@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

>> ^ReverendTed:
I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.
He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.
Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.
One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)
The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.
My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.
What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.
The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.
I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.
It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.
Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.


Quantum physics = if the numbers don't add up invent your own reasoning, e.g., dark matter or alternative universes while claiming nothing exists that I can not prove. The lack of proof does not equal the lack of existence. Critical thinking seems to be lacking.

I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.

Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.

One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)

The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.

My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.

What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.

The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.

I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.

It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.

Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.

Have a friend that was having a major manipulation done to her shoulder, sort of a pre-surgery relocation or something that entailed the doc putting his knee in her chest and tugging or whatnot. They gave her a drug, I think maybe orally administered that allowed her to be sentient and conversant and cooperative, but she didn't remember a thing. Struck me as something from a science fiction movie or spy thriller. I think it also dulled the pain, but I remember thinking "if you caused a lot of pain to the patient, but they don't remember it, were they ever in pain" I don't remember what it was called. Forgettitol^tm? [edit:] It's called Versed.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

Ironic - with the exception of the initial demonstration of top-down processing in text comprehension, none of those have much to do with the human 'mind'. They are mostly functions of subcortical structures, primarily the retina, and some processing in the lateral geniculate nucleus (part of the thalamus). [edit] Motion detection is definitely associated with area V5 of the occipital cortex, but the data has been heavily processed by that point. The neurons in V5 are almost certainly activated by the motion illusions, but the illusion itself is caused by the wiring of the retina and LGN.

As for the text demonstration, it's worth noting that your ability to read text like that is severely hampered, though not completely degraded. This has be shown by reaction time studies of all sorts. There are even neural network models that have been developed to demonstrate exactly that effect. Still pretty neat, though.

You want fascinating - try figuring out how your brain matches up the color of those dots with the shape of them, despite the fact that the information travels in two completely separate neural pathways. It's a low-level variation of the 'binding problem' and is one of the central issues in cognitive neuroscience. Figure that out and you should pack your bags for a trip to Stockholm.