I was reading the thread on brain donation, when I came across this:

From the ATP website (quoted by heterodox)

I wonder what everyone thinks about this order.  Is it really as sensible as everyone assumes?  Especially considering our modern culture of serial divorce, I am willing to say that spouse should not come first.  Maybe it never should have come first; maybe that was a bad idea from the start.  People who have experience with it have told me that if not for our modern culture of serial divorce, spousal murder would be a lot higher; so perhaps it's not an outdated idea, but simply a bad one.  I myself wouldn't know.  

But I do remember the Terry Schiavo case.  It was the husband versus the parents.  Both sides stated that Terry would have agreed with them.  Both sides said that medical science agreed with them (there was a therapy available that was not tried; the husband's side found doctors who would say it couldn't be done as she was not a viable patient for it, the mother's side found doctors who would say it could have been and that Terry was a perfect candidate).  The media portrayed it as a cut-and-dried pro-life versus pro-choice issue.  Disability advocates never got a voice in the public debate.  

Two things, though: the husband had a live-in girlfriend, with whom he had already started having children.  And the parents were willing to care for their daughter.  It seems this could have been given more weight by the courts, if we didn't just accept the Christian idea that marriage is exactly equal to the creation of one flesh from two people.  

Now, it would be a really good idea for your spouse to be someone with whom you can trust your life and would gladly give every last thing, but it seems to me that at least as a legal system, we should have more flexibility.  

Comments?

Organ donation should be determined by doctors. There's a permanent shortage of organs, and people not wanting their relative to be cut up after death (often because of something their imaginary friend in the sky said) is just selfish. People would rather their mother's organs kept some worms alive than that they kept 6 children alive. That's just sick.

You can be in charge of your personal affairs by having a Living Will, stating your desires.

Call me selfish but my body is mine, if I don't even own my own body then what do I have?

You have some time to spend, and when it's over, it's over.

Apart from that, I feel the same about that question.

Human beings don't have expiry dates - so long as my brain tissue is intact, i'm keeping my other organs.

I concur, the beauty of being human is that we have a body, a brain, a mind, a spirit, and a soul, not necessarily in that order. What makes us special is the brains automous ability to regulate body functions with out concious thought. This allows for the mind, which is not a part of the body or the brain, to develop. The mind is a state of conciousness in the brain which allows for the processing of external and internal input to form awareness of being a self in the surrounding environment. This awareness is unique to Human Beings. Wanting to keep your body whole is not a selfish act, more like the art of survival. The parts of us we are to share when we expire from the corporeal self are the spirit and the soul. Not the stupid interior of the meat puppet, a body we use to learn about our true selves and to explore with our senses interaction with our world surrounding us. I want to save the lives of children too, and I see many more in perfect health that need our attention as, if not more, desperately. I run on and on.... I apologize.

Respectfully,
Mike Silva

Not quite, the mind is very much embodied in the physical brain (and to a lesser extent the rest of the body), thus why I said "so long as my brain is intact" - however it is difficult to imagine a cause of death that would wipe out my brain while not also making my other organs unsuitable for transplant. At the very least, lack of brainstem regulation means the heart stops beating and tissue throughout the body will start to autolyse and go necrotic.

A simple way to prove the mind is embodied in the brain is to break down the mind into different subsystems and cognitive processes and then look at how they're implemented in the brain. To date, there's a massive pile of brain regions we've mapped out and analysed, even recreated with artificial simulations, and no evidence yet of any processes that can't be implemented by brain tissue.

You could claim that there's a soul in addition to the brain and it just happens to mirror the brain, but that's problematic.

I just got my drivers permit a while back and I signed up to be an organ donor. Reason? I believe that once your dead, your dead. Your body is now dead weight. So, why not give stuff that can help people that you don't need TO those people? I mean, your not using them anyways! Also, about not having anything if you dont have your body, you DO have something, and that is you. YOUR thoughts and collection of ideas, self, and gradually maturity are something no-one can take. I believe help those that need it, and since you don't use your organs after death, why not give them to people who need them? Even if it is your brain?

The problem is that most people who die in a condition where their organs are of use in transplant still have decent dendrite structure in the brain and general biological viability throughout the entire body.

In other words, they're not dead and are merely declared dead because current medicine does not have the means to restore health. For the vast majority of people, it might as well be the same thing, for me personally it has very practical relevance due to my cryonics plans which I am very public about. A law mandating organ donation after cardiac arrest and legal death could literally kill me.

The most annoying part is that in theory there's no medical reason why organ transplants could not be done from cryonics patients without endangering their prospects if precautions were taken, but it's an all-or-nothing deal - if you get handed over for organ donation then no care is taken to protect brain tissue from damage.

As for self-ownership - I am my body, my thoughts and ideas are collections of neurons inside my skull, and I believe that it is entirely just to claim ownership rights on that.

I may be being misunderstood or have not represented myself properly. The mind is not "located" anywhere. It is not a physical presence. I am not suggesting this, it is fact. The mind is measured and considered to be an occurance or the brain, and in conjunction with the physical processes of the body. The mind is its own entity that only exhists in Humans. If the mind were a physical part of the brain and to some extent the body, then it would be representative in all species with brains and body. I am not trying to argue the point anyway. And after reading my reply, I was most of mark in that my comments had nothing to do with organ donation, which I thought I was addressing. But I must restate that I would be more than willing to change my point of view if any can direct me to the science that proves a physical location of an object (organ) called the mind. Physics has properly explained to me the corralation of the processes of the brain, the reaction of the body, and the causality formed by experience of outside environments. Please help me see different, for I have used 20 plus years science to define my reality that has worked best for me. And the entire time I have assailed "experts" in their fields to dissuade me from what I have come to believe. Unfortunately, every time I find myself explaining to them what they know and how they have come to know it. Please keep in mind I have only recently found out that I am an Aspie, for at age 44, when I was a child, they didn't have a name, let alone the wherewithal, to diagnose the condition. So I had to function this entire time on a quest for answers as to why I am the way I am and what is wrong with me because I don't know there is something wrong. I thank you for the opportunity to explain, but is fundamental misunderstanding about how the Human Being works, and the relationship of the Human Being to the Nature of the Universe, that has made humanity ignorant in general, and made humanity feel the need to catagorize us as different.
I apologize again if I seem defensive. I am not, nor trying to be. I know my point of view and can substantiate what I say with terms used in known science, not just my own. I have been looking for arguments from others who have their own tangeable, explainable proof, not just others with another point of view. It is easy to disagree or agree with anything. It is near impossible to fool an Aspie without being able to support your argument with some form of constency with data. I mean the proverbial you, not anyone here or specific in general.

Thanks again for letting me ramble,
Respectfully,
Mike Silva

The best way to describe it is like this:

Raw neurons are the hardware
The data stored in the interconnections of those neurons is the software
The ongoing cognitive processes ("mind" and "conciousness") is what happens when you run the software

It's slightly more complex in that the brain doesn't truly have a hardware/software distinction (the data is stored by rewiring the dendrites and growing new cells, this alters the hardware and the information processing), but that is a good model.

When you ask for a physical location for this website, I can point you at the server in the data centre, and you can say "but that's just a bunch of transistors and magnetic disk platters" - you'd be wrong because they're the same thing
When you ask for a physical location for the mind, I can point you at the brain, and you can say "but that's just a bunch of neurons" - you'd be wrong because they're the same thing

Oh, and claiming other animals lack a mind is a HUGE claim to make without evidence - other animals have simpler psychology than humans, but they still have minds

Now your getting close. Your confusing software with operating system. I understand the process of the brain working is the mind at work. The brain can also function without concious thought, that has nothing to do with the mind. The missing link that I have found is precisely the step your missing. Just because it is a "zero sum" does not make it one and the same process. What I am getting at is that you convienently over look how a cpu is actually set up if you are going to use that analogy for metaphor. The hardware and operating system make up the brain and body. The "software", just like on a cpu, is added after conception of the cpu as an entity. Even if it is pre-installed from the factory, it is an additional step after the cpu is functional. The software, or nurture, dictates the type and way the whole unit is used for purpose. But the cpu can function without software. Just like the body and brain can function without a mind. And I absolutely agree with you that "The ongoing cognitive processes ("mind" and "conciousness") is what happens when you run the software." What I'm hoping you to see is that software can not run without an operating system. Don't confuse processor with operating system. I know you aren't, and I am coming at you from the opposite direction to the same mid point. I feel it is absolutely necessary to make the distinction, along with Steven Hawking, that the mind is a seperate entity. It is the only time choice, or free will, is applicable. It is the ability to recognize mind that allows of to be aware of the processing of data by "thinking" otherwise we would just be autonomons, kind of like NT's. Smile, sorry.

Please go on, I really appreciate your input and intelligence. I am not trying to fight, and I think you know that. And I am not trying to suppose myself on anyone, and I want you to be assured of that. I just have found that more often then not a fundemental understanding has been overlooked because it is the sum of processes at work. This has been the fundemental downfall of most science, religion, relationships and Humanity in general. Because it seems that the mind is working when the brain is on and body is alive, we assume it to be the case. I have found that because we use our minds to think, our brains have to process so we can be aware, and our bodies have to remain alive to support the process. We can prove the minds exhistence by taking pictures of the brain, neurons, etc., in action while we are thinking. That does not mean the areas of the brain that are lit up is where the mind is, but the mind is using that parts of the brain for that process. By your own words you mention the different mappings, if the mind were a singular object, the same parts of the brain would be lit all the time. We know that not to be the case, in fact, just the opposite. Depending on the stimuli, different parts of the brain illuminate, and depending on the individual, the same stimuli can have a different effect per person. It in and of itself is self evident that the mind is a process of awareness, and not a physical location in the body.
You are awesome man. I haven't spoken (typed) this much in a long time.
Thanks,
Respectfully,
Mike Silva