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.
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.
The 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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
