The Republic of Texas XXIV: Will be posted on February 1, 2009

[jonhasaheart]

Well yes, everyone had that page....but anyone with 0 or 1 offer had "you do NOT have multiple pre-match offers" blinking on theirs. It still looks like that when you click it if you had ONE or NO matches.

Ack! Haha, yeah, I just checked.

Well, a big congrats goes out to everyone who's gotten something. I've been rootin' for y'all all along.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[briton]

So if all this speculation is actually true, how many people matched to a school higher than their pre-match? Doesn't seems like many people did.

 

[maggie08]

So if all this speculation is actually true, how many people matched to a school higher than their pre-match? Doesn't seems like many people did.

me. so there's one so far. who else? teacherman, didn't you?

 

[gecko45]

me. so there's one so far. who else? teacherman, didn't you?

I did as well (UT-Houston over UTSA).

 

[briton]

me. so there's one so far. who else? teacherman, didn't you?

Congrats to you Maggie. It's seems like too much of a coincidence to not be true. I'm sure at this stage we are just waiting for official confirmation.

 

[utjsm08]

For those of us that have "matched to their pre-match", check the Last Updated date on that "Or view" page. Mine is still 12-03-2008 when TMDSAS loaded my pre-matches on the site....so I am thinking that some of us have not got the January "updates" as yet, this is making me not lose hope

 

[da8s0859q]

For those of us that have "matched to their pre-match", check the Last Updated date on that "Or view" page. Mine is still 12-03-2008 when TMDSAS loaded my pre-matches on the site....so I am thinking that some of us have not got the January "updates" as yet, this is making me not lose hope

That, and apparently, this doesn't apply to those of us sans prematch offers...?

 

[mgirl21]

That, and apparently, this doesn't apply to those of us sans prematch offers...?

Yup, I'm fairly confident it has nothing to do with us. We just gotta be patient and keep waiting!

 

[euryalusnisus]

Did anyone without multiple offers actually see a match with this glitch?

 

[jonhasaheart]

Did anyone without multiple offers actually see a match with this glitch?

I didn't see anything change whatsoever. I'm content to wait though, heh.

Did you only have one pre-match offer as well?

 

[aggie08]

Did anyone without multiple offers actually see a match with this glitch?

No.

If you read back you'll see that the page that changed is the one where they had their lists of multiple pre-match offers. If you don't have multiple pre-match offers, your page will still blink the same thing it did before.

 

[teacherman]

me. so there's one so far. who else? teacherman, didn't you?

Yes. If this is true, then I matched over my prematch to TCOM.

 

[ami1983]

I checked at 2 pm today PST, and did not have this 'Or view' page. Checked just now (8 pm PST), and had it. I declined 3 pre-match offers, so someone better be getting into UTSW!!

 

[Merissa87]

so would we only have this "or view" page if we got pre-match offers? i didnt receive a pre- match and my page does not have the option to click

 

[potato head]

so would we only have this "or view" page if we got pre-match offers? i didnt receive a pre- match and my page does not have the option to click

i believe people with no prematches can still see the page. as mentioned earlier, certain browsers will not show the "Or view:" link option. firefox on mac shows the link, as far as i know.

 

[TheElement]

so would we only have this "or view" page if we got pre-match offers? i didnt receive a pre- match and my page does not have the option to click

I would assume so, the Or View page is exactly what the multiple prematch page was from before.

 

[AggieMD]

the school you go to is a very small part of your residency application. your board scores, clinical grades, and research matter infinitely more. it's not going to matter if you went to UTSW if you barely pass the boards.

you'd be surprised at how many people waltz into med school thinking that they are going to ace everything. i can tell you that it doesn't happen for the majority. i'd go where you think you can be most successful, not to the school that will give you a neglible boost when you apply for residency.

ding. ding. ding.

Advice that must be passed on to every class. There is a HUGE benefit to going to what you think is a "less competitive" school and absolutely rocking what you think is "less competition." You will be able to do whatever the hell you want to regardless of where you went (provided it is in the US, and most likely allopathic)

 

[MrBlonde]

Only got 1 pre-match (TT) and ranked in order UT-H, UT-SA, TT. I clicked on that "Or view" link, now only have choice between UT-SA (accept/decline) and TT (Decline). It says on the bottom the page was last updated "--", huh?

 

[iMD]

tmdsas removes LMU and all the junk so we dont get all neurotic before nov15.

now tmdsas does this to us before the match.

 

[iMD]

Only got 1 pre-match (TT) and ranked in order UT-H, UT-SA, TT. I clicked on that "Or view" link, now only have choice between UT-SA (accept/decline) and TT (Decline). It says on the bottom the page was last updated "--", huh?

looks like ya matched to UTSA

 

[MrBlonde]

looks like ya matched to UTSA

Wow, it's kinda rough to get the acceptance this way, it's so protracted and still uncertain. I guess I'll temper my enthusiasm until official word on Friday, arghh!

 

[Merissa87]

All mine says is ..."You do NOT have multiple offers from schools". I really hope that there are some changes come Friday!!!!

 

[jaydar]

Wow, the last few days just took me over an hour to catch up on.

Is it weird that after reading all of the TMDSAS drama, that really horrible Enrique Iglesias song suddenly popped into my head? The one that goes, "I need to know! I need to know! Tell me, baby girl, 'cause I need to know."

I'm super embarrassed about it.

Congrats to the glitchees! And don't lose hope for everyone else. I really don't think this is an all-encompassing type thing.

 

[seelee]

Of course there is plenty of evidence for this. Taking psychoactive drugs alters consciousness. Traumatic brain injury can dramatically change one's personality, rationality, emotional reactivity, etc.

We may not know exactly how consciousness emerges from brain activity, but in light of everything we know about the brain, it would be very difficult to argue that consciousness exists outside of our physical body.

Where do you think it comes from if not from the nervous system?

I am arguing more from a philosophical perspective. I think that Crick's hypothesis, that the consciousness is merely a sum of the chemical reactions that occur in the nervous system is overly simplistic. Yes, the nervous system does play a vital role in consciousness. However, how can we know at what stage does the fetus become conscious? And how do we know that consciousness doesn't exist before the nervous system develops. Bottom line, it is easier to think that the fetus is not conscious because then we do not feel guilty about abortion, stem cell research, etc.

 

[seelee]

Bob, that's a fairly egregious characterization of what I said. Of course you wouldn't be able to do that. The law obviously considers that murder and you would be in jail. No one in the US has the right to kill their born child.

I haven't read to the end of the posts, so someone else might have responded to this...if so disregard

Dr Sno, your views don't seem consistent. You say that personhood begins with consiousness which begins years after birth, yet it is immoral to kill a born baby because the law says so?

Two follow up questions,

do you agree with the law that forbids infanticide?
if a law were passed to ban abortions except in extinuating circumstances (incest, rape, etc) would you agree with an abortion ban then?

 

[savant]

As they say, hope for the best... but expect the worst...

 

[DrSno]

do you agree with the law that forbids infanticide?
if a law were passed to ban abortions except in extinuating circumstances (incest, rape, etc) would you agree with an abortion ban then?

Yes I agree with the law forbidding infanticide, not on philosophical grounds, but for pragmatic reasons.
No, I would never agree with a ban on abortions. We don't have to wonder whether embryos/fetuses are conscious. We were all embryos/fetuses at one time and we certainly were not conscious.

 

[DrSno]

Bottom line, it is easier to think that the fetus is not conscious because then we do not feel guilty about abortion, stem cell research, etc.

You have the flow of reasoning as
We want abortions, stem cell research--->We decide fetus is not conscious
which is actually backward
We know embryo/fetus is not conscious--->abortions and stem cell research are ok

 

[ibleedorange]

No change for me...I had 1 prematch offer & it still says:

You do NOT have multiple offers from schools.

How I hate that sentence.

 

[jonhasaheart]

You have the flow of reasoning as
We want abortions, stem cell research--->We decide fetus is not conscious
which is actually backward
We know embryo/fetus is not conscious--->abortions and stem cell research are ok

Well, it's not "actually" anything, since there is considerable room to argue whether or not your view is "actually" correct.

Seelee's made an astute observation, though; we often try to find excuses for ourselves to justify our actions. When we can't meet an ideal, we have a tendency to try and lower the bar to suit our needs.

I'm noticing some influence of Locke on your thought. Are you a proponent of the idea of tabula rasa? And also, can I ask on what "pragmatic grounds" you agree with the forbidding of infanticide?

No change for me...I had 1 prematch offer & it still says:

You do NOT have multiple offers from schools.

How I hate that sentence.

We're on the same page there, my friend, haha. I hate the sentence as well. It's almost there as if mocking us.

 

[stereo]

I am arguing more from a philosophical perspective. I think that Crick's hypothesis, that the consciousness is merely a sum of the chemical reactions that occur in the nervous system is overly simplistic. Yes, the nervous system does play a vital role in consciousness. However, how can we know at what stage does the fetus become conscious? And how do we know that consciousness doesn't exist before the nervous system develops. Bottom line, it is easier to think that the fetus is not conscious because then we do not feel guilty about abortion, stem cell research, etc.

Why do you think Crick's hypothesis (which is probably similar to the beliefs of at least 98% of neuroscientists) is overly simplistic? Are you proposing something like Cartesian dualism?

At this point, the idea that the mind emerges from brain activity is kind of like the theory of evolution. Scientists are no longer debating whether it is true. They are just trying to learn more about how it happens.

And how do we know that consciousness doesn't exist before the nervous system develops.

I just don't see how you can argue that a fetus can experience anything without the tools needed for perception and feeling.

Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about a fetus prior to the development of a nervous system.

 

[iMD]

someone call tmdsas

 

[bobsagat]

Why do you think Crick's hypothesis (which is probably similar to the beliefs of at least 98% of neuroscientists) is overly simplistic? Are you proposing something like Cartesian dualism?

I had to look up Cartesian dualism, but I realize it's pretty close to what I believe, in a sense.

I know that chemical reactions in a test tube have no consciousness, and yet deterministic science would have me believe that consciousness arises gradually from a web of similar reactions. It's all well and good for analyzing creatures from an external point of view, but when we turn the spotlight on ourselves I think it's impossible to explain why there is anything "on the inside." "I reflect, therefore I am" seems to add an imperfect wrinkle to the idea of monism, at least in my opinion. I'm not at all supposing any kind of free will here, nor am I saying that the mental and physical are not interconnected, but I can't see how the idea of one's own mind can be explained by simple monism.

Though Descartes was way off base with that pineal gland business...

 

[euryalusnisus]

As they say, hope for the best... but expect the worst...

wise words...

 

[stereo]

I had to look up Cartesian dualism, but I realize it's pretty close to what I believe, in a sense.

I know that chemical reactions in a test tube have no consciousness, and yet deterministic science would have me believe that consciousness arises gradually from a web of similar reactions. It's all well and good for analyzing creatures from an external point of view, but when we turn the spotlight on ourselves I think it's impossible to explain why there is anything "on the inside." "I reflect, therefore I am" seems to add an imperfect wrinkle to the idea of monism, at least in my opinion. I'm not at all supposing any kind of free will here, nor am I saying that the mental and physical are not interconnected, but I can't see how the idea of one's own mind can be explained by simple monism.

Though Descartes was way off base with that pineal gland business...

I'm not trying to beat this to death, but I'd still like to know what the alternative is. Just because it's difficult, based on our current knowledge, to understand how consciousness arises from brain activity doesn't mean that it must arise from something supernatural.

We have a history of ascribing supernatural causes to things that we don't yet understand scientifically (e.g. mental ******ation is a result of God punishing parents for their sins, illness is a manifestation of demonic possession, etc.). And over and over again we have discovered that these phenomena actually have natural, observable causes. To me, this just seems like another one of those cases.

Sorry if I'm making an incorrect assumption about your beliefs. I'm just trying to come to a logical conclusion, since no one taking your position is explicitly saying where they think consciousness comes from.

I think if someone wants to take the position that consciousness is not a natural phenomenon, the onus is on that person to reconcile that view with the fact that changing the brain (through psychoactive drugs or TBI, for example) alters consciousness.

 

[Merissa87]

I just called TMDSAS...they said that there was a HUGE programming glitch and that you SHOULD NOT trust the results currently on the website. Even if you "matched" they said do not trust it. If your page says "You do NOT have multiple offers froms schools..." It does not mean that you didn't match, just that you weren't affected by the error. The real results will come out on Friday

 

[Cujo]

I just called TMDSAS...they said that there was a HUGE programming glitch and that you SHOULD NOT trust the results currently on the website. Even if you "matched" they said do not trust it. If your page says "You do NOT have multiple offers froms schools..." It does not mean that you didn't match, just that you weren't affected by the error. The real results will come out on Friday

What else would they say?

 

[briton]

I just called TMDSAS...they said that there was a HUGE programming glitch and that you SHOULD NOT trust the results currently on the website. Even if you "matched" they said do not trust it. If your page says "You do NOT have multiple offers froms schools..." It does not mean that you didn't match, just that you weren't affected by the error. The real results will come out on Friday

Hmmm. Sounds like a very thin cover-up.

 

[iMD]

lol i dont even know why we bother to call tmdsas... anything they say will be met with skepticism by SDN. we'll believe what we want

 

[BoaBoaImDerek]

One less lazy than myself could go onto last year's thread and see when people were reporting being put on waitlists..

Was this ever figured out, or did I miss it somewhere along the line?

 

[BoaBoaImDerek]

I just called TMDSAS...they said that there was a HUGE programming glitch and that you SHOULD NOT trust the results currently on the website. Even if you "matched" they said do not trust it. If your page says "You do NOT have multiple offers froms schools..." It does not mean that you didn't match, just that you weren't affected by the error. The real results will come out on Friday

Friday?! what ever happened to Feb. 1?

EDIT: Ok just called TMDSAS and the reason the results will be in Friday is because the 1st is on a Sunday. I was also told that the results will not be in until 12:59PM on Friday. Interesting choice of posting time, but whatever!

 

[iMD]

aaaaaaaaaaaaand tmdsas takes away the clickable "Or View" button

 

[da8s0859q]

Hmmm. Sounds like a very thin cover-up.

It really does.

Friday?! what ever happened to Feb. 1?

EDIT: Ok just called TMDSAS and the reason the results will be in Friday is because the 1st is on a Sunday. I was also told that the results will not be in until 12:59PM on Friday. Interesting choice of posting time, but whatever!

12:59 PM? As in before 1pm in the afternoon? That's... odd.

aaaaaaaaaaaaand tmdsas takes away the clickable "Or View" button

Naturally.

Hrm, I dunno what to think.

 

[dazed1980]

I am just hoping I didn't screw something up.

you and me both!

 

[bobsagat]

I'm not trying to beat this to death, but I'd still like to know what the alternative is. Just because it's difficult, based on our current knowledge, to understand how consciousness arises from brain activity doesn't mean that it must arise from something supernatural.

I'm not making the claim, based on this argument that there is a soul. (though I do, but that is another discussion entirely) Although pure monism works well for neuroscientists in a pragmatic sense, it does not seem to hold up logically/philosophically. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

We have a history of ascribing supernatural causes to things that we don't yet understand scientifically (e.g. mental ******ation is a result of God punishing parents for their sins, illness is a manifestation of demonic possession, etc.). And over and over again we have discovered that these phenomena actually have natural, observable causes. To me, this just seems like another one of those cases.

Again, I'm not using this argument to prove the existence of a soul. I actually tend to prefer to find God in science rather than it its absence, partly because of science's great track record, which you mention here. The problem, though, is not in discovering where consciousness comes from, I think it's more in discovering where the mind comes from, if you will, the "self"-ness of each person that cannot be explained by any set of physical phenomena because it cannot be physically observed except through its effects.

Sorry if I'm making an incorrect assumption about your beliefs. I'm just trying to come to a logical conclusion, since no one taking your position is explicitly saying where they think consciousness comes from.

From a scientific perspective, I have no idea where the mind comes from. Like I said, I can tell you where I think the mind comes from, but it isn't based on dualism per se. That is, dualism jives with my faith in a soul, but does not prove it, nor is my faith dependent on its truth.

I think if someone wants to take the position that consciousness is not a natural phenomenon, the onus is on that person to reconcile that view with the fact that changing the brain (through psychoactive drugs or TBI, for example) alters consciousness.

I do not claim that they are completely independent, quite the contrary in fact. It is quite clear that psychoactive drugs have an effect on the conscious mind. The placebo effect also seems to be a way that the mind influences the brain and the rest of the body in a "software to hardware" direction. If dualism were correct, there would be clear evidence of interdependence that couldn't be ignored.

 

[savant]

lol i dont even know why we bother to call tmdsas... anything they say will be met with skepticism by SDN. we'll believe what we want

lol true

On the one hand, I find it hard to imagine a programming mistake where certain people get "matched" to a particular school and others are "matched" to another school, that ends up to be wrong. Maybe a database lookup where the synchronization between the person and the schools is messed up? CA to that is that it got many of the person's details correctly.

On the other hand, if I were the person in charge of this procedure, I wouldn't really keep the match results database accessible to the internet until it was time to release them. If they did, why not just publish the results earlier? It seems like pointless waiting then...

 

[seelee]

You have the flow of reasoning as
We want abortions, stem cell research--->We decide fetus is not conscious
which is actually backward
We know embryo/fetus is not conscious--->abortions and stem cell research are ok

First of all, how can you know that the fetus is not conscious.

Second, how can consciousness be a accurate description of personhood?

Your reasoning

1. it is wrong to kill a person
2. personhood is equivalent to consciousness
3. A fetus is unconscious
4. A fetus is not a person
5. It is not wrong to kill a fetus

However by your reasoing (2), infant, severely mentally handicapped, comatose, and several others who are regarded as persons, are not persons, and killing them is morally acceptable. However, you have said that you do not agree with killing infants for pragmatic reasons. It is wonderful that you are so pragmatic. So why then should killing of infants be forbidden, and the killing of fetuses be allowed, if by your reasoning both are non-persons?

 

[tigerLSU]

On the other hand, if I were the person in charge of this procedure, I wouldn't really keep the match results database accessible to the internet until it was time to release them. If they did, why not just publish the results earlier? It seems like pointless waiting then...

I would suspect the schools are allowed to look at the results before they are released to the applicants.

 

[aggie08]

lol true

On the one hand, I find it hard to imagine a programming mistake where certain people get "matched" to a particular school and others are "matched" to another school, that ends up to be wrong. Maybe a database lookup where the synchronization between the person and the schools is messed up? CA to that is that it got many of the person's details correctly.

On the other hand, if I were the person in charge of this procedure, I wouldn't really keep the match results database accessible to the internet until it was time to release them. If they did, why not just publish the results earlier? It seems like pointless waiting then...

Yeah, I can't imagine it being wrong. It would have to be a HUGE coincidence if it were wrong and everyone still had "glitch matches" that corresponded only to places they interviewed.

 

[seelee]

Why do you think Crick's hypothesis (which is probably similar to the beliefs of at least 98% of neuroscientists) is overly simplistic? Are you proposing something like Cartesian dualism?

At this point, the idea that the mind emerges from brain activity is kind of like the theory of evolution. Scientists are no longer debating whether it is true. They are just trying to learn more about how it happens.



I just don't see how you can argue that a fetus can experience anything without the tools needed for perception and feeling.

Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about a fetus prior to the development of a nervous system.

My only argument is that consciousness has some very abstract components that I find, are too complex to be broken down into mere chemistry. What I am talking about is the existence of a soul. It is difficult to argue that existence with reason. What I am saying is that there is no way to truly know when a person becomes conscious, because, at least, at this point we are not even sure what makes us consious. I agree that the nervous system is vital, and Crick's hypothesis could very well be true. We just don't know for sure though, and to make moral conclusions on such an uncertain foundation is foolish.

It is a moot point anyway, because I don't see how consiousness is equivalent to personhood. See reasons posted above.