Personality Cafe banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
This article is a bit dated but at least it has some science to it vs. most of the verbage spewed forth in previous posts in this thread; Most of which seem to simply be a knee jerk reaction moral opinion based on ???

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/lobotomys-back

<<<<<<<<-------------------take it frum a koon!

Surgeons have been removing diseased organs or parts of organs in a healthy way as healthy treatment for some time now. I.e. Spleen, gall bladder, hysterectomies, lungs kidney, liver , on & on, Amputations of limbs or partials to any of the above, etc. INCLUDING THE BRAIN. With proper HUMANE medical techniques why not implement some kind of necessary surgical procedure that can be positive & beneficial?

While I agree that our present knowledge re complete understanding of Brain function is limited ; with more future technical advancements as well as scientific understanding in the fields of cognitive neuroscience and neurosurgery it could become a viable treatment on a variety of levels and don't forget about possible stem cell technology & application.

Don't discount this idea for humane future application..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,137 Posts
necro on a really old thread that i see i already responded to, but what the hell. there are some fundamental naiveties in the original premise, iyam. listing them here:


That way they still live but their way of thinking has been changed and are neutralized as a threat to society?
there isn't any way that i know of to surgically change anyone's 'way of thinking'.
They could be put in a psychiatric institution to have painless brain surgery,
there just ain't no such thing as painless surgery.
shock therapy(If Needed) and etc performed on them. They will then be released to enjoy life as usual and be a productive member of society.
both of these outcomes are purely speculative.

Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists
leaving aside the most-obvious point that your extremist might not be somebody else's extremist and how much danger there is in that, the op bases this on another baseless assumption: that 'extremity/dangerousness/violence' are all caused by something that can be removed. i'm really not interested enough in neurology or cognitive sciences for my opinion to have any weight. but most of the little i have heard seems to suggest that insofar as the problem can be traced to anything physical at all, the cause is more likely to be some form of damage or lack. how do you propose to remove an absence?

because there would be no physical violence
sawing a trapdoor in someone's skull and cutting chunks out of their brain doesn't qualify for you as 'violence', huh? yeah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
i'm really not interested enough in neurology or cognitive sciences for my opinion to have any weight.

............insofar as the problem can be traced to anything physical at all, the cause is more likely to be some form of damage or lack. how do you propose to remove an absence?

...........sawing a trapdoor in someone's skull and cutting chunks out of their brain doesn't qualify for you as 'violence', huh? yeah.
<<<<<<<<<<<-------------------------take it frum a koon!

Even IF you were interested in neurology or cognitive sciences your opinion still wouldn't have any weight unless your were a minimum PhD in one of the direct or related fields and even that wouldn't necessarily make one an expert. But "Interest" in something doesn't qualify ones opinion as expertise having weight.

"Removing an absence" would be to make an addition to, in this case add to the brain that which is absent. This is , as mentioned in my previous post, where stem cell & genetic medical science could be beneficial: To add a physiologic body part that is missing. Stem cell's can be used to grow specific organs or parts of organs of individual genetic compatibility. Scientists already "know" how to do this. The neurosciences & genetic engineering & technique at present, however needs to 'catch up' with the 'knowledge'....... And yes, it may be awhile but it is an idea of research that cannot be, today, discounted.

........i.e similar to humanity putting a man on the Moon. We knew how to do this for quite sometime, an argument can be made back to the time of Newton's Principia. The engineering and scientific technique & experience was lacking however until the 1960's.

.........and to refer to Brain Surgery today and especially into the future as simply 'A violent sawing & cutting of chunks' is just plain ignorant. Much of todays brain surgery is done without even "cutting" into the brain and medically applied laser technology is a lil more refined than using a crosscut tree limb hand saw.

Enjoy: https://www.healthline.com/health/brain-surgery
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,137 Posts
Even IF you were interested in neurology or cognitive sciences your opinion still wouldn't have any weight unless your were a minimum PhD in one of the direct or related fields and even that wouldn't necessarily make one an expert.
this is true too, but all i intended to convey was that i don't even do enough recreational reading on popularized content to know anything. it's a matter of 'my extremely vague dumbed-down hearsay about the role of frontal lobe, versus the op's [??]' we don't even know what the op's foundational notions are or where they came from since it was not specified.

could be they did intend to convey 'surgery' in the sense of addition, as opposed to removal/whatever. i doubt it, but if they did then the conclusion leapt to was mine. i'd still be profoundly sceptical though.

the op does seem to have (or have had) a belief that somebody's 'way of thinking' could be changed surgically - whatever they were thinking of when they thought 'surgery'. and this i just don't think i believe. if evil was nothing more than a lump or a gap that would show up on a scope, i think we would know it by now. or maybe we do and i've just not read about it?

And yes, it may be awhile but it is an idea of research that cannot be, today, discounted.
i think the operative word has to be a hell of a 'while'. it's an interesting question in general though. part of the issue with any of this kind of thing is experience and consciousness are so subjective. once you start getting into realms like belief and perception it's hard to know how you'd even establish what anyone's baseline is, right? you can observe them from the outside, you can ask them to self-report, or i suppose there's probably some way you could talk to them and watch parts of some mri light up or dim down on a screen.

but none of those are terribly reliable, iyam. so if the op was looking for a quick fix . . . my (again very limited) understanding is that that's not too likely.

The engineering and scientific technique & experience was lacking however until the 1960's.
people knew how to give each other lobotomies long before that :p this fact demonstrates nothing particular, either way. but i include it anyway, for the evidence that is in the timestamp more than any potential editorializing bosch might have been doing with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_the_Stone

one thing about space exploration though: once you get past the religious hangups (if any), there's a lot less ethical undergrowth in the way of collecting that expertise. and it's worth pointing out that we got to the moon more in a proof-of-concept kind of way more than a practical, usable one.

.........and to refer to Brain Surgery today and especially into the future as simply 'A violent sawing & cutting of chunks' is just plain ignorant.
true enough. i advertised my ignorance at the top. i do think the op was thinking in terms of 'locate the social tumour and excise it', and characterizing that as 'painless', for whatever that's worth; as opposed to 'find the deficiency and fill it in'. but i don't suppose we'll ever know. it may be painless. i've only ever known one person who had something done to her brain and i didn't grill her about the experience. the op's implied suggestion that it could be entirely benign was cavalier enough to annoy me though.
 

·
Registered
INTJ 583 sx/sp
Joined
·
456 Posts
Posted here because some might say its ethically questionable and as a taboo so I would like a constructive discussion on brain surgery to deal with dangerous people. Is it good or bad and would it work out at all?

What are your thoughts on brain surgery to neutralize people who may potentially be a danger to society? For example extreme nationalists such as those who tore apart Yugoslavia in the name of ethnicity? Instead of using methods that some people find morally questionable and may use it to demonize you.

What about brain surgery? That way they still live but their way of thinking has been changed and are neutralized as a threat to society?

Say there are a bunch of really dangerous violent racist-nationalist terrorists or any terrorists, instead of putting them in prison or killing(If rehabilitation does not work), chemical injections, etc. They could be put in a psychiatric institution to have painless brain surgery, shock therapy(If Needed) and etc performed on them. They will then be released to enjoy life as usual and be a productive member of society.

Its the most humane way to deal with dangerous extremists because there would be no physical violence and nobody would even have to die?
Your thoughts sound dangerous to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
prison doesn't work

death sentence doesn't work

rehabilitation doesn't work

do you know why brain surgery won't work? the same reason

any society that produces these people is already broken and these solutions are as effective as scrubbing active sewage pipes.

do you think a nationalist extremist is more dangerous than an obedient soldier?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
You're all evil, horrible people if you really think people you disagree with politically should be lobotomized, imprisoned, or executed. You essentially ARE the cruel monsters you want to destroy.
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18 Show Content
ursula-mirror-movie_m.jpg
 

·
Premium Member
Male INFJ 5w4 (Sx/Sp)
Joined
·
247 Posts
It's all good until you are the one sitting in the operating chair.

What society and the government deems "dangerous" changes all of the time. Just take a look at history throughout the ages. People burned witches, jailed communists, prevent people from speaking because they disagree with them, etc.
I'd be careful for advocating measures like that. You might think the person in charge right now is ethical in his/her decision making, but what happens if he/she decides to change suddenly, or if those next in line for power have less than good intentions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Like I mentioned, when will they lobotomize me then? I have schizophrenia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
But I suppose schizos don't matter much to people in the mainstream. Human nature unfortunately.
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top