A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL no.

Life or death as we use them colloquially are extremely vague and poorly defined concepts.

No they are not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In a nutshell, we just look at the final result, and then label the state that preceded it as either life or death. If someone's heart stops, we call them dead. But we can then start their heart again, and we do not consider the person who wakes up a different person! Apparently this person was not dead: death is not considered a reversible process.

A person may have no heartbeat although there are cases where a person's heart could start beating again (usually with intervention), and incur no damage. After that small window of time, death ensues and there is no chance of a person coming back to life. Death is death and life is life. If I am dead, I cannot be alive. If I am alive, I cannot be dead. Stop trying to redefine what death is so you can argue that free will and determinism are compatible.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Freeze a person solid, and they are, for most practical purposes dead. We do not currently have the technology to undo the cell damage caused by freezing. But if we freeze someone now, discover the appropriate technologies, and then un-freeze them intact? Were they alive or dead?

They were in suspended animation. They were not dead. Their metabolism slowed down to where they didn't need as much oxygen to survive. A dead person cannot come back to life. Only Jesus can do that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Finally, take whatever is left of Julius Ceasar, and then reconstitute him to the exact same state he was shortly before he died. Did Caesar die? Is what is living now the same thing? If not, then why do we consider the people from the first two examples alive, as they are both noticeably different from the person who existed before the event, while Caesar is exactly as he was before!

You're bringing up "what if" situations. Julius Ceasar was not reconstituted. If and when that ever occurs, it will be something amazing to witness.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Life" seems to describe (vaguely) a state of continuing integrity, the existence of a process that is recognizably one individual. It is messy, and most certain not an on or off state.

It is definitely an on or off state, although there are different stages in the dying process. There are extremely rare cases where the electrical system of the heart starts working after CPR has stopped and the doctors have announced the time of death. Did the person actually die? Not in this case. This person was on the verge of death (but he was not dead because death is the point of no return) but that window of time allowed him to regain consciousness. Until we're dead, we are still alive, no matter where we are in that process. When we die and rigor mortis sets in, we are DEAD! This does not mean our organs can't be given to other people. It just means that the body, brain, and consciousness of that individual, is gone forever.

Lazarus syndrome

Lazarus syndrome or autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation[1] is the spontaneous return of circulation after failed attempts at resuscitation.[2] Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 38 times since 1982.[3][4] Also called Lazarus phenomenon, it takes its name from Lazarus who, in the New Testament of The Bible, was raised from the dead by Jesus.[5]

Occurrences of the syndrome are extremely rare and the causes are not well understood. One hypothesis for the phenomenon is that a chief factor (though not the only one) is the buildup of pressure in the chest as a result of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The relaxation of pressure after resuscitation efforts have ended is thought to allow the heart to expand, triggering the heart's electrical impulses and restarting the heartbeat.[2] Other possible factors are hyperkalemia or high doses of epinephrine.[5]

Lazarus syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am glad you're finally leaving. Goodbye and good luck! Now go!!

Yes, "Making fun of a booze-addled elderly person is disgusting behavior" normally, but this is Peacegirl, so I think most would make an exception in her case. Just as a courtesy to her.

And yes, Please leave, just like Peacegirl has left before.

[Vivisectus]

No they are not.

Why not?

A person may have no heartbeat although there are cases where a person's heart could start beating again (usually with intervention), and incur no damage. After that small window of time, death ensues and there is no chance of a person coming back to life. Death is death and life is life. If I am dead, I cannot be alive. If I am alive, I cannot be dead. Stop trying to redefine what death is so you can argue that free will and determinism are compatible.

Again - you repeat a content free mantra without actually dealing with the points I made.

They were in suspended animation. They were not dead. Their metabolism slowed down to where they didn't need as much oxygen to survive. A dead person cannot come back to life. Only Jesus can do that.

So arbitrarily, this you label as not dead. So what is the difference between death and freezing someone today? For all practical purposes they are just as dead as in all other forms: we lack the technology to re-start the processes of life in them at the moment.

You're bringing up "what if" situations. Julius Ceasar was not reconstituted. If and when that ever occurs, it will be something amazing to witness.

No different from the freezing scenario: good ole Julius is currently in a state where we do not have the means to re-start a set of processes in a being we would recognize as Julius. In the case of someone in cardiac arrest, we DO have the means to re-start the processes, and we recognize the person as the person she was before. In the case of the frozen person, we lack the means, but would recognize the person.

Thus you see, it is not quite as simple as you keep insisting it is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Life" seems to describe (vaguely) a state of continuing integrity, the existence of a process that is recognizably one individual. It is messy, and most certain not an on or off state.

It is definitely an on or off state, although there are ways to identify the different stages in the dying process.

Can you waffle a little longer? I didn't quite get time to finish.

There are cases where a person's heart started beating again, sometimes in the morgue. There are extremely rare cases where the electrical system of the heart starts working after CPR has stopped. Was the person dead? No. They were on the way to death but that window of time between life and death allowed them to live. Until we're dead, we are still alive, no matter where we are in that process. When we die and rigor mortis sets in, we are DEAD! This does not mean our organs can't be given to other people. It just means that the body, brain, and consciousness of that individual, is gone forever.

Haha now there is a sort of semi-death which is neither death nor life, but life or death is still an on and off state? You see how you yourself have to invent new states to retain your idea?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not equate determinism with physical coercion.

Physical coercion? Where did I use the word physical?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We know that most people being physically threatened will do what their captives want them to do, but they still have a choice. It's just that we can easily see the contrast and why a person would say, "You give me no choice."

Your reaction has nothing to do with what I said. Determinism is supposed to make free will impossible because our past causally forces us to do the one thing we do. If this is not the case, then determinism is no thread for free will at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to Dennett. He keeps talking about the importance of threats in order to quell a desire to do harm. I told you that this is nothing more than the present historic position because that's how our civilization operates.

What has that to do with Dennett's against the idea that free will is impossible because we could not have done otherwise??? You do not even read what I write!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sharing something that goes way beyond deterrence through punishment as a way to bring peace. But you won't hear of it. This shows me you are more interested in being right than trying to understand something that may prove you wrong but bring peace to the world.

Yes, if I see that the ground assumptions of the book are just wrong, and more than that see how you defend your father's book by cheating, lying, contradicting yourself, contradicting science (while not understanding the simplest scientific facts), yes, then I am not interested at all. when I see this poorly written, bad arguments you present us in fragment of the book, I already know that it is just horse shit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't fail miserably.

Yes, you do. And your reaction shows you are just evading what I say: that you have no idea about established science and the uptodate discussion about free will and determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you that, once a choice is made, this person did not have done otherwise given his circumstances, even taking into consideration the punishment that would be coming to him if he chose wrongly.

Is this supposed to be an argument??? It is not even clear what you mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even here, you just listen to others without even understanding the reasons behind his claim.

Do you think I wouldn't have known that the eyes do not work in the way you present here without seeing the other reactions. Here, I tell you a secret...: I was at school. And your idea of instantaneous vision... You know physics was my subsidiary subject on university? ook at CFI, in your thread, and see if I needed the others to unmask your utter miserable failure to understand science and (modal) logic.

[Vivisectus]

Awww don't be like that Maturin! Think of her as a booze-addled fundamentalist in stead. I mean it is what she is, and it explains all the funny temper tantrums she has when her idea becomes very clearly untenable. Also the Lying for Lessans, and the way she ignores whatever does not make sense, trusting it will somehow start to make sense at a later date, like Mormons putting stuff on the Shelf.

I mean it is not like she does not have any choice in the matter. She chooses to remain ignorant, to ignore whatever evidence she does not like, and to weasel and cheat in the cause of her daddies crackpot manifesto when she is inevitably backed into a corner.

And there is nothing stopping her from actually learning something: she has been pointed int he right direction a thousand times at least, and she has all the info she needs at her fingertips.

Let's not pretend she is some helpless disabled person. She's just more ignorant than the rear-end of a pig, as the Dutch say. And that is easily fixed by anyone willing to learn and not afraid of a little work. Which, I realize, rules her out in both ways

[peacegirl]

No they are not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why not?

Again - you repeat a content free mantra without actually dealing with the points I made.

They were in suspended animation. They were not dead. Their metabolism slowed down to where they didn't need as much oxygen to survive. A dead person cannot come back to life. Only Jesus can do that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So arbitrarily, this you label as not dead. So what is the difference between death and freezing someone today? For all practical purposes they are just as dead as in all other forms: we lack the technology to re-start the processes of life in them at the moment.

Right, and they're also trying to bring back the dinosaur. There is no proven technology where we can bring a dead person back to life. If the person was frozen in that small window of time before actual death occurs, then theoretically the idea is plausible whether or not it can actually work. But the person would not be stone dead, so this example does nothing to save your argument.

You're bringing up "what if" situations. Julius Ceasar was not reconstituted. If and when that ever occurs, it will be something amazing to witness.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No different from the freezing scenario: good ole Julius is currently in a state where we do not have the means to re-start a set of processes in a being we would recognize as Julius. In the case of someone in cardiac arrest, we DO have the means to re-start the processes, and we recognize the person as the person she was before. In the case of the frozen person, we lack the means, but would recognize the person.

Thus you see, it is not quite as simple as you keep insisting it is.

It is very simple. You're just making it complicated. We cannot be a little bit alive in the literal sense, just like we cannot be a little bit pregnant. We either are or we aren't. By the same token, we cannot be a little bit dead.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Life" seems to describe (vaguely) a state of continuing integrity, the existence of a process that is recognizably one individual. It is messy, and most certain not an on or off state.

It is definitely an on or off state, although there are ways to identify the different stages in the dying process.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can you waffle a little longer? I didn't quite get time to finish.

Is that my fault?

There are cases where a person's heart started beating again, sometimes in the morgue. There are extremely rare cases where the electrical system of the heart starts working after CPR has stopped. Was the person dead? No. They were on the way to death but that window of time between life and death allowed them to live. Until we're dead, we are still alive, no matter where we are in that process. When we die and rigor mortis sets in, we are DEAD! This does not mean our organs can't be given to other people. It just means that the body, brain, and consciousness of that individual, is gone forever.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Haha now there is a sort of semi-death which is neither death nor life, but life or death is still an on and off state? You see how you yourself have to invent new states to retain your idea?

Death is a process, but we don't say someone is dead unless there is no chance of resuscitation. He is then pronounced dead which means he is no longer alive. He cannot be dead and alive at the same time. Do you ever hear a doctor announcing to a family that their child was just pronounced dead but he may still be alive?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Physical coercion? Where did I use the word physical?

Physical coercion meaning having a gun held to your head as opposed to a less dangerous situation that doesn't involve physical threats.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We know that most people being physically threatened will do what their captives want them to do, but they still have a choice. It's just that we can easily see the contrast and why a person would say, "You give me no choice."

Originally Posted by GdB

Your reaction has nothing to do with what I said. Determinism is supposed to make free will impossible because our past causally forces us to do the one thing we do. If this is not the case, then determinism is no thread for free will at all.

Right there I can see the confusion. I don't define determinism as causally forcing me to do the one thing I do. This implies there is no choice at all. We have choices; they just aren't free but not because we are being forced from a past event. I am sure this excerpt will not make sense to you immediately, but it will become clear if you stay with it, but I doubt you will.

p. 52 Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — as you just mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be
made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free?
And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to Dennett. He keeps talking about the importance of threats in order to quell a desire to do harm. I told you that this is nothing more than the present historic position because that's how our civilization operates.

Originally Posted by GdB

What has that to do with Dennett's against the idea that free will is impossible because we could not have done otherwise??? You do not even read what I write!

Dennett agrees that we don't have free will and at the same time he tries to define free will as something that we do have. He calls it a free will worth having. If free will and determinism are polar opposites (which they are), then he is contradicting himself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sharing something that goes way beyond deterrence through punishment as a way to bring peace. But you won't hear of it. This shows me you are more interested in being right than trying to understand something that may prove you wrong but bring peace to the world.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, if I see that the ground assumptions of the book are just wrong, and more than that see how you defend your father's book by cheating, lying, contradicting yourself, contradicting science (while not understanding the simplest scientific facts), yes, then I am not interested at all. when I see this poorly written, bad arguments you present us in fragment of the book, I already know that it is just horse shit.

So then leave. I have no investment in this conversation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't fail miserably.

Originally Posted by GdB

Yes, you do. And your reaction shows you are just evading what I say: that you have no idea about established science and the uptodate discussion about free will and determinism.

So clue me in. As far as I know, I've read most of the theories. There are a myriad of definitions that try to make a case for either free will or determinism, but they do more to confuse the issue than clarify it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you that, once a choice is made, this person did not have done otherwise given his circumstances, even taking into consideration the punishment that would be coming to him if he chose wrongly.

Originally Posted by GdB

Is this supposed to be an argument??? It is not even clear what you mean.

You are defending our present system of justice, which is understandable. Unfortunately there are people who have reasons for choosing what you would not have them choose. They are aware that they will go to prison, if caught, and they are willing to take the risk. How do we stop them when our threats don't act as a deterrent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even here, you just listen to others without even understanding the reasons behind his claim.

Originally Posted by GdB

Do you think I wouldn't have known that the eyes do not work in the way you present here without seeing the other reactions. Here, I tell you a secret...: I was at school. And your idea of instantaneous vision... You know physics was my subsidiary subject on university? ook at CFI, in your thread, and see if I needed the others to unmask your utter miserable failure to understand science and (modal) logic.

Why bring up modal logic in a post about the eyes? There is no modal fallacy whatsoever! As far as the eyes go, you don't understand why he came to this conclusion. His reasoning was valid. The soundness of his reasoning will be determined in time.

[Vivisectus]

Right, and they're also trying to bring back the dinosaur. There is no proven technology where we can bring a dead person back to life. If the person was frozen in that small window of time before actual death occurs, then theoretically the idea is plausible whether or not it can actually work. But the person would not be stone dead, so this example does nothing to save your argument.

Again - multiple kinds of "dead".

It is very simple. You're just making it complicated. We cannot be a little bit alive in the literal sense, just like we cannot be a little bit pregnant. We either are or we aren't. By the same token, we cannot be a little bit dead.

Unless you are not alive, not not quite dead yet.

Death is a process, but we don't say someone is dead unless there is no chance of resuscitation. He is then pronounced dead which means he is no longer alive. He cannot be dead and alive at the same time. Do you ever hear a doctor announcing to a family that their child was just pronounced dead but he may still be alive?

Yup. You do. People are sometimes what is called brain-dead: the brain is damaged beyond repair, but we can keep the body going for while longer.

I love how you pontificate away about these things without stopping to think about even prefectly well known examples almost everyone is aware of.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - multiple kinds of "dead".

No Vivisectus, he would not be dead if he could be brought back.

It is very simple. You're just making it complicated. We cannot be a little bit alive in the literal sense, just like we cannot be a little bit pregnant. We either are or we aren't. By the same token, we cannot be a little bit dead.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unless you are not alive, not not quite dead yet.

You are in suspended animation in that limbo period. You are not dead.

Suspended animation is the slowing or stopping of life processes by exogenous or endogenous means without termination. Breathing, heartbeat, and other involuntary functions may still occur, but they can only be detected by artificial means.[citation needed]

Suspended animation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Haha now there is a sort of semi-death which is neither death nor life, but life or death is still an on and off state? You see how you yourself have to invent new states to retain your idea?

Life and death are opposites. To repeat: If you are alive (and that includes being in a dormant state), you are not dead. If you are dead, you are not alive.

Death is a process, but we don't say someone is dead unless there is no chance of resuscitation. He is then pronounced dead which means he is no longer alive. He cannot be dead and alive at the same time. Do you ever hear a doctor announcing to a family that their child was just pronounced dead but he may still be alive?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yup. You do. People are sometimes what is called brain-dead: the brain is damaged beyond repair, but we can keep the body going for while longer.

I already answered this. A person's body can be kept alive by artificial means in order to harvest his organs, but his essence is gone if he is brain dead. It is comforting to know that someone's organ helped another person to live, but the person whose organ it belonged to is no longer living. HE IS DEAD!!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love how you pontificate away about these things without stopping to think about even prefectly well known examples almost everyone is aware of.

Again, you're just trying to confuse the issue to make it appear that when you're dead you can be alive, so you don't have to deal with the FACT that determinism is the opposite of free will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you're just trying to confuse the issue to make it appear that when you're dead you can be alive, so you don't have to deal with the FACT that determinism is the opposite of free will.

That is not a FACT, just because your father wrote it in a book. Most of what he wrote in the book was wrong in a most fundamental way, mostly because he didn't understand what he was criticizing in the first place. Determinism is not the opposite of free will, it is the opposite of in-determinism and that is not the same as free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So given that no-one has EVER claimed that sense organs "receive and transmit external stimuli which go to the brain", what distinction was Daddy Dumbfuck trying to make?

Yes, you are. You're also a liar and a fraud.

The special spenses (smell, taste, eye, ear and balance) play a significant role serving as exteroreceptors or antennas, that collect and transmit external sensations from the environment to the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, your source Lorraine Day, MD observed reality just like you. Her observations should be taken seriously. Right?

Wrong, 1000% wrong.

[Vivisectus]

No Vivisectus, he would not be dead if he could be brought back.

You are in suspended animation in that limbo period. You are not dead.

Just in an state that is indistinguishable from death until you know the outcome, you mean?

Life and death are opposites. To repeat: If you are alive (and that includes being in a dormant state), you are not dead. If you are dead, you are not alive.

You do tend to repeat the same claim a lot.

I already answered this. A person's body can be kept alive by artificial means in order to harvest his organs, but his essence is gone if he is brain dead. It is comforting to know that someone's organ helped another person to live, but the person whose organ it belonged to is no longer living. HE IS DEAD!!!!

I see you require some sort of mystical "essence" now to explain yourself.

Again, you're just trying to confuse the issue to make it appear that when you're dead you can be alive, so you don't have to deal with the FACT that determinism is the opposite of free will.

Dont see what that has to do with it at all, actually, but whatever. Go on amd project motives on to me if it makes you feel better.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So given that no-one has EVER claimed that sense organs "receive and transmit external stimuli which go to the brain", what distinction was Lessans trying to make?

Bump.

[The Lone Ranger]

Everyone remembers the Terri Schiavo case, no doubt. She suffered massive brain damage, and her cerebral cortex was almost completely lost.

However, a lot of actions that we tend to think of as "conscious actions" are actually reflexes. Since her brain stem remained largely intact, many reflexes that we normally associate with conscious behavior remained. For instance, she would blink in response to sudden movements or sudden loud noises. More to the point, since the vestibulo–ocular reflex remained intact, if her head was moved, her eyes would automatically move to compensate. This created the eerie (though false) impression that she was watching people and tracking their movements, and was probably part of the reason that some people insisted she was "still in there," even though her autopsy showed that her cerebral cortex had long-since been lost.

Anyway, most people would argue that though her body was clearly still alive, since all higher brain functions had ceased -- indeed, her higher brain had essentially disintegrated -- Terry herself was dead.



Moving on, a zygote is unambiguously alive.

In the [thankfully rare] condition of anencephaly, the higher brain does not develop at all. As such, a zygote develops into an embryo, which develops into a fetus, but that fetus lacks any higher brain tissues. So, at the time of birth, the baby is missing most of the brain and the top of its head.


So, since no one argues that a zygote or an embryo isn't alive, my question is simple: In cases of anencephaly, during which a living zygote develops into a living embryo, which ultimately develops into a fetus and finally a baby that lacks any higher brain functions -- at which point in this developmental process does the individual die?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LIAR. You just said that the light travels but the information doesn't. That is distinguishing between the light and the information, which is impossible when THE LIGHT IS THE INFORMATION.

What traveling has the light at the eye at 12:00 (from the newly ignited Sun) done?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Everyone remembers the Terri Schiavo case, no doubt. She suffered massive brain damage, and her cerebral cortex was almost completely lost.

However, a lot of actions that we tend to think of as "conscious actions" are actually reflexes. Since her brain stem remained largely intact, many reflexes that we normally associate with conscious behavior remained. For instance, she would blink in response to sudden movements or sudden loud noises. More to the point, since the vestibulo–ocular reflex remained intact, if her head was moved, her eyes would automatically move to compensate. This created the eerie (though false) impression that she was watching people and tracking their movements, and was probably part of the reason that some people insisted she was "still in there," even though her autopsy showed that her cerebral cortex had long-since been lost.

Anyway, most people would argue that though her body was clearly still alive, since all higher brain functions had ceased -- indeed, her higher brain had essentially disintegrated -- Terry herself was dead.

This was a sad case. When someone is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery, the fact that their bodies are kept alive by artificial means (e.g., a feeding tube) is not life. When the brain dies, that person dies regardless of whether the rest of the body is being kept alive.

Terri Schiavo Timeline - ABC News

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Moving on, a zygote is unambiguously alive.

In the [thankfully rare] condition of anencephaly, the higher brain does not develop at all. As such, a zygote develops into an embryo, which develops into a fetus, but that fetus lacks any higher brain tissues. So, at the time of birth, the baby is missing most of the brain and the top of its head.

So, since no one argues that a zygote or an embryo isn't alive, my question is simple: In cases of anencephaly, during which a living zygote develops into a living embryo, which ultimately develops into a fetus and finally a baby that lacks any higher brain functions -- at which point in this developmental process does the individual die?

The individual dies when all vital processes fail to support the functions that are necessary for survival. Death comes quickly when an infant has this malformation from what I've read.

Anencephaly is the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp that occurs during embryonic development.[1] It is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the rostral (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day following conception.[2] Strictly speaking, the Greek term translates as "no in-head" (that is, totally lacking the inside part of the head, i.e. the brain), but it is accepted that children born with this disorder usually only lack a telencephalon,[3] the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres, including the neocortex, which is responsible for cognition. The remaining structure is usually covered only by a thin layer of membrane— skin, bone, meninges, etc. are all lacking.[4] With very few exceptions,[5][6] infants with this disorder do not survive longer than a few hours or possibly days after their birth.

Anencephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

You know what I meant. According to Lessans, there is no external stimuli in the light (other than intensity) that turn into electrical signals --- like in the other senses --- which are then sent to the brain and interpreted as normal vision. Really Spacemonkey, it is time to let go of this discussion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, light strikes the retina and is transduced into electrochemical impulses by photoreceptors. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

Afferent neurons then transmit those impulses to the visual cortex of the brain. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

The interneurons of the visual cortex process these incoming impulses. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.

If you use a sufficiently dense map of the visual cortex, you can not only watch this happening in real time, you can actually tell what an animal is looking at by observing the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. That is not conjecture, it is rigorously-tested fact. And with modern technology, we can watch it happening in real time.


But somehow, this has nothing to do with vision says peacegirl, who apparently believes that she's some kind of expert on how we see, despite the fact that she still hasn't demonstrated an ability to even tell the difference between olfactory and optic neurons, much less understand how they function.

None of the senses involve transmission of external stimuli to the brain, you gibbering ignoramus. What's more, there are more than 5 senses. It truly does not seem possible that an adult human being can be as ignorant as you.

And yet, you still haven't demonstrated any difference between the afferent neurons that make up the visual pathway and those that make up the olfactory pathway. Because there isn't any such difference.

Heck, you haven't even been able to demonstrate the ability to distinguish between the anatomy of the retina and the anatomy of the olfactory epithelium, despite the facts that: a.) the difference is extremely obvious, and b.) anyone who knows anything at all about the visual pathway would spot the difference immediately.

Which sure as heck makes it look like you're lying through your teeth (again) when you claim that you understand the relevant science. After all, if you weren't lying through your teeth in this instance, it would be trivially easy for you to prove that you know what you're talking about. Not that this surprises anyone: after all, you've repeatedly admitted that you have no problem with lying when it suits your purpose (which is often).


Do you know what a person is if (s)he insists on pontificating upon matters about which (s)he is clearly and obviously profoundly ignorant? An arrogant idiot, that's what.

I'm pointing out a simple truth: in any sort of debate, redefining clearly-defined and well-understood words to mean whatever you want them to demonstrates that you're not interested in whether or not what you say is true; what you're really interested in is "winning," even if you have to lie to do it.

We have conclusive evidence that we do not see in real time -- including pictures to prove it. You've been shown quite a few, in fact. The proof is conclusive, yet there is still one person who says the pictures are fake or "something else is going on," blah blah blah. She is a fundie.

There you go again: you're simply declaring this to be true, without a shred of evidence or logic to back it up. That's the exact same thing that you and Lessans do when you invent new definitions and then declare that Lessans was right -- by this totally made-up definition. It is no different (and no less dishonest) than me claiming that the Earth is flat -- by my totally made-up definition of the word "flat," that is.

It's a despicably dishonest tactic because it's based on a foundation of lies. Whats more, you claim that there is an explanation, but there is no such thing. Unless, of course, "explanation" is another of those words that you've redefined to suit your needs. No explanation has been provided, just lots of claims that have proved to be false every single time they've been tested.

You know exactly nothing about scientific investigations and how they do or should work.

And yet, you haven't been able to identify a single difference.

This is gibberish, and does nothing except further demonstrate that, even after all this time -- and despite your claims to the contrary -- you don't have the slightest comprehension of what you're talking about.

No he didn't, you simpering idiot -- as you could easily confirm if you'd take 30 seconds to educate yourself. Efferent refers to neural impulses moving away from the CNS, and does not necessarily involve muscles.

If vision is efferent and thus the brain (somehow) "looks out through the eyes," then -- by definition -- there must be some efferent connection between the brain and the retina. The problem for Lessans is that no such connection exists.

You are right. There must be a mechanism that allows efferent vision to occur. He used the word correctly.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So I repeat: You, like your father, are as ignorant as a bag of hammers, and as dishonest as the day is long. You arrogantly prattle on about things on which you have no understanding whatsoever, and just like a typical Fundamentalist, you go to great lengths to avoid learning about these matters, lest you accidentally learn something that conflicts with your absolute faith.

You can think what you want Lone Ranger. What will you say if he turns out to be right? I hope you will apologize.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. According to Lessans, there is no external stimuli in the light (other than intensity) that turn into electrical signals --- like in the other senses --- which are then sent to the brain and interpreted as normal vision. Really Spacemonkey, it is time to let go of this discussion.

The light is the external stimuli. There is no relevant distinction to be made between vision and the other main senses. In all cases external stimuli is detected and information is sent to the brain. There is no distinction here for Lessans to identify. It is a known fact that the retina detects light. It is a known fact that the retina sends information to the brain via the optic nerve. Claiming as a premise that there is some kind of obvious fundamental difference here, as Lessans did, is just plain ignorance and stupidity.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain dies, that person dies regardless of whether the rest of the body is being kept alive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The individual dies when all vital processes fail to support the functions that are necessary for survival. Death comes quickly when an infant has this malformation from what I've read.

You're contradicting yourself. By your own standards, the fetus was never alive, since it never had a brain to begin with.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The special spenses (smell, taste, eye, ear and balance) play a significant role serving as exteroreceptors or antennas, that collect and transmit external sensations from the environment to the brain.

Peacegirl, you are erroneously conflating external stimuli with external sensations. The external stimuli are the actual photons, vibrations, chemicals, and pressure on the skin, that stimulate the afferent nerves to send signals to the brain. The sensation is the information (via signals) that the nerves send to the brain, that are then translated into sight, sound, taste and smell, and touch. The stimuli and the sensations are not the same thing, one is the physical stimulation, and the other is the nerve impulses that are sent to the brain that are then translated by the brain as the sensations that we become aware of. Just a little studying of biology would clear this up for you.

FYI, the eyes do receive external stimuli is the form of photons, that much has been discovered and verified by science. Lessans was wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right. There must be a mechanism that allows efferent vision to occur. He used the word correctly.

No he didn't. And you're still either too stupid or too dishonest to understand why.

If vision is efferent, then by definition there must be an efferent connection between the retina and the brain. The problem Lessans has is that the only connection between the retina and the brain is the optic nerve, which is -- demonstrably -- entirely afferent.



And, I note, you still haven't been able to say which picture is of olfactory neurons and which is of visual neurons. This demonstrates that a.) your claim that there is a difference is false, and b.) your claim that you understand the relevant science is a big, fat lie.