I like things that make sense. I’m definitely a pragmatist. Regardless of the principles behind the abortion debate, I’ve always had a problem with the inconsistent definitions of life and death. So I put this question to a friend (and fellow musician) who happens to work for Central California Right To Life.

Josh,

An important issue in the abortion debate is the argument over when life begins; at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between? I’ve heard many opinions over the years, but one (from a fellow engineer) has always struck me as a possible solution. The logic of the argument goes like this: ‘life’ and ‘death’ are inverse states of existence. Therefore, the set of criteria that define ‘life’ and ‘death’ should also be inverse quantities. Thus, we should define ‘life’ by the inverse of the criteria we use for ‘death’, since those criteria are pretty well accepted both legally and morally (of course there are always edge-cases). For example: if someone is pronounced dead when their heart and brain consciousness stop, then life is defined as conscious brain function and a heart beat (over-simplified of course).

This is a very pragmatic argument. It view’s the woman’s body as analogous to a life-support system, thus rendering null the argument that life begins when the baby can exist outside the mother’s womb. This is an important step, because technology renders this a moving target… at some point, an artificial womb may be able to carry an embryo to full term. I’d be interested to get your thoughts on this.

-Tom

Josh responded to my question on his video podcast LifeReport.

Thanks Josh for the response, but you are too gracious with the praise!

(requires Adobe Flash plugin… click HERE to watch it on YouTube)

Share on Facebook

A group of researchers from Indiana University, Harvard Medical School, et. al have completed the first map of the outer layer of the brain. While this is cool research, I think people tend to extrapolate this stuff out too far… more on that later. Here’s a quote I found interesting:

“This is one of the first steps necessary for building large-scale computational models of the human brain to help us understand processes that are difficult to observe, such as disease states and recovery processes to injuries…” [emphasis mine]

As an engineer, I’m more interested in modeling the brain for artifical intelligence reasons (call me narrow and selfish if you want). To be clear, I don’t believe that simply cloning the brain will create a living conciousness… I’m more interested in augmenting our existing reasoning power (controversial, I know).

I tend to question the comments made by one of the researchers (maybe I’m reading too much into it):

“We can measure a significant correlation between brain anatomy and brain dynamics. This means that if we know how the brain is connected we can predict what the brain will do.”

Maybe on some generic scale, but I consider us more than just a biological computer. I’ll lay out why I believe this using inductive logic. First, I believe people are fully responsible for their own actions (using the Bible as my base). To be responsible, a person has to be able to make a choice about what actions they will take (free-will vs determinism). Now, assume we are just a biological computer, with predictable, deterministic actions. If this is true, then our behavior is dictated by our biology and we only appear to have free-will. Without free-will, we are not responsible for our actions. Thus, this can’t be true.

Okay, now some would argue that we are a biological computer but with some non-deterministic properties. If this is the case, we still have no responsibility for our actions because they are simply slaves to these random fluctuations. Thus, I hold firm to my belief that we have a soul that transends the physical.

You can read the full results of the study HERE. Or as a PDF.

Share on Facebook

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1)

I’ve been thinking a lot about faith lately. I think all too often Christians confuse hope for faith. There’s a very important distinction between the two: you must have hope to have faith, but you don’t have to have faith to have hope. Look at Hebrews 11:1 again… a part of having faith is “… being sure of what we hope for…“. The problem is that many of us stop there. We know what we hope for, but that’s only the first part of having faith… we have to be “… certain of what [we] do not see.” Faith requires both parts! Substituting hope for faith is like trying to win a race without crossing the finish line… you have to start and finish. The power is not in starting the race… anyone can do that. The power is in finishing. This is why faith is so difficult.

Read the rest…

Share on Facebook