Number 87 : July 1997 |
To Roger Farnworth : Should Roger adopt the more generous approach of the visual arts : the dafter it looks the more brilliant it must be?
To Philip Lloyd Lewis : Do 'no objective truths’ sit uneasily with 'the 'raw material’ of objective reality’ ? If Philip seriously disputes that when once a physical law is writ we're stuck with it; even those we don't yet know; he must suggest examples.
To Mark Griffin : Mark assumes that a brain is essential to the experience of enjoyment. Is not the essential consciousness ? He can assume that a brain is essential to consciousness but I think he must accept that this is both unprovable and arguable.
In P.V.S. and similar cases I think that euthanasia by direct or indirect means is a slippery slope. Once accepted then extending it to everyone with a pimple on their nose becomes a mere matter of degree, not principle. I cannot accept Theo's economic argument either. Should I seek comfort in the idea that the hospital where the murders are carded out may have a giant cone of pretty colours revolving outside, courtesy of the National Lottery ? Should it ease my mind that those who have committed not-yet-legalised forms of murder can get large sums in legal aid if they miss breakfast ?
Abortion is perhaps the most extreme current example of legal murder. Its supporters hide behind cute definitions of life; but what sort of people carry it out; and should those who tear babies apart have a place in a ‘health’ service? Are they human ? What do they do in the holidays : club baby seals? Should people who support it ask themselves whether they would do it ?
Theo also comments on the statistical cost-effectiveness of anti-smoking measures. Are the anti-smoker's promising immortality ? Isn't everyone going to die of something and when they do won’t the statistics go right back to where they were ? Won't the people 'saved' be then older and probably cost even more ? Are the tobacco companies benefactors really ? ... on a par with abortionists perhaps ?
To Theo Todman: On consciousness does the following chronology make my views clearer ? Imagine :-
.... and at this point let physics and evolution lead to a brain with access to both matter and consciousness, which might be seen loosely as the same 'stuff’ experienced by the brain in different ways. Granted, I don't say where consciousness or points come from, simply accepting that they exist; but I think those who would dismiss these ideas have to otherwise address the problem of wholes greater than the sums of their parts ... and go a bit beyond an uncertain quantum fluctuation to get things going !
On time dilation I will forgive your implication that I was treating photons as classical bodies because of your welcome clarification that the wave involved in each photon event should be modelled as having a constant frequency throughout its journey, which will account for my ‘two effects’ error. Why do distinguished professors say light loses frequency as it travels against gravity? That seems not so much metaphor as careless use of language. True, one may need the maths to understand the full scale and relationships of the effects, but I still think the principles can be grasped without, given adequate explanation.
Also, assuming that is what you referred to, I don’t think the notion of light being attracted is really an extension of theory. A two-way process is accepted in other areas (an electron can be interpreted as a positron going the other way); and some such process seems an inescapable implication of action-at-a-distance, time dilation, and space-time. The tests have been done; their meaning is still open.
On newsletter name : We've had the table; how about a Sopha?
Anthony Owens
Anthony - Well ... on PVS slippery slopes. It’s another of these boundary problems. Say there was a treatment that would certainly add an extra 20 years to your life that was critically threatened. Unfortunately, it costs £10 billion. Would you expect the state to pay this ? I expect you’d be disappointed if you did. Say £1 billion ? No. Say £100 million ? No. At, say, £1 million an experimental procedure might be tried. The problem is, on average we only have available to spend on an individual’s health-care what an average individual can contribute. This is not to say that "your life isn’t worth saving", or that "life is cheap", but it is the case that your life isn’t worth saving at any price. It’s just that otherwise the sums just don’t work out. Doctors have to work within these constraints. It must be the case that people’s lives are routinely not saved, though we have the technology, because we can’t afford it. That’s just how things are, and it’s simply no good wining about it. Some people can afford more, but there’s just not enough resource around for everyone to afford more. We can share resources more equitably, but eventually they run out. Hence, my contention that resource management is a key factor in health care. Hence, we have to deal in expected gains and losses. A difficult sum, but someone has to attempt to solve it.
With respect to abortion, do you really imagine that those who undertake the procedure think they are "killing babies" ? The reason the whole issue generates so much heat is that people differ so radically in their views on the status of the foetus - is it human, is it conscious, does it feel pain, etc ? If one’s answer to all these questions is "no" then presumably one doesn’t have as troubled a conscience as you or I might have. Also, isn’t it a fallacy to say we shouldn’t ask anyone to do something we wouldn’t be happy to do ourselves ? I wouldn’t be happy working as a bowel surgeon or a dentist, emptying the bins, working in an abattoir, cleaning the lavatories, joining the police or army; but I’m glad some people are.
With respect to your objections to anti-smoking measures - well, no-one’s going to live for ever; but that’s not the issue. We treat people’s ailments to extend their lives, improve its quality or both. If we said there’s no point because they’re going to die anyway, we’d never treat anybody. I don’t think your counter-economic argument works either - OK, so somebody who dies of lung-cancer aged 50 doesn’t need treating for Parkinson’s Disease, aged 80. True, but we’ve lost 15 years of working life, the tax revenue from which we’d banked on to pay for their care, and they might not have developed Parkinson’s in any case; and if they had, its treatment wouldn’t have been as expensive. What we want is fewer premature deaths, not more successful cures; same thing as wanting fewer crimes, not more villains behind bars. Prevention is better than cure, and all that.
On to consciousness. While I vaguely understand your theory, I don’t know what it means in practise. What are these supposed point sources of consciousness ? Also, I don’t go along with your gauntlet that those who don’t agree with you have to come up with some alternative. It’s not a case of any port in a storm. It’s better to admit we just don’t know than bark up the wrong tree.
As for relativity, I’m afraid my limited expertise is exhausted. I’m in contact with a former Mensa member who does research into General Relativity, who’s volunteered to help me with further study, when I get round to it. Until then, no comment !
Finally, thanks for the suggestion for the name. Unfortunately, Sopha, while snappy, has the disadvantage, unlike Mensa, of not being a word.
Theo