A little more than a hundred years ago, Sigmund Freud drew a line in virgin sand by writing a book called The Interpretation of Dreams. The immediate effect was to legitimize a whole new area of treatment called psychotherapy. A long-range effect was to send several generations of neuroscientists scurrying to define the difference between the body part they could find and dissect-the brain-and another part of the body that couldn’t be located or even described very well-the mind. (taken from Discover Magazine April-2001, ‘I Dream, therefore I am’)

“A torrential downpour of tiny crystalline packets of water scintillated my every sense including touch. It was relentless, and perhaps it catalogued not only my other senses buy my awareness as well. I could think in an ultra clear mindset unlike the standard cruise control mode I’d been used to. On top of that I found, that my sense of taste, touch, sound, and vision were also magnified; Perhaps by as many as three times there regular orientation. The atmosphere, so to speak, was astounding… With each gasp of air I could taste an electric buzz pervading the scene. A scene of which consisted of my standing in the cold starch night in an empty parking lot outside a mall. Aside from distant streetlight, the area was smothered in darkness, oddly though, this did not obscure my vision. Oddly as well, there were no stars in the sky, and no clouds. It was as if the raindrops fell from an unseen fracture in the space/time continuum…”


…Meanwhile, something subtle went on in the visual processing regions. The primary visual cortical region did not show much of an increase in metabolism, but there was a big jump in the downstream regions that integrate simple visual information. The primary visual cortical region is involved in the first steps of processing sight-the changing of patterns of pixels of light and dark into things like lines or curves. In contrast the downstream areas are the integrators that turn those lines and curves into the perception of objects, faces, and scenes. Normally, an increase in activity in the downstream areas cannot occur without an increase in the primary areas. In other words, when your wide awake, you can’t get your eyes to see complex pictures without first going through an initial level of analysis. But REM sleep is a special case-you’re not using the eyes. Instead, your starting with the downstream integration of visual patterns. This, Braun and his colleagues have speculated convincingly, is what makes up the imagery of our dreams.

Now this following excerpt really gets me thinking… I’ll explain after…

Yet in many ways, the most remarkable feature of the human brain is the extent of the development and the power of that prefrontal cortex, the region that stays metabolically inactive during REM sleep…

It is pretty much an indisputable axiom in science that it is primarily the prefrontal cortex that makes human beings human beings. We have the largest amount of prefrontal cortex activity in the world. This gets me thinking. Is it possible that the consciousness of an animal is more or less what it is like for us in a regular dream state? The exception of course is that their sense is exceptionally more vivid.

Although I must say, this part is a little unsettling…

On a more profound level, it keeps the angry thought from being allowed to become the hurtful word, the violent fantasy from becoming the unspeakable act

Does this indirectly say that animals are incapable of morality? Actually, I find it difficult to be proven mute by the fact that the average dream does not find humans grossly engaged in immoral acts.

Where am I going with this???? The

Answer

Is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE ;)

In explaining something, we’ve merely managed to redefine the unknown

It is also my opinion, that there are far too much regulations by law in private matters, especially in respect to assisted suicide or abortion. The reason for that seems to be, that Western countries and especially US are strongly influenced by the Christian church.

*Originally posted by Einsteins brain
It is also my opinion, that there are far too much regulations by law in private matters, especially in respect to assisted suicide or abortion. *
You must be being, because you are dreaming.

Perhaps a vist to the dictionary will refresh your memory concerning the meaning of "private."

"Of or confined to the individual; personal"

Assisted suicides are not confined to the individual.
Suicide might be considered personal, if you don't count the fact that someone has to handle the corpse, tell the family, etc.
But, assisted means someone else is there.

To consider abortion a personal matter is the height of lunacy.
There are others involved.

If you want to have abortions, at least have the common courtesy to admit that you want to kill children.

Also, don't forget that euthanasia and abortion go hand-in-hand.
After all, euthanasia is just very late term abortion, like in the 270th trimester, or whatever the age works out to.

And keep in mind, unless you are very rich, that euthanasia may well end up being planned for you.
Come to think of it, even riches won't save you there, it'll probably make things worse.

The choice to abort a fetus is [and should always be] the sole prerogative of the individual, not the state, their family or any religious group. Similarly for euthanasia. I don't really care about your beliefs and I don't want to be restricted by them.

As to any assistance in either matter, that is the choice of the assistant. You don't have to assist if you choose not to.

At least euthanasia by choice allows for planning and possible counseling. Or is it better if someone simply decides to jump off a bridge or pump car exhaust into their car on their own initiative?

When I feel my time is up, then I would like the option of being able to end my life on my own initiative. I hope in the future to have that option.

___
WJ

*Originally posted by ibe98765
The choice to abort a fetus is [and should always be] the sole prerogative of the individual, not the state, their family or any religious group.*
You obviously can't count.
There have to be a minimum of three people involved in an abortion.
The one you refer to as the "individual" who is the mother.
The procurer of the abortion, such as a doctor who is in it for the money, is the second individual.
And of course, the baby is the third person.

*Similarly for euthanasia. I don't really care about your beliefs and I don't want to be restricted by them.*
Well, you might see it my way, when it is time for YOU to be euthanized.
You see, your idea is that you wish to "die with dignity."
The reality will be that by the time you are old enough to be considered for death, it won't be dignified and it won't be your choice.

*At least euthanasia by choice allows for planning and possible counseling.*
You are sort of right.
There will be planning, but not yours.
And counseling for you will be left until afterward, because it will be much cheaper that way.

*Or is it better if someone simply decides to jump off a bridge or pump car exhaust into their car on their own initiative?*
Let me see, which is better, suicide or murder, oops I mean "euthanasia?"
I don't know.
Why don't you make some quick notes when you are being euthanized against your will.

*When I feel my time is up, then I would like the option of being able to end my life on my own initiative. I hope in the future to have that option.*
Your options will be rather limited right around the time when you become a burden on society.
You may be thinking of yourself as perfectly able to function, but someone else may disagree.
Or, the computer has a bug in it, and has you assigned to the discard pile by error.