Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[Nonpareil]

Your sore point is showing. That was quite an emotional response.

It is also correct.

But even leaving the issue of predictive power aside, you're still left with nothing. Under any functional definition of "real", things like the afterlife are demonstrably not. Statements like "there is no definitive proof it doesn't exist" are only correct in the most technical sense - we must always be open to new evidence, but is there going to be any new evidence that overturns the current conclusion?

Signs point to "no".

 

[Navigator]

Science will never give you certainty, but it can reassure you beyond reasonable doubt, which will have to suffice.

It's not clear what you mean by 'non-physical', but whatever it is, to be relevant to human bodies & brains, it must interact with them in some way; so to that extent it must have physical influence (otherwise you're stuck with the perennial 'interaction problem' or an appeal to 'magic').

Now if you're prepared to accept that the science behind the microprocessor in your computer, the LEDs in the little lights around the place, the laser in your DVD or Blu-Ray player (and a whole bunch of other technological wonders of the modern age) is a reasonably good approximation of how the world works (and it is - the gadgets work, don't they?), then we can say beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness doesn't continue beyond death.

That is because the same science behind those gadgets tells us that only electromagnetism has the strength, range, and specificity at human scales to interact with the cells, or atoms & molecules of the brain. And electromagnetic fields are measurable and require all kinds of extras to support informational processes like consciousness - all stuff that is conspicuously absent after death. In case the physical theory isn't enough to convince, the whole range of human scale interactions has been thoroughly explored experimentally, and the results have borne out the theory to the limits of our ability to measure (which go way beyond scales and energies relevant to human interactions). There is currently no mechanism to support consciousness independent of a living brain. Sorry.

None that we know of. But that was not the point I made. I was focusing on belief without sufficient evidence. The evidence you take which has convinced you that you can believe without reservation that consciousness absolutely does not survive the death of the body is really insufficient. It is that simple.

 

[Navigator]

It is also correct.

But even leaving the issue of predictive power aside, you're still left with nothing. Under any functional definition of "real", things like the afterlife are demonstrably not. Statements like "there is no definitive proof it doesn't exist" are only correct in the most technical sense - we must always be open to new evidence, but is there going to be any new evidence that overturns the current conclusion?

Signs point to "no".

I said as much. Scientists deal with the physical. There are no known physical instruments which can measure the non physical. Thus one can say the non physical cannot exist because it cannot be seen to exist - only well there are far too many people who have experienced this non existing nothing who - no matter what scientists say - know what they experienced. Shaking ones head and calling people names isn't going to change that fact.

Perhaps in a 'perfect' world, scientific engineering might develop a drug to 'cure' those they judge having such affliction.

 

[John Jones]

None that we know of. But that was not the point I made. [...].

You never made a point excluding the obvious: You know nothing about the discipline of science, and have nothing to teach others in that regard.

 

[Nonpareil]

There are no known physical instruments which can measure the non physical.

It's hard to measure imaginary things.

Thus one can say the non physical cannot exist because it cannot be seen to exist

Yes. Because anything that cannot, ever, under any circumstance, be shown to exist in any way, does not exist.

That's what "exist" means.

only well there are far too many people who have experienced this non existing nothing who - no matter what scientists say - know what they experienced.

No, they don't.

They think they do. They are wrong.

 

[Jodie]

It is odd, Jodie, that as I posted, your references on chips and neurons only confirms that neural actions are just physical exchanges of ions that can be induced and sensed by electrodes and electronics, as has been known for many decades. The electronics discussed in these articles are more complex than many used before, but are no different in principle, and only highlight the idea that the actual forms of neural conduction and electronic conduction differ in their nature, but that one can be "converted" into the other. Just as in computer electronics, if you turn the physical components fully off (kill them) the neural pulses that make up our thoughts disappear and our thoughts disappear. Your citations argue against your viewpoints.

I suppose it depends on how far you read into the subject. At some point they propose to augment the human mind with these kinds of innovations. In that case you would have a better idea of what actually happens when someone dies.

If a microprocessor or chip cold be used to see the visual perception of what one sees on the brink of death, or after death upon autopsy, then you could most certainly determine when the event occurred, what was involved, and whether it actually happens to everyone.

 

[MuDPhuD]

I said as much. Scientists deal with the physical. There are no known physical instruments which can measure the non physical. Thus one can say the non physical cannot exist because it cannot be seen to exist - only well there are far too many people who have experienced this non existing nothing who - no matter what scientists say - know what they experienced. Shaking ones head and calling people names isn't going to change that fact.

Perhaps in a 'perfect' world, scientific engineering might develop a drug to 'cure' those they judge having such affliction.

Are you among them?
There are many, myself included, who have experienced vivid hallucinations, many who have experienced "sensed presence", or autoscopy. Everything I have encountered which people experience can be explained as the function of the brain, indeed requires the brain and its appendages to be experienced.
Could you describe what it is you have experienced which leads you to reject the brain as its source?

 

[Jodie]

The only analogy I can come up with to explain what I think happens is that the brain works as a type of conduit or interface for whatever consciousness really is. From reading responses here I don't think everyone agrees with what consciousness is, nor does anyone else in the world, so that's no surprise. For me consciousness is that "something" that animates the body.

There has to be something more to life since those that live on that are "brain dead" can't live indefinitely on artificial life support. When I say "brain dead", the brain itself isn't a necrotic piece of meat sitting inside your skull, it simply means there is no electrical activity present. If we are just organized protoplasm then why can't artificial life support sustain a body for the rest of it's normal life span?

 

[Nonpareil]

The only analogy I can come up with to explain what I think happens is that the brain works as a type of conduit or interface for whatever consciousness really is.

This goes against the evidence in hand, and has no evidence supporting it.

There has to be something more to life since those that live on that are "brain dead" can't live indefinitely on artificial life support. When I say "brain dead", the brain itself isn't a necrotic piece of meat sitting inside your skull, it simply means there is no electrical activity present. If we are just organized protoplasm then why can't artificial life support sustain a body for the rest of it's normal life span?

It essentially can, so far as I am aware (though I am not a doctor). Even if it can't, it's just a matter of the machines not being up to scratch yet, rather than it being impossible.

It just usually doesn't, because there's no real point.

 

[Jodie]

I don't think so:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

I'm not a doctor either, but artificial support is primarily via a respirator which keeps the brain cells oxygenated. If that is all that prevents hypoxia then why does the brain activity cease?

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't think so:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

You don't think... what?

You keep bringing up Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness, which, aside from being widely criticized in the scientific community, doesn't appear to have much to do with anything. What is your point?

I'm not a doctor either, but artificial support is primarily via a respirator which keeps the brain cells oxygenated. If that is all that prevents hypoxia then why does the brain activity cease?

It doesn't. Even patients who are in a vegetative state possess some level of brain activity.

A person with no brain activity is dead.

 

[Aepervius]

Your sore point is showing. That was quite an emotional response.

No. I have simply an direct approach that people on the net find abrasive.
But it is quite unemotional.

Convincing the 'us' you speak of is not an agenda of mine. If the 'us' want to believe whatever they will, then they will. That is the power of belief.

In other word : puff the dragon. You simply have no argument so you resort to "hey man everybody got to believe whatever he wants". I also note that you did not find anything wrong with the reasoning I presented.

Got it.

 

[Aepervius]

The only analogy I can come up with to explain what I think happens is that the brain works as a type of conduit or interface for whatever consciousness really is. From reading responses here I don't think everyone agrees with what consciousness is, nor does anyone else in the world, so that's no surprise. For me consciousness is that "something" that animates the body.

Electrical jolt to the muscle also animate the body. You may want to add "directed" animation of the body to that.

There has to be something more to life since those that live on that are "brain dead" can't live indefinitely on artificial life support. When I say "brain dead", the brain itself isn't a necrotic piece of meat sitting inside your skull, it simply means there is no electrical activity present. If we are just organized protoplasm then why can't artificial life support sustain a body for the rest of it's normal life span?

Doctor can chime on that opne , but there are processes which simply make it so that the rest of the body will start dying and decaying. Among other bed sores. I do not remember the list of it, but some stuff simply start shutting down no matter how much mechanical help we have.

Now we may find solutions to those, it is just that the solution might not be worth it.

 

[Navigator]

Science will never give you certainty, but it can reassure you beyond reasonable doubt, which will have to suffice.

It is interesting that some would feel the need to be reassured (that consciousness does not survive the body)
I don't have a problem with either case. That is likely one reason why 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not sufficient enough. Certainty is sufficient, and you should have gathered that I am not complaining at all that scientists are unable to be certain about this. I have explained already why that is the case. It is not something scientists should be overly interested in as there is no known and accepted scientific method in which to give certainty in answer to the question.

It's not clear what you mean by 'non-physical', but whatever it is, to be relevant to human bodies & brains, it must interact with them in some way; so to that extent it must have physical influence (otherwise you're stuck with the perennial 'interaction problem' or an appeal to 'magic').

By 'non physical' I simply mean 'other than strictly fixed and observable in this universe.' It is something of a concept.
So essentially 'non physical' in that context would have to signify 'unable to presently observe through our physical senses even with present day instrumentation.'

Certainly there are those who have (and do) experience being conscious and not in their body. I myself have experienced going through ceiling and roof. Since both are solid objects then it must have been the consciousness I am which was 'non physical'. Therefore I can extend this to understanding that consciousness is non physical. I am thus non physical even if I am within a physical receptacle, such as the human body.
One can of course observe how consciousness interacts with biological instruments (such as human bodies).


That in itself may well signify relevance to the individual who experiences such. There is certainly interaction therein. The interaction is different, that is all.
I have never read anyone experiencing such, claiming it was 'magic'. I would not consider my own experiences to being 'magic'. Some say it is a 'trick of the brain'...that is the nearest example I can think of which would be an appeal to 'magic'.

It occurs to me (correct me if I am wrong) that the greater percentage of an atom is empty space. Is empty space non physical?

Now if you're prepared to accept that the science behind the microprocessor in your computer, the LEDs in the little lights around the place, the laser in your DVD or Blu-Ray player (and a whole bunch of other technological wonders of the modern age) is a reasonably good approximation of how the world works (and it is - the gadgets work, don't they?), then we can say beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness doesn't continue beyond death.


That is because the same science behind those gadgets tells us that only electromagnetism has the strength, range, and specificity at human scales to interact with the cells, or atoms & molecules of the brain. And electromagnetic fields are measurable and require all kinds of extras to support informational processes like consciousness - all stuff that is conspicuously absent after death.

Cadavers! So yes, I have mentioned already that a dead body involves the absence of consciousness. You are saying that electromagnetism is also absent from the cadaver? If Consciousness does indeed survive the death of the body, then obviously it does not require the body in order to continue being.

As I have said, such a question (does the individual consciousness survive the death of the body) cannot be answered. Pointing to a dead conscienceless cadaver does not answer that question. It only says that the body has died and that the consciousness which once existed in that body is no longer in that body.

I understand that those who believe the particular interpretations of scientific examination which grants them a feeling of relief have obvious need for such reassurance. I don't pretend to understand exactly what that need is, or why the need exists at all.

We each have needs, and those needs are different for different folk. I can respect those needs to the point where they don't attempt to infringe on my person or insist that I adopt the same beliefs.

In case the physical theory isn't enough to convince, the whole range of human scale interactions has been thoroughly explored experimentally, and the results have borne out the theory to the limits of our ability to measure (which go way beyond scales and energies relevant to human interactions). There is currently no mechanism to support consciousness independent of a living brain. Sorry.

I would say that the truer statement would be "There is currently no mechanism to support consciousness independent of a living brain that we know about."

Which is a whole different story.

 

[Aepervius]

Doctor can chime on that opne , but there are processes which simply make it so that the rest of the body will start dying and decaying. Among other bed sores. I do not remember the list of it, but some stuff simply start shutting down no matter how much mechanical help we have.

Now we may find solutions to those, it is just that the solution might not be worth it.

Actually I am finding cases where the brain is dead, but lower brain maintain function or even with emchanical help function are maintained for years, with treatment for stuff like bed sores.

So it looks like in some cases the body can be maintained for a long time.

The lack of movement is what probably do it in after a while.

 

[Navigator]

In other word : puff the dragon. You simply have no argument so you resort to "hey man everybody got to believe whatever he wants". I also note that you did not find anything wrong with the reasoning I presented.

Got it.

My observation is that (on the subject of consciousness possibly surviving the death of the body) there are two distinct and opposing beliefs, neither of which I have reason to believe in myself.

Death will settle it for me, you and everyone else. We will either cease to exist or continue on, consciously speaking.

It seems prudent (for the sake of argument, as the saying goes) to allow people their beliefs, whichever side they fancy. So long as they remain respectful of my choice not to believe either way and don't resort to damning me to some hell or implying I am a nut job.

That is reasonable, do you not agree?

 

[Aepervius]

My observation is that (on the subject of consciousness possibly surviving the death of the body) there are two distinct and opposing beliefs, neither of which I have reason to believe in myself.

Death will settle it for me, you and everyone else. We will either cease to exist or continue on, consciously speaking.

It seems prudent (for the sake of argument, as the saying goes) to allow people their beliefs, whichever side they fancy. So long as they remain respectful of my choice not to believe either way and don't resort to damning me to some hell or implying I am a nut job.

That is reasonable, do you not agree?

No. Belief may be allowed for personal decision, but not for matters of law, science, and policies.

So you may believe whatever you want. But when doing medicine for example I want science, not belief.

That's where I think we split off : you only consider the belief to be important and your own implication after death. I consider the implication of said belief could have *before* death to be far more important, into what it could lead people to do wrongly to others. I do not care about after death, because there is nothing from science POV and even if there was it is utterly closed to us.

To give you another example : it is the belief of some people that suicide is a sin. And so there ar some which are so much in paina nd get berated to live on and not go for suicide because it is a sin. Belief intrude in life and making a living hell.

Other believe that if they martyr themselves killing infidel they got 72 raisins. or virgins. Whatever. Their belief upon what happens after death directly impact other people.

Any belief after death which is used to impact life I watch with verrrrry high suspicion. You only look at the stories without the implications.


Off too work .

 

[dlorde]

I was focusing on belief without sufficient evidence. The evidence you take which has convinced you that you can believe without reservation that consciousness absolutely does not survive the death of the body is really insufficient. It is that simple.

I thought I made it clear there is no certainty in science, but confidence beyond reasonable doubt is possible. This is not the same as belief without reservation.

 

[dlorde]

It is interesting that some would feel the need to be reassured (that consciousness does not survive the body)
I don't have a problem with either case...

I used 'reassure' for your benefit, as your reluctance to accept the implications of the evidence suggested you were uncomfortable with letting go of wishful or magical thinking. I'm glad to hear this isn't the case.

By 'non physical' I simply mean 'other than strictly fixed and observable in this universe.' It is something of a concept.
So essentially 'non physical' in that context would have to signify 'unable to presently observe through our physical senses even with present day instrumentation.'

If it has any significant effect on our brains, it can be observed and measured, and that makes it physical. If it has no effect on our brains then it is irrelevant.

Certainly there are those who have (and do) experience being conscious and not in their body. I myself have experienced going through ceiling and roof.

Me too. They are internally generated experiences. We can trigger such experiences in the lab, and we know roughly how they occur.

Therefore I can extend this to understanding that consciousness is non physical. I am thus non physical even if I am within a physical receptacle, such as the human body.

These are invalid inferences. Experiences don't necessarily reflect external reality. An amputee experiencing a painfully clenched phantom limb fist doesn't really have a clenched fist - it's an artefact of inappropriate brain function. If you mess with the brain areas involved with multisensory integration, you can trigger all kinds of experiences from OBEs to feeling at one with the universe.

Some say it is a 'trick of the brain'...that is the nearest example I can think of which would be an appeal to 'magic'.

Stimulating an appropriate part of the brain can result in the experience of a vivid memory, a smell, a voice, an hallucination, an emotion, a sense of being outside the body, a sense of revelatory enlightenment, etc. Not magic, not 'tricks', just brain functions. Anomalous sensations and experiences happen to everyone occasionally, the brain is pretty reliable, but has glitches now and then.

Is empty space non physical?

No.

You are saying that electromagnetism is also absent from the cadaver?

No. What makes you think that?

I would say that the truer statement would be "There is currently no mechanism to support consciousness independent of a living brain that we know about."

Which is a whole different story.

There are futuristic ideas about 'uploading' consciousness to artificial brain emulations (about which I have serious reservations), so I'll concede that possibility, but otherwise, no, there are no means by which an informational process like human consciousness can be maintained without a complex physical substrate such as a brain; that consciousness is a result of brain activity ought to be sufficient to establish that.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Statements like "there is no definitive proof it doesn't exist" are only correct in the most technical sense.

An analogy I've used in the past involves a claim that a '67 Dodge Dart is orbiting a star somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. The inability to empirically demonstrate the absence of the extra-terrestrial Dart is not a good reason to conclude that it most likely exists.