|
http://austriantimes.at/news/Around_the_World/2010-02-02/20227/Shoulder_blade
Mugging victim Julia Popova calmly went home after being robbed on her way home from work - without realising she had a six inch knife stuck into her neck.
The 22-year-old office worker had grappled with her attacker when he snatched her handbag as she walked to her parents' home in the Russian capital Moscow.
But she was so shocked by the ordeal she didn't know that the thug had buried a kitchen knife in her neck just fractions of an inch from her spinal cord.
Her horrified parents rushed her to hospital where surgeons managed to remove the blade without damaging Julia's spine.
"Shock had kicked in and her body prevented her from feeling any pain. She simply walked home without feeling the knife in her back," said one medic.
There's a photo of the knife in the link.
|
|
|
|
|
"Shoulder blade"
I lol'd
Sick stuff...
|
United States42674 Posts
Adrenalin is awesome. Your body recognises it's been stabbed but just doesn't want to bother you with that shit until things are under control.
The human body is remarkable.
|
I remember watching something very similar to a woman with the same area affected many years ago on TV. Whether it's the same case or just a huge coincidence, I don't know.
Pretty crazy either way :/
|
That is a really gross picture. The human body is super weird sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm liking the news story underneath that one.
|
On February 05 2010 09:05 KwarK wrote:
Adrenalin is awesome. Your body recognises it's been stabbed but just doesn't want to bother you with that shit until things are under control.
The human body is remarkable.
I do muay thai stuff, I haven't sparred hard yet at all, but from all the fighters and listening to them, they always say you feel very little during an actual fight, one said getting kicked hurts more in sparring with pads ON.
|
That pic is nuts!
short story: I broke my left arm when I was about 6.It was broken in two places, making my normally straight arm look like a Z. Anyway it was about a 20 minute drive to the hostpital give or take, and as were turning into the parking lot my mother tells me "dont look at your arm". I actually didnt even know it was broken, the instant i looked at it i felt the pain and started crying.
|
That's fucked up but I've seen it happen before (on TV of course), some middle aged woman walking around the supermarket with a massive blade sticking out her back. Adrenaline is pretty ridiculous.
|
|
|
Fuck that is sick...
"Adrenalin is awesome."
|
Wow crazy stuff she must be very lucky to survive that :O
|
l o l o m g
what an amazing experience
|
On February 05 2010 09:05 KwarK wrote:
Adrenalin is awesome
QFT
|
wish i could turn that shit on
|
What the fuck. I know adrenalin is awesome and everything but thats just..impossible to imagine not feeling that.
|
I've gotten jumped before, kneed in the face and punched in the face multiple times... you barely feel it when the adrenaline is pumping... I was actually surprised slightly at how weak teh punches felt... on my face... it was a 10 on 3 we had no chance.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 09:24 StorrZerg wrote:
wish i could turn that shit on
You'd end up doing serious damage to yourself by using it at the wrong times. Using the full potential of the body is dangerous, it'll break itself. It's just incredible that evolution has not only created a system of internal safety limits within the body but also an override for when not breaking them is more dangerous. Any situation where you should turn the adrenalin on, it'll happen automatically.
Tbh that's probably evolved too. People with control over it broke their bones and didn't reproduce while people with no adrenalin switch only used it responsibly.
|
Damn, look at that pic. Looks nice and deep.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 09:25 Bebop07 wrote:
What the fuck. I know adrenalin is awesome and everything but thats just..impossible to imagine not feeling that.
Pain isn't real. Your body feeds sensory information (like OMG a knife is in me) to the brain. The brain then sorts it and feeds it to the conscious mind to act upon it. If it thinks your conscious mind needs to sort shit out and get out of the situation it'll give you a dose of pain as encouragement. However if it thinks you're already on the case it'll not bother you with the fine details until you're less busy with everything else.
It's really remarkable when you think about it. The mind is essentially ethereal, the brain can be quantified and analysed but the mind isn't something measurable. And this concept of a mind can suffer pain which is impossible to describe. Imagine you had to describe pain to someone who had never felt it, there's no analogy that fits. A conceptual thing called the mind suffers a conceptual thing called pain when it feels its evolutionary chances of reproduction are being damaged. None of that even makes sense. Nature is so incredible.
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhh there's my knife, thanks!
|
United States42674 Posts
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought.
|
On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is.
intrinsic
–adjective
1. belonging to a thing by its very nature
"Food for thought."
+ Show Spoiler +Ok I don't normally do these dick posts but come on.
|
In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain.
haha
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 09:47 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. intrinsic –adjective 1. belonging to a thing by its very nature "Food for thought." + Show Spoiler +Ok I don't normally do these dick posts but come on.
The legs are a part of the body but not a part of the person. That's the difference I was trying to explain. It's hard because language wasn't really created for this kind of theoretical nonsense but I was saying the body is just decoration around the mind.
|
As crazy as it sounds, I'm not very surprised by this. A similar experience happened to my mom when she was coming home from work and was mugged and didn't notice a knife wound she had on her neck until my aunt pointed it out first. Still, it's pretty crazy how your mind and body react in these life threatening situations.
|
United States42674 Posts
There again, in an evolutionary sense, the mind is just decoration for the balls. When you get right down to it, we don't reproduce so we can make more humans to think about and understand the universe, we think about stuff so we can reproduce. The body is essentially a sperm dispenser (or recipient for girls) and the mind just a tool to aid in distribution. It helps us get food for survival and reproduction. For all our higher thought and culture the mind serves the same evolutionary purpose as a penis, getting sperm inside girls.
|
On February 05 2010 09:40 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
Ohhh there's my knife, thanks!
Should've changed your country before you said this =)
|
I guess she used stimpacks!
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
Woah. That's insane. I've heard these stories before, but being that shocked after being mugged?
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
i don't know if i should post this but that's kinda hot
|
In Soviet Russia, you stab knife!
|
The definition of person includes body..
edit:
nevermind, your spouting way to many underdeveloped thoughts to make me want to have this conversation
|
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body..
So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person.
What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person.
If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same.
|
On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury.
Much less likely.
|
|
|
On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same.
In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point..
You said
"They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is."
INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature
So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
Thalidomide babies are often by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person.
Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car.
In fact, are you even arguing against my point are just nitpicking over the word intrinsic? I already apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing this kind of idea. It's clear what I'm trying to say.
|
On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car.
INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature
Not by nature.
You're dumb, I'm out.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out.
You're nitpicking over something utterly pointless and even if you were right, and I'm unconvinced, there's absolutely no need for the pedantry and less for the rudeness.
It should be perfectly clear to a reader that I'm using person as a synonym for consciousness and body to mean the organic thing it resides within. Stop trolling me.
On February 13 2009 18:20 Hot_Bid wrote:
educate yourself, knowledge is with inReacH
|
|
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
damn she is a real cut throat
|
On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely.
Well like there are the stories of weak womanzzz lifting up heavy objects (trees etc.) when their babies/children are in danger of said object falling upon them.
It's like (Normal Adrenaline pump) ^ (attractiveness of baby at hand out of a 10 scale) = womanaline.
|
For all our higher thought and culture the mind serves the same evolutionary purpose as a penis, getting sperm inside girls.
As Chesterton would say: The madman's mind moves in a perfect small circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle, but it is not so large.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:30 Navi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely. Well like there are the stories of weak womanzzz lifting up heavy objects (trees etc.) when their babies/children are in danger of said object falling upon them. It's like (Normal Adrenaline pump) ^ (attractiveness of baby at hand out of a 10 scale) = womanaline.
Bones are strong enough to hold up a car anyway. She doesn't need the muscle power to lift it and bones have the strength to endure the pressure of the weight. The question is the joints, the pressure on them should have torn the bones physically apart. Normally you'd get hit by pain before that happened but with a baby involved that's probably not relevant.
I wouldn't dismiss the car anecdote out of hand, although if it happened I'd expect it to pretty much destroy her.
|
I wish I could have 1 minute and a baseball bat with the fag that would rob AND stab a woman in the street. I would have no remorse whatsoever after killing the fag.
|
On February 05 2010 10:09 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:08 Artifex wrote:
The human body is amazing indeed. I recall a different but still related story of a mother noticing her child crawl underneath a car held up by a car jack, when suddenly the jack fails and the young woman was able to grab the end of the car and hold it up until her child could crawl to safety. She shattered multiple vertebrae by doing this and I'm quite sure she survived, but most likely will never walk again because of the injury. Much less likely.
No this isn't unlikely actually, I have heard MANY stories like these.
|
On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out.
Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting 
Edit: I feel a pain in the neck just LOOKING at that image. So amazing that this can happen.
|
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it.
|
I bet she is a hardcore drug user.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:37 inReacH wrote:
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it.
It said the jack broke. That doesn't necessarily mean it disappeared. A bit of metal fatiguing creaks and slowly bends before breaking. You don't need superhuman reflexes and nor is momentum automatically involved.
|
On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting
Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
|
On February 05 2010 10:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:37 inReacH wrote:
Lifting a car is one thing but to catch it in midair when it already has momentum?
So superman reflexes and the strength of stopping a moving vehicle?
Like I said if it was just lifting a car I'll buy it. It said the jack broke. That doesn't necessarily mean it disappeared. A bit of metal fatiguing creaks and slowly bends before breaking. You don't need superhuman reflexes and nor is momentum automatically involved.
Oh so she was watching the situation closely enough for that but not to stop her baby from crawling under the car.. and it just broke right as he goes under the car...
People make shit like this up because it's inspiring and that's fine.. I'm just saying it's not likely to have gone down the way it was described.
I certainly never said it was impossible
|
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
You're hugging with vice-grips a very small detail completely missing the point of what he was originally saying in the first place. "Look! I'm right about this one very small point! Your ENTIRE argument is IN-IN-INVALID!!!"
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
I used person to mean consciousness. That was clear from the context. I then apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing my ideas. My idea made sense but you attacked the wording rather than the idea, nitpicking at it in a irrelevant and pedantic way. Legs are no more a possession of a consciousness than a car. You can be born without legs. You can lose legs. They don't make your consciousness different.
And if you really want to get pedantic then you repeatedly used conscience earlier instead of consicousness. I didn't call you out on it because I don't need to score minor technical points to win arguments but if that's the game you want to play then sure, I'll play. My use of the word person was unclear, I apologise for that (for the third time). You used the wrong word several times over. Therefore I submit that you are in fact dumb, not me.
|
On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought.
I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:
So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
# motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
# conformity to one's own sense of right conduct; "a person of unflagging conscience"
What a retard.
|
What the fuck the word was intrinsic, it's a very specific word and was the only reason I made my first post.
|
On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
THANK YOU
|
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away.
On February 05 2010 10:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. I used person to mean consciousness. That was clear from the context. I then apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing my ideas. My idea made sense but you attacked the wording rather than the idea, nitpicking at it in a irrelevant and pedantic way. Legs are no more a possession of a consciousness than a car. You can be born without legs. You can lose legs. They don't make your consciousness different. And if you really want to get pedantic then you repeatedly used conscience earlier instead of consicousness. I didn't call you out on it because I don't need to score minor technical points to win arguments but if that's the game you want to play then sure, I'll play. My use of the word person was unclear, I apologise for that (for the third time). You used the wrong word several times over. Therefore I submit that you are in fact dumb, not me.
I would argue that losing your legs changes your mentality (thus conciousness) in a very dramatic way, thus altering who you are. Neither one of us can actually attest to this (I assume), but I can imagine I'd feel considerably different about myself and my situation in life if I had suddenly lost my legs.
Again, I get what you're saying, but I think you're reaching really far on this, personally.
|
So that's 3 people who pointed out the same thing..
Anyways it's cool whatever have a nice day
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food.
Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.
|
this cant be explained by adrenaline since adrenaline rush is only a few minutes. you need more revolutional kind of biological knowledge to state this. like new german medicine, yay horay
(dont know the kind of smiley that should follow)
|
hoo-lyy-shit that pic is brutal
|
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb.
|
On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.
I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree).
On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb.
Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness).
|
On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away.
Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though.
Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.
|
On February 05 2010 10:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away. Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though. Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.
I've missed you Moltke. I often disagree with you (but never say that, because I can hardly ever back it up with evidence), but I absolutely agree with you on this one.
|
I bet she was just so badass she is like "Stabbed? Whatever, this is nothing."
|
I believe that from the sniper victims ~ DC metropolitan area, one of the guys was shot, while reading a newspaper, and didn't notice. Though it was probably a rumor.
Adrenaline is awesome.
|
On February 05 2010 09:08 fabiano wrote:
hmmmm she looks hot
Russian woman. 50% of income used on cosmetics.
|
I think the body seems like more a part of you than a car because of the fact that you feel things through it and we haven't made other, synthetic alternatives to a human body for the conscience to exist in. I don't think this is impossible to achieve, 'cause science is awesome. I don't think there's a reason to have a problem with the idea of a body being no more part of 'you' than a car.
By the way, correctness and unanimous consent are not two mutually implicit things, so claiming "look how many ppl agree with me" is a pointless exercise.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:51 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis. I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree). Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb. Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness).
I accept that you'd take emotional damage from the injury and that'd change your personality. My example was perhaps a poor one. I used legs because they're nice and easy to compare to a machine but they have value and emotional damage complicates the question. Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?
|
Why do you know all of this Kwark?
|
Baa?21243 Posts
"Shoulder blade"
omfg I laughed so hard.
|
On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.
ok heres the hypothesis:
all illnesses are based on a conflict shock that appeared
-suddenly ( you did not expect)
-lonely (you have noone to share)
-epic (like really heavy for you)
there are 2 phases, in the first phase the conflict active one, this girls actuall was in, you are active, your thinking is only problem focused, and also your perception is only capable of receiving feel towards the solvation of the problem.
so demanding this case. this woman got shocked. she was alone and the attack was epic. so she got a shock so hard, all feelings that will not solve the problem, like pain, were blocked. just by biological sense making programs.
this is the theory http://www.germannewmedicine.ca/ btw, if there is any politics on this site i distance from that. i dont like politics.
|
she could of bumped a shit load of yayo and that would make her body get numb that picture looks like something from saw or csi dead body
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away. Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though. Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.
I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution. You have hair to keep your brain warm in cold weather. The hair is a part of you. However hair is not an ideal solution because you overheat in warm weather, it's simply the best solution evolution has come up with so far. Mankind is capable of technological evolution, we've considered the same problem that nature was faced with and come up with the hat. An invention that keeps your head warm in cold weather and can be removed in warm weather. It's an improvement on the evolved natural solution but it raises the question, what is the difference between your hair and your hat?
If the hat is made of wool then they're both hair.
Hair isn't really alive, it's just strands of keratin, a substance created by the body but one you could equally easily synthesise.
Is it simply because your body made the hair? If so, you could make a woolen hat out of your own hair if you really wanted to.
At what point do you designate that your hair is not a part of you, or that the hat is?
|
Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?
Easy.
Dualist response: Partially yes, partially no
Monist-idealist response: Yes
Monist-materialist response: No
I'm personally inclined toward the yes position, but that will certainly not be the last word.
|
in russia woman take blade in neck like is nothing
|
On February 05 2010 11:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:51 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis. I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree). On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb. Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness). I accept that you'd take emotional damage from the injury and that'd change your personality. My example was perhaps a poor one. I used legs because they're nice and easy to compare to a machine but they have value and emotional damage complicates the question. Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?
In my opinion if it contains your DNA it is a part of you.
Certainly moreso than if it is registered in your name, which is the debate here.
|
On February 05 2010 11:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away. Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though. Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it. I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution. You have hair to keep your brain warm in cold weather. The hair is a part of you. However hair is not an ideal solution because you overheat in warm weather, it's simply the best solution evolution has come up with so far. Mankind is capable of technological evolution, we've considered the same problem that nature was faced with and come up with the hat. An invention that keeps your head warm in cold weather and can be removed in warm weather. It's an improvement on the evolved natural solution but it raises the question, what is the difference between your hair and your hat? If the hat is made of wool then they're both hair. Hair isn't really alive, it's just strands of keratin, a substance created by the body but one you could equally easily synthesise. Is it simply because your body made the hair? If so, you could make a woolen hat out of your own hair if you really wanted to. At what point do you designate that your hair is not a part of you, or that the hat is?
Please keep posting... I want to read more.
|
holy f******ing god, thats really sick. she is one lucky girl, surviving such an attack without any severe, lasting injuries... she was milimeters away from being dead or bound to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:13 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 11:01 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:51 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis. I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree). On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb. Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness). I accept that you'd take emotional damage from the injury and that'd change your personality. My example was perhaps a poor one. I used legs because they're nice and easy to compare to a machine but they have value and emotional damage complicates the question. Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards? In my opinion if it contains your DNA it is a part of you. Certainly moreso than if it is registered in your name, which is the debate here.
A few days ago someone made a topic about HeLa cells. It got closed but it's kinda relevant so I'll sum it up in laymans terms. Cells normally stop dividing after a certain point because they have inbuilt limits. As they divide it's like photocopying a photocopy, the quality degrades. Anyway, there's a mechanism to stop this degradation but it only works a certain number of times and then the cell can no longer divide.
HeLa cells are cancer cells in which the mechanism doesn't stop working. They can divide indefinitely. The woman the cells were taken from died a long time ago but her cells are still alive all over the world. In terms of mass, the mass of all of her cells that have existed in labs is greater than her mass while she was alive. After the woman died, the majority of her cells continued to live and still do.
That raises some questions for your "if it's your DNA it's part of you". Is she still alive? Most of her is but she did have thousands of tumours which weren't physically attached to the rest of her body.
Another thought is transplants. If your organs are transplanted after you die, are you still alive? Are the organs part of the host or part of the donor?
Biologically, a heart is just a pump. It's an amazing pump, one that grows over the years and repairs itself and provides it's own circulation and can adjust itself based upon requirements and the habits of the host but ultimately, it's a machine. People have used mechanical hearts before. They are nowhere near as good and generally you push them around on a trolley in front of you round the hospital with your pulse constant but whatever, the point is that what is on the trolley is still a heart. It's a device for pumping blood. The mechanical one uses the hydrocarbon + oxygen into water + co2 reaction to create electricity at a power station which then goes to the trolley. The biological one uses the carbohydrate + oxygen into water + co2 reaction to create energy to power the pump. However they are both machines.
|
I saw the pick, AWWWWW WTF. SHE COULDNT FEEL THAT?
|
it seems like my practical everyday working experience is not interesting to that theorycrafters.
|
In Soviet Russia, Pain feels you.
Insane though... but in the end just strike one up for science. This phenomena has been established and recorded. Albeit this is just as epic nonetheless.
|
I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution.
As much fun as you are having on your rampage, I have to decline to be swept away by the enthusiasm. Nothing personal, simply a matter of principle. What I resist here is semantic destruction: destructive, because by destroying semantic traditions, the very language on which thought is based no longer functions.
We have been told today that of legs and cars, neither is more natural or unnatural to man than the other. We have been told that the thinking organ is an extension of the unthinking organ. No doubt we can go further and destroy some more conceptual boundaries here and there- where's the difference between man and ape? music and noise? order and chaos? love and sex? Nothing is ultimately more anything than anything else, even on the most banal level. The sky is more blue than grass, but who is to say that it is more blue than the sea? And if a sea can be all shades of blue, including green, why can't grass be as blue as the sky?
Some people might find that argument interesting. I don't.
|
Coming home from work, woman stab by bandit. Reaching personal shack, parents scream. Is knife in wound! Foolish girl is shot. Parents sent to Siberia for not sharing useful tool with comrades. Such is life in Moscow.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote + I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution. As much fun as you are having on your rampage, I have to decline to be swept away by the enthusiasm. Nothing personal, simply a matter of principle. What I resist here is semantic destruction: destructive, because by destroying semantic traditions, the very language on which thought is based no longer functions. We have been told today that of legs and cars, neither is more natural or unnatural to man than the other. We have been told that the thinking organ is an extension of the unthinking organ. No doubt we can go further and destroy some more conceptual boundaries here and there- where's the difference between man and ape? music and noise? order and chaos? love and sex? Nothing is ultimately more anything than anything else, even on the most banal level. The sky is more blue than grass, but who is to say that it is more blue than the sea? And if a sea can be all shades of blue, including green, why can't grass be as blue as the sky? Some people might find that argument interesting. I don't.
Next time you wish to express a complete disinterest in a subject feel free to not post. Posting to explain how the subject that fascinates me does not fascinate you isn't really relevant to anyone but yourself.
Although you don't actually provide any real disagreement, just long words about how you feel you should disagree. Lets try this.
Observations: Reproduction dates back to organisms with just a few cells whose actions were dictated by organic chemistry rather than any biology as we'd understand it. As they got more complicated they evolved intelligence.
Hypothesis: Intelligence evolved to improve the odds of success of an organism. The success of an organism is based around its ability to reproduce. Therefore the brain is essentially a sexual organ.
Now, you try and contradict that without any hypothetical questions as to the nature of the universe and the soul and without quoting any 19th Century Frenchmen. It'd make a change.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:31 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:
it seems like my practical everyday working experience is not interesting to that theorycrafters.
I did click your link and read your post. I'm afraid I didn't understand what you were trying to say and the site you linked had very little content on. Sorry. 
|
On February 05 2010 11:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: I find these type of questions hugely fascinating. Humanity really is fantastic. I find this subject particularly interesting because it ties into technological evolution. As much fun as you are having on your rampage, I have to decline to be swept away by the enthusiasm. Nothing personal, simply a matter of principle. What I resist here is semantic destruction: destructive, because by destroying semantic traditions, the very language on which thought is based no longer functions. We have been told today that of legs and cars, neither is more natural or unnatural to man than the other. We have been told that the thinking organ is an extension of the unthinking organ. No doubt we can go further and destroy some more conceptual boundaries here and there- where's the difference between man and ape? music and noise? order and chaos? love and sex? Nothing is ultimately more anything than anything else, even on the most banal level. The sky is more blue than grass, but who is to say that it is more blue than the sea? And if a sea can be all shades of blue, including green, why can't grass be as blue as the sky? Some people might find that argument interesting. I don't. Next time you wish to express a complete disinterest in a subject feel free to not post. Posting to explain how the subject that fascinates me does not fascinate you isn't really relevant to anyone but yourself. Although you don't actually provide any real disagreement, just long words about how you feel you should disagree. Lets try this. Observations: Reproduction dates back to organisms with just a few cells whose actions were dictated by organic chemistry rather than any biology as we'd understand it. As they got more complicated they evolved intelligence. Hypothesis: Intelligence evolved to improve the odds of success of an organism. The success of an organism is based around its ability to reproduce. Therefore the brain is essentially a sexual organ. Now, you try and contradict that without any hypothetical questions as to the nature of the universe and the soul and without quoting any 19th Century Frenchmen. It'd make a change.
You are debating categories and semantics, the main argument on legs vs cars has nothing to do with reality, but with how we should think about these things. I was therefore arguing against a way of thought. If you think that your statements refer to reality, you ought to take reality more seriously. Any of your statements can be quickly submitted to the real world for a quick acid test. For instance:´
Claim: Intelligence evolved to improve the odds of success of an organism. The success of an organism is based around its ability to reproduce.
Refuation: Africans.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
|
I cant believe she doesnt feel a large blade inserted into the back of her neck. Even after...
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards? Easy. Dualist response: Partially yes, partially no Monist-idealist response: Yes Monist-materialist response: No I'm personally inclined toward the yes position, but that will certainly not be the last word.
If your answer is yes here (although you refuse to ever actually give a straight answer to anything and always bullshit around the point) then a natural extension of the yes is that a hypothetical perfect (but mechanical) prosthetic could replace a limb and you'd still be the same person.
I honestly don't understand why you always bullshit though. Why bother saying what you'd think if you were a dualist or a monist? It's just irrelevant. I was asking what you think, not what you'd think if you thought something other than what you think, or how you'd categorise your thoughts. All you succeed in doing is making your posts incomprehensible to people who aren't familiar with the terms in question and circular for those who do.
|
On February 05 2010 11:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 11:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards? Easy. Dualist response: Partially yes, partially no Monist-idealist response: Yes Monist-materialist response: No I'm personally inclined toward the yes position, but that will certainly not be the last word. If your answer is yes here (although you refuse to ever actually give a straight answer to anything and always bullshit around the point) then a natural extension of the yes is that a hypothetical perfect (but mechanical) prosthetic could replace a limb and you'd still be the same person.
I agree, although again, the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals.
A person who denies that there exists a mind or soul beyond their existences as secondary substances will make no fundamental distinction between say, the personality and a femur fragment, and will have a different perspective.
A person who used "person" in the semantic sense of:
"per⋅son
–noun
7. the body in its external aspect"
and would have a different perspective.
In other words, it depends on how you define the word "person," and how you define the word "person" is not merely arbitrary; it encompasses your entire view on what humanity is
|
On February 05 2010 10:01 intrigue wrote:
i don't know if i should post this but that's kinda hot
Wat.
|
United States42674 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:06 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 11:59 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 11:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards? Easy. Dualist response: Partially yes, partially no Monist-idealist response: Yes Monist-materialist response: No I'm personally inclined toward the yes position, but that will certainly not be the last word. If your answer is yes here (although you refuse to ever actually give a straight answer to anything and always bullshit around the point) then a natural extension of the yes is that a hypothetical perfect (but mechanical) prosthetic could replace a limb and you'd still be the same person. I agree, although again, the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals. A person who denies that there exists a mind or soul beyond their existences as secondary substances will make no fundamental distinction between say, the personality and a femur fragment, and will have a different perspective. A person who used "person" in the semantic sense of: "per⋅son –noun 7. the body in its external aspect" and would have a different perspective. In other words, it depends on how you define the word "person," and how you define the word "person" is not merely arbitrary; it encompasses your entire view on what humanity is
I believe both dualists and monists are incorrect. The mind is a part of the body but the body is a piece of organic machinery. You can remove surplus bits of the body without affecting the mind in the same way that you can remove the tower from your computer without changing how well it works. When looking at the brain it's more complicated regarding what is surplus and what is not. I believe firmly that the consciousness resides within the body and the brain specifically (for where else could it be) and that it is a product of the machine. However if you slowly changed organic parts of mechanical parts the whole would stay the same. Of course the complexity of the organic machine that is the human body is far beyond mechanical replication and this is purely a theoretical exercise.
It's a classic example of the Ship of Theseus. A ship in Athens reputed to have belonged to Theseus himself. Over the years every part of the ship was repaired and replaced and yet it was still the ship of Theseus. I believe the mind to be within the body and yet if you changed the parts of the body the mind would still reside there.
|
i kinda understand this
once when i was racing slalom skiing, i was punching the gates down, without realizing i didnt have my pole guards on
a few minutes after the race my hands exploded in pain when the adrenaline burned off
|
The funny thing is that she walked home like that and noone bothered to stop her and ask why she had a huge knife in her neck.
|
On February 05 2010 12:28 PlatypusOfPain wrote:
The funny thing is that she walked home like that and noone bothered to stop her and ask why she had a huge knife in her neck.
Everyday normal stuff in Russia I guess.
|
|
|
This reminds me of that one time where I watched a Murder Mystery Show (I think it was 48 hour Mystery), when this one guy's son hacked at his dad with an axe and hit the guy 10+ times while the dad was sleeping.
However, the dad didn't die. Instead, the dad fell into this unconscious state where the brain was just performing the guy's instinctual routines. The dad, with his head basically split open and blood dripping, changes clothes, washes, walks down the stairs, pours himself some breakfast cereal, grabs the newspaper outside his door, opens the locked door with his extra keys after locking himself out on accident, enters back into the house before dying from blood loss.
|
On February 05 2010 12:46 AtlaS wrote:Wtf is that website? There's a video of an execution on the left side of the screen. And this thread was quite the coincidence cause i was just watching "Impaled" on the Discovery Channel where an American soldier was stabbed right underneath his temple and didn't notice it either. edit: europe is like a huge wild party. http://austriantimes.at/video/56/Teenage girl who was a boy premieres video in UK
LOL I may seem like a bad person right now but I'm watching the execution video.
GOD DAMN!! I thought I saw some Italian NYC mob type shit right there LOL.
|
On February 05 2010 12:18 KwarK wrote:
I believe both dualists and monists are incorrect. The mind is a part of the body but the body is a piece of organic machinery. You can remove surplus bits of the body without affecting the mind in the same way that you can remove the tower from your computer without changing how well it works. When looking at the brain it's more complicated regarding what is surplus and what is not. I believe firmly that the consciousness resides within the body and the brain specifically (for where else could it be) and that it is a product of the machine. However if you slowly changed organic parts of mechanical parts the whole would stay the same. Of course the complexity of the organic machine that is the human body is far beyond mechanical replication and this is purely a theoretical exercise.
It's a classic example of the Ship of Theseus. A ship in Athens reputed to have belonged to Theseus himself. Over the years every part of the ship was repaired and replaced and yet it was still the ship of Theseus. I believe the mind to be within the body and yet if you changed the parts of the body the mind would still reside there.
First of all, this thread ended when someone quoted G.K. Chesterton. The rest of this thread is just that chicken with the brain stem still intact, stumbling around spitting up blood all over the place. It's like eventually it'll stop kicking, but no one ever forgets the spectacle or really even the embarrassment of witnessing it. And everyone has to wonder if the next chicken in line is secretly promising itself that it'll face the chopping-block aftermath with a more perfect measure of chicken dignity.
Anyway, Kwark the problem is that you're confusing an argument about definitions for an argument about reality. If someone grants you your definitions of reality, then of course, surprise surprise, they have to grant you your conclusions about reality. Us laypeople call that deductive reasoning. But if someone doesn't, they don't. This is the secret meaning behind Moltke's
the question is entirely dependent on shared semantic and metaphysical ideals.
into which, in a manner not like the Mithraic mysteries, I would love to initiate you had we but world enough and time.
But we don't so I'll just say this: words, even at their best, are just models for parsing out experience, and even then they're always and intractably ad hoc. You can argue about them if you want. You can even insist that your meaning for such-and-such word actually provides a more accurate model for experience that so-and-so's. But this is kind of like the opposite of interesting to someone in an comparatively more inner santcum of the aforementioned cult of The Sophistication of the Understanding of the Relationship between Definitions of Reality and Reality Proper. I mean you've got all these initiates coughing politely and averting their eyes to watch something, to watch anything really, that's not such a crass and tasteless spectacle to watch. I mean what kind of lowbrow motherfucker wants to see a chicken finally sputter out anyway?
|
|
|
NO SHE'S HACKED! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
|
real awesome not noticing a knife in your back :C
fashionability ruined
|
i guess it could be adrenal glands like people were saying but it looks more like upgraded carapace to me
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On February 05 2010 18:57 starfries wrote:
i guess it could be adrenal glands like people were saying but it looks more like upgraded carapace to me
Your jokes make me want to mind control your drone and kill you with mutas.
|
that is really sick ya, well Ive heard this kind of stuff happen before. When the person like her was either shocked or just not aware of it. Sometimes the pain is to high to even feel it.
|
i wonder how the people that saw that reacted 0.o
|
|
|
Reminds me of a similar story (switch adrenaline with ethanol) of a man who after a night of heavy drinking went home with a knife lodged in his back without noticing it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7353025.stm
"We were drinking and what doesn't happen when you're drunk?" he was quoted by Komsomolskaya Pravda as saying.
Definitely Russia.
|
On February 05 2010 09:05 KwarK wrote:
Adrenalin is awesome. Your body recognises it's been stabbed but just doesn't want to bother you with that shit until things are under control.
The human body is remarkable.
Yes it is.
And it's not just the adrenaline that our body pumps up against pain/discomfort in certain situations.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
Clicked the link, it's insane damnit
|
I've been stabbed once and indeed you don't feel anything untill you realise you've been stabbed.
|
Sometimes to human body is just pure genius, this actually reminds me of something that happened to me as a kid.
When I was about 6, I had the tip of my finger lopped off (at the first joint) by a large metal door that led to our "boiler room" (yeah I grew up on a farm etc.) when my brother slammed it at me for some reason. I remember running to my mom just scared, but not feeling any pain or crying and asking frantically for a band-aid.
|
United States22883 Posts
I've heard of a runner who broke their leg during a race, just landing awkwardly, and not only did the endorphins keep them going but the muscles in their leg were in a constant state of contraction during the race and held the bones together.
After the race was excruciating though. o.o
|
phew, good luck it was a knife and not a zealot blade
|
WWWWWWWWWWhaaaat the fuck?
God Russia. Why on earth do you need to stab a young girl when you want to rob her wallet. That blows my mind.
|
Shes was lucky if that thing touched her spine gg right there...
|
United States4796 Posts
Epinephrine and norepinephrine.
They make life so happy....
|
I'd say this is farfetched until I remember they did an interview with this guy who survived a mugging with like 6 bullets in different parts of his body. When the police came he was conscious and walking around, barely noticing the gaping wounds at all.
|
On February 05 2010 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
WWWWWWWWWWhaaaat the fuck?
God Russia. Why on earth do you need to stab a young girl when you want to rob her wallet. That blows my mind.
Stereotypes are true  The slavic soul is irrational, impulsive and often violent. I was not in Russia for two days before I was embroiled in a street fight with the "police."
|
On February 05 2010 10:51 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis. I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree). Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb. Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness).
The question is not whether you change when you lose a limb, but if you are still you. Your legs do not make you any more you then does your car. You may think a certain way about them that may change when you lose them, but it does not make you not you. Just as a paper cut does not make you a new person, distinct from the old one, so too does a loss of limbs. You may change, yes, but you are still the same person. Every second that goes by you 'change' in your thoughts and perceptions, but you are still the same person.
|
omg, russian girls.
I am in love. So tough! So sexy!
|
Zurich15328 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2nqwdgh.jpg)
