3 ms·

Alan 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. Medi

by cpr 9y ago

Alan 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 ago
He 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 ago
  That particular statement is so vague and subjective that I'm curious what evidence you think contradicts it.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    It's not vague - it's nonsense. Difference.
  - fossuser 9y ago
    I 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 ago
Ben 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.

by cpr 9y ago

fossuser 9y ago

He 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 ago
That particular statement is so vague and subjective that I'm curious what evidence you think contradicts it.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  It's not vague - it's nonsense. Difference.
- fossuser 9y ago
  I 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 ago

Ben 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.