StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 05:38 AM

factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:17 AM

http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Neither link says anything about many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen

She’s only one year old. Give her a chance. The other person held an administrative job in the French tax service. If you don’t think tax people don’t function at a high level good luck on your next audit, which, by the way, may be sooner than you think considering governmental use of webcrawlers to locate info and targets.

factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:41 AM

StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 05:38 AM

factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:17 AM

http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Neither link says anything about many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen

She’s only one year old. Give her a chance. The other person held an administrative job in the French tax service. If you don’t think tax people don’t function at a high level good luck on your next audit, which, by the way, may be sooner than you think considering governmental use of webcrawlers to locate info and targets.

You’re making Three joint claims 1) high level 2) Many people and 3) No decernable brain structure.

There is nothing about 2)

In the case of the 1 year old there is nothing about “high level” and in the case of the French tax officer there is nothing about no decernable brain structure. (edit: just checked what an IQ of 75 means and found this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_intellectual_functioning  so “high level” is also questionable in the case of the French tax officer.)

So these are not evidence for your claim that many people function at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

This is leaving aside all sorts of other problems, like how accurate the reports are etc.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 05:57 AM

factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:41 AM

StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 05:38 AM

factfinder - 30 October 2011 05:17 AM

http://www.fatemag.com/issues/2000s/2008-01article4.html

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/87/34842/baby-without-brain-celebrates-first-birthday.html

Neither link says anything about many people functioning at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

Stephen

She’s only one year old. Give her a chance. The other person held an administrative job in the French tax service. If you don’t think tax people don’t function at a high level good luck on your next audit, which, by the way, may be sooner than you think considering governmental use of webcrawlers to locate info and targets.

You’re making Three joint claims 1) high level 2) Many people and 3) No decernable brain structure.

There is nothing about 2)

In the case of the 1 year old there is nothing about “high level” and in the case of the French tax officer there is nothing about no decernable brain structure. (edit: just checked what an IQ of 75 means and found this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_intellectual_functioning  so “high level” is also questionable in the case of the French tax officer.)

So these are not evidence for your claim that many people function at high levels without any decernable brain structure.

This is leaving aside all sorts of other problems, like how accurate the reports are etc.

Stephen

Your original claim was that people could not function without a brain.  It only takes one exception to a claim to invalidate it. I presented four examples of people who do function without a brain, three of which were at a high level, including a math whiz, and one who is still a baby.  Your claim has been invalidated.

This latest bit of resistance on your part is just another variation of your yes-it-is-no-it-isn’t theory of inquiry. It is denial and equivocation. Your ploy is both illogical and not rational.

It is a waste of time to continue this with you.

Oh, yes, would it be too much trouble for you to spell words properly when you respond to future topics? “Decernable ” is not a word. You do have a dictionary, don’t you?

factfinder,

Did you make a bet with someone to show you can go on the internet and make others debate you on the most absurd claim you could think of? If so, I am sorry I fell for it—I feel like an idiot for trying to prove you wrong. Or are you just simply having good time here? I can imagine how some sick-minded people can get a good laugh from trolling. It can’t be that you’re being serious about this nonsense, can it?

George - 30 October 2011 07:11 AM

factfinder,

Did you make a bet with someone to show you can go on the internet and make others debate you on the most absurd claim you could think of? If so, I am sorry I fell for it—I feel like an idiot for trying to prove you wrong. Or are you just simply having good time here? I can imagine how some sick-minded people can get a good laugh from trolling. It can’t be that you’re being serious about this nonsense, can it?

See my response to Stephen immediately above.

For what?

factfinder - 30 October 2011 06:51 AM

Your original claim was that people could not function without a brain.

Not true.

The rest of your post consisted of the straw man fallacy followed by the ad hominem fallacy.

Stephen

George - 30 October 2011 07:11 AM

factfinder,

Did you make a bet with someone to show you can go on the internet and make others debate you on the most absurd claim you could think of? If so, I am sorry I fell for it—I feel like an idiot for trying to prove you wrong. Or are you just simply having good time here? I can imagine how some sick-minded people can get a good laugh from trolling. It can’t be that you’re being serious about this nonsense, can it?

I actually think this might be off the mark George.

To be fair to factfinder this is pretty amazing stuff: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

Check what’s left of the french tax officers brain.

And if we allow a little stretching of definitions of “many cases”, “No descernable brain structure” and “high level function” he’s right.

So perhaps it’s really only a little O.T.T rather than absurd.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 30 October 2011 07:40 AM

And if we allow a little stretching of definitions of “many cases”, “No descernable brain structure” and “high level function” he’s right.

So perhaps it’s really only a little O.T.T rather than absurd.

Stephen, OTT becomes absurd when you stretch truth into falsity. And that’s not even including the fact that the original doctor was not known for his accuracy.