From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:27:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.193440.26552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article <1993Jan6.183814.1552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>From article <1993Jan6.162256.4767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>>>=vengeanc

[Rampant deletions]

>Point taken.  I even asked him to post the references.  One may
>assume that he is in the library even as we speak (type), looking
>under 'A' in the Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.
>
We can hope anyway... Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical about the
odds though?

>"ntha tit" -- Mark Cochran, 1993.  :-)  |-)
>I'm glad Mark has a sense of humor.
>
I do, I also have a really slow link to the newshost, and often type
3-4 lines ahead of the screen. Who's going to bother correcting typos
at that speed? :)

>> For my part, I'll cite your own embryology texts. You know that an
>> early z/e/f cannot possibly think, given that it lacks the proper
Typo above corrected, just for you. :)
>> hardware.
>
>I don't "know" this.  You don't "know" this.  NO ONE knows when an
>embryo or fetus can think.  We can (and do) assume that the brain
>is necessary for thought, and we have good evidence for the truth
>of the assumption.  When is the brain sufficiently developed for
>"thought" to be possible?  Now the assumptions get really wild, and
>the outrageous claims of people like Carl Sagan are a disgrace to
>science.
>
I think we can state that we *do* know that the brain is necessary for
thought. For evidence, consider what happens to victims of cerbral
trauma. Or look back at the records of patients who were lobotimized.
Consider the alterations in thought processes brought on by
glioblastomas, neuroblastomas, etc. Gien tha tthese are affecting the
brin, and nothing else, there is no reason not to conclude that the
brain is necessary for thought.
We don't "know" when the fetal brain is sufficiently developed to
allow thought. We can, however, make some resonable and logical
thories about it. Given that mylination is necessary for proper
conduction of impulses in the brain (exam record of patients who have
been demylinated for supporting evidence) we can throise that
mylination is at least *one* stage of development that needs to be
reached before thought can take place.

>> Late term, it has developed the hardware, but has it the
>> software? (the experiences, the intereaction with an environment) Late
>> term, the issue of sentience (part of my definition of personhood)
>> becomes debatable. And it would be necessary to prove the existance
>> (not the lack of) that sentience before it could be considered a
>> factor in termination of the pregnancy.
>
>I think most people would agree that "sufficient reason to doubt"
>the absence of sentience would be enough to refuse to pull the
>plug on a comatose individual.  If (and I do mean if) we have
>sufficient reason to doubt the absence of sentience (or pick any
>other undefined phenomenon) in a given embryo/fetus, I argue we
>have at least something to consider.
>
I think the analogy to a comatose patient has a weakness here. With a
comatose patient, we have someone we who *was* a functioning person,
complete with whatever we choose to describe as intelligence. In the
fetus, we have a being that has never yet displayed this same
functionality. 

>> The reson I insist on proof of
>> presense, not the absense, is simple. Lack of proof in favor of
>> existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance.
>
>True, it *can* be considered as such.  But should it?  Jeffrey James
>Price just got a taste of the consequences of a similar (but admittedly
>not equivalent) assertion.  (Check it out.  I predicted that he would
>see a truckload of examples of the consequences of his idiotic
>reasoning.  My favorite: "There are exactly 223 chemical elements.")
>
I missed this, sounds like it was a real fun flamewar. :)

>Condider: there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of
>logical intelligence on the part of Mr. Price.  This, however,
>does not "reasonably show" the nonexistence of intelligence.  It's
>quite possible (perhaps likely) that the individual possesses
>intelligence but chooses not to exercise it.
>
While the humor is appreciated, I think we have to admit that the
ability to post to Usenet does show at least minimal intelligence. The
intelligence may be severely flawed, and even irrational, but it's
still (minimal) intelligence. :)

>As a scientist, I can say that one of the scourges of science is
>"negative data": I looked and couldn't find X.  Therefore it's not
>there.  In fact, such data is considered insufficient (by many I've
>spoken with) for the awarding of a Ph.D.
>
I'm going to speculate that this is because the aim of a PhD candidate
is to contribute something original to the science, not merely deny
the existance of something. If, however, X was a widely accepted
theory, and the candidate conclusively disproved it, I suspect he
would be awarded his PhD. Unless the author of X was on the board, of
course. ;)

>> This holds true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of
>> a god has lead many peopel to conclude that no such being exists.
>
>Universal application of that standard would lead to some pretty
>bizarre conclusions, and would make the formation and testing of
>hypotheses a truly peculiar experience.
>
Certainly true. Of course, I made no such claim wrt universal
application. :)
besides, are you claiming that foration and testing of hypotheses
*isn't* a truly peculiar experience???

>>>[rest deleted cuz I have to go]
>
>> Bummer. You're one of the few on the pro-life sidethat seems to be
>> able to discuss rationally and intelligently. The others just scream
>> and draw flamage.
>
>Heh.  I don't know whether to be flattered or not.  I suspect that I
>should be a little depressed that there are so few pro-life advocates
>who adhere to minimal standards for effective and profitable debate.
>Thanks for the kindness.  Upon considering the source, I've decided
>that I'm rather pleased.
>
Nah, be depressed that there aren't more. Don't take compliments from
me, I'm one of those rabid flamers torching the more idiotic of the
other side. :)
In other words, I'm not really rational, I'm just pretending to be so
in order to have a good debate. I'll be flaming again any minute now,
just watch. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion