CONSCIOUSNESS
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
If a dead body is physically identical to a living body; then there would be no way to tell them apart.
Can you tell if the neurons in the attached image are dead or alive?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
If those neurons are on a glass slide, my guess is dead!
Yeah lol, they're also Nissl stained, so if they weren't dead before they are now.
Can you tell if neurons in a living person are dead or alive through PET / CT Scans with contrast?
Man, I forgot what they each do. I would say PET yes, but CT no.
CT Scans identify regions of atrophy, damage from infarction.
Right, but its just a fancy X-Ray so it wouldn't tell you if the person is dead. PET scan is the one I never understood what its for. The only thing you ever hear mentioned in psych is an fMRI.
The topic is whether we can tell if individual neurons are dead. Not the person. I thought, anyway.
Oh, then I don't believe any of these methods can be used. Neurons are microscopic, and these imaging devices are macroscopic. You wouldn't even see one, let alone tell if its alive.
If a CT Scan reveals atrophy in the prefrontal cortex then are there not dead neurons in that region. If a CT scan reveals damage from an infarction, there must be dead neurons. That is what atrophy means. Dead cells.
Right, then that's what I meant to say when I said person. I meant the brain of the person. You're not looking at the individual neurons either, you're looking at scar tissue composed of dead neurons. If a neurons dies without scarring it wouldn't show up on a CT scan.
Isn't it either ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes that doesn't show on a CT scan?
Ischemia is caused by occlusion or hemorrhage. Dead is dead.
No, ischemic strokes are by occlusion and hemorrhagic strokes are by bleeding. One of them doesn't show on CT.
I think you are wrong. A CT scan is a rapid way to determine if a stroke victim is a candidate for anti-thrombolytic therapy.
Images of both hemorrhagic and occlusive ischemia : http://www.radiologyassistant.nl/en/p483910a4b6f14/brain-ischemia-imagin...
Yeah, I'll look it up to see where I heard it, maybe I'm confusing it with another imaging technique.
Nope, I wasn't able to find it.
No I can't. Now that we've covered that: why don't you address your very false claims that there is no physical differences between a dead body and a live body.
Dang Sheldon, don't forget the fancy adjectives, like asinine.
There aren't any physical differences between a dead body and a living body, unless you're going full Scrooge and say a decapitated head is a physical distinction. You distinguish between the two physiologically, by observing its functions, not physically by observing its anatomy.
If I may interject here a moment, having been a medic with the military, this discussion has been much fun to follow so far. Thank you, gentlemen. Carry on.
Well call me Scrooge McDuck then because a missing head is certainly a physical distinction.
Certainly, unfortunately decapitation has been on decline since the French Revolution. So you'll need a better diagnostic technique.
I'm not offering diagnostic techniques. I'm pointing out that if there are no physical differences between two systems, then there is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell them apart.
I'm pointing out that what you have said on the matter is totally wrong.
If that's your argument (technically its mine, since I forwarded first) I'll take it. Now, you seem to be agreeing with me: If there are no physical differences between the two, then there is no physical way to tell the two apart. I argued for a physiological distinction.
It seems like you should be arguing that the two are never identical. Pointing to one instance in which they aren't, doesn't invalidate every instance in which they are.
I only need one exception to your statement to prove by counterexample that what you said is wrong. I leave the rest to the medical professionals.
This is where I get accused of word games. Typically when you take this approach you latch on to your favorite go-to words (never, always, absolutely, etc.). Did I use any of them, and if I didn't, why would one exception invalidate my statement?
John; I can't take any more mental gymnastics right now. You just keep believing there is no physical differences between dead bodies and living bodies. Good luck with that.
I accept your resignation.
John 6IX Breezy,
According to literature when a corpse comes back as a zombie it can hear, see, walk, grab things, eat and even grunt but it can't talk. So from a moral pov is it a criminal act to shot them in the head?
According to the biblical fairy tale zombie Yeshua even held long conversations with his buddies. But there's no mention of anything that zombie Lazarus did after he came out of the tomb after being dead for four days. Is he still "living"?
Pages