6 ms·
I thought it was an interesting article - and there is nuance around determining what it means to die, the definition has changed over time and for anyone that
by fossuser 9y ago
I thought it was an interesting article - and there is nuance around determining what it means to die, the definition has changed over time and for anyone that has Alcor will hopefully keep changing.
That said, this paragraph about Shewmon caused me to basically dismiss his perspective about any of it:
> "When Shewmon was a college sophomore, at Harvard, he listened to Chopin’s Trois Nouvelles Études No. 2, in his dorm room, and the music lifted him into such a state of ecstasy that he had an epiphany: he no longer thought it possible that all conscious experience, particularly one’s perception of beauty, could be a “mere electrophysiological epiphenomenon,” he said. The music seemed to transcend “the spatial limitations of matter.” An atheist, he converted to Catholicism and studied Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. He went to medical school, in 1971, and then specialized in neurology, because he wanted to understand the relationship between the mind and the brain."
It seems the main tragedy here is that a family went in for a relatively routine (possibly inappropriate if the apnea was due to obesity) surgery and had their child die. That they don't trust the medical staff after that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but it doesn't mean the medical staff is wrong.
The determination of death in this case seems less important than the determination of suffering or quality of life.
- cpr 9y agoAlan Shewmon is a friend of mine and a highly respected neurosurgeon, ending a long career as the "chief of the neurology department at Olive View-U.C.L.A. Medical Center" (cf the article). Disregarding his scientific opinion because he had a conversion experience in college is rather bigoted, don't you think?
- fossuser 9y agoHe can still be a great neurosurgeon. Though when he's making statements about the mind and how it could define what 'death' means in a clinical sense, then nonsense like "The music seemed to transcend the spatial limitations of matter" which is contradicted by all existing evidence, reduces my respect for him on that topic and makes me nervous about his scientific/critical thinking in general. If they can't get that right why would I think they have a good idea about something where there's less evidence that's even more controversial?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- contravariant 9y agoThat particular statement is so vague and subjective that I'm curious what evidence you think contradicts it.
- abritinthebay 9y agoIt's not vague - it's nonsense. Difference.
- fossuser 9y agoI suppose the more relevant quote is: > he no longer thought it possible that all conscious experience, particularly one’s perception of beauty, could be a “mere electrophysiological epiphenomenon,” https://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/ https://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/ Though for the music one the “transcend spatial limitations of matter” is the part I take issue with. It’s unclear what it even means, but seems to imply some supernatural specialness.
- abritinthebay 9y agoBen Carson is a great surgeon. Doesn't make him qualified outside of his highly specialized area (as we've seen). Same is true of Shewmon. It calls into question his evaluation of the subject when he's previously demonstrated questionable judgement in a similar - related - matter. Not that it discredits the work itself mind you - if it's good, it's good - but right now the work seems mostly opinion based so calling into question is biases reaching conclusions on this subject is not only not bigoted and quite valid it is required to have an intellectual rigor. Again, the work may stand by itself. That's not demonstrated yet however.
- placebo 9y agoWhile I'm not religious, I don't understand what specifically in that paragraph warrants dismissing a person's perspective on the matter. Could you elaborate?
- abritinthebay 9y agoWell the rampant disregard for evidence instead favoring personal emotional experience is not exactly a good look if you want to be taken seriously scientifically. You could point to all manner of quantum-woo that uses similar arguments (basically everything from the atrocious What The Bleep Do We Know "documentary" for example).
- placebo 9y agoI understand, though I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, especially since unlike quantum-woo BS, the hard problem of consciousness or the essence of "matter" is nowhere near being solved, (and I would argue unsolvable using any scientific method), so I try to differentiate between people's subjective feeling about it vs their competence in the scientific realm.
- abritinthebay 9y agoEhhh, I think the thing that is most telling about both of those is that many scientists don’t see that as even well founded as problems. Amongst neuroscientists it’s often called “the hard non-problem” for example.
- placebo 9y agoWith all due respect, I take the opinion of neuroscientists on the hard problem of consciousness as seriously as I'd take the opinion of a Zen master on issues in neuroscience. The fact that neuroscientists might one day deliver an explanation of the soft problem of consciousness (i.e understanding exactly how the brain works and the exact correlation of every state and process to the corresponding subjective experience) will not bring any of us one iota closer to understanding the hard problem. In this case, the fact that one does not recognise there is such a problem implies ignorance more than anything else.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]