[jude24]

However, to declare it liquefied is also a factually false assertion.

From In re: Theresa Marie Schaivo,
Incapacitated, Report to Gov. Jeb Bush and the 6th Florida Judicial Circuit 1 Dec. 2003
Jay Wolfson as Guardian Ad Litem to Theresa Marie Schaivo at 34

Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegitative state. These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic traumna experienced thirteen years ago. The initial oxygen deprivation caused damage that cannot be repaired, and the brain tissue in the area continued to devolve....

In recent months, individuals have come forward indicating that there are therapies and treatments that can literally re-grow Theresa's functional, cerebral cortex brain tissue, restoring part or all of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, meidically recongized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats, according to the president of the American Society for Neuro-Transplatation. It is imaginable that some day such things maybe possible, but holding out such promises to families of severely brain injured persons today may be a profound disservice.

In the observed circumstances, the behavior that Theresa manifests is attributable ot stem and forebrain functions, rather than cognitive. And the substantive difference according to neurologists and neurosurgeons is that reflexive actitvities of this nature are neither conscious nor aware activities. And without cognition, there is no awareness. (Descartes addressed this in his proposition that it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: "Cogito, ergo sum." This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.)

Source

[NautiNurse]

cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken

I've seen the source, and cringed at the odd choice of words. How is something liquid if it shrinks? CSF filled in the area of cortex that atrophied. Bad choice of terms.

[syriacus]

(Descartes addressed this in his proposition that it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: "Cogito, ergo sum." This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.)

That's bad logic.

The statement,
"I don't think, therefore, I am not,"
cannot be proven true,
from the truthfulness of the statement,
"I think, therefore I am.The "I don't think"statement is merely the inverse of the "I think "statement."

Elementary logic: Inverse: The inverse is simply the conditional with ‘not’ added to it.

1.Statement: If p, then q
2. Inverse: If not p, then not q

A statement is not logically equivalent ... to its inverse.

[syriacus]

I searched the Wolfson document.

Luckily for Wolfson he didn't actually say that the following statement is true...
"I don't think, therefore, I am not." .

(Can I infer that Wolfson took Logic 101?)

[syriacus]

Descartes addressed this in his proposition that it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: "Cogito, ergo sum." This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.)

Since Wolfson does not seem responsible for this statement, what is its source?

[P-Marlowe]

it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: "Cogito, ergo sum." This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.)

IOW we cease to be when we are in a coma, or under anesthesia, or in a dreamless sleep.

How utterly absurd.

[sarasota]

Poor Descartes. If only he had heeded Socrates or Plato and the philosophy of a higher source than "mind" or "consciousness". (Hint: that which never dies.)