Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 554

Expand Messages
  • Steve Schaper
    ... Wasn t this already done with the heads of babies shortly after Roe v. Wade? Though not on other bodies, but artificial support? Very prescient novel,
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:27:44 EDT
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: That Hideous Strength, prescient

      Wasn't this already done with the heads of babies shortly after Roe v.
      Wade? Though not on other bodies, but artificial support?

      Very prescient novel, IMHO.


      --

      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      "It is true that if you tell me what you read, I can tell
      you who you are. But I will know you better if you tell
      me what you re-read." -- Francois Mauriac

      http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
      sschaper@...
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      That URL didn t work for me. This one does: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1263000/1263758.stm I m pretty sure this was never tried with
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        That URL didn't work for me. This one does:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1263000/1263758.stm

        I'm pretty sure this was never tried with babies, not in the mid-'70's or any
        other time. Do you have a citation, Steve? I do remember this being tried
        in the '60's with monkeys, though.

        It seems to me that there's really no progress on this at all, so the whole
        news story is somewhat bogus. It reports a slightly new version of a medical
        experiment tried 30 or 40 years ago and tried again with no further results.
        All they can do is hook up the blood circulation system. Nobody knows how to
        attach the nervous system.

        I wonder if perhaps Lewis in the early '40's read some medical researcher's
        description of how it would be possible to attach a head to another person's
        body (although the researcher probably skated over the fact that attaching
        anything other than the circulation system is hopelessly difficult). I know
        there were several movies in the '50's about preserving someone's brain
        separate from their body, so the idea was certainly in the air at the time.

        I wouldn't call Lewis "prescient" in this. He was just using an idea that
        was being kicked around by scientists (who knew how difficult it would be).
        It would be like calling him prescient for predicting travel to other planets
        in the Ransom novels.

        Speaking of problems with URL's, did anyone ever figure out the correct URL
        for that article on forging a sword from meteoric iron that was also
        supposedly at the BBC website?

        Wendell Wagner


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Trudy Shaw
        ... From: WendellWag@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 554 It seems to me that
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 8, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: WendellWag@...
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:24 PM
          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 554


          It seems to me that there's really no progress on this at all, so the whole
          news story is somewhat bogus. It reports a slightly new version of a medical
          experiment tried 30 or 40 years ago and tried again with no further results.
          All they can do is hook up the blood circulation system. Nobody knows how to
          attach the nervous system.

          ---------

          My "day job" involves working with medical research in genetics, which is ever-so-slightly related to this kind of stuff, so I probably know just enough to be dangerous. But I'd agree with Wendell on the body transplants (which is what the scientist seems to say this would be--not head transplants).

          There are other paths of research that are so much further along as far as helping people with spinal cord injuries, etc., that I can't imagine this guy getting much support. He may learn something along the way that could be useful in microsurgery, and contribute to the main body of research in that way.

          As was pointed out earlier, this whole thing assumes that our entire personality, psyche, and intellect resides in our brains and so would remain intact if our head was attached to a different body. The more we learn about how our thought processes are related to our biochemistry, glands, nervous system, etc., the less likely this seems. Even if, by some leap of speculation, we ask "what if" these transplants could be done, we probably wouldn't end up with exactly the same person afterward.

          Getting back toward books (although I wouldn't call it mythopoeic), this discussion makes me think of "Lives of the Monster Dogs." A strange little book that was marketed as mainstream literary, but was also reviewed in some places as science fiction. It was billed as a statement on what it means to be human, but my strongest impression was of the horrific picture of the psyche of the fictional scientist who spent his life attempting this kind of grafting in order to produce the perfect army. I hadn't thought of comparing it to That Hideous Strength. There would be some parallels, I think, in the life of the scientist, but the book is mainly about his "creations," who, whatever their faults, are at least innocent of their origins. And the closest thing to mythology in it is the reverence the monster dogs have for the memory of their creator--no Merlin in sight.

          -- Trudy Shaw


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



          The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          The general bogosity of that article on attaching the head of one monkey to another s body inspires me to say something about placing too much confidence in
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            The general bogosity of that article on attaching the head of one monkey to
            another's body inspires me to say something about placing too much confidence
            in articles (even in fairly well-respected mainstream news sources) on new
            scientific discoveries. A lot of these articles are fairly bogus. You
            should always take them with a grain of salt.

            By calling them bogus, I don't mean that they're lies. No respectable
            newspaper, magazine, or TV network would deliberately misquote someone.
            Furthermore, they do a pretty good job of not quoting a random nutcase as if
            he were a famous scientist. They often make an attempt to quote a few other
            scientists about the discovery.

            Often though, the authors of the news article miss the significance of the
            discovery. I've seen this in articles about subjects that I know a fair bit
            about, and I've suspected it in other areas as well. There are several
            reasons for this. One is that the writers aren't top experts in the field,
            just journalists with (at best) the knowledge of the field that someone with
            a bachelor's degree in the subject might have. They can't call everyone in
            the field to figure out whether the scientist's claims are as new or as
            important or as well-established as he claims in his article (or often, as is
            claimed in the press release written by someone in the university public
            relations office that announces a discovery that hasn't even been published
            in a scientific journal yet). Another reason is that scientists have good
            reason to make their discoveries sound as important as possible, even if this
            distorts the context of the discovery. They have to get journalists to think
            their discovery is worth writing about. Third, journalists want to make
            their articles sound interesting, and they do that by making the discoveries
            sound like a major breakthrough. You don't sell papers by printing articles
            about trivial discoveries.

            This is probably worst in news stories about medical matters, where often no
            attempt is made to distinguish whether an announced result is a genuinely new
            and surprising one, or another experiment confirming a previous result, or
            another experiment on a subject in which there have been a number of
            conflicting results. Part of the problem is that readers like to hear about
            breakthroughs. Science does not, for the most part, consist of
            breakthroughs. Mostly it consists of the slow, patient accumulation of facts.

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.