A blog by Robert J. Elisberg at the Huffington Post titled “Unborn in the USA” is instructive: there is a profound lack of understanding of basic aspects of the abortion debate among those who oppose pro-lifers. In a way, I find that encouraging. It’s not that they’ve heard our arguments and rejected them, it’s that they haven’t heard our arguments at all. They don’t understand the issue, therefore understanding could change their minds.
Elisberg’s post is about the “Personhood Act” currently under consideration in Oklahoma:
The bill will give personhood status to gametes from the moment of fertilization. Or conception. Or whatever mental image or description you would prefer, like "from the moment a woman's ovum is impregnated by the ejaculated sperm of a male." That would be a person.
Here’s where I begin to question his knowledge of basic human biology—or at the very least, his understanding of why pro-lifers oppose abortion. First, pro-lifers are interested in saving the lives of very young human beings—members of the Homo sapiens species who are growing and changing, just as we all grow and change from birth to death. Perhaps his sentence was just badly worded for rhetorical effect, but after fertilization, the gametes no longer exist as gametes; the combination is a completely different kind of entity. No one, I repeat: no one wants to give personhood status to gametes. A gamete is not a human being—not a whole organism on a path of development to maturity with his or her own unique DNA.
Second, his mocking description, "from the moment a woman's ovum is impregnated by the ejaculated sperm of a male,” is exactly the definition of how a human being is created. This is basic biology, and trying to make it sound silly doesn’t change that fact. When an egg and sperm come together, the result is a brand new combination of DNA that will be the same from that human being’s conception to his or her death. This is why pro-lifers support human rights for these very young people—because they’re human beings.
Elisberg wants to arbitrarily separate the term “person” from “human being” and then attach rights to “persons” rather than to human beings. But doesn’t that make a mockery of universal human rights and open wide the door for whomever is in power to define whole groups of “inconvenient” human beings out of their rights?
But here’s where his argument really loses its way:
[T]here is a huge flaw in these personhood bills, which proponents have tried to hide. A flaw that, by its very nature, eliminates any possible defense in the cause.
That flaw is as core a flaw as any cause can have -- because it's the very name of the cause itself.
Personhood....
The name "personhood" hides that proponents of the bills cannot actually tell you if the "person" is a male or a female.
Ask them. "Okay, this unborn 'person' you want to give human rights to at the moment of fertilization? Is that a male? Is it a female?" The answer can't be determined. Indeed, "he" or she" isn't ever used in the discussion. Instead it's always "the unborn child." The unborn person. It's always spoken of in the general -- because it can't be spoken of in the specific. But that impregnated egg is very specific. And one thing that can't yet be determined is if it's a male or female....
For all the convoluted debate, it's really very simple, in the end: if something can't be determined to be a male or female, it can't possibly be a person. After all, being a male or female is pretty much the core requirement to be a person. Everything else is gravy. So, without being able to determine if something is male or a female, then it's impossible to call that a person.
I wish I could sit down and talk with Elisberg because he simply doesn’t have the facts. The sex of embryonic humans is very much determined from conception. Once again I point out that the DNA of a human being in the zygote stage of life is exactly the DNA that will direct his or her growth through every stage of life. It is a “he” or “she” "from the moment a woman's ovum is impregnated by the ejaculated sperm of a male." That’s simple biology.
Or perhaps he’s saying that despite its DNA-determined sex, an embryonic human being is a non-person because we can't know what that sex is. That would be an odd claim for two reasons: 1) It certainly is possible for us to know the sex of an embryonic human if the right tests are done. This is precisely what makes possible the controversial IVF practice of choosing which embryonic children to implant or destroy based on their sex. But regardless, 2) Why should it matter whether or not we know the sex of an embryonic human? Would our knowledge change the fact that it is objectively male or female? Can our mere knowledge about another human being’s sex determine his or her moral status? Where would this leave babies like Sasha and Storm, whose sex was kept secret from society?
Either way, if Elisberg thinks that “being a male or female is pretty much the core requirement” for acknowledging a human being’s rights, then he has picked the wrong side.
So if the purpose of these pro-lifers’ use of the term “personhood” isn’t to hide the fact that unborn children are neither male nor female, why are they using that word in these bills? Because that’s the word currently being used as shorthand for “worthy of rights.” The writers of the bills are trying to close the gap that’s been artificially created between “human beings” and “persons” and make clear the fact that all human beings are persons. Every member of the human race. We’re all persons because a human being is the kind of being that has personal properties, whether those properties are currently being expressed or not. Peter Kreeft explains:
Surely the correct answer [to how "person" is to be defined] is that a person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts. Why is one able to perform personal acts under proper conditions? Only because one is a person. One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person (emphasis mine).
This is why human beings are persons, no matter what their age or current ability.
"They don’t understand the issue, therefore understanding could change their minds"
For the mushy middle perhaps. For abortion advocates such as Elisberg, the lack of understanding is probably intentional.
Posted by: Drew Hymer | March 13, 2012 at 07:03 AM
Not mention the absurdity of this in the HuffPo piece: "that person (embryo) would immediately be legally protected with all the rights of a person that that person would expect, presuming the person had the ability to expect." By that standard not even a new born would have legal rights since the newborn has no "ability to expect" that its rights will be granted or valued.
Posted by: Deedub | March 13, 2012 at 07:59 AM
Hmm so if one cannot determine with precision the gender of a biological entity that has human DNA and that justifies their termination, what do we do of those who are gender confused? Who have male/female anatomy but "behave" as though they were supposed to be of the opposite gender?
Argument: We don't know if the embryo is going to be male/female. Therefore it is not a person.
Counter-argument:
a) Lets agree with the (baseless) categorical assertion that only male/female are persons.
b) It is an objective fact that they embryo is either a male or a female. Not anything else.
c) From (a) and (b), the embryo is most definitely a person.
Posted by: kpolo | March 13, 2012 at 08:10 AM
Elisberg wants to arbitrarily separate the term “person” from “human being” and then attach rights to “persons” rather than to human beings. But doesn’t that make a mockery of universal human rights and open wide the door for whomever is in power to define whole groups of “inconvenient” human beings out of their rights?
I don't think the distinction is necessarily arbitrary. People usually define "person" by pointing to certain properties, like sentience. This argument is not arbitrary:
1. A person is an entity that experiences first person subjectivity.
2. Embryos do not experience first person subjectivity from the moment of conception.
3. Therefore, embryos are not persons from the moment of conception.
With a precise definition of "person," the distinction people make between "humans" and "persons" does not necessarily open the door to arbitrarily excluding some members of the human family from having rights.
We’re all persons because a human being is the kind of being that has personal properties, whether those properties are currently being expressed or not.
Why should this definition of "person" be preferred over the usual definition of "person"? Is there some non-arbitrary way to adjudicate between them?
I am playing devil's advocate, by the way. I recently had a mock debate on abortion in which I played the pro-choice advocate. I came up with several arguments that I wanted to get some responses to, so I'm curious how you would respond to these. There are some others I'd like to get a response to (other than the ones I got in the debate), but I don't want to overwhelm you.
Posted by: Sam | March 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Sam,
First, part of your objection is that yours is the "usual" definition. Where is your evidence for that? I haven't experienced that to be the "usual" definition.
Second, your argument and "sentience" requirement is unclear. Strictly, as you've stated it, we would conclude that humans often lose their personhood during their lifetime. Humans (adult ones such as yourself, I assume) often don't "experience first person subjectivity". For example, every night when you sleep. You would have to rework your argument to be the capacity for sentience. But of course embryos do have that capacity in some sense. So you would then have to argue for a certain kind of capacity and this is where your argument would be reflecting a lot of arbitrariness.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 02:59 PM
My evidence for the usual definition is that whenever people try to distinguish personal beings from impersonal beings, they always do it by pointing to properties such as having a mind, a will, desires, etc. Christians do this, too. Jehovah's Witnesses deny that the Holy Spirit is a person. They think he (or it) is an impersonal force instead. And the way Christians answer is to point to passages showing that he has a mind (Romans 8:26-27) and a will (1 Corinthians 12:11), that he can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), and that and he can speak (Acts 13:2). These are all attributes of personhood.
When I sleep, my mind doesn't cease to operate. I still experience first person subjectivity. I have feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. So I don't cease to be a person when I sleep.
Now, you might use a different counter-example. You might say that the comatose or people who are vegetables have no mental activity. That came up in the debate I was in. I responded by pointing out that there had been studies showing that the comatose were not, as previously thought, brain dead. They still had a rudimentary mental life, which meant they were still persons.
After the debate, I pointed out that the study was irrelevant because even if the comatose were completely without a mental life, we still would not say they case to be persons while in a coma. If a person enters a coma in which they have no mental life, then wake up from the coma later on, nobody would say the person had ceased to exist and come back into existence (unless they were just pretending in order to avoid having to concede your point, which people do quite often). The fact that we wouldn't say the comatose had ceased to exist even if they were completely without a mental life shows that the "usual" definition of personhood is inadequate.
Posted by: Sam | March 13, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I may be only one of a few by the way that gives our friend ToNy's argument that our defining humanness as valuable/worthy of protection is arbitrary from nature only. I think this link from human to personhood is also arbitrary without God's declaration that informs men of who/what they are. Without that, it's only mans opinion of himself from his own perspective.
Posted by: Brad B | March 13, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Sam,
Actually I don't think people usually try to define impersonal beings from personal ones. They usually don't think much about it. It's just obvious in most cases. In that regard, I would respond to you by saying that there simply is no precise "usual" sense of the term outside of, say, "human being" (which is what the embryo is, of course). Now if people are pressed to give some analysis of the term "person" and they usually go to attributes like "can speak" then so what? Should we favor that as the definition of personhood just because the average person would say it if you pressed them? No. But people might go to such attributes simply because they will quickly go to what they are most familiar with. And your point regarding Christians in regard to the Holy Spirit won't carry the weight for your claim because the reason Christians go to such attributes as "he can speak" can be explained in terms of this line of reasoning: If you can speak you are a person. This doesn't require the person to think something like "If you can't speak you are not a person." Likewise for your other assertions.
You claim: "When I sleep, my mind doesn't cease to operate. I still experience first person subjectivity. I have feelings, sensations, perceptions, etc. So I don't cease to be a person when I sleep."
I claim this is false. During *some* stages of sleep you may have feelings etc., but clearly not during all stages of sleep. In fact, as far as I know, only during one stage of sleep (REM) do we have feelings etc.
The mind, as a self-conscious thing, does cease to operate when you sleep. The brain doesn't cease to be active during any stage of sleep, but now if you want to make that the criterion you would be switching to a new argument and so it starts to look like you're arbitrarily grasping for anything that will work as a defeater. Mice have brains that operate.
So given your original definition of having first person subjective experience, you do cease to be a person when you sleep (or during certain stages of sleep).
You say, "I responded by pointing out that there had been studies showing that the comatose were not, as previously thought, brain dead. They still had a rudimentary mental life, which meant they were still persons."
You are either being inconsistent with your argument or else you are assuming that non-brain dead = first person subjective experience. Where is your evidence for this? Mice a non-brain dead.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 04:32 PM
If you can speak you are a person. This doesn't require the person to think something like "If you can't speak you are not a person."
That is a good point.
We may have a difference in opinion about what it means to have first person subjectivity. I don't know about you, but when I sleep, I have dreams. Dreams involve first person subjectivity. And even when I'm not dreaming, I don't cease to have a mental life.
And, BTW, "person," the way I'm defining it, would include mice. Mice are sentient beings. They have minds. They see, they feel, they act, etc. They have a mental life. That makes them personal beings.
Posted by: Sam | March 13, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Sam,
You say, "We may have a difference in opinion about what it means to have first person subjectivity. I don't know about you, but when I sleep, I have dreams. Dreams involve first person subjectivity. And even when I'm not dreaming, I don't cease to have a mental life."
Dreaming only occurs during REM stage and lasts for just a few minutes (dreams often seem longer than they are). I can grant that dreaming invollves first person subjectivity, but that won't get you off the hook of my counter example since it doesn't account for all sleeping states.
If your definition of person includes mice, then you are certainly not using a "usual" definition. It's also clear at this point that you are trying to work with two different definitions of person, whether you realize it or not. Mice may have mental activities, but given what we do know about first person awareness and the brain, mice do not have *that*.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 05:13 PM
Jonathan, I can't help but think we are having some kind of miscommunication. My definition of person (the one I'm calling "usual") includes any mental capacity whatsoever. If mice have sensory perceptions, emotions, thoughts, or anything that can be considered a faculty of a mind, then mice are persons under my definition. I"m not using more than one definition.
I guess you are right that my definition isn't usual. Usually, when we say "person," we're talking about people--humans. By the usual definition, the Holy Spirit actually isn't a person. Neither is any animal. Only humans are persons by the usual use of the word.
Posted by: Sam | March 13, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Sam,
You say, "Only humans are persons by the usual sense of the word."
Well humans are the most usual referent of human speech about "persons." Nothing interesting or significant follows from that observation.
You say, "I can only think we are having some kind of miscommunication."
There is no miscommunication on my part that I can see. You've simply given one definition and then morphed that into a different, broader one. You said in your original argument that "A person is an entity that experiences first person subjectivity." This definition of a person doesn't include mice or virtually any other animal. Now you want to go with a broader definition of "any mental capacity whatsoever." If there was a miscommunication, I can only assume it's because formulated the first premise your original argument in a way you did not intend.
By the way, it looks like a third shift has occurred from executing some attribute (self awareness or feeling) to merely having the capacity or potential to. But I won't bother pressing that point.
Anyway, I'm sure Kreeft would just point out at this point that embryos have the natual capacity to perform mental acts. So we are back to where I initially said we would be, you needing to argue for a certain sense of "capacity"
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 05:55 PM
A fertilized egg is the...
True, but a fertilized egg is also 'the kind of thing' that has no brain. Not even a neuron. That makes it different from us.
And this difference is usually significant: plants get no moral consideration and non-human animals do - especially the 'higher' non-human animals.
!
RonH
Posted by: RonH | March 13, 2012 at 06:46 PM
There is no miscommunication on my part that I can see. You've simply given one definition and then morphed that into a different, broader one.
No, I've been using the same definition throughout, so the misunderstanding must be on your part. You and I apparently have a difference in understanding about what it means to have first person subjectivity. Maybe I've got the misunderstanding about what the phrase means, but according to what I actually mean by the phrase, mice qualify as persons by that definition. So does just about every other animal that has a brain.
By the way, it looks like a third shift has occurred from executing some attribute (self awareness or feeling) to merely having the capacity or potential to.
No, you're misunderstanding me. By "capacity," I didn't mean the same thing as "potential." I meant actually having the mental state associated with the capacity. For example, if I have the capacity for thought, then I am actually able to think right now. I don't just have the potential to develop the ability to think.
I don't want to quibble about vocabulary anymore. It's more important to me that you understand what I'm saying than it is that you agree with my terminology. If I'm being unclear, then I apologize. But having explained myself, please don't insist that my terminology must mean what you would mean if you were using the same terminology and then, based on that, go on to say that I'm using two or three different meanings of "person."
Posted by: Sam | March 13, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Sam,
I'm not aware of any sense of "first person" that doesn't pick out "I-ness" or self-awareness. In fact, that seems like such an obvious sense of the term that I'm more inclined to think this is just a sophomoric debate trick: "oh, I meant that all along."
Now you say you didn't mean capacity in the normal (check the dictionary) sense of the term either. Again, this all looks suspiciously like a cover up for shifting your argument. But now that you want to move to actually exercising the ability, you are just back to my sleeping objection.
Surely you can't complain about my misunderstanding how you are using terms that you are using in an odd way. Ironically, this started out with you objecting that "person" was being understood in an unusual way. Now we find out that your own use of "person" is unusual, in addition to your use of "first person" and "capacity." .... and your perturbed by quibbling over vocabulary? Perhaps you're just playing the devil's advocate still with what appear to me as sophomorisms, but I really don't have time for it at this level where the only place it would be taken seriously is, perhaps, in the comment section of a YouTube video.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 07:23 PM
Ron,
"True, but a fertilized egg is also 'the kind of thing' that has no brain. Not even a neuron. That makes it different from us."
True, but a 2 year old is also the 'kind of thing' that is under 5 feet tall. Not even 4 tall. That makes it different from us.
You say, "And this difference is usually significant: plants get no moral consideration and non-human animals do - especially the 'higher' non-human animals."
But you would need to show that it's the fact of not having a brain rather than being the kind of thing that does not have a braid that is the significant difference. Otherwise your observation is just question begging.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Jonathan,
Why do animals get moral consideration while plants do not?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | March 13, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Ron,
Are you asking for a psychological explanation as to why people usually give moral consideration to animals but not to plants?
I don't see how the answer would be significant. Some people do give plants and trees moral consideration.
Are you asking for my opinion on why animals *should* get moral consideration but not plants?
Again, I don't see how my answer would be significant to you.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 13, 2012 at 08:38 PM
I wonder what would happen if a group of pregnant women went to court during their pregnancy insisting legal status be granted their unborn and legal certificates issued by the court that would grant the unborn full legal protection under the law?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | March 14, 2012 at 06:46 AM
For whatever reason it was brought up, the idea that dreams last only a few minutes is folk science and untrue.
Dreams run from a few minutes to up to an hour as sleep progresses.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Also, we do not dream only during REM cycles.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Daron,
Regarding dreams and REM: When I was majoring in Psychology in college I recall the textbook (Myers) stating that we only dream during REM.
Doing some quick research I found the following: "Early observations (4,5) temporally linked vivid dreaming with REM sleep, an association which many took to be an exclusive one (e.g., 6-8). However, when the definition of dreaming was expanded to include more general forms of cognition (9), more serious consideration was given to the notion that dreaming is also a feature of NREM sleep." (Nielsen TA. Kuiken D. Hoffmann R. Moffitt A. 2001)
As for dream length according to psych web: "REM sleep periods, and therefore dreams, last typically in the range of 5 to 45 minutes (cf. section 6). Often, the subjective time spent in a dream is much longer." So I don't see that my statement was inaccurate.
Either way, neither fact overturns my example. I can just grant that dreams also can occur in NREM but maintain the point on the basis that sleep isn't a continuous dream state. At many points during sleep there is no first person subjective awareness. I don't need for this non-self awareness to be constant during sleep or confined to REM for it the objection to work.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Just straightening out facts, Jonathan.
Your point may stand, but to call 45-60 minutes "just a few minutes" seems like a stretch. You'll know better next time you give this data.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM
How do you get 45-60 from 5-45?
After a further quick google search, the average dream is 15 minutes (themedicalquestions.com).
I'm wondering how you think the average dream lasting a few minutes disproves my statement that dreams last only a few minutes?
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Jonathan,
Are there are psychological (maybe we need a wider term here) reasons why people give moral consideration to people and non-human animals but not plants?
I think it is clear people do this.
It is not clear to me that the 'should' do it.
Indeed, it looks like that they do is actually prior to the idea that they 'should'.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | March 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Hi Jonathan,
Because it plainly does. You said nothing about average; you made an absolute statement. And Neither 60, nor 45, nor 15 is "just a few minutes".I get 60 from my own research. You probably thought you were the only authority? I put 45 in because that was what you admitted yourself.
Please, Jonathan, you have a good mind are likely a good Christian, don't embarrass yourself trying to be right about things you plainly aren't.
You said:
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Daron,
While I appreciate being more informed about NREM dreams, your claims about dreams lasting a few minutes being "folk science and untrue" when the average dream lasts 15 minutes looks incorrect to me. Taking my statement as an 'absolute statement' just looks pedantic. But thanks anyway.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Ron,
I can't make any sense of your last post.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM
You are welcome.
We can all stand to try to cultivate teachable hearts and search our mirrors for such things as pedantry, don't you think?
BTW, this may or may not be pertinent to your thoughts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534695/ http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v7n4-sack.php
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Daron,
Neither is pertinent unless one understands "consciousness" to be self-awareness. The second article clearly doesn't seem to have that sense of the word in mind and the first article is making a passing remark that is too brief to be of any use.
The first article reads, "By simply changing the question asked of awakened subjects from 'Did you dream?' to 'Did you experience any mental content?,' Foulkes was able to show a far higher percentage of dream reports from NREM stages than original studies had suggested. These dream reports after NREM awakenings led Foulkes and others to conclude that the stream of consciousness never ceases during sleep..."
I suppose if we wanted to continue with pedantry we could point out that the REM = dream idea hasn't been disproven; rather the "dream" concept has been redefined.
The other article I cited made the same point and suggested qualitative difference between mentation in REM and NREM. Anyway, not important.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Further,
"I suppose if we wanted to continue with pedantry we could point out that the REM = dream idea hasn't been disproven; rather the "dream" concept has been redefined."
We could also point out that, as an "absolute statement," the conclusion seems unjustified. One would need to wake every person up constantly to check to make sure they are having a conscious state. Of course that's impossible.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 01:37 PM
There is certainly an element of changing what we are describing with regards to the claim that dreams only occur during REM. This is not so much a redefinition but a new recognition. With regard to waking a person, about 80% of REM wakings result in reported dreams and 50% of nREM do as well.
But this isn't the whole story, because when people are asked after nREM wakings if they had dreams (like the so-called bizarre dreams of REM) they often report that they do.
A light sleeper like myself never bought into the REM claim for a second. I dream as I am still getting set to drift off. Very often it is the commencement of dreaming that assures me I am about to sleep. Often times I also wake in the morning, attempting more sleep, look at the cock, etc., and never quit dreaming.
Like the early claims of vestigial organs and "junk DNA", scientists often make the mistake of finding one thing in one case and then pretend that they can make claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 01:50 PM
Daron,
Just a thought here. Would there be an important distinction between unaware and aware thinking? Like, say, I go running after a ball that someone else threw. I'm not making some self-conscious effort to calculate the trajectory, move left foot, right foot, bend knees, flex hamstrings, pump arms, pump lungs, angle body, read terrain, etc. I'd go mad and explode just trying to wipe my nose, at that rate of "consciousness". But I'm certainly doing all that stuff, and of my own volition, even. I don't think that saying something is 'sub' or 'un' conscious actually means I've ceased to do mental work; I'm just not metathinking, as it were.
Does that make any sense, or add anything to the point at hand, y'think?
Posted by: Bennett | March 14, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Daron,
Speaking for myself, I have no dreams or any form of self-awareness immediately after falling asleep or just prior to waking up.
You say, "Like the early claims of vestigial organs and "junk DNA", scientists often make the mistake of finding one thing in one case and then pretend that they can make claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant."
It's not clear that this is the case in the REM belief. As described in the articles, it seems that what changed the conclusion were the reports of the subjects in conjunction with a new, broader question.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Jonathan,
So we have different personal histories. I know of scientific evidence that accommodates mine with denying yours. No, that's not all that changes. Since you really do seem to care why don't you do one better than our local Darwinists and spend just a little bit of time looking for the information (it's out there) that conflicts with your already-held theory rather than trying to retreat into semantic corners where you can claim that you are still right? The world is bigger and better than any scientific theories and knowledge moves along a lot faster than our college textbooks.
------
Bennett,
I don't actually have an argument here, just wanted to add some corrective facts. And as I'm rushing out the door I'll have to look your comment over later to see if I even have any thoughts about it.
Thanks.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Daron,
You say, "So we have different personal histories. I know of scientific evidence that accommodates mine with denying yours."
The "scientific evidence" is simply the reports of the subjects.
You claimed: "scientists often make the mistake of finding one thing in one case and then pretend that they can make claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant."
I responded that it doesn't look like that applies to this case, given what the articles state (including the article yourself cite). In other words, the scientists who thought dreams were restricted to REM weren't generalizing from merely waking up patients in REM, as though they didn't bother to wake people up in NREM states and ask them the question they were asking in REM states. The article indicates that they got evidence for NREM "dreams" when the scientists changed the question and, subsequently, got a different response. How does that fit your assertion of "mak[ing] claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant"?
Now it looks like you want to defend your assertion, but want me to find the evidence for it. Sorry, but I don't usually do the leg work of supporting other people's conclusions by finding their premises for them.
If you don't want to defend the assertion outside of saying that the evidence is out there, that's fine. But the evidence *you have cited* (Jessica D. Payne and Lynn Nadel) don't appear to fit your claim, as I explained above, and I'm under no obligation to pick up your slack as I see it.
I'm not sure what "already-held theory" you're referring to or what the semantic corner is you think I'm retreating to either.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Daron,
In fact we could say this statement: "scientists often make the mistake of finding one thing in one case and then pretend that they can make claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant."
appears more in line with this claim of the article you cite: "the stream of consciousness never ceases during sleep"
than it does with the old claim that dreaming is an REM phenomena.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2012 at 02:54 PM
So, here's something I'm not understanding about the debate on abortion: let's assume for argument's sake that there is some "thing", whether event, time, status, biological constraint, etc., where a foetus/embryo is now deemed an official human being.
Now, I don't think any sane person would argue a baby that is no kidding fresh out of the womb was not a human being five minutes ago while they were travelling through the birth canal. That's not the "dividing line" I'm talking about. I'm talking earlier on in the pregnancy when I would assume medical experts would try to determine at what point this collection of fertilized cells all of a sudden is considered a baby human being.
I don't know of any biological reasoning that would lead me to believe that we know how to make that determination with a high degree of confidence.
So, since we can't accurately make that determination, why would we not "err on the side of caution", and say that in case we've gotten it wrong, no more abortions so as to prevent the inadvertent killing of an otherwise viable baby.
This is tragically ironic in light of, say, some folks' feelings on the death penalty. We're so careful, and rightfully so, to build checks and balances in the system so as not to wrongfully execute a convicted criminal who might be in fact innocent, and I bet we still get it wrong sometimes. I bet this is one of the reasons some people lobby so fiercely against the death penalty.
Likewise, what if you get it wrong with the abortion issue and determining when a foetus "qualifies" for being a human being? This is clearly not a settled scientific issue, and I think it's tragic that there's very little, if any, consideration for the consequences of being wrong. The implication is "if we're wrong, millions of lives are at stake"...
Maybe this is not a good line of reasoning against abortion, but the article above got me thinking...I probably didn't articulate my thoughts well enough, but then again I'm not the best at the whole "point/counter-point" thing...
Posted by: grh | March 14, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Hi Jonathan,
Not so. They gained more information by asking different questions in the one sentence you've read, but that only increased the NREM reporting from the already-observed 50%:So you didn't bother to look for anything that might conflict with your predetermined theories? That's too bad.
Oh, and:
When that paper said discussed the NREM review it cited Nielsen who found:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051111000767And:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/18/6674.full
But, as I said, they never had to change the question to find out that nREM also=dreams:
http://www.carlos-m.net/2005/03/24/dreaming-in-rem-and-nrem-sleep/
Nobody had to redefine dreams to find NREM dreaming, nor do they have to put dreams in scare quotes.
Yeah, since that's a common internet-player's strategy I thought you'd say something like it. As a Christian (right?) you are supposed to be interested in the truth, finding it, knowing it, and speaking it, though. No? Oh well. Maybe I'm not clear enough.Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Hi Bennett,
That is a great point. In fact, I think I was presented the same example once of the incredible real-time mathematics a person has to do in order to run and catch a ball. Obviously, it is at a level of consciousness beyond our direct reasoning.
Whether or not it adds to the point that Jonathan and Sam were debating, I don't know.
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Posted by: Daron | March 14, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Daron,
Based on your post I figure "predetermined theories" pertains to NREM = no dreams, but now I'm just confused as to why you think that I'm still contending that point. Sorry to waste your time doing all that leg-work, but I wasn't.
Way back in my first response to you I found my own source that said dreaming can occur in NREM and I said "I can just grant that dreams also can occur in NREM..." Then, again, later on I said: "I appreciate being more informed about NREM dreams"
Perhaps you thought I was still holding to the "predetermined theory" ("predetermined" in light of what I recalled from my psychology training as an undergrad?)when I said "we could point out that the REM = dream idea hasn't been disproven; rather the "dream" concept has been redefined" but I thought that introducing that remark with "if we wanted to continue with pedantry" would cue you into the fact that it was more a jab at your own pedantry in regard to my comments than a serious suggestion.
In regards to whether anything you said your latest posts supports your claim that "scientists often make the mistake of finding one thing in one case and then pretend that they can make claims of its absence in other cases where they are simply ignorant" in regards to dreams and sleep, I still don't see that anything you've quoted demonstrates that this is true in this case.
You gave a bunch of quotes saying that in some instances NREM dreams were reported, but mostly in REM states until they changed the question. So how is that supposed to prove your assertion? You end by asserting "it actually does," but you're going to have to do more than provide a string of quotations to make your case, since the quotes themselves don't suggest what you're asserting.
You say, "Not sure what you think "explained" means."
I think it means what people ordinarily mean by it: I made it clear that the article you cited doesn't say anything that suggests what you're asserting.
You say, "Then again, I never figured out your beef with "cause" or "random" either, so I'm not really hip to your language."
Guess your not hip to ordinary language :)
Looks like you may still be sour about our last exchange. That's fine, but you're probably just spinning your tires in the mud.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 15, 2012 at 07:03 AM
Daron,
Forgot to remark on this:
"Yeah, since that's a common internet-player's strategy I thought you'd say something like it."
Seems like a common sense strategy to me. Why should I waste time making your side of the argument?
"As a Christian (right?) you are supposed to be interested in the truth, finding it, knowing it, and speaking it, though."
I don't think me leaving you to your responsibility in the discussion means I'm not interested in truth. When two people are having an argument (not in the pejorative sense), both sides should make their own case. If one side doesn't want to, the other person isn't obliged to step in and play the part of the opponent.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 15, 2012 at 07:19 AM
Posted by: Daron | March 15, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Looking things over I apologize to any potential readers for some really ugly typos.
Posted by: Daron | March 15, 2012 at 08:27 AM
Daron,
You say, "No I didn't. Read again. With the question and procedure identical NREM dreams have always been reported and verified to be dreams."
But your response isn't to the point of my remark, that you quote. My remark doesn't deny that NREM dreams occur and were considered such. So you're boxing with a straw-man at this point. Perhaps you should read my own words again that you're quoting.
You say, "Yes they do. They tell you exactly what I've been asserting: dreams occur in NREM; they have always been reported in NREM, though with less frequency; nobody had to redefine "dream" to find this out."
I'm baffled as to how you could miss what I was referring to here. I wasn't referring to NREM dreams.
I made it clear by saying "In regards to whether anything you said your latest posts supports your claim that..."
I then quoted you and what I said pertained to *that* point you were making in the portion I quoted.
I also made it clear the first time I quoted your words and then responded to them.
I think that should be obvious. You quote someone and then respond to the portion quoted. After all, this is how you are interacting with me. You quote me and then respond to that quote.
You say, "You should care about the truth and not merely about playing games."
So what means are you currently employing to figure out how many hairs my dog has? After all, there is a truth to the matter and as a Christian (right?) you're supposed to be interested in truth.
You say, "This is perfectly reasonable if your goal is to have an argument, as all of your posts indicate, and you are playing one part or another. If you are interested in knowing and communicating truth not so much."
No, it's perfectly reasonable when you are having an argument with someone over a truth claim, and you are interested in that truth claim, to let the person fulfill their part of the discussion. It's not perfectly reasonable for a person to make an assertion and then tell the other person they need to find out how the assertion is true. In that case, it's *you* who doesn't seem to be concerned with presenting the truth.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 15, 2012 at 08:44 AM
Daron,
It is interesting, isn't it, how much our brains do (and how impressively) without us realizing it, just in the field of locomotion. They were able to teach computers to play chess a long time ago, but they had to use a human to move the pieces. The software to get a robotic arm to pick up a chess piece and move it on a grid was actually way harder to design and implement than the game itself--and yet we think that winning a game of chess is a greater mental feat than moving the pieces around without thinking about it.
Perhaps 'conscious awareness' isn't all it's cracked up to be, as a qualifier for humanity.
Posted by: Bennett | March 15, 2012 at 09:04 AM
With all the making clear you do, Jonathan, you'd think you would have seen to drop this long ago.
So let's be clear.
You claimed:
False throughout.
Dreaming does not occur only during REM.
Dreams last much longer than a few minutes.
Dreams occur in every sleeping state.
So whatever this defence was mean to advance against Sam has failed.
Not wanting to admit your error, you pretended that each of those assertions meant something else, but being clear and using words in their normal meanings (yes, I know how pedantic that can be (?) ) it is plain that you did mean them as you said them and you were wrong.
Then, in order to extend this for some reason, you said that NREM are reported if we broaden the question, change the definition, and allow NREM "dreams" to be called dreams.
Plainly false.
NREM dreams have been reported since the beginning of the studies, in many cases are indistinguishable from RM dreams, can share all of the so-called "bizarre" characteristics, and occur anywhere, but especially late, in the sleep cycles.
You continued to misread the articles to repeat the claim that these were somehow "dreams" and not dreams.
But now we see you were just being cheeky and didn't really mean to contend this issue.
So, with all clarity and obviousness, what is it you think you are arguing for or against now?
Posted by: Daron | March 15, 2012 at 09:05 AM
Posted by: Daron | March 15, 2012 at 09:06 AM
Posted by: Daron | March 15, 2012 at 09:08 AM