Thread: *warning controversial opinions may be broadcasted within this post*

In my (probably evil) opinion, humans don't become people until at least birth, if not later. So I don't have a problem with embryonic stem cells, or fetal stem cells (not that there would be any advantage to waiting for a fetus).

It's not like people are being treated with any sort of default dignity or respect anyways. I find it a little hypocritical to work so hard at protecting unborn children then treating them with total apathy after they're born.

I'm generally against pursuing science without virtue but I personally don't see anything wrong with SCR.

That's interesting.

I'm with you cmind.

Actually I have a very 'evil' opinion and I am extremely interested in the research and the benefits that it can bring to humanity. If I was smart enough I'd love to help with that research but I don't think I'd ever get the funding for the research.

But it#s very interesting what you two think!

Thankfully, there have been many technological advances on being able to induce stem cells using a patient's existing cells (several of which occurred this year actually), rather than using those derived from embryos. I don't have any problem with the use of embryonic/fetal cells myself, but I am glad to see that the way things are headed, it'll be an ethical issue consigned to history.

My daughter has Type 1 Diabetes, so naturally I am 100% in support of stem cell research. I've donated stem cells through umbilical cord blood collection before. The people who get the heebeejeebees over STR seem to forget that embryos arent the only source of stem cells. For that matter they are available in adults - the lining of the inside of your mouth for exaample? Swab a q-tip on the cheek, non-evasive collection there too. It's just an excuse for politicians to hold back cures, keep feeding the pharmaceutical companies - to even create a debate. And to do that, you have to withhold information from the public, because if everyone knew how non-evasive and harmless it was to collect stem cells without destroying human life, no one would even think twice about throwing money into the research.

That's just the problem with things like this. That's the effect that politics has. Once an issue is taken sufficient notice of, it becomes a big political buzz-point, and suddenly every politician has to have an opinion on it. Needless to say, politicians and the public usually don't interface in any means that supports detailed factually-driven discussions; it's all word games. The general public, for the most part, isn't going to go and seek out the facts. So they go on whatever tidbits they pick up along the way which, due to the way politics is presented through mainstream media, are usually factually incomplete or flawed. Beyond this point, politicians end up having to speak to these party-platform ideas that have been put out there to drum up support. This is how we end up with senseless dead-stop party-lines bickering instead of actual discussion on how to best approach problems and better our society, with no desire to find a solution that works for everyone.. Now perhaps you will understand when I tell you that American politics is a three ring circus.

As for stem cells, I find it impossible to weigh a relative handful of unborn fetuses against the suffering and death across many decades to come that their study could prevent.

I guess I also have a pretty evil mind when it comes to science, but stem cell research is something we need if we want to continue making medical advances. The medical knowledge that we have right now is good, and we might all get by on it for a while. But we really should try to get as far as we can so that we can continue to learn. I think that stem cell research will have application WAY beyond fixing diseases and saving lives, and that will be awesome for everyone. Some doctors think that through stem cell (and neuron) research, we can get parts like wings or cat ears (I like animé okay? xD) added to our bodies almost like tattoos. And amputees can get real limbs back! How awesome! But of course, it could be very far in the future. Of course saving people's lives is very cool too, but some people don't realize the scope of this.

I don't know much about stem cell research, why is it considered taboo?

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I don't know much about stem cell research, why is it considered taboo?

Misconceptions mostly. Sometimes you'll hear a Republican exclaim that the practice is evil because stems cells can only come from aborted fetuses or something wildly incorrect like that.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Misconceptions mostly. Sometimes you'll hear a Republican exclaim that the practice is evil because stems cells can only come from aborted fetuses or something wildly incorrect like that.

For the record, I'd actually be fine with that. YOLO, or in the case of the fetus, not even once.

Originally Posted by cmind

For the record, I'd actually be fine with that. YOLO, or in the case of the fetus, not even once.

The other thing to mention is that some might claim stem cell research REQUIRES the abortion of fetuses instead of them just being a byproduct. Either way, I'd stick with the ethically safer techniques of obtaining them, which Photolysis mentioned.

Once something has a working central nervous system, I don't think we have the right to kill it. Certainly I think it's pretty obviously wrong to kill fully developed infants. But I don't think there's anything wrong with destroying embryos. I don't see how it's any different from killing a skin cell. And if you think otherwise, that kinda makes it a moral imperative for every woman to become impregnated as often as is humanly possible... which is silly.

Let's suppose for a moment that there is such thing as a soul. If there is, then...

A soul is a person's consciousness.

A fetus does not have the neurological capacity for consciousness until about the beginning of the third trimester.

An embryo does not have a soul.

In psychology, very little can be said about what consciousness is other than a self monitoring and regulating function. There is no distinction exactly on the location of consciousness in the body or how exactly it functions. Therefore 'neurological capacity' in this context is rather mute. These functions currently are for the most part unknown to science. The will continue to be unknown until the subjective side of study is attempted.

taking that into consideration, you can hardly suggest where consciousness develops or how it begins or stops exactly. We observe or make assumptions about consciousness from the study of human development. But until you can prove that consciousness does not exist outside a human body (in trees, animals, or whatever else that is living) than it would be unfair to suggest what does and does not have 'soul' so to speak.

For instance anything alive would have a specific atomic structure or dna code in nature, such as sperm. It is within the information of that code you would find the properties or elements of life and therefore a form consciousness or intelligence present. Remember that atoms are not merely solid particles and when we talk of consciousness it is referring to something that is by it's nature not material. Our consciousness doesn't need a brain to exist. The brain requires our consciousness to manifest itself, According to the holographic model. A brain can't physically exist because matter is not material, matter is information in motion through vibration. The cause of the motion and vibration or waveforms are not matter or atoms, atoms are just the result of the vibration manifest. So the thing causing the vibration, our consciousness, is behind our interpretation of what we perceive as matter, through our sense and perception of decoding objective stimulus through our interpretation.

Whatever supports the growth of a fetus, already has the properties of consciousnesses within it, or it could not produce consciousness. If it has consciousness within it already, then you can't say it has no consciousness.

btw as a sidenote: the Egyptians knew what a sperm looked like. As evidenced in what they left behind. I wonder how that fits into the paradigm of orthodox Egyptologist who see nothing more than an uncivilized culture and society (that somehow managed to build those pyramids a feat not even possible by our civilization to this day).


*Posts merged

Originally Posted by knight31, Round 1

We don't really understand consciousness and so can't make any substantive assertions about it.

Hm. Well, okay, that seems fair enou - wait a sec...

Originally Posted by knight31, Round 2

[A bunch of wild assertions about consciousness]

Ugh.

The neurons involved in conscious experience have been identified. They are in the postcentral gyrus of the temporal lobe. They are formed very close to the beginning of the third trimester.

asdfasdkfjdkjfdkajflsdjlfkjsdkfjd

that's what I think about this thread

Neurons transmit sensory messages throughout the body to an from the brain not just from a specific part of the brain. It's misleading to suggest it's just from the temporal lobe part. As I said there is no specific part of the brain that psychologist can say that's where consciousness exists. That is made very clear in psychology and it's clearly going into the area of pseudo science when you suggest that you can locate consciousness or that it is within a specific organ or part of the brain because there is no research that verifies that and it's nonsense. Although such a thing would fit neatly into your atheism to identify a specific part it just doesn't exist because the brain and body is to complex for that. There are parts of the brain (Rectangular formation) that are very important for maintaining conscious functioning, but that's different to saying where consciousness exists from. The brain rather works parallel together with many specific functions that are inter-related at once. In addition to that you need a clear picture of quantum physics to understand the holographic model where you can reason how consciousness does not manifest out of matter but that matter manifests out of consciousness.

The reason what you say is misleading is because you are not specific about what function exactly was observed in what studies, that leads you to say that 'conscious experience' is located in certain neurons in a specific part of the brain that you mentioned (or involved with them, everything is involved with it!) All neurons basically work together to perform a variety of functions within the nervous system. There is no independent neurons somewhere that take care of self awareness, like you suggest.

See the good thing about proper science when it's practiced is you can't make claims that are not backed up and they have to be very specific when you do make a claim.

We can reasonably state that consciousness is a self monitoring and regulating function. But we cannot reasonably state that specific neurons in the temporal lobe are alone responsible for that incredibly complex thing that is refereed to as consciousness.

Originally Posted by Wishfulthinker

Hey guys,

Well, a while ago we talked about stem cell research in our lessons and it's a topic that interests me and I know there are quite a lot of very controversial opinions out there and in my random thinking, I wondered what any of you guys think about SCR.

Any thoughts?

There is not a single controversial opinion in this post.

You're a fraud.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

An embryo does not have a soul.

Which is why soul research is such unfortunately grim business.

Originally Posted by knight31

Neurons transmit sensory messages throughout the body to an from the brain not just from a specific part of the brain. It's misleading to suggest it's just from the temporal lobe part. As I said there is no specific part of the brain that psychologist can say that's where consciousness exists. That is made very clear in psychology and it's clearly going into the area of pseudo science when you suggest that you can locate consciousness or that it is within a specific organ or part of the brain because there is no research that verifies that and it's nonsense. Although such a thing would fit neatly into your atheism to identify a specific part it just doesn't exist because the brain and body is to complex for that. There are parts of the brain (Rectangular formation) that are very important for maintaining conscious functioning, but that's different to saying where consciousness exists from. The brain rather works parallel together with many specific functions that are inter-related at once. In addition to that you need a clear picture of quantum physics to understand the holographic model where you can reason how consciousness does not manifest out of matter but that matter manifests out of consciousness.

The reason what you say is misleading is because you are not specific about what function exactly was observed in what studies, that leads you to say that 'conscious experience' is located in certain neurons in a specific part of the brain that you mentioned (or involved with them, everything is involved with it!) All neurons basically work together to perform a variety of functions within the nervous system. There is no independent neurons somewhere that take care of self awareness, like you suggest.

See the good thing about proper science when it's practiced is you can't make claims that are not backed up and they have to be very specific when you do make a claim.

We can reasonably state that consciousness is a self monitoring and regulating function. But we cannot reasonably state that specific neurons in the temporal lobe are alone responsible for that incredibly complex thing that is refereed to as consciousness.

Look here, neuroscientist skeleton posting dude. I learned the fact when I was in my senior year of college as a psychology major in my behavioral neuroscience class. It was in my textbook and the professor's lectures. My professor was the head of the psychology department. I didn't pull this out of my ass, like you pulled most of your post out of your ass. The neurons of the postcentral gyrus are responsible for the functions determined to be at the root of conscious experience, but of course they are dependent on other parts of the brain to function fully. The neurons of the region's sensory homonculus are necessary for the brain's mapping of sensory space. That is how the perception and therefore conceptualization of self is manifested.

However, it appears to be in the parietal lobe, not the temporal lobe. I graduated from college almost 19 years ago.

What Is the Postcentral Gyrus?

Post Central Gyrus - Neurolink

Postcentral gyrus - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

Postcentral gyrus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matter is manifested by consciousness? Show me what studies support THAT claim.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The neurons of the postcentral gyrus are responsible for the functions determined to be at the root of conscious experience, but of course they are dependent on other parts of the brain to function fully. The neurons of the region's sensory homonculus are necessary for the brain's mapping of sensory space. That is how the perception and therefore conceptualization of self is manifested.

However, it appears to be in the parietal lobe, not the temporal lobe. I graduated from college almost 19 years ago.

Psychology 19 years ago was much more in it's infancy than it is today. I hope you have been keeping up with the times. The root of "conscious experience' could really be defined as anything significant in the brain, including the rectangular formation couldn't it? Including the heart that beats the blood around the body. That's also essential to 'conscious experience' lol. That's not the same thing as talking about the location of consciousness, obviously. First you would have to define consciousnesses and little more can be said other than a self monitoring and regulating function.

Interpretation of sensory space involves the two pathways involved in sensory perception called the 'what' and 'where' pathways, the stimulus has to be interpreted through the occipital lobes, all that is a different subject than consciousness. Sensation and perception is perceived by consciousness.

Also the evidence for consciousness manifesting matter should be obvious when you consider the only thing that could be behind photons and other subatomic particles that make up it's motions and vibration, does not have any physicality. That's proven already.

You can have a degree in Psychology, but you are still wrong about consciousness having a specific physical location in the brain, that is not possible to speculate on. Ask you old teacher if they are still contactable, alive, or still practicing.

I'm not arguing facts about the Post Central Gyrus, just that you have it confused with the functions and definition of consciousness.

No, not everything in the brain is at the root of conscious experience. A lot in the brain is involved, but the postcentral gyrus has been determined to be where the neurons at the seat of consciousness are located. Did you look at my sources? I also gave at least the framework for a definition of consciousness. The functions of the postcentral gyrus are the functions that create sense of self. And like I said, they cannot work alone.

The theory that nothing physical is behind the vibrations of photons and subatomic particles does not prove that consciousness is behind them. Are you a creationist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, not everything in the brain is at the root of conscious experience. A lot in the brain is involved, but the postcentral gyrus has been determined to be where the neurons at the seat of consciousness are located. Did you look at my sources? I also gave at least the framework for a definition of consciousness. The functions of the postcentral gyrus are the functions that create sense of self. And like I said, they cannot work alone.

The theory that nothing physical is behind the vibrations of photons and subatomic particles does not prove that consciousness is behind them. Are you a creationist?

You realize that "sense of self" is not entirely what consciousness involves. Many animals have very little sense of self but are still evidently conscious. There is no "seat" of consciousness in any specific neurons in the brain and that's misleading. It's not in your source you provided. There is the varies nervous systems throughout the body from which neurotransmitters facilitate firing of specific signals to-from the brain which helps put together perceptions from which the brain decodes the environment and stimulus. But the intelligence and complex reasoning and thinking which the sense of self emerges from comes from the varies functions of the body and brain functioning together. The postcentral gyrus would no doubt be part of that process. But so would the other parts of the brain. It would be impossible to speculate on a specific spot from which that complex thinking resides. You are really grasping at straws with that one and I challenge you to give me any quote or anything specific relating to that that is precise.

In addition if consciousness is not behind the subatomic particles and photons that exist what do you suppose would be behind it exactly?
I'm neither an atheist or creationist exactly just a realist that weighs what is known up and makes an informed conclusion to the best of my ability. Commonly known as critical thinking.