Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, not her in particular. Research doesn't move that quickly. And even if it reached the full theoretical maturity, replacing a damaged section of brain with fresh cells, the information encoded in the dead cells is gone, and at best she would be restored to babyhood. Better than death, but it wouldn't have helped "Terri" so much as give Terri's body a second chance at becoming a person.

I know it's a little off topic, but you have hit on the very reason why "life after death" is an impossibility. People seem to forget that what they think, what they remember, their emotions, etc. are all stored in cells within their body, and yet they expect that when they die, somehow that all gets transfered into their "spirit". Crazy!

"Believers" are going cite people like James Van Praagh, and ask if it's not true, how do they do what they do. I think there is a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for his abilities, which I won't go into here, mixed in with a fair amount of good old Vaudeville showmanship. And, yes, I am impressed with his skills.

[Happy Monkey]

Life after death people (not me) would probably say either

1) Memories are lost anyway on death, as the soul is separate from the mind, (ie reincarnation)

or

2) Loss of brain function merely disrupts the connection between the soul's uncorrupted memory and the conscious mind.

James Van Praagh and John Edward are carnies, and aren't really relevant to any real religious discussions. I may think that they are equally incorrect as the Pope, but the Pope actually believes the things he says.

[bluesdave]

Isn't #2 what I just said?

[Happy Monkey]

I don't think so. You said that on death memories would be copied from brain to spirit. My #2 would be that memories are stored by the soul, and the brain just provides access to the soul. But I may have misinterpreted you.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't think so. You said that on death memories would be copied from brain to spirit. My #2 would be that memories are stored by the soul, and the brain just provides access to the soul. But I may have misinterpreted you.

Yes, but the point is that we now have scientifically backed evidence that memories are in fact stored in various parts of the body - not all in the brain, btw. The "believers" (not me - I thought I made that pretty clear), think that either the memories get transfered at death, or, as you say, the soul keeps the memories (or a copy of them), all through a person's life. From an Evolutionary point of view, that would be extremely inefficient, and nature tends towards efficiency.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

The "believers" (not me - I thought I made that pretty clear),

I realized that, I was just paraphrasing the argument your theoretical believer was using.

[Beestie]

A believer (of which I am one) takes it on faith that God is universally aware. Therefore (if the premise is accepted), it is not difficult to conjure a scenario where God reposits those memories elsewhere.

That isn't to say I accept the idea personally, just that people of faith have a pre-existing belief system which easily supports the possibility.

I didn't catch how that relates to the presumed efficiency of evolution. I'm not sure evolution is efficient - it just "is." Efficient implies that one path to an end is superior in some way to another path as well as implying a designed process. A non-believer cannot accept the notion that evolution is anything but a series of interrelateded causes and effects that is unconcerned with its final disposition.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I didn't catch how that relates to the presumed efficiency of evolution. I'm not sure evolution is efficient - it just "is." Efficient implies that one path to an end is superior in some way to another path as well as implying a designed process. A non-believer cannot accept the notion that evolution is anything but a series of interrelateded causes and effects that is unconcerned with its final disposition.

I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).

I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).

I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.

First I will point out that this debate - the one we are having - has, to my knowledge never taken place before in the Cellar. To clarify, I frame our debate by challenging your assertion that evolution is efficient.

Secondly I will clarify that my belief in God in no way compromises my ability to look at the same evidence as you and and draw a more accurate conclusion. I'm not presupposing that my conclusion is more correct than yours - only that believing in God does not preclude it from being so. Einstien believed in God. I will also point out that I am not a creationist but fully embrace the idea of evolution.

So, here's the thing. You indicate that evolution is "efficient." You support your position by pointing out that we have fewer species today than we did "yesterday." I'll even point out that it is generally believed by those in the know that over 90% of all species that ever existed no longer exist. So, your definition of efficiency appears to be little more than a restatement of Darwin's position. The species that adapt better remain on the planet longer.

I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.

In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).

For example, there is nothing to prevent evolution from cranking out a bacteria tomorrow that will kill every shark in the ocean and every pollinating honeybee on earth and then vanish from the planet (having exhausted its own food source). Would the outcome of such an event be a more efficient and stable ecosystem or a less efficient and less stable ecosystem? History is littered with examples of the ecosystem destabilizing itself through its own mechanism.

And it may turn out to be the case that the latest incarnation of evolution - the human race - will be the undoing of the entire system. Any system that spawns a creature capable of making the system less stable (if not destroying the system itself) can hardly be thought of as efficient. However, such a possibility fits very well in a model of evolution as a random process.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.

In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).

And so we can define another part of a real religion. Fractals. A religion that honors the real god, and that advances mankind by discovering more of god's laws. Fractals and other apects of an honest religion are a threat to pagan religions. Defined by things such as fractals is what religion advocates if it was real, useful, honest, productive, empowering, and relevant.

Evolution is simply another example of god's laws. This time it is called fractals.

Religions that asphyxiate the advancement of mankind and that promote a dead and pagan god also say all facts are only from biblical times. These fools would tell us that god had no more prophets after the bible was written. Nothing more should be learned because the bible contains all god's facts?

Nonsense. This is how luddites were enslaved. Beestie provides examples that were defined by more of god's prophets - Barnsley and Mandelbrot. Beestie demonstrates another chapter in god's laws - fractals.

Of course fractals cannot exist. The bible did not define fractals. Pagan religions and enslaving luddites? Same thing.

[wolf]

Radio commentator Rollye James, always on the lookout for a good conspiracy theory, pointed out tonight that Pinellas Park, Florida is the HQ of the "Church" of Scientology, and their doctrine may well play into some of the goings on ...

Because of the way WPHT broadcasts her show, hours 2-4, followed by hour 1, since her first on-air hour is filled by Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor, I caught the beginning of her show on the way home from work tonight. She was supposed to focus further on the broad hints of interesting content that she gave during the show lead in, but I missed the rest.

I was completely fucking astonished by a report I saw last night on Michael's lawyer, who is some kind of a mystic in addition to being a lawyer ... apparently in a book that he wrote on his work in "end of life issues" he discussed having "soul spoken" to a client in a persistent vegetative state and from that knew that her wish was to die.

I thought he looked flaky when he was describing how serene and peaceful Terry looked ... right around the time they started shooting her up with morphine because she was thrashing around and moaning too much.

Some exceprts

available from amazon.com


note to the reader. This post was stolen wholesale from an earlier post this evening on The Ciberbosque

Home of the Whale Penis Thread, in case you forgot

[Griff]

I'm not one to argue for government intervention, but what is the harm in letting her parents take care of her? Or put another way, why do we need to kill her by withholding food? We are perched on the edge of a slope we had to roll the boulder up last century. Brain injury, mental capacity, senility, autism, retardation, age, race, social status... Barring a living will or an unimpeachable source of information of her wishes, do we really have the right to make this decision? I thought I was cool with this until I listened to Rabbi Gelman on the issue. Is a feeding tube really an extraordinary measure? I'd feel a whole lot better if the family had reached a consensus about her condition. I know my opinion doesn't count since its based, in part, in a belief about the source of life, but I don't want folks to think the entire cellar has reached a conclusive position on this. I don't even know if I've reached a conclusive position on this. We do need to understand that neither side's position is based on pure reason.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Griff

I know my opinion doesn't count since its based, in part, in a belief about the source of life,

That's not why your opinion doesn't count. None of our opinions count, and the opinion of the lawyers doesn't count, and the opinion of the judges doesn't count. We aren't her husband. Sure, it would be nice if he and the parents hadn't had a falling out, but things aren't always nice, and the order of responsibility is:

self
spouse
adult children
parents

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

self
spouse
adult children
parents

True. Rule of law should mean something.

[Undertoad]

My position is based on pure reason.