Head Transplant?

Turin-trekearth

Turin-trekearth

Forbes February 26

Cited

'Contributor Arthur Caplan I am head of medial ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center'

Cited

'Doctor Seeking To Perform Head Transplant Is Out Of His Mind'

Cited

The neuroscientist Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy thinks the time has come to start transplanting heads. Canavero plans to announce his noggin exchange program at the annual conference of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons (AANOS) in Annapolis, Maryland, this June. His ambitions have gotten plenty of attention this week. They should. It is both rotten scientifically and lousy ethically.

Dr. Canavero is not trying to perfect an approach that is cosmetic. He does not seek to find a way to give you the body that you always dreamed of without the burden of diet or exercise. He wants to use head transplantation surgery to extend the lives of people whose muscles, bodily organs and immune systems have degenerated or wasted away.

Scientifically what Canavero wants to do cannot yet be done. It may never be doable.

To move a head on to someone else’s body requires the rewiring of the spinal cord. We don’t know how to do that. If we did there would be far fewer paralyzed people who have spinal cord injuries. Nor, despite Canavero’s assertions to the contrary, is medicine anywhere close to knowing how to use stem cells or growth factors to make this happen.

And when you move a head to another body you need to pour huge amounts of immunosuppression into the recipient to fight of rejection by the new body. This is a big problem for heart and liver transplants, with the drugs damaging the transplanted organs and other parts of the body. Cancer, infections and premature death are the result of the toxic nature of immunosuppressive drugs.

It is even worse in trying face transplants. Rejection is common and side-effects are miserable. A whole head would only be even more of a nightmare for the recipient of a body to endure.

Ethically the big obstacle is what will happen if I stick an old head on a new body. The brain is not contained in a bucket—it integrates with the chemistry of the body and its nervous system. Would a brain integrate new signals, perceptions, information from a body different from the one it was familiar with? I think the most likely result is insanity or severe mental disability.

End Citations

The head transplant reads as a very complex and problematic, scientific, medical and ethical issue at this point in time.

Philosophically and theologically, if a head transplant could be successfully completed, from a Biblical-Christian world-view, would the head transplant recipient have a soul/spirit?

According to John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger there exists a debate within the scientific community on whether or not human beings are entirely physical, or if they could have an immaterial nature. Burr and Goldinger (1976: 319). The existence of the human spirit is not empirically verifiable, and its existence from a Christian perspective would primarily rely on Scripture. Thiessen (1956: 227). Richard Taylor writes that the idea of an immortal soul cannot be seen as necessarily false. Taylor (1969)(1976: 334). However, he reasons that if there is difficulty explaining how the body can do certain things, it would be no less difficult explaining how a soul could do certain things. Taylor (1969)(1976: 336). For Clarence Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived. Darrow (1928)(1973: 261). Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore I reason God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter or scientific experiment.

M.E. Osterhaven explains that in the Hebrew Bible, spirit is at times the Hebrew word ‘ruah’ and means breath of air or wind. This breath gives human beings life and rationality. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). He writes that in the New Testament sometimes the terms spirit and soul are used synonymously, at times the spirit is viewed as spiritual and the soul is understood as natural. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Osterhaven explains that the idea of soul can be used for a living being, person or spiritual nature, and although the term can be used interchangeably with spirit some difference in explaining the two have occurred in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Osterhaven (1996: 1036).

Thiessen provides a possible explanation that the soul would feature human imagination, memory and understanding, while the spirit features the reason, conscience, and will. Thiessen (1956: 227). This is speculation of course, but I am not convinced that there is definitive difference between the human soul and spirit.

For Strong. the most often documented word used for spirit in the Hebrew Bible is ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh. Strong (1986: 142). The most common word used in the Hebrew Bible for soul is ‘nephesh’ neh’-fesh. Strong (1986: 105). The most used word for spirit in the New Testament is ‘pneuma’ pnyoo’mah. Strong (1986: 78). The most common world for soul is ‘psuche’ psoo-khay. Strong (1986: 106).

As with a belief in God, who is spirit, a Judeo-Christian belief in the soul/spirit is not based in empiricism or scientific explanation, but in the religious philosophy and faith presented by God through numerous scribes, prophets and apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. The existence of God as the ultimate spirit was revealed and the fact that persons are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27) means that human beings as well share this spiritual nature, although finite in comparison to God’s infinite nature.

To insist that only empirical knowledge is true knowledge is to abandon all supernatural revelation that claims that there is a spiritual reality. There is a historical consistency of the Biblical message and actual historically documented persons provided information that supported the notion of a spiritual realm and the existence of the human soul/spirit.

With the idea that 'the soul would feature human imagination, memory and understanding, while the spirit features the reason, conscience, and will', the soul and spirit are the non-physical human mind working through the physical human brain.

This should be the case with any true human being, even one with a head transplant.

But how this brain would work with the 'Frankenstein' type body donated from another person, I am not certain.

BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TAYLOR, RICHARD (1969)(1976) ‘How to Bury the Mind-Body Problem’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, April, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Professor van Der Ven and Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Barcelona:Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Professor van der Ven and Theodicy

2015 Note

I have been meaning to share this information for years…

Describing the Research

Professor van der Ven’s theodicy research project was conducted in a Roman Catholic context through parishes in Tilburg and Nijmegen in the Netherlands.[1]  A key factor is that most people attending the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands are above fifty years old.[2]  There were 158 respondents[3] within the study and more than two thirds were over fifty years of age.[4]  This means that the views of younger people, which may be more reflective of societal trends, may not be well reflected in the study.[5]  Additionally, van der Ven writes that ratio of women to men in the survey is 76% to 24%.[6]  This is a rather disproportional sample as women are making up more than 75% of the respondents.[7]  The educational level of the respondents varied with 40% having completed lower secondary school in the Netherlands,[8] and 32.5% having achieved a post-secondary school diploma,[9] demonstrating that the educational background of these people appears typical for the Netherlands.[10]  The occupations of the respondents were varied although over 50% of persons surveyed were business owners or professionals.[11]  Professor van der Ven found that 98% of respondents favoured left wing to centre political parties, with 70% supporting a centrist party.[12]

A Summary of the Survey Results

Professor van der Ven’s empirical results showed that the respondents did not differentiate between theodicy and cosmodicy.[13]  The first conclusion van der Ven arrives at from the survey findings is that Christian and secular worldviews overlapped to the point that there was no major difference in how the respondents looked at theodicy or cosmodicy.[14]  There is a coordination of religious and scientific views, and one is not viewed as superior or containing more truth than the other.[15]  These findings should not be too surprising since van der Ven’s core concepts remain the same between theodicy and cosmodicy, other than exchanging God for nature as the cause of all things.[16]  There were some key conclusions van der Ven establishes from the survey that I will summarize.[17]  The greater level of education of some respondents did not conclusively lead to a decrease of acceptance of traditional symbols.[18]  Yes, apathy and retaliation were viewed negatively,[19] but the teaching symbols, such as therapeutic, were not viewed differently by people with different educational levels.[20]  The immanence symbols such as compassion, which represent God’s solidarity with humanity, were less valued by those with greater levels of education.[21]  A conclusion could be made that although highly educated people tend not to appreciate transcendent theodicy models that present God as distancing himself from humanity and judging it,[22] they also do not assume that God immanently will assist sufferers.[23] 

Somewhat surprisingly the test showed that a right-wing or centrist political orientation did not lead to traditional theodicy symbols reflecting God’s transcendence,[24] and left-wing political leanings did not lead to acceptance of less traditional perspectives.[25] 

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.   

---

[1] van der Ven (1998: 220).

[2] van der Ven (1993: 185).

[3] In contrast I managed to survey 213 for this project.

[4] van der Ven (1993: 185).

[5] This sample may be somewhat limited as young persons were not well presented, although it is has validity, as in statistical integrity. 

[6] van der Ven (1998: 220).

[7] van der Ven (1998: 220).  My sample has 61% male and 39% female.

[8] van der Ven (1998: 220-221).

[9] van der Ven (1998: 220-221).

[10] van der Ven (1998: 220-221).

[11] van der Ven (1993: 187).

[12] van der Ven (1993: 187).

[13] van der Ven (1998: 222).

[14] van der Ven (1998: 222).

[15] van der Ven (1998: 222).

[16] van der Ven (1993: 174).

[17] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[18] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[19] van der Ven (1993: 211). A difficulty with a retaliation symbol could equate to a difficulty with traditional, Augustinian, and Reformed views of God that punishes sin and sinners. 

[20] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[21] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[22] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[23] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[24] van der Ven (1993: 211).

[25] van der Ven (1993: 211).

Related posts

van Der Ven resurrection and theodicy

van Der Ven theodicy and cosmodicy

Corporate Cognitive Dissonance

Bruges:Facebook-Travel+Leisure

A major corporation intentionally on two twin sites takes a key which on site employees are supposed to document and report as missing.

Two officers on the larger site are warned in advance a day earlier by the contracted company manager, that does not work for the corporation, that this could occur on site.

The two officers are also warned via a fellow contracted company officer, on the smaller site, that this took place on the smaller site the same day of the warning from the manager.

The problem in regard to the key is found on the larger site by the writer of this post working with his associate and is documented accordingly.

The corporation's tactics are not appreciated by the officers involved at the main site, or by other officers when alerted.

If more professionalism is needed by officers, then what is required for a professional career should be brought into the industry in recruitment and hiring process by the corporation and contracted company.

Therefore

It is cognitive dissonance not do so a significant amount of time and then complain when industry results are mixed...

Philosopher George A. Graham explains cognitive dissonance as the mental discomfort that arises from conflicting beliefs or attitudes held simultaneously, meaning at the very same time. The concept came from a book from Leon Festinger in 1957. Graham (1996: 127).

Blackburn mentions that Festinger was an American psychologist, the book was 'Theory of Cognitive Dissonance'. Festinger suggested that cognitive dissonance had 'motivational characteristics' meaning that when it occurs the amount of dissonance depends on the relative intensities with the dissonant elements. Graham (1996: 127).

It may take place in two major areas, as in self-deception and weakness of the will. Graham (1996: 127). A key point raised by Graham is that one may become weak-willed when dissonance arises from the expected and reasonably understood results and consequences of doing what is right. Graham (1996: 128).

Blackburn writes that Festinger's research and concepts led to ideas that a person's known wrong concepts may lead to reformation and strategies of belief that are surprising. Blackburn (1996: 67).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRAHAM A, GEORGE (1996) ‘Cognitive Dissonance’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Bruges: Facebook-Travel+Leisure

C.S. Lewis: Heaven

Vancouver

From

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

10. Heaven

Lewis cautiously stated that this was perhaps what we as human beings desired more than anything else. He noted that human beings wanted "‘something better’-not this or that experience, but beyond it." Lewis (1940)(1996: 154). I think there is an aspect of humanity which desires a better, perhaps perfect life. However, in our fallen state is what we humans really desire anywhere near what God has in store for his followers?

KILBY, Clyde S. (1965) The Christian World of C.S. Lewis, Appleford, Abingdon, Berks, U.K., Marcham Manor Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. 

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

2015

In contrast...

For a reasonable belief in heaven one would need primarily, historical, religious documentation found in the New Testament which is inspired by God through apostles and scribes.

Paradise is described in Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12, Revelation 2: 7 and Philippians 1 is related.

The future New Heaven and New Earth is described in Revelation 21-22.

Admittedly this is not empirical evidence of such a realm, although through the historical claims of Scripture heaven is documented as an actual spiritual realm of the present and also a realm of the future new restored universe.

From Scripture reasonable religious faith, theology and philosophy can be built.

Therefore, in general, although I do not completely discount it, the Lewis argument is more subjective than I would prefer.

There would also be plenty of those on the critical side, to various degrees, that would state they would have no interest in heaven, the Biblical or Christian God, or in everlasting life.

For example, while obtaining eye laser treatment for floaters in Southern California a few years ago my surgeon stated (paraphrased) that he would have no interest in everlasting life. He stated that it would be uninteresting to live forever.

I do not agree with the view, reasoning that this makes everything gained in this life in the end virtually meaningless, ceasing and not continuing forever.

Being finite beings there is always much more to be gained from life especially when in communion with the infinite God; but here was a very educated person in the medical profession that held such a view.

Vancouver: trekearth