IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Human brain wave patterns ( EEG ) and personhood

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar
Thu Jan 4 11:28:54 EST 1996

>From uucp Thu, 04 Jan 96 10:23:01 ARG
>Received: by neubio.sld.ar (UUPC/pcmail 1.0095/RAN (2)) with UUCP; Thu, 04 Jan 96 10:23:01 ARG
>>From gsaix2.cc.GaSoU.EDU!gsi03919 Thu Jan  4 02:54:21 1996 remote from secyt
>Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 1996 02:54:14 -0300
>From: Administrador del Nodo <Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
>To: neur-sci at net.bio.net
>Subject: Re: Human brain wave patterns ( EEG ) and personhood
>In-Reply-To: <086ld623 at neubio.sld.ar>
>Message-Id: <Pine.A32.3.91.960104002327.34863A-100000 at gsaix2.cc.GaSoU.EDU>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Hello, neuronetters!
>JOHN PARRISH THOMPSON <gsi03919 at gsaix2.cc.GaSoU.EDU> 
>>You comment that an attempt to apprehend personhood 
>> is a conceptual error
>Indeed, the conceptual error I pointed is in trying to apprehend it in
>general, while personhood, contrarily, is determined by cadacualtez 
>(as I tried to depict in my mail).
>>    Nevertheless, the concept is one used by our society 
>> to determine the rights of entities such as unborn children 
>> in the case of abortion as well as comatose humans in the 
>> instance of euthanasia. 
>Just so. No transcendental advice is secured. Every one 
>from the appr. 3000 anthropologically-studied societies 
>determine the rights of entities such as criminal pigs, falling trees 
>judicially condemned to disintegration, euthanasy candidatures 
>(some weeks ago one of us here ought to have decided when ap-
>plying eight morphine high-doses at once to a most beloved person), 
>unborn foetuses, embryos and unused spermatozoids.
>> Therefore, I believe it merits an attempt to apprehend the
>> traits of personhood as used in these, among other, cases
>Certainly, but it is a sociological study; not one in the transcendental
>pattern of a network of those socially-determined rights. 
>> so as not to violate the rights of these entities which we recognize 
>> as being natural rights of persons, such as the right to life.
>If you recognize them by practical affirmation (non only declaratively),
>you cannot violate them.  (That's love, and love is care, the only fact that
>gives sense to life. But natural rights do not exist, or what determined
>them is an inept rascallion needing an astrophysical-biological evolution
>putting so much painful contents into the consciousnesses evolved therein,
>as sobbed by every rat being devoured or parallel suffering organism
>in any biosphere at any time).
>>   Finally, I wish to make sure that I understand your answer.
>> It is your assertion that an analysis of EEG patterns by either a 
>> neuroscientist or, perhaps, a computer analysis could not differentiate 
>> a single pattern, frequency, or wave, common only to humans
>> and not present in higher order primates?  They would 
>> appear identical even to a skilled professional?  
>Sure enough.  EEG and MEG give notice, blurred within certain gross
>time resolution, of the speed of changes in the "instantaneous" state
>of the distribution of charges accross the organic tissue volume. This
>is a part of brain psychogenetic Function 1.  Functions 2 and 3 are
>not probed, albeit they are central for giving contents to consciousness.
>Moreover, besides contents, consciousness (experiencing) is a general
>physical function (remember that in this academic tradition we are
>hylozoist, while in your cultural environment most people are aristote-
>lically enemies of hylozoism).  So there is no reason to expect that
>one or several patterns of Function One could distinguish the psycho-
>genetic processes of one species from those of others, specially
>inside the same Order.  To try distinguishing them we should first ha-
>ve described the psychogenetic physical processes, a task for which
>I guess we must devote some thirty years worldwide (and which still
>is not even envisaged in most central countries, to not offend their
>societally deared prefigurations); then we should begin to apply the
>so acquired concepts to compare very different psychogenetic pro-
>cesses as, i.e., the ones at the brains of the hominids and of the great
>squid (or giant calamar, if it also have developed the three functions
>in its profuse neuropil).
>> Please e-mail me and let me know if my understanding is correct. 
>> Your attention to this will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Parrish.
>The weight of your questions advices to post it to our forum, so as to
>enable our colleagues netters to intervene; do not forget that this
>kind of international exchanges hook up very different prefigurations,
>disintegrating the uniformity of locally prevalent preconcepts. This is
>the fecondity of international lists; we all are ignorant but fortunately
>all we don't ignore the same things and so we can guide each another.
>                                  Cheeries,  
>                                  Mariela

       Prof. Mariela Szirko,
       <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 
       Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of
Health & Welfare, Argentine Republic; and 
       Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., 
Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Municipality of Buenos Aires,
       Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
                e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>
       Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son
personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante
  Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to: <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net