Showing posts with label brain damage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brain damage. Show all posts

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Defining Death

I've been reading a book called WHEN THE "DEAD" ROSE IN BRITAIN, by Nicole C. Salomone. After a forty-page overview of the history of medicine in Europe and Britain, the author delves into "premature burial and the misdiagnosis of death," mostly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Among the various related topics covered, there's a chapter on European vampire legends, the main reason I bought the book. Over hundreds of years, doctors as well as clergymen and philosophers debated and analyzed in great detail the dividing line between life and death and the criteria for diagnosing death. They distinguished between apparent death (or suspended animation) and absolute death, from which no recovery was possible.

Some physicians explained the essence of aliveness as the "vital spark," rather tautologically defined as the force that maintained life in the body. Later, it was suggested that the vital spark was in fact electricity, a hypothesis seemingly validated by the fact that an electrical current sent through an animal cadaver can make its limbs move. The recognition of the absence of breath and heartbeat as probable but not certain evidence of death inspired development of techniques for resuscitation, some of which produced concrete benefits in reviving victims of drowning and eventually led to CPR as we know it today. Societies for "the Recovery of Persons Apparently Dead" were organized. Salomone seems to accept as fact most of the recorded accounts of people misdiagnosed as dead, often prepared for interment and buried or dissected. On the other hand, the lack of specific details in many of those stories (e.g., names and precisely identified locations) leads me to think a lot were what would now be called urban legends. In any case, a widespread belief in and fear of premature burial in the nineteenth century resulted in the invention of numerous models of "safety coffins."

In modern times, medicine and the law have determined that life resides in the brain. Permanent cessation of brain activity -- "brain death" -- equals the demise of the person. Robert Heinlein's very uneven brain-transplant novel, I WILL FEAR NO EVIL, includes an extended dialogue on this issue, for me the most interesting scene in the book.

If a person has apparently died and been restored to life, was he or she actually dead during the period of "apparent death"? Are "near-death experiences" genuine glimpses of the afterlife or merely the random firing of nerve impulses? Maybe such people are only "mostly dead," like the hero in THE PRINCESS BRIDE.

If science eventually develops a technique for uploading a person's consciousness into a computer, as often envisioned in speculative fiction, is a person whose body has died with the mind preserved in this way alive or dead?

In the Star Trek universe, given that the transporter disintegrates the transportee into component particles that are reassembled at the destination, do people being teleported survive the experience? Or, as Dr. McCoy speculates, do you die every time you step onto the transporter pad, to be replaced by an exact duplicate? If it's an exact duplicate, though, how could you tell? Your memories and personality seem unimpaired. Furthermore, what about the episodes when a transporter accident creates two of the same person? Does destroying one of them or even merging them together (or splitting a new individual generated from two people by the transporter into his component halves, as debated in one VOYAGER episode) count as murder? In the eighteenth century, when the foolproof way of determining whether someone was alive or dead was to wait until the body started to decompose, the quandary was simple by comparison.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt

Sunday, May 01, 2016

EMF 24/7

Can one prove something that one does not want to prove?  Of course, but there will be a bias, and the bias may skew the results. Moreover, those reading the studies may read them with bias.

No one wants to prove that cellphones cause diabetes, brain cancer, dementia, pathological anxiety,
lowered IQ, childhood cancer, erectile dysfunction, reproductive problems, ringing in the ears, insomnia, migraines.....etc etc. But, what if they do?

In 2011 a working group appointed by the World Health Organization classified cellphone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

Four prestigious American organizations concluded that there was not enough evidence/strong enough evidence/conclusive evidence/definitive evidence/replicable evidence. So, they will study the possibility for the next 20-to-30 years.

Meanwhile, a Chinese group of scientists did duplicate the Swedish studies.... and no one is talking about it.  https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/cell-phones-and-blood-brain-barrier-chinese-scientists-confirm-findings-of-swedish-salford-group/

During World War II, governments gave cigarettes to soldiers. Presumably, smoking the cigarettes wasn't compulsory, but even for non-smokers, there was no way to avoid second-hand smoke so they might as well have been compulsory.  Now, we have cellphones, and even dinosaurs who refuse to use cellphones cannot avoid the EMF of other people's cellphones.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/20/radiation-from-cell-phones-and-wifi-are-making-people-sick--are-you-at-risk.aspx

What will humanity look like in thirty years' time after we have been "whole-body irradiated by man-made electromagnetic fields for the entirity of our lives"? Already some individuals are more sensitive than others. And perhaps children are most at risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11486167/Are-smartphones-making-our-children-mentally-ill.html

Science fiction is full of dystopian worlds... and mostly-heroic mutants. Maybe EMF 24/7 is as good a way to explain the backstory as anything else.


And now for something completely... outrageous.

Seen on a blog that is well worth following
http://musictechpolicy.com/2016/04/29/youtube-creates-financial-incentive-for-counternotices-that-profit-youtube/

In a nutshell, it is probably a conflict of interest for a hosting site that makes money from copyright infringement to encourage alleged copyright infringers to file DMCA counternotices. When a counternotice is filed, the copyright infringing content goes back up, and stays back up, unless or until the copyright owner finds the financial wherewithal to commence a federal lawsuit.  Most copyright owners simply cannot afford to do that. The result is that their pirated works remain permanently available for the financial benefit of the site and the pirate, and the copyright owner gets nothing.

Here's a link from the recent World IP Day with an interview with Authors Guild President, Mary Rasenberger. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/26/balanced-ip-system-content-creators/id=68646/

Happy reading. And writing!

All the best,
Rowena Cherry