Discussion:
YASID: Parents have to make hard decision
(too old to reply)
Default User
2017-03-06 23:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This was a short story from a while back, 60s or 70s. Parents of a mentally-challenged child (not said, but probably severely autistic) are offered a chance to participate in an experimental procedure. Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.

The parents are weighing the beautiful drawings and such from the sick child against a crude painting from their son, and recalling the occasional furious hugs and more frequent violent outbursts.

As I recall, the decision was left undetermined. I think the reader was supposed to have sympathy for the parent's plight rather than, as I was, disturbed that such a thing would even be allowed let alone contemplated.


Brian
Quadibloc
2017-03-07 02:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The
experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's
parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
I don't know what that story is.

But this reminds me of a passage from "The Master Mind of Mars". Here, Ras
Thavas was a Martian scientist who had mastered brain transplantation.

The narrator, an Earthman who went to Mars the same way as John Carter before
him, noted that although Ras Thavas used his talents in horrible ways merely to
gain money (such as the matter of Valla Dia and Xaxa, which provided the novel's
main conflict), he also did great humanitarian things.

One was transplanting the brain from a deceased (but revivable) infant into the
body of one with severe mental handicaps.

This left me with the same strange feeling as what you're describing does.

As far as I'm concerned, *identity resides in the brain*. The body is a machine
that supports the brain, and that the brain uses to act upon its environment. So
while the brain is smaller than the rest of the body, when you transplant a
brain, what you're *really* doing is a body transplant for the brain.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-07 05:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Default User
Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The
experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's
parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
I don't know what that story is.
But this reminds me of a passage from "The Master Mind of Mars". Here, Ras
Thavas was a Martian scientist who had mastered brain transplantation.
The narrator, an Earthman who went to Mars the same way as John Carter before
him, noted that although Ras Thavas used his talents in horrible ways merely to
gain money (such as the matter of Valla Dia and Xaxa, which provided the novel's
main conflict), he also did great humanitarian things.
One was transplanting the brain from a deceased (but revivable) infant into the
body of one with severe mental handicaps.
This left me with the same strange feeling as what you're describing does.
As far as I'm concerned, *identity resides in the brain*. The body is a machine
that supports the brain, and that the brain uses to act upon its environment. So
while the brain is smaller than the rest of the body, when you transplant a
brain, what you're *really* doing is a body transplant for the brain.
John Savard
Well, that's more what we're told than what we
know directly, until brain transplants are possible.
Then again, I think someone transplanted the entire
head of some primate. To the same species of
primate, I think, and while this was published,
that is in a way just the same as saying "just to
say that they'd done it".

On the other hand, in a case of very profound
mental discapacity, I believe that in fact some
legal persons are considered to be human beings
only because their parents were: there are
animals that are smarter. But I too stop before
nominating a nearly brainless human person -
or a dementia case or a Terri Schiavo -
as a living body-donor for someone who needs
a replacement body.

And yet, is it much different from turning off
the life-support and then giving out bits of them
to other people? (Besides that the other thing
doesn't actually work. Yet.)
Peter Trei
2017-03-07 13:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Default User
Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The
experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's
parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
I don't know what that story is.
But this reminds me of a passage from "The Master Mind of Mars". Here, Ras
Thavas was a Martian scientist who had mastered brain transplantation.
The narrator, an Earthman who went to Mars the same way as John Carter before
him, noted that although Ras Thavas used his talents in horrible ways merely to
gain money (such as the matter of Valla Dia and Xaxa, which provided the novel's
main conflict), he also did great humanitarian things.
One was transplanting the brain from a deceased (but revivable) infant into the
body of one with severe mental handicaps.
This left me with the same strange feeling as what you're describing does.
As far as I'm concerned, *identity resides in the brain*. The body is a machine
that supports the brain, and that the brain uses to act upon its environment. So
while the brain is smaller than the rest of the body, when you transplant a
brain, what you're *really* doing is a body transplant for the brain.
John Savard
Well, that's more what we're told than what we
know directly, until brain transplants are possible.
Then again, I think someone transplanted the entire
head of some primate. To the same species of
primate, I think, and while this was published,
that is in a way just the same as saying "just to
say that they'd done it".
On the other hand, in a case of very profound
mental discapacity, I believe that in fact some
legal persons are considered to be human beings
only because their parents were: there are
animals that are smarter. But I too stop before
nominating a nearly brainless human person -
or a dementia case or a Terri Schiavo -
as a living body-donor for someone who needs
a replacement body.
And yet, is it much different from turning off
the life-support and then giving out bits of them
to other people? (Besides that the other thing
doesn't actually work. Yet.)
There are serious proposals to do a head transplant in the next year or
so. The head donor is already lined up, but they'll need permission, and
a suitable brain-dead body. This involves adults, so many of the
dilemmas of the story do not apply.

Here's a (rather skeptical) article about it.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/236006-surgeon-plans-first-human-head-transplant-in-2017

pt
Quadibloc
2017-03-07 16:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Well, that's more what we're told than what we
know directly, until brain transplants are possible.
I find that to be a strange statement, because even if we haven't transplanted any
brains yet, I would think that our knowledge of what the brain is _for_ and what
it _does_ is rather solid and reliable.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-07 23:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Well, that's more what we're told than what we
know directly, until brain transplants are possible.
I find that to be a strange statement, because even if we haven't transplanted any
brains yet, I would think that our knowledge of what the brain is _for_ and what
it _does_ is rather solid and reliable.
John Savard
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
Now we assume we know better than they did -
but why? Because we /are/ better, perhaps?
But are we?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-03-08 04:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.

The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Now we assume we know better than they did -
but why? Because we /are/ better, perhaps?
But are we?
No, because we've experimented with brains -- MRIs, icepick
lobotomies. hemispherectomies, etc. Messing with the heart or liver
doesn't change a person's personality; messing with the brain often
does.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-03-08 05:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Don Kuenz
2017-03-08 16:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Kevrob
2017-03-08 17:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
You've got to get those Evil Spirits out of your skull!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-08 20:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
Egyptian mummy preparers took great care to preserve
the brain, once they'd chopped it into bits that
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
the special storage jar... maybe more than one jar,
for all I know. Some pharaohs may have had a
larger than off-the-peg brain.

If in the afterlife the pharaoh wanted to use
his brain, it was within easy reach from the
sarcophagus. Once you managed to remove the lid.
The lid of the sarcophagus.
Don Kuenz
2017-03-08 21:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
Egyptian mummy preparers took great care to preserve
the brain, once they'd chopped it into bits that
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
the special storage jar... maybe more than one jar,
for all I know. Some pharaohs may have had a
larger than off-the-peg brain.
If in the afterlife the pharaoh wanted to use
his brain, it was within easy reach from the
sarcophagus. Once you managed to remove the lid.
The lid of the sarcophagus.
Vegamaticizing [1] the brain may cause less trauma than thought, given
that brain cells are measured in microns. The trick is keeping those
cells alive in vitro.

spoiler space


_Brain_ (Cook) solves the in vitro problem with the complete removal of
a involuntary donor's skull, face and all. The living remains are then
totally immersed into a vat of cerebrospinal fluid with respirator and
endotracheal tubes attached.

Note.

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=vegamatic

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-09 01:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
Egyptian mummy preparers took great care to preserve
the brain, once they'd chopped it into bits that
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
the special storage jar... maybe more than one jar,
for all I know. Some pharaohs may have had a
larger than off-the-peg brain.
If in the afterlife the pharaoh wanted to use
his brain, it was within easy reach from the
sarcophagus. Once you managed to remove the lid.
The lid of the sarcophagus.
Vegamaticizing [1] the brain may cause less trauma than thought, given
that brain cells are measured in microns. The trick is keeping those
cells alive in vitro.
spoiler space
_Brain_ (Cook) solves the in vitro problem with the complete removal of
a involuntary donor's skull, face and all. The living remains are then
totally immersed into a vat of cerebrospinal fluid with respirator and
endotracheal tubes attached.
Note.
1. https://www.google.com/search?q=vegamatic
"I thought you said you could just read his brain
electronically." "Oh yes - but we'd have to get
it out first. It's got to be prepared."
"Treated." "Diced."

YASID ??? :-)

Not actually in the radio version, where instead
they merely offer the brain's owner a mission to
find within himself the knowledge that will make
him a reasonably rich man - or, as his agent says:
make that /extremely/ rich.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-03-08 21:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Don Kuenz
In article
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
Egyptian mummy preparers took great care to preserve
the brain, once they'd chopped it into bits that
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
the special storage jar... maybe more than one jar,
for all I know. Some pharaohs may have had a
larger than off-the-peg brain.
If in the afterlife the pharaoh wanted to use
his brain, it was within easy reach from the
sarcophagus. Once you managed to remove the lid.
The lid of the sarcophagus.
Except it wasn't going to be there:


In spite of this excellent start, little of importance happened in
Egypt until the Third Dy nasty, when Imhotep the Wise, architect
and chief minister to King Zoser, invented the pyramid, a new kind
of huge royal tomb built of stone and guaranteed to protect the
body of the Pharaoh and a large amount of his property against
disturbance for all time. That is to say, Imhotep the Wise originated
the idea of concealing the royal corpse and his treasure in a
monument so conspicuous that it could not possibly be missed by
body snatchers and other thieves.(3)

Of course the pyramids were always robbed of their entire contents, but
the Pharaohs went right on building them for several centuries
before they noticed the catch in this way of hiding things. Imhotep's
pyramid was not much good, really, for the steps, or terraces, were
not filled in, and it was less than 200 feet high. Snefru, founder
of the Fourth Dynasty, made a better one with smooth sides, filling
in the steps with bricks, which, unfortunately, soon fell out.(4)

Snefru is now known merely as the father of Khufu,(5) or Cheops,
as the Greeks called him(6), builder of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh,
once 481 feet high and still rising 450 feet with the top gone.
Although this structure failed as a tomb, it is one of the wonders
of the world even today because it is the largest thing ever built
for the wrong reason.(7)

--
3) The Egyptians believed that the body must be preserved indefinitely
in order to obtain immortality. Shows what they knew.

4) The later Pharaohs used stone for this purpose. It fell out, too.

5) Or Hwfw.

6) How the Greeks made Cheops out of Hwfw is at present unknown.

7) The Empire State Building is 1,248 feet high.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Don Kuenz
2017-03-09 01:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Don Kuenz
In article
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:37 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
There have also been cultures that assumed the soul, memory, and
personality were in the liver, since it's the largest organ and its
actual function is far from obvious.
The brain was thought by the ancient Greeks to regulate blood
temperature.
Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught
that the brain exists mearly to cool the blood and is not
involved in the process of thinking. This is true only
of certain persons.
At least one ancient Greek, a man named Hippocrates, AKA the "father of
medicine," knew all along that the brain housed the soul, memory, and
personality. Hippocrates studied at the temple of Amenhotep. Egyptians
performed surgery millennia before Hippocrates. Perhaps Egyptians
influenced Hippocrates' thoughts on the role of the brain.
Egyptian mummy preparers took great care to preserve
the brain, once they'd chopped it into bits that
could be drawn out through the nose and put into
the special storage jar... maybe more than one jar,
for all I know. Some pharaohs may have had a
larger than off-the-peg brain.
If in the afterlife the pharaoh wanted to use
his brain, it was within easy reach from the
sarcophagus. Once you managed to remove the lid.
The lid of the sarcophagus.
In spite of this excellent start, little of importance happened in
Egypt until the Third Dy nasty, when Imhotep the Wise, architect
and chief minister to King Zoser, invented the pyramid, a new kind
of huge royal tomb built of stone and guaranteed to protect the
body of the Pharaoh and a large amount of his property against
disturbance for all time. That is to say, Imhotep the Wise originated
the idea of concealing the royal corpse and his treasure in a
monument so conspicuous that it could not possibly be missed by
body snatchers and other thieves.(3)
Of course the pyramids were always robbed of their entire contents, but
the Pharaohs went right on building them for several centuries
before they noticed the catch in this way of hiding things. Imhotep's
pyramid was not much good, really, for the steps, or terraces, were
not filled in, and it was less than 200 feet high. Snefru, founder
of the Fourth Dynasty, made a better one with smooth sides, filling
in the steps with bricks, which, unfortunately, soon fell out.(4)
Snefru is now known merely as the father of Khufu,(5) or Cheops,
as the Greeks called him(6), builder of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh,
once 481 feet high and still rising 450 feet with the top gone.
Although this structure failed as a tomb, it is one of the wonders
of the world even today because it is the largest thing ever built
for the wrong reason.(7)
--
3) The Egyptians believed that the body must be preserved indefinitely
in order to obtain immortality. Shows what they knew.
4) The later Pharaohs used stone for this purpose. It fell out, too.
5) Or Hwfw.
6) How the Greeks made Cheops out of Hwfw is at present unknown.
7) The Empire State Building is 1,248 feet high.
"King Tut" died while still a teenager. Tut was succeeded by his
commander in chief, Horemheb. Pharaoh Horemheb usurped Tut's monuments.
_Sphinx_ (Cook) made use of these historic facts.

Tut's tomb was poorly guarded after Horemheb's usurpation. So grave
robbers successfully stole a few items. This desecration ultimately gave
Seti I's chief architect Nenephta an idea on how to protect Seti I's
grave for all eternity.

A mortuary temple was built for Seti I on the west bank of the Nile at
Thebes. On its ceiling is the Egyptian interpretation of our modern day
Ursa Major.

a curious procession of a bull, a horizontal man or god, and
a hippopotamus with a crocodile on its back.

_Cosmos_ (Sagan)

spoiler space


Seti I's tomb is not located at the mortuary temple. It's hidden beneath
"King Tut"'s. That way the boy king's treasure sates grave robbers, who
remain unaware of the far greater treasure beneath their feet.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

Quadibloc
2017-03-08 07:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
But most of us haven't opened up our own head,
or someone else's, to look at what's in there
and how it works. We take it on trust.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't... but I think
once upon a time, people believed that where
"they" were, in the body, was the heart.
Now we assume we know better than they did -
but why? Because we /are/ better, perhaps?
But are we?
At least I recognize the perspective from which you are arguing.

But I don't see that we're "taking it on trust" in an absolute sense. A lot of
people have suffered head injuries; there is abundant medical literature about
the consequences of this.

Regarding current scientific knowledge, although it is still open to change and
revision, as more likely to be accurate than the traditional beliefs of various
cultures... seems to me to be a matter-of-fact conclusion, not a manifestation
of prejudice or bias. Of course, you _could_ make the claim that the same belief
_would_ be based on chauvinism (to some extent, at least) when it is held by
people with no personal experience of how science is done, people with a limited
educational level.

After all, many people in the industrialized world believe that Christianity is
superior to the religious beliefs of indigenous people _in the same way_ that
modern science is superior to their beliefs about nature (such as about
astronomy, say; what they know about the local plant life is a datum science
finds of value).

To some extent, though, these people do have the experience of the modern
conveniences around them... working well, and working better than they did a few
years ago. So the belief in science does have _some_ solid basis even for those
who are accepting it primarily from authority.

Frankly, when people are accepting what they are told from authorities that I
happen to know *are* correct, I see no reason to highlight philosophical and
epistemological issues that might mess up the process. We already have too many
climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, and the like, who are able to vote.

John Savard
Greg Goss
2017-03-07 06:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Default User
Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The
experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's
parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
I don't know what that story is.
But this reminds me of a passage from "The Master Mind of Mars". Here, Ras
Thavas was a Martian scientist who had mastered brain transplantation.
The narrator, an Earthman who went to Mars the same way as John Carter before
him, noted that although Ras Thavas used his talents in horrible ways merely to
gain money (such as the matter of Valla Dia and Xaxa, which provided the novel's
main conflict), he also did great humanitarian things.
One was transplanting the brain from a deceased (but revivable) infant into the
body of one with severe mental handicaps.
This left me with the same strange feeling as what you're describing does.
As far as I'm concerned, *identity resides in the brain*. The body is a machine
that supports the brain, and that the brain uses to act upon its environment. So
while the brain is smaller than the rest of the body, when you transplant a
brain, what you're *really* doing is a body transplant for the brain.
In the Vorkosiverse, killing the business of doing this becomes the
driving force behind Mile's twin's life, including providing the major
events of one of the novels.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Carl Fink
2017-03-07 13:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Default User
Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The
experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's
parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
I don't know what that story is.
But this reminds me of a passage from "The Master Mind of Mars". Here, Ras
Thavas was a Martian scientist who had mastered brain transplantation.
The narrator, an Earthman who went to Mars the same way as John Carter before
him, noted that although Ras Thavas used his talents in horrible ways merely to
gain money (such as the matter of Valla Dia and Xaxa, which provided the novel's
main conflict), he also did great humanitarian things.
One was transplanting the brain from a deceased (but revivable) infant into the
body of one with severe mental handicaps.
This left me with the same strange feeling as what you're describing does.
As far as I'm concerned, *identity resides in the brain*. The body is a machine
that supports the brain, and that the brain uses to act upon its environment. So
while the brain is smaller than the rest of the body, when you transplant a
brain, what you're *really* doing is a body transplant for the brain.
In the Vorkosiverse, killing the business of doing this becomes the
driving force behind Mile's twin's life, including providing the major
events of one of the novels.
And of course (not wanting to spoiler) it's a key element in a Known Space
detective story by Niven.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Robert Woodward
2017-03-07 06:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
This was a short story from a while back, 60s or 70s. Parents of a
mentally-challenged child (not said, but probably severely autistic) are
offered a chance to participate in an experimental procedure. Another family
has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The experiment
would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's parents would
cede all rights to the . . . result.
The parents are weighing the beautiful drawings and such from the sick child
against a crude painting from their son, and recalling the occasional furious
hugs and more frequent violent outbursts.
As I recall, the decision was left undetermined. I think the reader was
supposed to have sympathy for the parent's plight rather than, as I was,
disturbed that such a thing would even be allowed let alone contemplated.
Sounds familiar. IIRC, there were two related stories in Anolog back in
the 60s. In one story, the transplant that was described involved two
babies; one brain dead, the other very badly (probably unrecoverably,
brain was fine) damaged in a car crash. Let's see if I can find them ...
"Half a Loaf" (ASF, August 1965) and "Second Seeded" (ASF, January 1966)
both by R. C. FitzPatrick. The first might to be the story you are
thinking of (the details differ), the 2nd is the one that I remembered.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Default User
2017-03-07 15:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Sounds familiar. IIRC, there were two related stories in Anolog back in
the 60s. In one story, the transplant that was described involved two
babies; one brain dead, the other very badly (probably unrecoverably,
brain was fine) damaged in a car crash. Let's see if I can find them ...
"Half a Loaf" (ASF, August 1965) and "Second Seeded" (ASF, January 1966)
both by R. C. FitzPatrick. The first might to be the story you are
thinking of (the details differ), the 2nd is the one that I remembered.
I can't really confirm or deny. While the story you mention was nominated for a Nebula, I couldn't find a synopsis on the web or any indication that it was anthologized. It's unlikely that I would have read it in a 1965 Analog issue.

Could you explain the differing details?


Brian
Robert Woodward
2017-03-08 06:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Robert Woodward
Sounds familiar. IIRC, there were two related stories in Anolog back in
the 60s. In one story, the transplant that was described involved two
babies; one brain dead, the other very badly (probably unrecoverably,
brain was fine) damaged in a car crash. Let's see if I can find them ...
"Half a Loaf" (ASF, August 1965) and "Second Seeded" (ASF, January 1966)
both by R. C. FitzPatrick. The first might to be the story you are
thinking of (the details differ), the 2nd is the one that I remembered.
I can't really confirm or deny. While the story you mention was nominated for
a Nebula, I couldn't find a synopsis on the web or any indication that it was
anthologized. It's unlikely that I would have read it in a 1965 Analog issue.
Could you explain the differing details?
One of the two boys involved had a body that didn't work very well
physically (hand-eye coordination was really not there). The other boy
wasn't a violent autistic, he was merely very deficient mentally.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Jack Bohn
2017-03-07 17:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Could it be "The Meeting" by Kornbluth & Pohl, but first published in 1972?
--
-Jack
Default User
2017-03-07 19:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Bohn
Could it be "The Meeting" by Kornbluth & Pohl, but first published in 1972?
That's a possibility at first glance. I will research it more.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meeting_%28short_story%29>


Brian
p***@hotmail.com
2017-03-08 02:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
This was a short story from a while back, 60s or 70s. Parents of a mentally-challenged child (not said, but probably severely autistic) are offered a chance to participate in an experimental procedure. Another family has a bright, talented boy, with serious physical problems. The experiment would be a brain transplant into their child. The other child's parents would cede all rights to the . . . result.
The parents are weighing the beautiful drawings and such from the sick child against a crude painting from their son, and recalling the occasional furious hugs and more frequent violent outbursts.
As I recall, the decision was left undetermined. I think the reader was supposed to have sympathy for the parent's plight rather than, as I was, disturbed that such a thing would even be allowed let alone contemplated.
This might be _Half a Loaf_ by R. C. FitzPatrick. This was published in
_Analog_ in August, 1965. The author had a series of at least three
short stories (_Second Seeded_ and _There is a Tide_ are others) about
a surgeon who developed a workable procedure for a whole-body transplant
and would only use body donors who were brain dead. _Half a Loaf_ was, I
believe, nominated for a Nebula Award and has been anthologized.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Loading...