Baby born with anencephaly to please jesus?

[Reforged]

Here is an article I found, but I have no idea if it's peer reviewed.

That article brings up another interesting question. It is the brain that makes the decisions and not us. At least current research shows the brain making choices before we do by at least 200 milliseconds.

That would be an entirely different topic though.

There is no distinction. The brain is us, without the brain we have no sentience.

[Annik]

Well, strictly speaking, the brain's impulses are a combination of electrical and chemical. These impulses stimulate certain parts of our brains. To be honest, I'm not sure if even the top neuroscience experts know exactly how this process works.

Here is an article I found, but I have no idea if it's peer reviewed.

Pretty much exactly what I was asking for and oddly enough, it agrees with me in saying that top neuroscientists aren't sure of the process so how can you (not a neuroscientist) make the claim that our thoughts are about something when even they can't make that claim? Are you going to end this merry-go-round and retract your claim now or at least admit that it has no scientific backing and is a faith based (not religious) claim?

I won't retract my statement. I'm thinking about ice cream right now. I don't know how my brain is processing this, but I know I am now thinking about ice cream. The article says that we do not know how the impulses get translated into thought, not that the impulses do not get translated into thought. I'm really not a 100% sure (or even 10%) where you intend to go with this.

[Phil]

Still doesn't answer how thoughts are about something and that is what was asked. No communication error involved.

What!? Oh for the love of- look, how do you think computers work? Same principle. The electrical impulses sent through our brains are like the information sent from and recieved by the CPU. The information by itself is meaningless without the CPU to decipher and utilize it.

Yes and? What you said before is that the electrical impulses in our brain have information encoded on them. Now you are claiming they don't but the information is interpreted. Can't have it both ways Ralphie. So if the impulses are interpreted, how are they about something prior to the interpretation? And how do two different people interpret things the same (such as a math problem) when their neural circuitry is not the same?

[Reforged]

I more or less just settled this, why are we continuing?

[Phil]

Pretty much exactly what I was asking for and oddly enough, it agrees with me in saying that top neuroscientists aren't sure of the process so how can you (not a neuroscientist) make the claim that our thoughts are about something when even they can't make that claim? Are you going to end this merry-go-round and retract your claim now or at least admit that it has no scientific backing and is a faith based (not religious) claim?

I won't retract my statement. I'm thinking about ice cream right now. I don't know how my brain is processing this, but I know I am now thinking about ice cream. The article says that we do not know how the impulses get translated into thought, not that the impulses do not get translated into thought. I'm really not a 100% sure (or even 10%) where you intend to go with this.

Then admit it is based on faith much like a theist who is sure god exists because he has subjective experience.

---

I more or less just settled this, why are we continuing?

No you didn't and it is arrogant to think you did.

[jackman]

Would anyone like a pipe?

Looks to me like someone already has one and it is filled with crack.

^ this was some funny shit.

[Annik]

I won't retract my statement. I'm thinking about ice cream right now. I don't know how my brain is processing this, but I know I am now thinking about ice cream. The article says that we do not know how the impulses get translated into thought, not that the impulses do not get translated into thought. I'm really not a 100% sure (or even 10%) where you intend to go with this.

Then admit it is based on faith much like a theist who is sure god exists because he has subjective experience.

---

I more or less just settled this, why are we continuing?

No you didn't and it is arrogant to think you did.

I'm not admitting to anything. I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. You've been nothing but rude and accusatory.

[Phil]

I'm not admitting to anything. I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. You've been nothing but rude and accusatory.

And you have done nothing but avoided a direct answer to the question. Not only that but you admit top neuroscientists can't answer yet you display a remarkable amount of arrogance thinking you have the answer.

[Reforged]

What!? Oh for the love of- look, how do you think computers work? Same principle. The electrical impulses sent through our brains are like the information sent from and recieved by the CPU. The information by itself is meaningless without the CPU to decipher and utilize it.

Yes and? What you said before is that the electrical impulses in our brain have information encoded on them. Now you are claiming they don't but the information is interpreted. Can't have it both ways Ralphie. So if the impulses are interpreted, how are they about something prior to the interpretation? And how do two different people interpret things the same (such as a math problem) when their neural circuitry is not the same?

I'm saying that without the brain there are no impulses. If one part of the brain sends some out and these are recieved by another part, this allows them to work in harmony and for me to function. If you cut the neural pathways between both sides of the brain to limit the damage caused by a stroke then you would experience unusual problems. i.e. If you covered the left eye, looked at an object and noticed its color then you would not be able to say that color outloud until you looked at it with your left eye because the left side is the side of the brain that manages linguistics.
The impulses are code created by the brain for the brain. The basic computer equivilent would be 1s and 0s.
I know this because I briefly took psychology as a subject for open university. I am sorry if it is arrogant of me to use this very basic knowledge you could of easily looked up.
Are we done now?

---

Oh for fuck sake, you condemned him? Really? You let certain people who will remain nameless get away with murder and you condemn this guy?

[Erinome]

I'm going to stay out of the brain fight because, honestly, I don't think there is anything else to add to that.

As far as the exploitation goes, whether the family profited from the birth/death of their son monetarily is unknown. From all the photos I would say that they weren't poor to begin with, that's obvious. Even if they made only $5 profit, it's disgusting, but even if they made nothing, they're still exploiting that baby. They're blatantly using him to promote a pro-life agenda. Some people would say there isn't anything wrong with that, but she said she wants her baby to inspire all women to choose life, no matter what.

Well, just because her decision to choose life was the right one for her, that doesn't mean it's right for all women. I'd wager that most women, upon finding out their unborn child has anencephaly, would choose to terminate the pregnancy. It doesn't make them horrible, evil people. It makes them capable of thinking for themselves, just as she did. Not everyone can handle going through 40 weeks of pregnancy, just to watch their disfigured baby die. Making other women feel bad about not being able to go through with something like that isn't very nice. Is it?

She is pro-life for religious reasons. She believes her son was just a tool that her god used to tell people to give birth to his other tools. It's fucking sick, but that's just my opinion.

As for the smiling part:

It might seem like it's alright to some people. The reason it's disturbing to me is because of my line of study. Facial expressions tell more of the story than words could ever hope to say. It might seem to some that she is just smiling for the camera, or putting on one to show strength for her family. Certainly no mother could be so happy about giving birth to a baby with this condition and waiting for him to die.

If you cover up the bottom half of her face, and just look at her eyes, you will notice that you'd still be able to tell that she is happily smiling. That means the smiles are authentic. Knowing what I know about maternal psychology, I promise you that there is something very wrong with this lady. I have 4 babies, and I can't imagine smiling, knowing they were moments from certain death. It doesn't fit. Either she was enjoying the attention, or she hated her baby. I know that sounds harsh, and maybe a tad bit presumptive, (considering I don't know her personally) but I don't live by nor believe in a moral doctrine that commands me not to judge, so I haven't a single fuck to give.