Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

Hold on. We have already established, and you have agreed that the unborn is a human. Your argument now is that they are not persons.

Agreed - I am inadvertently using human/person interchangably.

I will have to pick this up later, I am late for an appointment and I will be away fishing all weekend. I will pop in if possible, if not, have a good holiday and we will take this up again on tuesday.

Fishing? Have a great time I too am heading off shortly to a stockdog clinic for the weekend to work sheep and cattle.

 

[palerider]

Fishing? Have a great time I too am heading off shortly to a stockdog clinic for the weekend to work sheep and cattle.

Yeah. Tuna are in. Later.

 

[vyo476]

Yeah. Tuna are in. Later.

Mmm tuna. Would you believe that I was 18 years old the first time I had it? I was missing out.

 

[9sublime]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

 

[vyo476]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

Salmon and cod are excellent too. My favorite seafood, though, is calamari. Now there's some good stuff.

 

[r0beph]

Salmon and cod are excellent too. My favorite seafood, though, is calamari. Now there's some good stuff.

hmm, I really like a rare salmon steak. bout 4" thick..charred but cool in the center. good stuff.

 

[9sublime]

Lol, why do all our discussions end like this? Although calamari is damn good.

 

[palerider]

Tuna is disgusting. Every time I open a can for someone I almost wretch. Just look at the stuff. Why don't you just eat a smoked salmon or battered cod?

Comparing fresh tuna steaks to canned tuna is like comparing fresh fruit to kool aid.

Didn't catch any tuna though. Just a bunch of mahi mahi.

 

[palerider]

Agreed - I am inadvertently using human/person interchangably.

OK. So, are you arguing that there is something mystic about brain waves? Any med student can tell you that they are just electrical impulses that signal that an organism is capable of internal self direction. It isn't possible to effectively argue that an unborn who hasn't yet developed enough to have a brain or brain activity isn't capable of internal self direction. Even at the cellular level, electrical and chemical communication is happening. body

 

[Coyote]

OK. So, are you arguing that there is something mystic about brain waves? Any med student can tell you that they are just electrical impulses that signal that an organism is capable of internal self direction. It isn't possible to effectively argue that an unborn who hasn't yet developed enough to have a brain or brain activity isn't capable of internal self direction. Even at the cellular level, electrical and chemical communication is happening. body

No - I merely said I was not being careful in my wording.

Brainwaves indicate that the organism is capable of self direction yes but more then that, it indicates the beginnings of a consciencousness. That is not the same as cellular/chemical communication. That would not be self direction.

 

[palerider]

No - I merely said I was not being careful in my wording.

Brainwaves indicate that the organism is capable of self direction yes but more then that, it indicates the beginnings of a consciencousness. That is not the same as cellular/chemical communication. That would not be self direction.

Brain waves don't necessarily indicate consciencousness. All animals with brains have brain waves and I don't know of anyone who would argue that all animals have any consciencousness beyond survival instincts.

If unborns are not capable of self direction before they develop a brain, exactly what are you suggesting does direct their development to that point?

 

[Coyote]

Brain waves don't necessarily indicate consciencousness. All animals with brains have brain waves and I don't know of anyone who would argue that all animals have any consciencousness beyond survival instincts.

I disagree - I think any animal with a brain (and thus brainwaves) has some sort of conscienciousness - not the equal of humans, but something beyond simply survival instincts - some sort of self awareness. I am not sure this can be scientifically proven but then neither can it be disproven.

If unborns are not capable of self direction before they develop a brain, exactly what are you suggesting does direct their development to that point?

Their genes. It's like a machine. It's on automatic pilot.

 

[palerider]

I disagree - I think any animal with a brain (and thus brainwaves) has some sort of conscienciousness - not the equal of humans, but something beyond simply survival instincts - some sort of self awareness. I am not sure this can be scientifically proven but then neither can it be disproven.

There are numerous studies that suggest that any animal that can't pass the mirror test (google it) is simply not self aware and there are precious few animals that can pass it. Even among chimps, gorillas, and dolphins, not all individuals pass.

Their genes. It's like a machine. It's on automatic pilot.

And exactly what do you suppose directs the development of the brain? It is the genetics that make a human being. Not the brain waves. The brain operates like it does due to genetics, unless you are ascribing something mystical at work, beyond science.

 

[Coyote]

There are numerous studies that suggest that any animal that can't pass the mirror test (google it) is simply not self aware and there are precious few animals that can pass it. Even among chimps, gorillas, and dolphins, not all individuals pass.

How valid is the mirror test? For starters - it depends entirely on visual recognition systems. According to what I found, animals which have passed the test include chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, dolphins, elephants, humans and possibly pigeons. Except for Koko - gorillas have not passed the test - but scientists theorize that this is because gorillas consider eye contact an aggressive gesture and normally try to avoid looking each other in the face (another problem with this test). Human children tend to fail this test until they are at least 1.5 to 2 years old.,

According to Wikipedia:

There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and interpretation of results of the mirror test. While this test has been extensively conducted on primates, there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs. As dogs have very poor visual resolution and acuity with red/green blindness, they have little chance of recognizing themselves or a dot (commonly red) in a mirror. However, dogs do recognize their own scent invariably with 40x more neurons than humans dedicated to processing smell. The key point being that the mirror test is only a measure of ability closely matching humans, not a statement of Consciousness, as is popularly believed. Additionally, as mentioned with gorillas, many animals may regard eye contact as a threatening gesture, so the application of the mirror test is unclear. Some mammalian species do not have stereoscopic vision, including rabbits and deer, which may be a factor in determining the value of the test.
​

And exactly what do you suppose directs the development of the brain? It is the genetics that make a human being. Not the brain waves. The brain operates like it does due to genetics, unless you are ascribing something mystical at work, beyond science.

What directs the development of the brain is not consciousness - it's genetic and cellular mechanisms. Yes - it is genetics that makes the human being but it is consciousness that makes the person.

 

[palerider]

How valid is the mirror test? For starters - it depends entirely on visual recognition systems. According to what I found, animals which have passed the test include chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, dolphins, elephants, humans and possibly pigeons. Except for Koko - gorillas have not passed the test - but scientists theorize that this is because gorillas consider eye contact an aggressive gesture and normally try to avoid looking each other in the face (another problem with this test). Human children tend to fail this test until they are at least 1.5 to 2 years old.,

How valid? Certainly more than your uncorroborated opinion wouldn't you say?

Also, haven't I pointed out before that tests reveal that human children have no self awareness until they are about 18 months old? That is the entire point. If you are going to argue that some sort of self awareness is necessary in order to enjoy the protection of the law, you must deny that protection to born children for almost 2 years, and almost certainly for at least 1 year.

According to Wikipedia:

There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and interpretation of results of the mirror test.​

Name a field of study in which there is no debate. Does that mean that no scientific study is valid until all scientists agree?

What directs the development of the brain is not consciousness - it's genetic and cellular mechanisms. Yes - it is genetics that makes the human being but it is consciousness that makes the person.

So you are saying that children who are born and enjoy the protection of the law are not really persons until they are conscious?​