sakrilege

And how can someone tell the difference?

sophie

sakrilege : And how can someone tell the difference?

I believe the brain blanks out (black out) and there is no reward for consciousness to ponder. I think this was genetically engineered. I think when the consciousness of an individual is overloaded with either too much physical pain or extreme mental pain, no reporting is done.

The patient does not respond as well as before. Most efforts are closed.

sakrilege

Nonetheless, shouldn't one be kind, what is the best way to be kind in this situation?

Doctor X

Oh my. . . .

I have never left it, as the argument demonstrates.

Non sequitur

The child "subjectively" suffers.

Then Evil.

I am afraid "we" have not.

She was not.

It is not imaginary.

This rather takes care of the "what ifs." The condition remains a fact that one must account for.

Given the actual opinion expressed by the children, no.

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam.

The child did not stick her fingers in a door. . . .

Incorrect.

A coma requires unconsciousness, which cannot be altered by internal and external stimuli. Specifically, it represents an inability to respond in a non-reflexive fashion to external and internal stimuli.

To become unconscious, one must either effect a global assault on both cerebral hemispheres or a functional separation between said hemispheres and the ascending reticular activating system of the brain stem [ARAS.--Ed.]. Since, as alluded above, the ARAS is located higher than the region affected by the diffusely infiltrating tumor, the patient remains conscious.

Incorrect and irrelevant to the problem at hand.

The child remains conscious.

As Sakrilege asks:

This requires an answer. The failure of action brings us right back to the Five Choices.

--J.D.

sophie

sakrilege : Nonetheless, shouldn't one be kind, what is the best way to be kind in this situation?

Isn't this a human affair. To review the policies of chaining a corpse to a life support machine seems to be a good start to me.


Yeh, generally kindness is a real treat. It is unavoidable in the face of pleasure because of what seems to be the sensitivity conditions. If there was only pleasure and we could magnify this representatively as X, then pain could be construed as (X-1).

Possibly as I construe the events the sensitivity at (X-X), leads to final blackout, so some condition at (X-i) through (X-j) should be under consideration for kindness.

As previously noted if the onmiGOD were to intervene everytime there was a change in i and j, then the individual S, would no longer be individual S, but (Individual & GOD) S. Therefore to retain one's individuality is is necessary to stop crying for the omniGOD's attention.

Doctor X

On the contrary, individual S would be individual S no longer suffering.

--J.D.

Howard

Sophie, that was a truly elegant mathematical representation of existential reality. Even Amos would be impressed.

Refute that Doctor X… if you can figure it out, that is.

sakrilege

But there are other ways to be kind, even strangers can be kind. Doesn't that matter?

Doctor X

Howard:

See above.

Funny thing about reality, it has a way of ruining even the most elegant of suppositions.

--J.D.

sophie

Doctor X, you have insisted in the clarification of a few minor points.

This is the case of a child who complains of what seems to be eternal pain. Let me leave the subjective viewpoint and enter into the realm of twilight, where the omniGOD takes action and probably has to take action unbeknown to the individual. This action by the omniGOD is hardly reportable. (In the case of Jeanne D'Arc, the French pain was fast approaching. It is reputed that Jeanne D'Arc recieved a pain-killer via a vision which allowed her to save the day, but ended up dying for her efforts burnt at the stake).

What you are now asking is whether the omniGOD acts objectively. Meaning the conditions which are generally faced by the Earth individuals seems so out of proportion with reality, due in particular to human action, that the omniGOD intervenes.

What the conditions are when the omniGOD chooses to intervene, are not available to me. It is evident that particular aspects of human affairs are the responsibility of the individual and the collective also known as the herd.

It seems a futile argument to attrubute necessary conditions to an omniGOD, by a human and then because of the solipsist nature of human minds, to expect independent verification. I think this is another minor point you are greatly missing.

Personally I am rather strict about my omniGOD. If I fart and it smells, I am a little upset at this omniGID for forcing me to inhale such a smell. The same way when I sniff my armpits and it does not suit my Aramis character, I become slightly perturbed about it.

Do you need to extend this painful issue?