quick quote from Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan:

[ashmanonar]

"A better understanding of the brain may also one day bear on such vexing social issues as the definition of death and the acceptability of abortions. The current ethos in teh west seems to be that it is permissible in a good cause to kill nonhuman primates and certainly other mammals; but it is impermissible (for individuals) to kill human beings under similar circumstances. The logical implication is that it is the characteristically human qualities of the human brain that make the difference. In the same way, if substantial parts of the neocortex are functioning, the comatose patient can certainly be said to be alive in a human sense, even if there is major impairment of other physical and neurological functions. On the other hand, a patient otherwise alive but exhibiting no sign of neocortical activity (including the neocortical activities in sleep) might, in a human sense, be described as dead. In many such cases the neocortex has failed irreversibly but the limbic system, R-complex, and lower brainstem are still operative, and such fundamental functions as respiration and blood circulation are unimpaired. I think more work is required on human brain physiology before a well-supported legal definition of death can be generally accepted, but the road to such a definition will very likely take us through considerations of the neocortex as opposed to the other components of the brain."

Discuss.

[porphyrian]

1. Ah, Science Vs. Religion repackaged.

Good luck.

[H2O Man]

2. I respectfully disagree.

Sagan's book is one of the most progressive statements on how to find common ground between science and religion. I am not objective, of course, because I think all of Sagan's books are great. I think that The Dragons of Eden is his single best work.

[porphyrian]

3. I was speaking more to the likely direction of the post...

...than of Sagan's work, which I've largely not read yet, this included.

[H2O Man]

4. Right.

In the context of the book, which I think almost everyone would like, the discussion might help bridge the gap between everyone but the most extreme. One of the most impressive parts of the book, which may be viewed as closely related to this topic, is the wonderful way in which Sagan examines the creation mythology of the O.T. as a beautiful and poetic discription of evolution. I note that it is very similar to what even the pope determined the creation myth to be. I think that perhaps more than anyone else in the past generation, Sagan shows that science and religion are not in conflict when considered with an open mind.

I do appreciate the point you were making.

[ashmanonar]

7. i haven't read anything else of his, but i must find more this summer.

dragons of eden is fantastic. a wonderful read.

Sagan was really something else. his words will be immortal.

[ashmanonar]

5. not really meant that way.

i really honestly meant it as a discussion, which is the reason i input nothing into the post. it's a direct quote.

i've been reading dragons of eden lately, and i find it insightful and amazingly accessible to everyone. i'm no brain surgeon, but i think i have a good idea of how the brain works.

i honestly do not read much religious content into it besides what sagan wrote, but that's because i'm not "religious" myself (people really do tend to read into things with their own experiences and beliefs, it's just human nature.) he does try to bridge the gap between the past and present by referring to religious creation stories and how they may be interpreted to actually bear some truth. the bible (and other creation myths) isn't a literal truth, but it may be used to tell something of the past (through genetic memory, or what might be called "race memory". very interesting stuff.

[ashmanonar]

6. oh, and i also thought i saw some immediate reference to the

*shudders* schiavo case and this passage. seems like sagan makes a pretty cogent point, where they didn't have one in the S case. *shrug*

[Squeech]

8. Loved that book

And one of its most important aspects is, it was outside of Sagan's area of expertise. He wanted to see if he could research, and then elucidate, a subject he wasn't really knowledgeable about.

However, I don't think he'll convince anybody on the religious right in a case like the Schiavo matter. Their premise is that the body is merely a vessel for the soul, which is the real seat of our being. And I assume that they would say that the soul of Terri Schiavo was still present in that otherwise inert husk, and that the flat EEG, and the CAT scans that showed big holes where the cortex should be, were irrelevant.

Of course I don't see why they don't find it cruel to keep that soul tethered to that useless husk, rather than freeing it to go to Jesus in Heaven. But that's a subject I'm not really knowledgeable about.

[ashmanonar]

9. well, that's the thing.

you can't reason with people who hold a fundamental religious belief, the facts just don't factor in. all they care about is their beliefs.

i think to an extent humans tend to do that: hold to a belief like a lifeline. but if you train yourself through various methods (philosophy, critical thinking) you can get the mind out of that rut, and begin to examine your own beliefs more thoroughly and neutrally.

i think the most important lesson to take from D of E is that your mind is a marvelous machine that is capable of both reason and belief. the two in balance is an excellent way to live your life. sorta like jung's shadow side philosophy: no matter how virtuous you are, you have a shadow side that is in equal proportions to your good side: you must become acquainted to the shadow in order to fully understand yourself.

both sides have merit, but they must be balanced.

[Squeech]

11. Hmmm...

The lesson I take from the book is that your lizard brain is going to try and make you act in hasty, ill-considered emotional ways-- fight-or-flight reactions, defensiveness, etc.-- and that's really what you have to train yourself against.

Belief is still mainly a function of the cortex-- it's postulates you know you can't prove (which is the definition of a postulate anyway) and you decide to retain in spite of possible contradictions with the rest of your knowledge base. But you still use your beliefs as tools to build the logical structure of your life, it seems to me.

(Note: this is intended as the editorial "you," not the specific poster named ashmanonar.)

Anyway, it's possible, and I would think desirable, to integrate the information you take on faith with the rest of the information you get from living in the world, and achieve conclusions from it all. Pascal's wager is an example, perhaps a trivial one. But it's still a forebrain function. (Maybe the fear part is the dragon talking.)

My opinion only, and worth what you paid for it.

[ashmanonar]

14. i understand.

i think what i meant was between the right and left halves of the brain, not so much the R-complex and limbic. i think you're right when it comes to R-complex, i just wasn't referring to that. right side deals with beliefs and "holistic" thinking, whereas the left side deals with reason and facts.

it's probable that i got the interp wrong, but *shrug*. wouldn't be the first time.

[H2O Man]

12. True.

His writings won't convince the religious right. But that's fine. It is far more important to reach the people who tend to be somewhere near the middle.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. A great book.

Read it years ago, and even someone as usually uninterested in science as myself, I found it fascinating.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. I miss Carl Sagan. n/t