Well, this is going to fuel some debate - but it does illustrate the gaps in our understanding of the brain. Researchers at MIT's Picower Center for Learning and Memory think primitive structures deep within the brain may play a greater role in our high-level thinking processes than previously believed:
"These findings suggest new ways of thinking about learning," Miller said. "They suggest that new learning isn't simply the smarter bits of our brain such as the cortex 'figuring things out.' Instead, we should think of learning as interaction between our primitive brain structures and our more advanced cortex. In other words, primitive brain structures might be the engine driving even our most advanced high-level, intelligent learning abilities," he said."
Hey, those of us who subscribe to the "impress the babes" theory of human progress have believed this for a long time. In all seriousness, the findings were published in a letter to the the Feb. 24, 2005 issue of Nature magazine - and they are sure to fuel debate over euthanasia and the right to life for those without a living will.
Actually, the article gives me another idea. If the frontal lobes obdurately refuse to accept the raw learned input from the basal ganglia, that might be a good working description of prejudice, or "those who will not see", e.g. :)
This has actually been known for quite some time.
Without emotion decision making is not possible.
Without decision making advanced thinking cannot be done.
So perhaps it isn't a matter of our individual responsibility that we only use about a tenth of our abilities (according to Einstein).
Joe, this is old stuff, and i fail to see relevence to euthanasia issues. Please explain.
Ruth, Einstein was wrong-- most probably we evolved our large brains in response to handling increasingly complex social systems in the EEA, brain tissue is expensive, evolutionarily speaking. Excess capacity is possibly a "spandrel", and can now be rerouted for other purposes, such as understanding 11-dimensional string theory and searching for Higgs bosuns.
Brain tissue is highly plastic in function, and we are constantly finding new ways to utilize our capacity. Einstein's thought experiments were a good example.
jinnderella,
I think what Joe means is that if it's true that much of our higher functions arises from the more 'primitive' brain structures, then one cannot rely on the damage or wasting of the cortex as an indication of brain death.
Lurker has it... at the very least, it introduces significant uncertainties and illustrates how primitive our understanding of the brain still is.
Given that the pro-life argument is essentially one of erring on the side of life in questionable cases, enlarging the sphere of "questionable" inevitably adds both weight and scope to their arguments. Science will reduce that area of uncertainty over time, but until it does the grey areas are going to have strong moral/ spiritual aspects to them.
Which is fine by me - I'm a LOT less scared of that than I am of the cost/ utilitarian model, and what it will produce (and indeed, some of the cases it has produced) if left as the main criterion.
If any of our readers don't yet have a living will, GET ONE. If you want that decision done right from your point of view, there's no substitute for doing it yourself. You can buy living will do-it-yourself kits at Office Depot and similar locations - it's an excellent investment.
My one recommendation based on my own research is that our readers stipulate in their living wills that hydration is not to be withdrawn under any circumstances whatsoever.
Anyone who has ever been appallingly thirsty in their dreams and woken up into a similar condition... can understand what 7-14 DAYS of that could potentially be like if there's still somebody home. Others have lived it, or risked it, in cases far less serious than Schiavo's. Don't be one of them.
No. You misunderstand the article. It is describing what we call "muscle memory" and paradigms of response learning.
Speech and language centers, visual processing, abstract concepts and thought, occur in the cerebral cortex, not in the brainstem. The brainstem can "learn", it cannot "think".
The cost/utilitarian question is always an issue.
Decisions need to be made. Granny or the kids.
What I think most folks would like to avoid is making a federal issue out of it or taking the decision out of the hands of the next of kin.
I think it is nice to see so many folks in this part of the world with the courage to die.
M. Simon.
I think it is nice to see so many folks in this part of the world with the courage to die.
I wish wish we would see more folks with the courage to live [to our full potential]!
Down with the "Bioethics" Council! ;)
jindarella;
muscle learning etc. is not specified. Logically, every "conscious" decision or thought must have lower level precursors, including the option chosen out of several. Sort of a Minsky "Society of Mind" model. I expect there is considerable individual variation, too, in how "close" the higher frontal functions are to the quicker-acting lower levels of learning, with the cost of closeness being frequent un-learning and changes of attitude.
In any case, this is not just the same-old same-old. I think it's fascinating.
Brian H:
stop and go are muscle functions. Again, please discriminate between "thinking" and "learning". We have known for a long time time that the brainstem can learn. We have no evidence to support that it can think. Autonomous response and/or learned response is not the same as cognition. No way.
I didn't realize that there was a debate about whether higher and lower brain functions were interelated. I took it for granted that they were.
The same methods used to train rats are effective in shaping the behaviors of children and adults. Rewards and punishments become more sophisticated as the child matures, but the principles still function. Pieces of candy and spankings do well for six-year-olds, but have very limited effect on a 12-year-old who's been raised to value themselves and the people who care for them. In those cases, praise and expressions of disappointment become effective. They continue to be effective for adults, as long as that adult values themselves, has esteem and self-respect.
At the base of it all, for rats and self-actualized adults, are the stimuli and responses to good things, bad things and scary things. I thought that this was well established.
jinnderella:
Thanks, but is 'excess' capacity a good cognomen? I'd incline toward 'underutilized'.
You do believe that response to stimuli can be trained, as a person exposed to the noise of a train going by on a regular schedule eventually will not notice that train even though it shakes everything in the room? Maybe it's not technically 'learning' but it's also not pure response.
ruth, excess capacity is fine-- theory is that about 1.5 million years ago we evolved a huge jump in brain size. Since brain tissue is expensive, metabolically speaking, there needed to be some selective advantage driving the increase in size. Theory is we needed the capacity for interaction in increasingly complex social situations and evolving behavioral protocols, like language and ritual. once langage and social protocols became formalized, the entire capacity wasn't needed, and the excess became a "spandrel" (perhaps) with the ability to have it's initial function redirected.
The brainstem is capable of autonomous response, reflexive, like swallowing. It can learn in response to stimulus as well. But learning is not thinking-- not cognition. The brainstem is incapable of handing abstract concepts like "life" or "death" for example.
Re: "living wills". WATCH OUT, and speak and think precisely. TH\he phrase "living will" is loaded and should be retired. In one case I know of, a "living will" resulted in a patient, once admitted, not being treated to correct a medication error committed by hospital staff. Patient died. Hospital was fined $2500. Was that what the patient wanted? Didn't matter.
I could write a much longer post, and perhaps I shall. Suffice it to say that when some healthcare folks hear the phrase "living will", they freeze, thinking it means the patient wants nothing done beyond wiping their brow and having their bedpans emptied.
What you ought to have is specifically a well-written Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, written to comply with the laws of your state, if any; and name in it one, or a chain of up to three or so, trustworthy people who are kept informed about what your desires are. Keep it current.
IANAL, and all that.
Look, I'll be brutal here, because nothing else is working. The brainstem is not capable of cognition. There is nothing in that article that supports the possibility that terri schiavo was cognizant on any level based on brainstem function, or support for any sort of ambiguity whatsoever.
You could make the argument that terri retained enough cortical rind to have some level of cognition, but the 18,000 minutes of video data and the EEGs do not support it.