From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:30:39 GMT

In <1992Sep05.034815.38456@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715645486@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep03.174528.25138@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>
>> >In  <nyikos.715474639@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>> >> In <1992Sep01.234125.29513@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
>> >>
>> >> >In  <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (P
>> >> >> In <1992Aug30.072618.32178@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
>> >> >> quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>> >>
>> >> >Before 28 weeks, it's *not* possible.
>> >>
>> >> It is very possible.  [...]
>> >> _Fetal Electrocardiography and Electroencephalography_, By Richard Lee
>> >> Bernstine [Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, 1961]
>> >> [...]
>> >>      CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FETUS IN UTERO
>> >>
>> >>         The determination of the state of consciousness of fetus
>> >>      in utero is an intriguing problem and one which receives
>> >>      speculation from time to time.  From the observations
>> >>      of the electroencephalograms of the fetus, it is possible
>> >>      to make general statements on this subject.  In the
>> >>      author's recording from the brain of a forty-three to
>> >>      forty-five day old fetus "sleep spindles," not unlike
>> >>      that observed during sleep in adults, was observed.
>>
>> >OK, he saw spikes in an EEG.  Does he draw any conclusions regarding
>> >sentience?  The neuroscientists I quoted explicitly stated that it's
>> >not possible before 28 weeks.
>>
>> And as I said, this is bullshit,

>That's *your* opinion, and I'm certainly more inclined to take the
>opinion of Dr.  Michael Bennett (the chairman of the neuroscience
>department at New York's Albert Einstein School of Medicine), Dr.
>Dominick Purpura (former dean of the Stanford University School of
>Medicine, and current dean at Albert Einstein School of Medicine),
>and assorted other neurologists and neuroscientists over *your*
>opinion.  Which is why I asked if Dr. Bernstine had given an opinion
>on this.

Before we get too embroiled in this argument, let me say that by
"sentience" I mean the existence of some sort of conscious experience, 
even the tiniest smidgin of a sensation, and not sustained thought.
In your earlier post, Purpura spoke of sustained thought, and this
is not at all needed to establish personal identity.  

>> and Bernstine was too honest a person
>> to indulge in bullshit in the opposite direction.

>In other words, he didn't, and you're attributing *your* conclusions
>to him?

Bernstine took things as far as it was justifiable to do so.  He left
the door open for consciousness at 45 or so days, and that is all that
is needed.

>> This was my point about philosophy.  Sentience, consciousness, these
>> things belong to the Philosophy of Mind, and this is an area to which
>> I have devoted decades of reading and thought.  For a scientist to
>> pontificate on them without a great deal of philosophical expertise
>> is the height of arrogance--like a physicist without a great deal of
>> grounding in moral philosophy pontificating on the proper use of
>> nuclear weapons.

>But I *would* expect a neuroscientist to be able to state the point
>at which thought is *possible*.

If you speak of sustained thought, all right.  If you speak of 
consciousness, NO.  The question of which creatures are conscious
is one of the central mysteries of philosophy, and no living human
can answer it, although we can make guesses.  Even solipsism, the
belief that one's whole life is just a dream one is having, is
technically irrefutable.

>> >> And another thing: "carrying to term" is a misnomer because that
>> >> 8 to 12 times bit includes C-sections, does it not?
>>
>> >Given the definition "the normal elapsed period for birth after conception",
>> >I don't think it's a misnomer for C-sections which take place at or after
>> >the time when birth would normally be expected.
>>
>> That does not quite answer the question.  How far back in the pregnancy
>> do the C-section data go?  I am referring to your mortality tables.

>I don't know how far back.  Shall we agree that "carrying to term"
>refers to *attempting* to carry to term, since I'm sure that the
>maternal mortality figures include women who died (due to the
>pregnancy) before their due date, not just those who died in
>childbirth?

Sounds OK to me, but I have no clue as to whether that is the way
the tables are set up.  Does anyone on this net?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape