living people as people regardless of their mental state

I think we have to say the brain is the seat of identity. That's not to say it can't be damaged, but it's still us. If you remove any other portion, it's still the same person. If you remove the brain, it's not.
Interesting theory. I'd have to agree that if we could scoop the entire brain out and put in a new body, we'd have moved the 'person' to the new body. However, that's all science fiction at the moment, and my personal prediction is that it will never be done. If we define 'personhood' by bits of the brain, it does raise certain questions. For example, what do we make of the French dude who lived a normal life with close to no brain tissue (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720)?

[ITR champion]

If this were true, how or why is it 'tied' to the physical self?
That's a tough question for which there really is no short answer. In the course of everyday existence, we encounter various people and don't generally have trouble identifying an individual. Yet can the definition really be based on mental traits? After all, in what sense can a personality really be said to exist? Any one individual seems to exhibit different personalities in different circumstances. A person behaves differently when drunk vs. when sober, or when sexual aroused vs. when cold, or when tired vs. when alert, or when hungry vs. when full, or when calm vs. when emotionally charged, and so forth. Yet there's no disputing that a person who goes through all of those states remains the same person throughout.

[hotflungwok]

Interesting theory. I'd have to agree that if we could scoop the entire brain out and put in a new body, we'd have moved the 'person' to the new body. However, that's all science fiction at the moment, and my personal prediction is that it will never be done. If we define 'personhood' by bits of the brain, it does raise certain questions. For example, what do we make of the French dude who lived a normal life with close to no brain tissue (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720)?
Short answer: we don't know yet. Any other assertions, such as there being non-physical components to the self, require evidence, and are not the default response in case the answer is 'I don't know'.

Besides, I've met plenty of civil servants with tiny itty-bitty little brains.

[DSeid]

The "self" is the thinker thinking about, and constantly redefining, itself. It is within those functional self-referential infinitely recursive loops that "you" reside. A self always and most basically in contrast to all that is non-self.

For humans those patterns mainly exist in the neocortex and in particular primarily in the frontal and prefrontal lobes integrating (and imposing expectations upon) patterns of information processed in various sensory cortices. But it is the functionality, what Doug Hofstadter calls a tangled hierarchy or a strange loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop), that gives your self its sense of selfness, not the where it resides.

G.E.B. (http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567) is still worth the read.

[Lobsang]

G.E.B. (http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567) is still worth the read.

I have that book. I've had it for years (Like 10 years or something)

I'm about a third into it. Me and thick books don't mix. The thickest book I've ever read (and it was a chore) was the LotR trilogy.

[panache45]

Alzheimers patients may lose nearly all of their memories, but they are still the same human being.

By the time my father died of Alzheimer's it's debatable whether he was "still the same human being," or whether that human being had died a few years earlier. Legally, of course, he had to be considered the same man with the same name as before. But even being with him prior to his death, I had lost the feeling that he was the person who had been my father . . . or even a "person" at all. He seemed to be merely a body that represented or evoked the man he had been.

It was very poignant, a few years before his death, when he still retained some of his personality . . . and he said, "I'm not the man I used to be."

[TWDuke]

Some of the responses above seem to be concerned with self-awareness, but are you yourself when you're not aware? Do you cease being you if you're asleep? In a coma? Who are you in a hypnagogic state?

I think "you" and "I" are fluid concepts. I'm the same person I was 10 years ago, but I'm not the same. If I lost a leg or my short term memory or my ability to write I would be different, but I would be me.

[InterestedObserver]

If you take the short snappy title literally the answer is 'all of it'. So what I mean is, which bit of the common definition of 'you' (your whole body) is the sentient bit?

More specific than 'the brain'. Is there a part of the whole brain that is still 'you' if you take the rest away? If you don't count life support how much of the loose definition of you could you take away before what's left stops being you/sentient?

Or to put it another way, how small a bit of you could you take out and put in another body (to sustain it as an organic thing) and it still be you?

Would you still be you if you suddenly lost all your past memories?

I think the idea of the brain as the seat of the soul (or of the self/mind/intelligence, whatever we chose to call IT) is as idiotic as the ancient idea of the heart being the same, or any other physical organ.

Sure, the brain is a more likely suspect, being responsible for processing impulses and thoughts, but it is still just a piece of meat.

If one accepts that all there is is "meat", then yes, is the brain is damaged or gone, "you" are likewise. If one accepts that the mind/soul/self/consciousness exists beyond the physical, then that doesn't hold true.

The examples of those who've functioned more or less fully lacking any brain to speak of(and I don't just mean George Bush;)) challenge the theory of the brain as the seat of the self.

Would I, personally, want to live in a body with a brain so severely damaged that I was unable to function? Hell no. Nor would I want to live in a body in which any other organ were so damaged as to impair my functioning to such a degree. But that doesn't mean *I* exist solely in any of those organs. *I* exist beyond the physical body. Just my opinion, as requested.

My grandmother, who lived to be 100, told me 15 yrs or so before her death that she felt "the rest of her had already gone, and she was just waiting around to follow." It drove her crazy that she couldn't see or hear well and was less mobile than she'd always been. And yes, that she often forgot things after having a great memory and sharp mind her whole life. "SHE" felt trapped in an aging body, but "she" never identified with that body, in fact she was irritated by it increasingly. She felt strongly that "she" would eventually move on and leave the husk behind, her true self free of all this silly nonsence. I hope she was right. :)

[MrDibble]

Well, it definitely has to reside in the brain. The rest is just life support apparatus and data input bits.
I think you are unfairly discounting the entire hormone system here - adrenal glands, sexual hormones etc play a large part in making us who we are.

[Revenant Threshold]

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there. I'm afraid I entirely disagree with that one. People using "Terry Schiavo" to refer to her by no means "everyone still agreed" that person was still there. I used that name at the time, too, but I'm convinced that she was no longer there anymore. It's a usage of ease, in my case; using the name is a much quicker thing to do than say "the being with lessenend mental activity who used to be Terry Schiavo" every time you want to refer to her. In other cases, it may well be a sign of politeness, or a wish to avoid offense. You really can't assume universal or even majority agreement that she was still Terry Schiavo just from the use of the name. In short, your conclusion is rather flawed.

As far as the OP goes; i'd say I am composed of many things, which could be taken away to make me a different person. Even if I lost a leg, I would argue that I am no longer the same person, since I imagine that loss would affect me quite considerably. Change my brain's physical makeup around, and I would not be the same person. Rob me of my memories, either totally or partially, and I would not be the same person. Give me alcohol to alter my perceptions and bodily inputs, and I would not be the same person. Taking parts of me away does not necessarily make me any less of a person; if I lost my memory but could continue to form new ones, then I would still be a person, just a different one. OTOH, take away my brain in its entirety and there's no person there at all. To use an example brought up upthread, scoop out my brain and bung it in another person's body and I would, over time, gradually become quite a different person thanks to the differing inputs i'm getting. Even me in my own body for that amount of time would result in a changed me. There are many things that add up to make us who we are, and which, to differing extents, would make us a different person were they changed.

[DSeid]

Some of the responses above seem to be concerned with self-awareness, but are you yourself when you're not aware? Do you cease being you if you're asleep? In a coma? Who are you in a hypnagogic state?

I think "you" and "I" are fluid concepts. I'm the same person I was 10 years ago, but I'm not the same. If I lost a leg or my short term memory or my ability to write I would be different, but I would be me.Well the question did specify "the sentient bit". So indeed, while I may still to "me" to you while I am, say, under anesthesia (just as you'd identify any other object as the same thing), I am not me to me because there is no functioning sentient bit to be observing itself. To the POV of my self there is no discontinuity: I instead have a perceived continuity of experience updating a new ever changing definition of self to myself.

Let us make this thought experiment*: you enter into a machine that twins you into two exact copies both derived of current you, both with all of your current memories and thoughts. Those two "you"s go off and have different experiences and meet back a decade later. One has been to war and lost a leg and has PTSD. The other is married with children and a successful newspaper editor although has gotten a bit paunchy with middle class life.

Both of those "you"s would justly claim same-selfness with the past you before the machine (even though each being very different than that you) and neither would look at its twin in exactly the same way. Each twin would be nonself to the other.

InterestedObserver, you argue for the soul as the sentient bit. The soul would be the unchanging essence of self that stays the same even as the body varies. Of course there are the usual materialist objections, but I'd like to ask you how the soul as the seat of the self would deal with my thought experiment. Which twin would possess the soul? Or did my imagined machine make two new souls?

When does the soul inhabit a body? If biological twinning occurs after that which zygote gets the soul and which gets a new one? Or are there two of the same soul floating about? How about in conjoined twins? What parts need to be separate to get two separate souls? Is it the same or different than the parts needed to declare them as having separate senses of self?

[Larry Borgia]

Descartes error (http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230744387&sr=8-1) is an interesting book on the subject. He discusses how certain brain injuries have profound effects on concepts of personal identity. He comes to the conclusion that our reasoning is profoundly tied to our bodies; Not just our brain but our whole bodies. See Mr. Dibble's post above. I'm really not doing justice to it here.

I think our idea of personal continuity comes from memory. If even the most profoundly brain damaged person has some sense of continuity, they'll think of themselves as one thing existing through time. We project our own sense of continuity on other people, like the brain-dead and even corpses.

Another view is that it's a judgement call. There may be no bright line when you cease to be you. (Well, other than death.) If an organization, a sports team for instance, loses a player, they're still the same team. But if they completely disband, move to a new city and reform with new players and a new name under new mangagement, can they be the same team? What if they keep a couple of players or coaches?

[Influential Panda]

There's two layers to identity--"I" and "me." "I" can be thought of the thinker, the seat of consciousness. "I" is really a function of conciousness. "Me" is the rest of, well, me, and is the part of my body and brain that "I" is conscious of, including consciousness itself. So you can say that "me" is everything "I" is conscious of. If you removed a single hair from my head without my noticing, "I" would not change one bit.
Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there.
Sort of. We still called my dead uncle Randy "Uncle Randy", but no one thought he was still there.

[gonzomax]

How about amnesiacs. If you lose all your memory is that being reborn? Are you suddenly a different person or are are you nobody?
Should you send an amnesiac to jail for a crime committed just before his memory was gone?

[Jettboy]

Just my brain and my weiner...

[pancakes3]

When i read the topic, i thought this was intended to ask "which part of your personality of you is the real you" which i think is a question worth hijacking.

Like say there's a working mom who's all business from 9-5, a doting stepford wife when with her kids, a raging alcoholic when at cocktail parties, and a football junkie on sundays... which part of her is the REAL her? Is she a mix of all parts, or sectored off based on the circumstances, or are some parts more dominant? What dictates the partitioning of certain behaviors? Why are some people more likely to be parceled off while others embrace one philosophy to apply to all aspects of their lives? Is this "well-rounded"ness a good thing? a bad thing?

[lekatt]

I think the idea of the brain as the seat of the soul (or of the self/mind/intelligence, whatever we chose to call IT) is as idiotic as the ancient idea of the heart being the same, or any other physical organ.

Sure, the brain is a more likely suspect, being responsible for processing impulses and thoughts, but it is still just a piece of meat.

If one accepts that all there is is "meat", then yes, is the brain is damaged or gone, "you" are likewise. If one accepts that the mind/soul/self/consciousness exists beyond the physical, then that doesn't hold true.

The examples of those who've functioned more or less fully lacking any brain to speak of(and I don't just mean George Bush;)) challenge the theory of the brain as the seat of the self.

Would I, personally, want to live in a body with a brain so severely damaged that I was unable to function? Hell no. Nor would I want to live in a body in which any other organ were so damaged as to impair my functioning to such a degree. But that doesn't mean *I* exist solely in any of those organs. *I* exist beyond the physical body. Just my opinion, as requested.

My grandmother, who lived to be 100, told me 15 yrs or so before her death that she felt "the rest of her had already gone, and she was just waiting around to follow." It drove her crazy that she couldn't see or hear well and was less mobile than she'd always been. And yes, that she often forgot things after having a great memory and sharp mind her whole life. "SHE" felt trapped in an aging body, but "she" never identified with that body, in fact she was irritated by it increasingly. She felt strongly that "she" would eventually move on and leave the husk behind, her true self free of all this silly nonsence. I hope she was right. :)

I believe your grandmother knew what she was talking about. Many people experience being out of their body and seeing it separate from themselves. The body is only a shell, to hold us, our consciousness which is us. That is what I believe is true.

[lekatt]

When i read the topic, i thought this was intended to ask "which part of your personality of you is the real you" which i think is a question worth hijacking.

Like say there's a working mom who's all business from 9-5, a doting stepford wife when with her kids, a raging alcoholic when at cocktail parties, and a football junkie on sundays... which part of her is the REAL her? Is she a mix of all parts, or sectored off based on the circumstances, or are some parts more dominant? What dictates the partitioning of certain behaviors? Why are some people more likely to be parceled off while others embrace one philosophy to apply to all aspects of their lives? Is this "well-rounded"ness a good thing? a bad thing?

Could it be she was only doing what others expected of her, acting the parts she believed to be appropriate. While in reality she was none of those things, a person no one really knew.

[Sam Stone]

This is like the classic illustration of fuzzy logic:

I have an apple. We all agree it's an apple. Now I take a tiny slice off of it. Is it still an apple? Sure. Now I take another tiny slice. It's still an apple.

If I keep doing this, at some point the apple will cease to be an apple. But there is no one slice you can point to and say, "there! you just sliced off its appleness!"

The transition from apple to non-apple is fuzzy. The human brain doesn't handle fuzziness very well - we want black and white, yes and no answers. But the world often doesn't work that way.

This is the crux of the never-ending abortion debate. Unless you're a fundamentalist who believes that the moment an egg is fertilized a human is created, with all the rights a human should get, then becoming a human is fuzzy. Most of us who aren't fundamentalists would agree that a fertilized egg isn't a 'human'. Most of us would also agree that a newborn baby IS a human. So at what point on the transition from egg to baby did 'humanness' become the defining characteristic? It's impossible to say. The transition is fuzzy. Hence we are destined to argue the question forever.

[Mangetout]

This is like the classic illustration of fuzzy logic:

I have an apple. We all agree it's an apple. Now I take a tiny slice off of it. Is it still an apple? Sure. Now I take another tiny slice. It's still an apple.

If I keep doing this, at some point the apple will cease to be an apple. But there is no one slice you can point to and say, "there! you just sliced off its appleness!"

The transition from apple to non-apple is fuzzy. The human brain doesn't handle fuzziness very well - we want black and white, yes and no answers. But the world often doesn't work that way.I agree - that and our tendency to hastily assign properties that we simply invented - like 'appleness' in your example. An apple doesn't care how apple-y it is or is not. In truth, it has no property of 'appleness', beyond our perception of it.

[DSeid]

I agree - that and our tendency to hastily assign properties that we simply invented - like 'appleness' in your example. An apple doesn't care how apple-y it is or is not. In truth, it has no property of 'appleness', beyond our perception of it.True. But in the case of the self we do care about how self-y we are; it is it a "core" belief.




Sorry.



:)

[coffeecat]

When a word or something is right on the tip of my tongue, the part trying to remember it is me.

[Jesse Leigh]

If you take the short snappy title literally the answer is 'all of it'. So what I mean is, which bit of the common definition of 'you' (your whole body) is the sentient bit?

More specific than 'the brain'. Is there a part of the whole brain that is still 'you' if you take the rest away? If you don't count life support how much of the loose definition of you could you take away before what's left stops being you/sentient?

Or to put it another way, how small a bit of you could you take out and put in another body (to sustain it as an organic thing) and it still be you?

Would you still be you if you suddenly lost all your past memories?

Our spirit is the most enduring part of each of us and it remains after the physical body dies. It contains the core of all that we are in whatever kind of existence we find ourselves.

You'd have to define 'you' to answer whether you'd still be you if you lost all your memories. You'd have a somewhat different personality because your experiences help to shape you, but essentially, I don't think people change all that much, so I'm going with you'd still be you. JMHO. - Jesse.

[Sam Stone]

Since there's no evidence whatsoever for a 'spirit', I think we can discount that for the purpose of this conversation.

A more interesting question is whether or not what makes you 'you' is the sum total of your memories, or whether there's more to it. I'd say there's quite a bit more to it, because the neural pathways we develop are shaped by our experiences, and that controls things like the kind of music that we find intrinsically appealing, how we react to certain stimuli, what triggers our emotions at a low level, and so on. So if all your memories were erased, you might still be scared of spiders (if you are now), and still might like rock music (if you do now), but you wouldn't know why, or how you came to feel that way.

[lekatt]

Since there's no evidence whatsoever for a 'spirit', I think we can discount that for the purpose of this conversation.

A more interesting question is whether or not what makes you 'you' is the sum total of your memories, or whether there's more to it. I'd say there's quite a bit more to it, because the neural pathways we develop are shaped by our experiences, and that controls things like the kind of music that we find intrinsically appealing, how we react to certain stimuli, what triggers our emotions at a low level, and so on. So if all your memories were erased, you might still be scared of spiders (if you are now), and still might like rock music (if you do now), but you wouldn't know why, or how you came to feel that way.


There is lots of evidence the consciousness survives the death of the body.

[Jesse Leigh]

Hello Sam!

Are you an atheist?

The reason I ask is because the majority of atheists I've talked to feel there is more to them than 'This crude matter' as Yoda would say. Some call it their soul, some call it their spirit, and most atheists don't believe it continues after death, but few I've talked with don't believe they have one.

Just curious - Jesse.

P.S. As for how the personality is formed and what makes you you, from a strictly medical standpoint - we don't know. We can theorize all we like and most of us do, but ultimately, we simply do not know. That's a fact.

[Marley23]

The reason I ask is because the majority of atheists I've talked to feel there is more to them than 'This crude matter' as Yoda would say. Some call it their soul, some call it their spirit, and most atheists don't believe it continues after death, but few I've talked with don't believe they have one.
That's generally rhetorical laziness on their part, in that they are borrowing a common term that represents something they don't believe in, and using it in a different sense. When those people talk about a soul, they're generally talking about something within their minds that makes them unique and represents their core. Other people sometimes call this the mind, as a distinct part of the brain.

By the same token, both atheists and theists often talk about what's in their hearts. They mean something that is central and important to them, but they don't share the ancient Egyptian belief that the heart is the center of consciousness. It's a linguistic convention.

From cases like Phineas Gage we do know that an individual's personality can change dramatically because of brain injury. At what point a person changes into some other person is less clear, but that's a philosophical distinction more than a physical or neurological one and it doesn't necessitate ghosts flying out of our noses when we sneeze. The phrase "tits on a bull" comes to mind.

If I lose a finger, Yes, I am still me in the sense I am not someone else. But I have also lost part of me. That part of me has died.
A finger is part of a living being, but it isn't alive and can't die. You wouldn't say your fingers are alive now since they don't have any life of their own, so i don't agree you can say it's dead if it gets cut off.

[hotflungwok]

There is lots of evidence the consciousness survives the death of the body.
No there isn't. We've covered this in many threads, you don't need to derail this one. Things that cannot be explained by medical science right now are not evidence. Unverified and/or obviously prejudiced personal experiences are not evidence.

[Sam Stone]

Hello Sam!

Are you an atheist?

Yes. I won't categorically state that there's no God, because I don't have any evidence one way or the other. But I find the question uninteresting, just as I find the question of whether or not tiny gnomes are responsible for stealing my socks when one goes missing in the dryer. If the question can't be quantified, if there can be no physical evidence one way or the other, it's really a waste of time to talk about, other than as a philosophical exercise. I would put the question of God on about the same plane as I would a question about whether or not we live in a giant simulation, or whether we're all brains in a vat. Fun to talk about, but meaningless as a way to seriously understand the universe and our place in it.


The reason I ask is because the majority of atheists I've talked to feel there is more to them than 'This crude matter' as Yoda would say. Some call it their soul, some call it their spirit, and most atheists don't believe it continues after death, but few I've talked with don't believe they have one.

That doesn't jibe with my experience. Most athiests I know feel the way I do - that we're just biological machines. Evolution has given us brains that have become so complex that we're capable of self-awareness, but after the brain is dead, we're simply gone.

Now, there are some interesting questions to be asked about what it means to be dead - if a giant supercomputer in the future randomly created simulated brains, and it hit on the exact pattern of neural connections that make up my brain today, would I 'wake up' in that future? I have no idea. I don't know that that is qualitatively different than 'waking up' every morning after I go to sleep. So it's possible that there will be something else for me to experience after the death of my body and brain, but that's just raw speculation. I can't think of any physical principles it violates, so I have to consider it possible.

But I don't believe I was created by God, or that there's some 'spirit' living within me that will persist after I die. What constitutes ME is nothing more than a very complicated series of electrical connections and biological switches.

P.S. As for how the personality is formed and what makes you you, from a strictly medical standpoint - we don't know. We can theorize all we like and most of us do, but ultimately, we simply do not know. That's a fact.

This is true, but as Marley23 pointed out, we are collecting evidence that our behaviors, impulses, emotions, and other factors that make us unique do reside in various areas of the brain, as we've seen personalities radically change after brain trauma.

[lekatt]

No there isn't. We've covered this in many threads, you don't need to derail this one. Things that cannot be explained by medical science right now are not evidence. Unverified and/or obviously prejudiced personal experiences are not evidence.

Medical science is not the holy grail of evidence, you know. But actually it was medical science that did the research that showed consciousness continues to live after clinical death.

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

[Q.E.D.]

Medical science is not the holy grail of evidence, you know. But actually it was medical science that did the research that showed consciousness continues to live after clinical death.

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

That's the single biggest pile of blue crap I've ever seen.

[Influential Panda]

Everybody, stop. Stop. Stop it.

Do not respond. You know where this is going, stop doing it.

[Q.E.D.]

Yes, sir, Mr. Junior Mod, Sir!

[Influential Panda]

Now line up for spankings

[Jesse Leigh]

Re: consciousness. Have you ever had a conversation, albeit short, with someone while you were asleep and had absolutely no recollection of it upon waking?

My husband tells me I'll answer anything he asks me when I'm deeply asleep, and I'll answer coherently, but have no recollection of it later. I find that decidedly unsettling. I trust my husband implicitly, and he wouldn't lie if you paid him to do it, so one can be in the middle of an irenic dream and still converse in a lucid manner about which checkbook to use for what - apparently. I'm a physician and I can't logically explain this. Of course, I'm not a neurologist.... (Even I think that's a lousy excuse!)

Anyone else experience this? I find it fascinating!

Jesse.

[Influential Panda]

so one can be in the middle of an irenic dream and still converse in a lucid manner about which checkbook to use for what - apparently. I'm a physician and I can't logically explain this. Of course, I'm not a neurologist....
I strongly, strongly recommend you pick up The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner. It gives an illuminating look at the nature of consciousness and how we experience it. Now, for my ridiculously oversimplified explanation.

You don't have to be conscious to perform actions. You aren't consciously aware, for instance, of the location of your feet in space, yet your brain handles it without difficulty. You can shift your consciousness to become aware of it, certainly, but it's not a necessary requirement for movement.

Much like sleepwalking, which is locomotor activity without consciousness, you can hold a full conversation without being conscious of it.

Also, the memory for this sort of event is classified as episodic memory. To consciously re-experience and retrieve these sorts of memories, you need to have been conscious of them in the first place.

[Clothahump]

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Everybody referred to her as "Terry Schiavo" no matter where they stood on the legal issues. Her brain had rotted away to almost nothing, she had no mental functions, but everyone still agreed that the person called Terry Schiavo was still there.

In short, the self must be something that is not grounded in any physical structure or mental function.
I disagree. Schiavo's husband argued all along that his wife was dead and all that remained was a carcass kept "alive" on life support. He was right.

It's the brain that houses the "self". It's the sum of our experiences that makes us what we are. If I could go back to 1975 and meet myself, the now-I would recognize myself, but the then-I would have no clue who this other person is. There would be no "click of the souls", so to speak.

[Jesse Leigh]

I'm not sure we should go down this road. Terry was not brain dead. Brain dead people don't cry when they are told they're going to be starved and dehydrated to death. I could list all the other reasons why I believe TPTB murdered a cognizant human being, but we've beat that horse dead a couple of hundred times already. I don't believe discussing it here will change where any of us stand on that issue. Of course, not being her personal physician, I'm armchair diagnosing, but the above is my opinion and what happened to Terry and is still happening to countless more like her, is... tragic. I'd say evil, but... why not, I believe it was evil. YMMV. I *really* don't think we should open this particular can of worms.

Agape - Jesse.

[Jesse Leigh]

I strongly, strongly recommend you pick up The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner. It gives an illuminating look at the nature of consciousness and how we experience it. Now, for my ridiculously oversimplified explanation.

You don't have to be conscious to perform actions. You aren't consciously aware, for instance, of the location of your feet in space, yet your brain handles it without difficulty. You can shift your consciousness to become aware of it, certainly, but it's not a necessary requirement for movement.

Much like sleepwalking, which is locomotor activity without consciousness, you can hold a full conversation without being conscious of it.

Also, the memory for this sort of event is classified as episodic memory. To consciously re-experience and retrieve these sorts of memories, you need to have been conscious of them in the first place.

Thanks, IP. I'll make a note of that book. I can't imagine where I'm going to find the time to read it prior to May, but I'm definitely interested in the subject matter.

Thanks again.

I've been up for 33 hours. I need to get some sleep noe.

G'night, and have a great day! - Jesse.

[Q.E.D.]

Brain dead people don't cry when they are told they're going to be starved and dehydrated to death.

Cite that this occurred in the Schiavo case?

In any case, even if she was a cognizant person at that point, she was a cognizant person with absolutely zero hope of any decent quality of life. Had I been in her place, I'd have begged for death. She's really better off now, regardless of what you believe about her mental faculties.

[Influential Panda]

Thanks, IP. I'll make a note of that book. I can't imagine where I'm going to find the time to read it prior to May, but I'm definitely interested in the subject matter.
If you find a couple of hours, dip into a good bookstore and read the first chapter. He doesn't mess around and tease around the point until the last few pages: he starts off strong and keeps going. I really do mean it when I say it completely changed my conception of who "I" am.

[Jesse Leigh]

Cite that this occurred in the Schiavo case?

In any case, even if she was a cognizant person at that point, she was a cognizant person with absolutely zero hope of any decent quality of life. Had I been in her place, I'd have begged for death. She's really better off now, regardless of what you believe about her mental faculties.

Q.E.D.,

The entire world had access to it as it was on video, and I fought hard for her until the very end. This isn't a subject I want to debate - no disrespect to you intended. - Jesse.

[Influential Panda]

Jesse, I'm not going to argue with you, but I want to say that if you aren't completely confident that you know enough about the brain to contradict her expert neurologists, you take the opportunity to do so before you continue to call them evil. Your claims of crying seem to me as emotionally charged as pro-life arguments about "beating hearts" and fetuses that physically resemble fully grown humans.

[Jesse Leigh]

Jesse, I'm not going to argue with you, but I want to say that if you aren't completely confident that you know enough about the brain to contradict her expert neurologists, you take the opportunity to do so before you continue to call them evil. Your claims of crying seem to me as emotionally charged as pro-life arguments about "beating hearts" and fetuses that physically resemble fully grown humans.

I believe in the sanctity of life, IP, so any issue involving it is emotionally charged for me. However, I did not call her neurologists evil, I said, or I thought I said, that the *act* of murdering her was and is evil. That one I'll stand by. I do not believe human beings have the the right to take another's life. I'll bet that's popular on this forum, but I'm sleep-typing here, IP. If you want anything coherent from me it'll have to wait until tommorrow.

Agape - Jesse.
P.S. I'm ten hour's drive from the closest bookstore, but I'll get it from Amazon - hopefully. Thanks again for the thumbsup.

[hotflungwok]

I'm not sure we should go down this road. Terry was not brain dead. Brain dead people don't cry when they are told they're going to be starved and dehydrated to death.
I was intrigued by the this, so I went and looked it up. It turns out that a lawyer named Barbara Weller made this claim, and also that it was witnessed by Terri's sister and her sister's husband. First, I can only seem to find the story in 'Save Terri' blogs, and half the time it's the exact same article word for word. Second, the story often gets lumped in with a lot of other bullplop, like claims that Terri was strangled. Third, sometimes it's a nurse, Cheryl Ford, who makes the claim, on behalf of the family on behalf of the lawyer. And last, the claim is almost always made along with another claim that she yelled out that she wanted to live, except that what she did was make a noise and people heard what they wanted. I'm not convinced. It sounds like just another of the 'Look, see, she's not really brain dead' things that went around.

I *really* don't think we should open this particular can of worms
So you decided to talk about it?

[Influential Panda]

I believe in the sanctity of life, IP, so any issue involving it is emotionally charged for me. However, I did not call her neurologists evil, I said, or I thought I said, that the *act* of murdering her was and is evil. That one I'll stand by. I do not believe human beings have the the right to take another's life.
You're free to hold your own morals, but in stating that the presence of tears contradicts claims of brain death you made a factual claim that you don't seem qualified to make. If you'd like to clarify and state that regardless of the state of her brain it was wrong to end her life, that would be smart.

[clairobscur]

Re: consciousness. Have you ever had a conversation, albeit short, with someone while you were asleep and had absolutely no recollection of it upon waking?


Just wanted to note that having a short conversation with someone and absolutely no recollection of it upon waking is pretty common. But those conversations happen when you're briefly awake and immediately go back to sleep. The difference in your case is that, according to your husband at least, you're still fully asleep when you talk with him. Is he really sure of it?

[Marley23]

Terry was not brain dead. Brain dead people don't cry when they are told they're going to be starved and dehydrated to death.
She was brain dead. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy/index.html?iref=newssearch) Much of brain was basically yogurt. (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg)

I agree that you should refrain from diagnosing people based on edited videos.

[clairobscur]

Hello Sam!

Are you an atheist?

The reason I ask is because the majority of atheists I've talked to feel there is more to them than 'This crude matter' as Yoda would say. Some call it their soul, some call it their spirit, and most atheists don't believe it continues after death, but few I've talked with don't believe they have one.


Not only this isn't true in my experience for most atheists, but I find it quite inconsistent with being an atheist. Not totally inconsistent, but it runs against one of the main reason why one wouldn't believe in God.


If I believed that there was a sentient entity, invisible, undetectable and not tied to the "meat", I wouldn't have any obvious reason to assume that it ceases to exist at the moment of death, for instance. So, I should consider an afterlife as plausible. Also, I would have no reason to assume that there can't be other kinds of similar entities, like, say, spirits or dryads, some possibly very powerful, like a djinn , or even powerful enough to create a whole universe, like a god.


So, believing in a "soul" isn't incompatible with being an atheist, but it puts a dent into an atheist stance.

[Q.E.D.]

Not only this isn't true in my experience for most atheists, but I find it quite inconsistent with being an atheist.

Agreed. I've never known any atheists who felt there existed any kind of "soul" or "spirit" within them. I certainly don't believe any such thing.

[Marley23]

Agreed. I've never known any atheists who felt there existed any kind of "soul" or "spirit" within them.
A Buddhist might, if you count them as atheistic. But otherwise I agree, and it isn't consistent with "standard" atheism.

[Q.E.D.]

A Buddhist might, if you count them as atheistic.

I'm not sure I would since they don't really fit well into the usual definition of "atheist." OTOH, they don't really fit the standard definition of "theistic," either. Buddhists is weird.

[clairobscur]

Q.E.D.,

The entire world had access to it as it was on video, and I fought hard for her until the very end.

I believe in the sanctity of life, [...]I said, that the *act* of murdering her was and is evil. That one I'll stand by. I do not believe human beings have the the right to take another's life.


I'd like to ask something. Let's assume that I want to be euthanasied (is that a word in English??) in case I would end up brain dead. Let's say I sign a notarized statement to this effect, and right after that, an anvil randomly falls on my head and I end up brain dead (so, there no conceivable way I could have changed my mind meanwhile). Also, there's no doubt that I'm actually brain dead (no tears, no wailing, nothing).


Would you still, in the name of the sanctity of life, and against my own wishes, fight hard until the very end against my euthanasia?

[Q.E.D.]

Let's assume that I want to be euthanasied (is that a word in English??) in case I would end up brain dead. Let's say I sign a notarized statement to this effect, and right after that, an anvil randomly falls on my head and I end up brain dead (so, there no conceivable way I could have changed my mind meanwhile). Also, there's no doubt that I'm actually brain dead (no tears, no wailing, nothing).


Would you still, in the name of the sanctity of life, and against my own wishes, fight hard until the very end against my euthanasia?

I would hope not; here in the US (the word you want is "euthanized"), the kind of document you describe is called a Living Will. I'm not familiar with all the law surrounding it, but as I understand it, it's supposed to be the final word as regards the sort of situation you describe; a family member cannot, AFAIK, override it.

[lekatt]

I disagree. Schiavo's husband argued all along that his wife was dead and all that remained was a carcass kept "alive" on life support. He was right.

It's the brain that houses the "self". It's the sum of our experiences that makes us what we are. If I could go back to 1975 and meet myself, the now-I would recognize myself, but the then-I would have no clue who this other person is. There would be no "click of the souls", so to speak.

There is no one that can say whether or not she knew what was going on, no one. I hope the right decision was made.

[lekatt]

That's the single biggest pile of blue crap I've ever seen.


Wishful thinking.

[Q.E.D.]

Wishful thinking.

Yes, I wish people would stop posting so much blue crap on the internet.

[Marley23]

There is no one that can say whether or not she knew what was going on, no one.
Unless one reads about the condition of her brain, in which case one can be pretty damn sure she had absolutely no idea.

[lekatt]

Unless one reads about the condition of her brain, in which case one can be pretty damn sure she had absolutely no idea.

You can read all you want, no one is an expert on consciousness. People have awoke from years of being in a coma and lived a normal life. Consciousness is the unknown. Terry is gone, but not forgotten. I hope those who made the decision to starve her to death were right for their own sakes.

[Marley23]

You can read all you want, no one is an expert on consciousness. People have awoke from years of being in a coma and lived a normal life.
And you can say "nobody knows" as often as you want, the evidence is still pretty clear. As as far as your comparison goes, it's being made from ignorance. I know people emerge from comas. Show me somebody who was in the same condition she was, with a brain mostly melted into liquid after more than a decade in a coma, who woke up and lived a normal life and then we'll have an actual basis for comparison.

[lekatt]

And you can say "nobody knows" as often as you want, the evidence is still pretty clear. As as far as your comparison goes, it's being made from ignorance. I know people emerge from comas. Show me somebody who was in the same condition she was, with a brain mostly melted into liquid after more than a decade in a coma, who woke up and lived a normal life and then we'll have an actual basis for comparison.

Medical evidence has nothing to do with it. As I said before no one knows for sure, and that is wisdom speaking. Our consciousness or "us" is spiritual and does not follow physical laws. Anything is possible with spirit. I know you don't believe this, but it is true nevertheless. What we believe means nothing, only was is, is important.

People have lived normal lives before with little brain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720

[Marley23]

Our consciousness or "us" is spiritual and does not follow physical laws.
I'd ask you for a cite for this, but you'd probably just link to your homepage and the story of the bad dream you had one time, so, skipping ahead, I'll say this is nonsense.
Anything is possible with spirit. I know you don't believe this, but it is true nevertheless.
And we know it's true because you're totally unable to prove it.
People have lived normal lives before with little brain.
I know.


However you're comparing unlike cases here, since a small brain caused by a condition that might have set in gradually is not the same as a brain that became small due to severe injury.

[Agnostic Pagan]

A Buddhist might, if you count them as atheistic. But otherwise I agree, and it isn't consistent with "standard" atheism.
As a Buddhist, I also consider myself atheist. Or rather the question does not matter. Whether god(s) exist or not has no bearing on the Dharma. And a key concept of the dharma is anatta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta). Essentially what is 'you' is merely in a constant state of flux, is never permanent, and ultimately does not matter either. When one achieves Nirvana, one realizes that 'self/no-self' does not apply to reality, but is only a mental construct which hinders more often than it helps.

Or so I understand it, but I am not a Dharma teacher, only a student.

[Marley23]

Or so I understand it, but I am not a Dharma teacher, only a student.
I'm a student, too. Or at least I was an Intro to Buddhism student in college, and now a member of a Zen-based faith. Maybe that's not the same thing. :p

[Jesse Leigh]

You're free to hold your own morals, but in stating that the presence of tears contradicts claims of brain death you made a factual claim that you don't seem qualified to make. If you'd like to clarify and state that regardless of the state of her brain it was wrong to end her life, that would be smart.

Afternoon IP! (Well, it's afternoon here, so greetings to you wherever you are.)

It wasn't the presence of tears that indicated Terry was not brain dead, but that the tears were shed in *response* to being told she was going to have her feeding tube removed. One of the primary tests we use to determine the level of a person's (any person's) cognitive abilities is their response to stimuli of varying kinds.

Terry displayed, on numerous occasions, all recorded on video and broadcast worldwide, marked response to the presence of people she knew. The response she displayed to those she liked, such as her mother and father, was markedly different from the response she displayed to those she feared and/or disliked, such as her estranged husband and his live-in girlfriend.

The fact that Terry responded consistently *at all* to anyone, for any reason, indicates the presence of consciousness, however minimal. I wasn't there and so cannot comment on her clinical level of consciousness, but that she was conscious and *responsive* to stimuli of different kinds is inarguable. One doesn't require to be a neurologist to ascertain responsiveness in a patient - even EMT's can and do routinely assess that.

Jesse.
P.S. I will also stipulate that, in my opinion, regardless of the state of her brain, it was indeed wrong to end her life.
My morality in this area isn't absolute, since I might agree to administer a lethal dose of morphine to a patient who was suffering horribly and was hours away from death with no hope of recovery.

[Jesse Leigh]

I'd like to ask something. Let's assume that I want to be euthanasied (is that a word in English??) in case I would end up brain dead. Let's say I sign a notarized statement to this effect, and right after that, an anvil randomly falls on my head and I end up brain dead (so, there no conceivable way I could have changed my mind meanwhile). Also, there's no doubt that I'm actually brain dead (no tears, no wailing, nothing).


Would you still, in the name of the sanctity of life, and against my own wishes, fight hard until the very end against my euthanasia?

No, I wouldn't fight you, but not because you signed a document or had a living will. I believe I have to answer to a Higher Court, and it is the Law of that court I am primarily concerned with violating.

My morals and ethics dictate that the *only* circumstance under which I would be willing to end your life personally, would be if you were suffering and I was unable to ameliorate your pain, *and* there was no possible chance you could recover.

Medicine, as far as I am concerned, is meant to prolong the living process - not the dying process. It is barbaric to keep people who are in unspeakable agony hooked up to an IV, on oxygen, or on limited doses of morphine. All arguments about addiction to pain meds are absurd in terminal cases. Who cares if a terminal patient becomes addicted to morphine? I don't, and were it me, I would not wish to scream my way out of this world when I could have, and (without unnecessary palliative intervention) would have, peacefully died a month earlier.

We all have to follow the dictates of our conscience, and when one of my patients requests an intervention I do not feel I can accommodate in good conscience, I refer my patient to another physician whose beliefs are more in keeping with theirs. In your given scenario I would refer you to one of my colleagues. Most physicians operate as I do. The prudent thing to do is to determine in advance that your primary care physician's belief system is in keeping with your own regarding the preservation and/or ending of life.

In addition, I advise all my patients to have a living will and someone whom they can trust to be there to see that it is enforced. We don't always die in a facility near home and the final hours of our life may be managed by strangers. This is why your contact numbers should be kept current and with you at all times. In the absence of a personal advocate, someone else's morality and code of ethics will determine your fate.

Agape - Jesse.

[clairobscur]

In addition, I advise all my patients to have a living will and someone whom they can trust to be there to see that it is enforced. We don't always die in a facility near home and the final hours of our life may be managed by strangers. This is why your contact numbers should be kept current and with you at all times. In the absence of a personal advocate, someone else's morality and code of ethics will determine your fate.
.

An advice I cannot follow since there's no such thing as a living will in France.


Thanks for your answer.

[Q.E.D.]

The fact that Terry responded consistently *at all* to anyone, for any reason, indicates the presence of consciousness, however minimal.

I have a coworker who raises carp. Stupid fish, but big and pretty. When he comes to the pond, they'll swim up to him because they know him. They'll swim away from strangers. Nevertheless, fish are not conscious.

[Influential Panda]

It wasn't the presence of tears that indicated Terry was not brain dead, but that the tears were shed in *response* to being told she was going to have her feeding tube removed.
Please provide evidence stronger than her lawyer's testimony that this actually happened.
Terry displayed, on numerous occasions, all recorded on video and broadcast worldwide, marked response to the presence of people she knew. The response she displayed to those she liked, such as her mother and father, was markedly different from the response she displayed to those she feared and/or disliked, such as her estranged husband and his live-in girlfriend.
Please provide a cite for this. You haven't said what sort of response, which is ridiculously important in assessing consciousness.
but that she was conscious and *responsive* to stimuli of different kinds is inarguable. One doesn't require to be a neurologist to ascertain responsiveness in a patient - even EMT's can and do routinely assess that.
Responsiveness is a huge category. Do you mean heart rate, perhaps? Autonomic arousal can operate quite independently of consciousness. The brain can have an automatic emotional association to voice--say, the particular timbre and flow of her ex-husband's--which causes this arousal. In fully functioning people this can and regularly does happen completely outside of consciousness.

A farm goat may recognize and respond to stimulus, but we would never say it possesses human consciousness.

[hotflungwok]

It wasn't the presence of tears that indicated Terry was not brain dead, but that the tears were shed in *response* to being told she was going to have her feeding tube removed. One of the primary tests we use to determine the level of a person's (any person's) cognitive abilities is their response to stimuli of varying kinds.
Do you know if she cried regularly or randomly? Do you know if she had cried before that? Do you know that she was capable of even understanding the question?

Terry displayed, on numerous occasions, all recorded on video and broadcast worldwide, marked response to the presence of people she knew. The response she displayed to those she liked, such as her mother and father, was markedly different from the response she displayed to those she feared and/or disliked, such as her estranged husband and his live-in girlfriend.
This is going to require a cite, and a very good one, because it is the exact opposite of all medical information I was able to find about the case. From what I've read, she was unresponsive the majority of the time, and the times she did respond were random and unconnected to stimuli. She had almost no motor response, did not respond to visual stimuli, and did not even blink to communicate. The few videos available to the general public were released by Terri's parents, and were heavily edited and designed to make it look like she was responding. She was completely brain dead, and had been this way for 13 years. The real tragedy is not that she was allowed to die, it's that her parents wouldn't accept it and held on for so long.

The fact that Terry responded consistently *at all* to anyone, for any reason, indicates the presence of consciousness, however minimal. I wasn't there and so cannot comment on her clinical level of consciousness, but that she was conscious and *responsive* to stimuli of different kinds is inarguable. One doesn't require to be a neurologist to ascertain responsiveness in a patient - even EMT's can and do routinely assess that.
Go read about PVS. Reflex responses do not require brain activity, and are not good response indicators. She gave no voluntary ones. She was brain dead.

P.S. I will also stipulate that, in my opinion, regardless of the state of her brain, it was indeed wrong to end her life.
My morality in this area isn't absolute, since I might agree to administer a lethal dose of morphine to a patient who was suffering horribly and was hours away from death with no hope of recovery.
So the suffering of the people who don't want to have to see her like this, who might want her to have some kind of dignity, and to be able to move on with their lives doesn't count?

[Jesse Leigh]

I have a coworker who raises carp. Stupid fish, but big and pretty. When he comes to the pond, they'll swim up to him because they know him. They'll swim away from strangers. Nevertheless, fish are not conscious.

With respect, to say that fish are not conscious seems ridiculous to me. Fish show fear, they can problem solve and learn how to avoid traps - they can even get out of them.

We personally owned a Siamese Fighting Fish a few years ago and my husband always fed him his shrimp. (His name was Samurai, but we all called him Sam.)

As it happened, my husband had to go away for a few days to record with his band in a city and I was left to feed Sam. This (according to you) unconscious fish SULKED and would not eat what I offered him. My husband always used a teaspoon and Sam would come and eat the shrimp from the spoon. When I put the spoon where he was used to eating from it, he went to the far corner of his tank and literally SULKED. :rolleyes: He didn't eat a morsel for the three days my husband was away and it's not as if I was a stranger to him. He resumed his normal eating pattern when My husband resumed feeding him.

Still think fish aren't conscious?

Agape - Jesse.

[cosmosdan]

I believe in the sanctity of life, IP, so any issue involving it is emotionally charged for me. However, I did not call her neurologists evil, I said, or I thought I said, that the *act* of murdering her was and is evil. That one I'll stand by. I do not believe human beings have the the right to take another's life. I'll bet that's popular on this forum, but I'm sleep-typing here, IP. If you want anything coherent from me it'll have to wait until tommorrow.

Agape - Jesse.
P.S. I'm ten hour's drive from the closest bookstore, but I'll get it from Amazon - hopefully. Thanks again for the thumbsup.

A couple of things. I'm not sure where the stories of her crying or reacting to her parents came from. My experience is that many things circulated on the internet that get accepted as true turn out to be incorrect when you check them out. Regardless let's talk about the sanctity of life.

It seems to me believing in the sanctity of life should have something to do with the quality of life and the realistic choices faced in a certain situation. It can be an act of love to let someone go rather than have them linger in body with no chance of recovery. I have some up close and personal experience with this.

I can't understand why people who believe in an afterlife would consider it murder to let someone go and let nature take it's course.

[Q.E.D.]

Still think fish aren't conscious?

Yes. And now I also think that you anthropomorphize fish. Fish do not sulk, regardless of how it appeared to you.

[cosmosdan]

Medical evidence has nothing to do with it. As I said before no one knows for sure, and that is wisdom speaking. Our consciousness or "us" is spiritual and does not follow physical laws. Anything is possible with spirit. I know you don't believe this, but it is true nevertheless. What we believe means nothing, only was is, is important.

People have lived normal lives before with little brain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1930510020070720

pretty amazing

[Jesse Leigh]

Please provide evidence stronger than her lawyer's testimony that this actually happened.

Please provide a cite for this. You haven't said what sort of response, which is ridiculously important in assessing consciousness.

Responsiveness is a huge category. Do you mean heart rate, perhaps? Autonomic arousal can operate quite independently of consciousness. The brain can have an automatic emotional association to voice--say, the particular timbre and flow of her ex-husband's--which causes this arousal. In fully functioning people this can and regularly does happen completely outside of consciousness.

A farm goat may recognize and respond to stimulus, but we would never say it possesses human consciousness.

Greetings IP!

I have no citation other than the videos we all watched many times on TV. Even the Pope commented on them several times, so we know that the broadcasts did reach Rome.

I was asked for my opinion and I've given it. The consciousness of fish and goats has little to do with Terry Shiavo and I have no wish to 'argue' on their behalf.

Agape - Jesse.

[Q.E.D.]

You should really rethink your signoff. I have this mental image of someone sitting at her computer with her mouth hanging open in stark surprise every time she reads a new post. Just FYI.

[Jesse Leigh]

Yes. And now I also think that you anthropomorphize fish. Fish do not sulk, regardless of how it appeared to you.

Sorry, grasshopper, ;) but regardless of what you yourself think - Sam SULKED! My grandmother's dog used to sulk every day when she went to work. Animals aren't stupid or unconscious. Even the aforementioned carp were cognizant enough to differentiate between the human who fed them and strangers. I don't think we all have our logic caps on tonight. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Cheers - Jesse

[Jesse Leigh]

You should really rethink your signoff. I have this mental image of someone sitting at her computer with her mouth hanging open in stark surprise every time she reads a new post. Just FYI.

And just FYI, agape means principled love. I think I'll keep it, not that the posts here don't evoke that response in me sometimes. :D - Jess.

[Q.E.D.]

Understood, but to a native English speaker it doesn't read as you intend.

[Jesse Leigh]

Understood, but to a native English speaker it doesn't read as you intend.

If it offends you, Q.E.D., then I shall be happy to remove it. If, OTOH, it provides you with a good laugh...?

Love - Jesse.

[Q.E.D.]

Nothing offends me. Carry on.

[Jesse Leigh]

Nothing offends me. Carry on.

Than you have achieved something for which I strive. I can honestly say that little offends me, but not quite nothing - yet.

Still growing and learning - Jesse.

[Influential Panda]

Jesse, you sound like a nice enough person, but GD is for people who are willing to change their minds. "That's my opinion" is best reserved for IMHO, not GD.

[lekatt]

I'd ask you for a cite for this, but you'd probably just link to your homepage and the story of the bad dream you had one time, so, skipping ahead, I'll say this is nonsense.

And we know it's true because you're totally unable to prove it.

I know.


However you're comparing unlike cases here, since a small brain caused by a condition that might have set in gradually is not the same as a brain that became small due to severe injury.

Not necessary to prove it, I experienced it. As for your misinterpretation of my experience I can only say, you weren't there, you couldn't know anything about it.
You are just engaged in wishful thinking, nothing more.

[Jesse Leigh]

Jesse, you sound like a nice enough person, but GD is for people who are willing to change their minds. "That's my opinion" is best reserved for IMHO, not GD.

IP,

Ah, quandry time - to whom should I listen? I was roasted for stating anything as 'fact,' substantiated or not, and was told I should rather give my opinion.

If I were a Tylenol-taking person.... :confused:

Love - Jess.

Edited to add: I do change my mind, or at least my perspective, and that's why I spend time on forums like this one. Just so you know.

[hotflungwok]

Ah, quandry time - to whom should I listen? I was roasted for stating anything as 'fact,' substantiated or not, and was told I should rather give my opinion.
You weren't roasted, you were asked to give evidence for unsubstantiated statements, and you failed to. Um, I'm not sure I've seen a substantiated one from you actually. That's the issue. This is a debate forum, posting 'That's my opinion', and then defending it as the truth doesn't really work here. If you have an opinion or belief, fine, just don't try to pass it off as anything else. If you want to argue fact, then you're going to have to come up with more than 'That's my opinion' or your argument won't hold any weight. When people ask for cites, they aren't being mean or calling you a liar, they're actually asking for you to back up your assertion with something so we can determine if your argument is valid. Otherwise, the only basis we have for doing so is 'Jesse Leigh said it'.

[cosmosdan]

IP,

Ah, quandry time - to whom should I listen? I was roasted for stating anything as 'fact,' substantiated or not, and was told I should rather give my opinion.

If I were a Tylenol-taking person.... :confused:

Love - Jess.

Edited to add: I do change my mind, or at least my perspective, and that's why I spend time on forums like this one. Just so you know.

Nothing wrong with opinions in GD if you're willing to acknowledge them as such. If you present something as factual the tradition is that you provide some evidence that it's true if someone asks for a cite. An article or something. The source is considered. Scholastic sources are better than someone's blog.

Of course you can choose to not provide a cite. Some do. If that's the case then everything you say gets relegated to the opinion category.

[Jesse Leigh]

Nothing wrong with opinions in GD if you're willing to acknowledge them as such. If you present something as factual the tradition is that you provide some evidence that it's true if someone asks for a cite. An article or something. The source is considered. Scholastic sources are better than someone's blog.

Of course you can choose to not provide a cite. Some do. If that's the case then everything you say gets relegated to the opinion category.

Greetings Cosmosdan!

Yes, I know, thank you. I endeavor to provide links to source material when I state something as fact. (I ask the people on my own forum to do the same.) Not every link I've provided has satisfied all, but... such is the nature of debate since deciding who is an authority on any given subject is oftentimes a matter of perspective and opinion - unfortunately.

Nice to talk with you again. - Jesse.

[lekatt]

Greetings IP!

I have no citation other than the videos we all watched many times on TV. Even the Pope commented on them several times, so we know that the broadcasts did reach Rome.

I was asked for my opinion and I've given it. The consciousness of fish and goats has little to do with Terry Shiavo and I have no wish to 'argue' on their behalf.

Agape - Jesse.

Hi Jesse

I have been posting here for years, and never seen anyone change their mind about anything. It is also true that most posters never provide a cite. I agree with your posts, all life is sacred, and Terry had a loving family ready, willing, and able to care for her with no expense to her cheating husband. The decision was most unfortunate for all, no one won in the end. This case will remain as a "what not to do" example for many years.

I know that life goes on after death, but it is not our judgement to take another's life. Keep up the good posting. By the way "agape" is a word understood by all. At least all the people I know. I wouldn't stop using it on the word of a stranger.

[Marley23]

I have no citation other than the videos we all watched many times on TV. Even the Pope commented on them several times, so we know that the broadcasts did reach Rome.
Everybody knows the videos existed, the question is what the videos meant. Your assertions that they prove she was conscious would be more credible if you backed them up. I don't remember any video where she cried on being told her tube was going to be removed. I do remember a tape where she supposedly tracked a balloon with her eyes, even though postmortem testing of her brain showed she was blind.

[cosmosdan]

Hi Jesse

I have been posting here for years, and never seen anyone change their mind about anything. It is also true that most posters never provide a cite. I agree with your posts, all life is sacred, and Terry had a loving family ready, willing, and able to care for her with no expense to her cheating husband. The decision was most unfortunate for all, no one won in the end. This case will remain as a "what not to do" example for many years.

I know that life goes on after death, but it is not our judgement to take another's life. Keep up the good posting. By the way "agape" is a word understood by all. At least all the people I know. I wouldn't stop using it on the word of a stranger.
Hi lekatt
I may not have completely reversed a position but I've received some good information and POVs over the years I've been posting and definitely refined and updated my POV on certain issues. I appreciate the tradition of cites as well although a good discussion doesn't always require them. Just my 2 cents.

I don't know many details about the Schaivo case other than a few things on TV. It's unfortunate that families tragedy was turned into such a circus. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries about the brain and consciousness. Your link was pretty incredible. People shouldn't assume they know. If someone has been in a coma for years with almost zero chance of recovery it can be an act of mercy to let them go, but that's a decision for those close to them. If her family was willing and able to continue to care for her and assume legal responsibility I'm not sure why they weren't allowed to. Then again, can we be sure she wasn't suffering on some level?

A question; In my own case my Mom was dieing of cancer. She went into a coma and my brother and I opted for no efforts to revive her. She had been suffering for some time and we thought this was the most peaceful way to end her suffering. My sisters could not let her go and revival efforts were made. She regained consciousness so she only to linger on in pain for another week to ten days.
The question is, if people are having a very hard time letting go of a loved one , couldn't it be an act of mercy and compassion for someone to make the decision?
I just wanted to point out that letting go when you feel the situation calls for it doesn't mean life isn't held to be sacred. It can also be an act of love.

[lekatt]

Hi lekatt
I may not have completely reversed a position but I've received some good information and POVs over the years I've been posting and definitely refined and updated my POV on certain issues. I appreciate the tradition of cites as well although a good discussion doesn't always require them. Just my 2 cents.

I don't know many details about the Schaivo case other than a few things on TV. It's unfortunate that families tragedy was turned into such a circus. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries about the brain and consciousness. Your link was pretty incredible. People shouldn't assume they know. If someone has been in a coma for years with almost zero chance of recovery it can be an act of mercy to let them go, but that's a decision for those close to them. If her family was willing and able to continue to care for her and assume legal responsibility I'm not sure why they weren't allowed to. Then again, can we be sure she wasn't suffering on some level?

A question; In my own case my Mom was dieing of cancer. She went into a coma and my brother and I opted for no efforts to revive her. She had been suffering for some time and we thought this was the most peaceful way to end her suffering. My sisters could not let her go and revival efforts were made. She regained consciousness so she only to linger on in pain for another week to ten days.
The question is, if people are having a very hard time letting go of a loved one , couldn't it be an act of mercy and compassion for someone to make the decision?
I just wanted to point out that letting go when you feel the situation calls for it doesn't mean life isn't held to be sacred. It can also be an act of love.

I don't disagree with anything you have said. I would not want to linger on tubes if I was incapable of interacting with the environment. Terry's case was entirely different. There were people, including doctors that believed she was reacting to people. There were people willing to care for her. There was nothing in writing by her to indicate she would not want to live. Her husband was questioned about how she got into the condition she was in and there was some unanswered questions. Her husband took up living with another woman and had children with her. Many other things in the case just did not add up. Her husband said she would have wanted to die(?) Her husband wanted rid of her so he could marry his live-in. The whole thing was not right. It was a bum's rush to death by a horrible means. The ACLU made it possible, an organization I used to support, but never again.

I am not against death with dignity. In fact I was shocked to hear one of my spiritual guides say about capital punishment. "If a person is so intensively locked into harming others with no chance of rehabilitation, it may be the kindest thing one can do." Death is never punishment, it is freeing.

[Marley23]

It was a bum's rush to death by a horrible means.
At 12 years it was probably the slowest bum's rush in human history.

[Jesse Leigh]

Hi lekatt
I may not have completely reversed a position but I've received some good information and POVs over the years I've been posting and definitely refined and updated my POV on certain issues. I appreciate the tradition of cites as well although a good discussion doesn't always require them. Just my 2 cents.

I don't know many details about the Schaivo case other than a few things on TV. It's unfortunate that families tragedy was turned into such a circus. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries about the brain and consciousness. Your link was pretty incredible. People shouldn't assume they know. If someone has been in a coma for years with almost zero chance of recovery it can be an act of mercy to let them go, but that's a decision for those close to them. If her family was willing and able to continue to care for her and assume legal responsibility I'm not sure why they weren't allowed to. Then again, can we be sure she wasn't suffering on some level?

A question; In my own case my Mom was dieing of cancer. She went into a coma and my brother and I opted for no efforts to revive her. She had been suffering for some time and we thought this was the most peaceful way to end her suffering. My sisters could not let her go and revival efforts were made. She regained consciousness so she only to linger on in pain for another week to ten days.
The question is, if people are having a very hard time letting go of a loved one , couldn't it be an act of mercy and compassion for someone to make the decision?
I just wanted to point out that letting go when you feel the situation calls for it doesn't mean life isn't held to be sacred. It can also be an act of love.

Hello Cosmosdan!

If you feel like it, read post #76 for my comments on terminal patients. - Jesse.

[cosmosdan]

Hello Cosmosdan!

If you feel like it, read post #76 for my comments on terminal patients. - Jesse.

I did. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun and assumed attitudes not evident. This is an emotional issue for me as well. I don't know all the specifics of the Schiavo case. I do remember being disgusted by the circus taking place outside her hospital towards the end. IMO people don't do that out of reverence for life. The lady had been in a coma for years. As I said, it can be an act of compassion and love to let someone go, but those closely involved and the relevant experts should make the decision, without the media circus. It's a very delicate, and emotionally charged issue. decisions like that shouldn't be made over sketchy information from questionable sources.

[tim314]

If you take the short snappy title literally the answer is 'all of it'. So what I mean is, which bit of the common definition of 'you' (your whole body) is the sentient bit?

More specific than 'the brain'. Is there a part of the whole brain that is still 'you' if you take the rest away? If you don't count life support how much of the loose definition of you could you take away before what's left stops being you/sentient?

Or to put it another way, how small a bit of you could you take out and put in another body (to sustain it as an organic thing) and it still be you?

Would you still be you if you suddenly lost all your past memories?

Cut me into two parts. The part that doesn't die is me. If they both die, I guess I was the part in the middle.

;)

[lekatt]

Cut me into two parts. The part that doesn't die is me. If they both die, I guess I was the part in the middle.

;)

Your body (halved) would die, but you will continue to live. Want evidence.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/

by Dr. Bruce Grayson, researcher

[tomndebb]

Your body (halved) would die, but you will continue to live. Want evidence.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/

by Dr. Bruce Grayson, researcherThe speculations about Near Death Expriences, with no actual corroborating scientific evidence, does not support a claim that life continues after death (rather than near death). Now that you have made your point, you will drop this line of discussion.

You may argue for life after death, but do not link to your own blog, claiming to have provided "evidence" for your perspective.


[ /Moderating ]

[Mijin]

I've had a few philosophical debates with people, about whether the self can be said to encompass the whole brain. My personal opinion, is "no", which actually seems to be a minority view.

My reasoning is simply that there are parts of my brain that I have no awareness of, and no control over, that may even act in ways that I wish I could consciously override (e.g. I wish I had the option of altering the rules for rendering the sensation of pain).

Some philosophers see it like this: the self is an avatar, living in a virtual reality environment. The virtual reality environment is created by the brain, based on stimuli from the outside world. But what we experience: colour, pain, happiness etc is part of the virtual world.
The avatar cannot directly change the virtual world*. (I can't choose to see blue instead of red. But real-world objects can be spray-painted).

But, in any case, I don't see the distinction between parts of the brain that I'm not aware of and have no control over (e.g. the part responsible for homeostasis) and organs of the body. I don't see why one should feel more part of me than the other.

* The one exception to this is our imaginations, which do affect the internal, subjective reality, but seem to be hard-wired to be far less vivid than our "real" experiences under normal circumstances. So we cannot modify the virtual world very much directly.

[hotflungwok]

* The one exception to this is our imaginations, which do affect the internal, subjective reality, but seem to be hard-wired to be far less vivid than our "real" experiences under normal circumstances. So we cannot modify the virtual world very much directly.
Why does your perception of parts of you you can't consciously control lead you to believe that 'you' are not wholly contained within your brain?

[Mijin]

Why does your perception of parts of you you can't consciously control lead you to believe that 'you' are not wholly contained within your brain?

I don't believe that.
I'm not saying I am not wholly contained within my brain.
I'm saying I don't feel as though I am even all of my brain, since I don't see the distinction between some of the parts of the brain that I have no awareness or control of, and organs of my body.

It would be convenient if there were a nice boundary where body finishes and mind begins. But I don't think that boundary is at the blood-brain barrier.

[begbert2]

I don't believe that.
I'm not saying I am not wholly contained within my brain.
I'm saying I don't feel as though I am even all of my brain, since I don't see the distinction between some of the parts of the brain that I have no awareness or control of, and organs of my body.

It would be convenient if there were a nice boundary where body finishes and mind begins. But I don't think that boundary is at the blood-brain barrier.The mind is quite clearly housed in the brain, but it clearly isn't the brain itself, because you can have brains without minds - to get one all you have to is kill somebody without damaging the brain.

The mind is clearly something that is being done by the brain, much the same way your browser is something being done by your computer. None of your peripherals or computer components are your browser, but things that happen to them can effect the browser; our minds are similarly effected by things that happen to our bodies and brains.

[Malthus]

Which part is "you"?

In my opinion, you are a process that occurs within your body - a series of electrical and chemical reactions. What makes you "you" is the ability to know that you are "you".

Take away enough of your body and these reactions cease.

[cosmosdan]

Your body (halved) would die, but you will continue to live. Want evidence.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/

by Dr. Bruce Grayson, researcher

I think I read about him in a book. Dick's uncle right?

[lekatt]

I think I read about him in a book. Dick's uncle right?

Actually, he is a doctor of psychology, head of the psychology dept. of Virginia University. He has been engaged in research on near death experiences for many years. He has published research and studies on the subject. The video on my site is one of a group of videos he made on NDEs. I probably should have linked the video site where the rest of them are.

http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr.%20Bruce%20Greyson&search=tag

Grayson is one of a growing number of research scientists that believe consciousness (us) and the brain are two separate entities.

Which bit of you is you? It is the consciousness that separates from the body upon death of the body.

That should be very good news to people, and it is backed up by research.

[hotflungwok]

Actually, he is a doctor of psychology, head of the psychology dept. of Virginia University. He has been engaged in research on near death experiences for many years. He has published research and studies on the subject. The video on my site is one of a group of videos he made on NDEs. I probably should have linked the video site where the rest of them are.
First, he's not the head of the psych department, he's the head of one division of the psych department. Second, while he has published research and studies on the subject, none of them give any proof that consciousness is separate from the brain.

Which bit of you is you? It is the consciousness that separates from the body upon death of the body.

That should be very good news to people, and it is backed up by research.
No it isn't. You're taking a few things said by someone and making a huge leap to make it fit what you want to believe. You've found one little dot in middle of a huge field of research that suggests the exact opposite.

[lekatt]

First, he's not the head of the psych department, he's the head of one division of the psych department. Second, while he has published research and studies on the subject, none of them give any proof that consciousness is separate from the brain.


No it isn't. You're taking a few things said by someone and making a huge leap to make it fit what you want to believe. You've found one little dot in middle of a huge field of research that suggests the exact opposite.

Maybe, but the dot is growing in size as more researchers reach the same conclusion.

[hotflungwok]

Maybe, but the dot is growing in size as more researchers reach the same conclusion.
That's fine, but until it becomes commonly accepted, and I'm not holding my breath, you do not have sufficient evidence to make your assertion.

If you're going to play by the 'hey science says...' rules then you have to accept what science says, not just what you feel like accepting. You can't offer up what one scientist says as evidence and then reject what every other scientist says. Right now, science says that there is no non-physical element to us.

[tomndebb]

hotflungwok, please do not hijack this thread with one more merry-go-round exchange on what science does or does not say. It is really not pertinent to the discussion and is little more than baiting lekatt into violating the conditions under which he may post in this forum.

[ /Modding ]

[lekatt]

That's fine, but until it becomes commonly accepted, and I'm not holding my breath, you do not have sufficient evidence to make your assertion.

If you're going to play by the 'hey science says...' rules then you have to accept what science says, not just what you feel like accepting. You can't offer up what one scientist says as evidence and then reject what every other scientist says. Right now, science says that there is no non-physical element to us.

I don't think Tom is going to let us discuss the topic of this thread which is exactly what we have been discussing so I will stop. But there is no way science can say there is no non-physical element to us because there is no way to measure that, heck, science has found no physical evidence that the mind is located in the brain. If you think there is physical evidence please show it. Well, maybe not.

[jessesheeran]

it brings up whether or not a person has the right to take their own life

[Jesse Leigh]

I strongly, strongly recommend you pick up The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner. It gives an illuminating look at the nature of consciousness and how we experience it. Now, for my ridiculously oversimplified explanation.

You don't have to be conscious to perform actions. You aren't consciously aware, for instance, of the location of your feet in space, yet your brain handles it without difficulty. You can shift your consciousness to become aware of it, certainly, but it's not a necessary requirement for movement.

Much like sleepwalking, which is locomotor activity without consciousness, you can hold a full conversation without being conscious of it.

Also, the memory for this sort of event is classified as episodic memory. To consciously re-experience and retrieve these sorts of memories, you need to have been conscious of them in the first place.

Greetings IP!

The book you recommended arrived yesterday, and I'm only halfway through chapter one, but it's entertaining. I've been spot-reading the most intriguing excerpts to my husband. He's not as interested in the subject matter as I am, but I'm looking forward to making my way through Mr. Wegner's book. I notice he fails to factor kinetic energy into his equations, or perhaps he'll get to it later - I do hope so.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for the heads up. (The next book I'll be reading, God-Willing, is 'Kinds of Minds.' )

Have a great day! - Jesse.

[wsbenge]

I think you are unfairly discounting the entire hormone system here - adrenal glands, sexual hormones etc play a large part in making us who we are.

Those just put pressure on us, to react. They are not a part of me.

Booze puts pressure on me, as well, but it never forces my behavior. I still choose .... poorly. :)

[wsbenge]

Fish show fear

Still think fish aren't conscious?

For the most part, I have decided animals are biological constructs, with full sets of emotion, access to memory, etc. , running like a computer program, on instinct when necessary.

They lack the essential component of self.

Seriously, I am not sure if all human beings have a soul, the way they behave.

[A Dodgy Dude]

This whole conversation ... I mean "thread" ... reminds me of a scene from Dead Like Me (used to be on Showtime a few years back):

George: So, my whole life, everything, all I get to keep are thoughts and memories?
Rube: That's all we ever have, peanut.

/I miss the reapers. :(

[DSeid]

... the essential component of self ...And what would you say is the essential component of self?

Please, no self-serving answers, such as whatever it is that we have that they do not. Or, I don't know but I know it when I see it.

[wsbenge]

DSeid,

The essential component. Only word I can come up with is soul, and it is hard to pin down.

Some of the idea is self-serving rationalization, since if I thought fish had a soul, I could not put them in my food chain. Or cattle.

It is too easy just to say animals and plant life do not have souls, because an ancient book says so.

Observed behavior. Certain cultures decided wolves were a people, because of perceived culture. Existance of soul should be shown by behavior.

[DSeid]

Hmmm. So at what point did primitive humans or protohumans have enough culture that they were endowed with souls?

If I provide you with evidence of culture within whale groups or elephant societies let alone non-human primates do they also get blessed with souls that they did not have until they evolved some kind of culture? Or does culture get defined as that which we have that they do not?

When does a developing human gets its soul? At conception? If the zygote then twins which one gets the soul and which gets a new one? Or do twins share a soul?

How do you know that there is a soul there other than that thinking of it as not being there serves your self-rationalizations? I wonder ... did slave owners believe that slaves did not have souls while they did?

[wsbenge]

When does a developing human gets its soul? At conception? If the zygote then twins which one gets the soul and which gets a new one? Or do twins share a soul?

I will go you one better. :)

I can't prove to you the I, myself, have a soul. If I do not, I have nothing to lose. I live as though I do.

I must say, it is a question of relative importance, to me.

I have no concept of mortality, internally. I can not conceive thoughts of when I do not exist. I am curious. In my late teens, it used to be a favorite question of mine: What do you want to do, when you die? That question got shoved up by butt one day. I don't ask, any more. In any event, I have a ticket to find out in a few years. Dead man walking, so to speak.

The above zygote question is why I quit the idea abortion, except in self-defense, i.e., the mother's life, at her discretion.

As far as I can tell, the fertilized ovum is human. Whether, or not, it is ensouled, I have no idea, and must err on the side of ensoulment.k More rationalization, I suppose. One must live with one's self.

[DSeid]

And here we somewhat agree! I have no belief in a God who is concerned with our affairs or the intercessionary power of prayer - but if some find it helps them then more power to them. Many do. Faith is an adaptive thing whether or not it is based in reality.