C'jais Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion_85.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Well, in the sense that the brain is the 'I' of a human and the body merely a tool to sustain it, the idea of a body transplant comes to me neither as grotesque nor as a surprise. But watch the religious and the spiritual get a field day out of this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted June 17, 2003 Author Share Posted June 17, 2003 Something I wondered about reading this: Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well? I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks. Now for some questions: If you were terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body? What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Something I wondered about reading this: Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well? I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks. I figure you'd have to adapt your fine motoring skills to your new body, yes. Assuming your new body has virtually the same measurements and proportions and that all nerves from your central nervous system to your new body were perfectly joint together I don't think it would take very long. And the basic, major motoring skills, like walking and jumping would come rather easily. Originally posted by C'jais Now for some questions: If you terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body? That's one of those questions you really can't answer that until you're in the situation. But if the procedure was perfected and the donor body satisfactory, I'd say definately maybe. Originally posted by C'jais What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on? You'd have to be one hell of a naive narcissist to even contemplate that. Besides, you're contradicting yourself; '...you could only survive...' and '..."you" would be lost...". That the body lives on is irrelevant since the 'you' resides in your brain...As you said yourself. I suppose that this head transplant business is another one of those sciences (or branch of a tree of science) that will meet with scorn and loathing for the first few generations for then to become a common everyday thing. Besides, it's only an extension of medical procedures that are common today, organ transplants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Wouldn't we lose our "body memory" (so to speak) if this transplant occured? I mean, wouldn't I lose my ability to type well if I got a body that hadn't been "conditioned" to type well? I wouldn't be surprised if the neurons in my hand would need to adapt to specific tasks. I know that people who merely have their limbs re-attached need to undergo a lot of therapy to recover use of the limb. Also, there was a recent case of hand transplants... though I barely remember it from the news. I would think this, too, would require months, if not years, of rehabilitation and therapy. I would hypothesize that the neurons in the body become accustomed to the brain's way of speaking to them... i.e. the amounts, frequencies, and durations of the neuromuscular use of ions like sodium, potassium and calcium and in different voltages.... I would tend to think that each body has different requirements based on its physical makeup and the brain's capabilities (think mental disorders from mild depression to ADD to bi-polar). I would also think that the brain would be "accustomed" to communicating with its body in many subtle ways, much the way you can tell what a best friend is thinking. Having said all that, I think the problem of transplanting body parts is significantly difficult for the brain to handle at the small appendage level, why wouldn't it be proportionally difficult when changing out everything from the neck down? Still, I look forward to reading more of this guy's research. Originally posted by C'jais Now for some questions: If you were terminally ill, would you get your head transplanted, so that you'd live on in another body? Assuming that the process is perfected, at least to the point where the recovery chances are generally predictable, my answer would be: "Heck yeah." This is the only life I get... I'm going to make the most of it. I will claw, scrape and grab at every last chance! Originally posted by C'jais What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on? Without the engine, my car is just a bunch of spare parts.... same with my body without my head. It wouldn't be me (unless it's true what they say about the little head). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 I liked the idea first but then i thought hybernating is more humanous. As I understood that monkey could respond to some sense stimulation but it could not move at all, imagine you're paralised and conscious. It could drive anybody mad. And also imagine how difficlt will it be to get a donor body. The holy church will again protest and many countries would ban it. Hybernation is working without these problems although I know there're very difficult aspects of it (but it's all technical) and it's perhaps decades till it's actually done, I still think it to be the neede approach. I'll definitly look for some arguments about White, and of course I'd like to know more in details of the operation itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 An interesting thought occured to me about the money making aspects that people could try to take advantage of were this perfected..... It's a bit off the wall and probably never would happen....but.......what if people had their head transplanted onto a body that was not very old, but not in the greatest of shape, and then worked it out until it was in GREAT shape...and then if they had another viable transplant in line.....SOLD their well-shaped body for a hefty profit....you know there area lot of rich old people who would pay to have a body like that...... Kind of creepy...........Unlikely.........but weird......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior ...what if people had their head transplanted onto a body that was not very old, but not in the greatest of shape, and then worked it out until it was in GREAT shape...and then if they had another viable transplant in line.....SOLD their well-shaped body for a hefty profit....you know there area lot of rich old people who would pay to have a body like that...... Kind of creepy...........Unlikely.........but weird......... Whereever there's a profit to be made be sure humans will find it and exploit it, especially those desperate enough, so I don't find that scenario unlikely at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Anyone know why the monkeys only lasted 9 hrs. ? Could be their heads weren't meant to be "transplanted". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan Anyone know why the monkeys only lasted 9 hrs. ? Could be their heads weren't meant to be "transplanted". That would imply a "plan," which may be a possibility. However, the probable explanation is that they haven't perfected the match up of neural pathways, circulatory connections, anti-rejection methods, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted June 18, 2003 Author Share Posted June 18, 2003 Yep, the reason the monkey didn't last very long was because the idea and implementation is still in it's infant stage: The monkeys actually lived up to nine hours and exhibited some ability to see, hear, feel and taste. White recalls that “we really weren’t planning on seeing them alive for much longer because there was so much more to learn about how such a transplant would work, the body being so complex.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal..... I mean, the meaning is the same...your head is getting transplanted onto a new body...thus it IS a head transplant...sort of...... And saying his head got cut off......his head DID get cut off...it's his head, and it got cut off of his body...thus...his head got cut off.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior Doesn't seem like that big of a deal..... I mean, the meaning is the same...your head is getting transplanted onto a new body...thus it IS a head transplant...sort of...... And saying his head got cut off......his head DID get cut off...it's his head, and it got cut off of his body...thus...his head got cut off.... Not saying it didn't, just pointing out that the emphasis ought to be on the 'I', which resides in the head, thus making the body being removed from the head more relevant than the head being removed from the body as an accounting of loss. The 'I' loses the body, not the head. EDIT: Writing too fast makes you skip words at time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. It's incorrect to call it a head transplant. You have to regard it from the 'I''s point of view, which makes it a body transplant. It's the same mistake we see in the phrase "He got his head cut off." No, he got his body cut off, or at the least he got his head seperated from his body; the 'he' is in his head. When one says that he got his head cut off it implies that his head was just an extremity from the 'he', and even further it might imply he could live without his head! Now, I know you all are aware of this, but one shouldn't hang on to clichés of expression when they're basically wrong. Only problem is that you can't prove what the "I" or the "He" is, it could be his body, and the brain is just a tool to allow the body to make rational decisions, how can you say that a body part (the head) is the only part of the body that matters, that is the person? Couldn't the body be the "he" and the head just be an extremity that allows for thoughts to be formed and stored, and for commands to be given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan Only problem is that you can't prove what the "I" or the "He" is, it could be his body, and the brain is just a tool to allow the body to make rational decisions, The body is incapable of "making decisions." This is a cognitive process that requires the neural activity of the brain. Originally posted by Psydan Couldn't the body be the "he" and the head just be an extremity that allows for thoughts to be formed and stored, and for commands to be given? And this is the center of what one comes to know of as self. Self is comprised of the memories and thought patterns stored in the brain. There is no mechanism to do so in other extremities of the body. In fact, there is considerable evidence that would suggest that the idea of self ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function. Other body parts have been injured, even removed without losing sentient self. However, there are a tremendous amount of documented cases where head injuries have resulted in apparent loss of self-awareness, coma, amnesia, and drastic changes in personality. Thus, the evidence points to the "head" as the location of "self." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 The body is incapable of "making decisions." This is a cognitive process that requires the neural activity of the brain. One must also realize that our body does have nerves which send messages to the brain. I would say it would be a bit of a two way process. However, the idea of self, would be definitely in the brain. If we lived with no brain, our bodies would probably be just reacting to various stimuli. Not all living things have brains eg Jellyfish. In doing a head transplant, I would say, never doubt the ability to adapt. It would take time. For instance, universities have done studies where people where these things with mirrors that allow them to see only at certain angles (like fish or birds or something). It gives headaches at first, however, after a few weeks they are used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus Just gonna split hairs here, but rather important splitting. I agree to an extent - it should be called a body transplant, since that's what it is, for the person. OTOH, saying a person got his "body cut off" is a meaningless change - as the person is dead, it's really just chopping off extremeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by FunClown One must also realize that our body does have nerves which send messages to the brain. I would say it would be a bit of a two way process. Yup, but they do not do so consciously. They're sensors - not decision makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais OTOH, saying a person got his "body cut off" is a meaningless change - as the person is dead, it's really just chopping off extremeties. It's the same difference, yes. I'm simply pointing out the matter of perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted June 21, 2003 Share Posted June 21, 2003 Well....... He said he was motivated by the handicapped? In order to do a head transplant that would work you would have to reconnect the spinal cord lol. So why bother just do that in the handicapped person...... Pointless unless your body was totally crushed and some how they kept your head alive tell someone died of brain cancer. They would also have to matched your blood type...... Though when they figure out how to put your brain in a machine I will be interested lol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais What if you could only survive if your head was replaced with another? Meaning, "you" would be lost, but your body would live on? thats sort of freaky... it like you, mixed with someone else... I suppose that this head transplant business is another one of those sciences (or branch of a tree of science) that will meet with scorn and loathing for the first few generations for then to become a common everyday thing. Besides, it's only an extension of medical procedures that are common today, organ transplants. its a little different than an organ transplants, this a whole head, and a new body... but when you get your head cut off, your still alive, 4 a little while right.. maybe a minute.. or a few seconds...so if you were going to remove someones head, and place it on another body, wouldnt it become retarded, or the person have brain damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 its a little different than an organ transplants, this a whole head, and a new body... but when you get your head cut off, your still alive, 4 a little while right.. maybe a minute.. or a few seconds...so if you were going to remove someones head, and place it on another body, wouldnt it become retarded, or the person have brain damage? Principally it is the same, but of course it will take some development in brain preservation, possibly by sofisticated medical machinery, to perfect the procedure. The brain needs to be kept alive, fed oxygen, during the course of the procedure. Besides, I think a brain can be clinically dead for up to 3-4 minutes before it takes any irreversible damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 oh ok. Well, ive been thinking, and on the religious side, if your just going to have a head transplant so you get a better body (like the rich guy someone said ealrier) then i think its wrong, cause God gave what he gave you. If your injured and thats the only thing that can save you, then... i dont know, i mean, i know christians who have had heart transplants things like that... but who knows? EDIT: even if you dont believe in the bible and God, you can still see why thats wrong, well, i guess it depends on how you look at it. So there going to take a dead body... from someone who just died... and use that... but the body would be dead, it couldnt operate, the heart and lungs would die... things like that. Of coarse finding a body to fit the head would be almost impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Well, ive been thinking, and on the religious side, if your just going to have a head transplant so you get a better body (like the rich guy someone said ealrier) then i think its wrong, cause God gave what he gave you.... Taking that point of thought, and following the line it dictates, it would then be wrong to use medication to prolong your life through better health, it would be wrong to build machines to ease your work, it would in essence be wrong to take any action since God will provide. Or can you suggest something in between? Where does the line go between right and wrong? You say we should leave it to God to decide how and how long we live, so am I to take it that any effort to ease pain, cure disease and safe lives is wrong? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 So there going to take a dead body... from someone who just died... and use that... but the body would be dead, it couldnt operate, the heart and lungs would die... things like that. Of coarse finding a body to fit the head would be almost impossible. The heart and the liver are easily preserved over a period of time and these are two of the most vital body parts, so why couldn't a body be preserved for long enough to have a head attached to it? And what exactly makes it almost impossible to find a fitting body? I suppose blood types should match like with heart transplants, but other than that.... The body is simply a tool of flesh. Religion and spirituality regard it as more than that, and maybe they're right, but medical science is doing one hell of a job nonetheless. EDIT: Typos are a heavy contender for the place of Universal Unlimited Resource Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.