So, let's just pretend that this isn't an obvious fake.
What's the difference, functionally? Who cares (well, other than him) if he's in a coma, or conscious but unable to move or communicate? Same thing, really...
-Kle.
@Klebert L. Hall: It just seems remarkably cold to say "who cares if a man is living a tortured life or if he's braindead." It is rather depressing to know there's people like you who seem to posess no empathy.
@Scotland: It is so clear that the lady is punching in the messages. This is a scam. I bet she'll come out with a book, and put his name on it. Such a travesty, being taken advantage like that. These people should be ashamed!
@Jonny_eh: This video is unbelievable! How could anyone watch it and think the coma man is the one typing? The blond woman is so obviously reading the screen and pushing his hand around.
I feel bad for the coma man's mother. You can tell she believes it.
Now that I think about it, maybe that's even more depressing.
EDIT: Whoops, was already referenced below. In answer to Atomsmoosher, I don't think it can be said definitively either way as of yet, but there are such things as motion sensors available to a micron of pressure, you'd think they could do some more testing.
I'm not gonna pretend that I know a lot about medical science, because I don't, but why did it take them 20+ years to run a brainscan on the guy to determine that he was conscious? Were brainscans not available until recently?
@korybing: Think about it. He's alive. He's non-responsive. Why scan? In 1986 there were a number of external tests thought a reliable means to determine consciousness. Based on the technology and experience of the time, there was no reason to believe the man was suffering from 'locked-in' syndrome or anything other than a persistent vegetative state. Likely, it took a few scans over the years before the right technology and activity combined to demonstrate that the mans was indeed awake.
Since then brain imaging and monitoring has advanced tremedously. In 1986, you might have seen alpha waves and other measurable activity and not really been able to tell what exactly was going one. Realize also that there can easily be a lot of activity while none of it could be considered organized thought.
You are right that imaging, monitoring and non-invasive scanning is the way of the future. Hopefully as we are better able to sense, measure and see our inner workings, medicine will make fewer misdiagnosis like this. In the not too distant future we will be able to take a status snapshot of a living body and know everything that is going on inside down to the molecular level. This is just an extension of technologies like MRI.
Dr.Quatermass: I have to say Dr. You are once again spot on with that oberservation and anything I am about to say that contradicts this statement is strictly for humor sake. was starred
Dr.Quatermass: I have to say Dr. You are once again spot on with that oberservation and anything I am about to say that contradicts this statement is strictly for humor sake. was unstarred
I think this is an excellent time to mention another relevant study, which proved that people are more likely to believe articles about neuroscience if they include color pictures of the brain. [www.sciencedaily.com]
In fact, they specifically cite that article against the "God Spot"!
Am I the only one who can see the face of jeeeeeezus in the two bottom pictures? Clearly, the god spot is not a spot, it's a face, and therein lies the proof that god exists. You science fools.
See, with the discovery of the god spot and the god particle, god is revealing himself to science. Soon enough, scientists will admit that ID is correct, evolution is wrong, and Chuck Norris is Jeeeezus reincarnated.
neurology as a whole should focus on an interactive, dynamic brain rather than singularities (spots)[although most journals already practice this way of thinking of... thinking]. from say a love "spot" to a love pattern of neural firing, but even that is very difficult to discern from other patterns of firing and stimulation of the same pathways can produce different results. very few or if any brain signaling is focused on just one part of the brain.
Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment
Edited by ithyphallus, bonks morrigan at 08/11/09 11:06 PM
ithyphallus, bonks morrigan was starred
ithyphallus, bonks morrigan was unstarred
People, people. Let's get to the important point of this piece, namely: When will the "worship me now, fools" raygun be available for purchase at Amazon.com? Can i pre-order?
This is similar to the journalistic nonsense that there is a single gene responsible for something or another... like a gene for criminal behaviour, or a gene for longevity.
The God spot idea always struck me as silly, because religious experience is far too complex and diverse to be the product of a single structure in the brain. I've also seen evangelical anti-theists use it as "evidence" that religious people's brains are damaged compared to atheist's brains. I'm glad that myth is more or less debunked by actual science.
Grey_Area promoted this comment
Edited by Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon at 08/11/09 7:15 PM
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was starred
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was unstarred
@Anekanta: I think a lot of the problems relating to the issue of one gene = one trait come from the misconception that all hereditary characteristics in humans are Mendelian traits (a misconception probably reinforced by that fact that some fairly well known diseases like sickle-cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis are). The general public probably isn’t aware that most hereditary characteristics are control by multiple, interacting alleles; just like they aren’t aware that no one spot of the brain controls a certain function. As it is easier to understand and more sensational to say that one gene = one particular trait, lazy or uninformed journalist make use of the public’s ignorance. Just like they tried to do for the God spot stories. I'm glad they're being called out.
@RandomFrequentFlierDent: Yes--unfortunately I think that's true. A headline by definition oversimplifies the subject matter. It's a bummer though--it seems like a bad feedback loop between journalists and large segments of the public who crave simple explanations because they don't really care about the deeper story, or don't have time to care.
@it must be bunnies: Ernest Hogan used a similar virus in his 1992 High Aztech. Really worth hunting down. Pity that Hogan only did 3 novels. I like his wicked wit and inclusion of Hispanic/La Raza culture and issues.
11/25/09
What's the difference, functionally? Who cares (well, other than him) if he's in a coma, or conscious but unable to move or communicate? Same thing, really...
-Kle.
11/25/09
06:56 AM
You are correct. If I was completely unable to communicate, I wouldn't say anything, at all.
-Kle.
08:17 AM
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
And where the hell did the name ' Glasgow coma scale' come from?? How hard you get headbutted in Scottland!
11/24/09
11/24/09
If there's a computer involved that measures electrical signals in his brain, I'm willing to believe that he can use it to type out letters.
If it's a human facilitator, then no way. He's just a human Ouija board.
11/24/09
[news.yahoo.com]
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I feel bad for the coma man's mother. You can tell she believes it.
11/24/09
[news.yahoo.com]
Now that I think about it, maybe that's even more depressing.
EDIT: Whoops, was already referenced below. In answer to Atomsmoosher, I don't think it can be said definitively either way as of yet, but there are such things as motion sensors available to a micron of pressure, you'd think they could do some more testing.
11/24/09
11/24/09
Since then brain imaging and monitoring has advanced tremedously. In 1986, you might have seen alpha waves and other measurable activity and not really been able to tell what exactly was going one. Realize also that there can easily be a lot of activity while none of it could be considered organized thought.
You are right that imaging, monitoring and non-invasive scanning is the way of the future. Hopefully as we are better able to sense, measure and see our inner workings, medicine will make fewer misdiagnosis like this. In the not too distant future we will be able to take a status snapshot of a living body and know everything that is going on inside down to the molecular level. This is just an extension of technologies like MRI.
11/24/09
08/12/09
[www.sciencedaily.com]
In fact, they specifically cite that article against the "God Spot"!
08/12/09
See, with the discovery of the god spot and the god particle, god is revealing himself to science. Soon enough, scientists will admit that ID is correct, evolution is wrong, and Chuck Norris is Jeeeezus reincarnated.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/11/09
+1
08/11/09
The God spot idea always struck me as silly, because religious experience is far too complex and diverse to be the product of a single structure in the brain. I've also seen evangelical anti-theists use it as "evidence" that religious people's brains are damaged compared to atheist's brains. I'm glad that myth is more or less debunked by actual science.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
[www.amazon.com]
08/11/09
08/11/09