Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[jaydeehess]

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.

a 1967 Cadillac is bigger and would be easier to detect.

 

[Donn]

..
You are dealing out statements about nuts, that's all. I am calling you on that ..

I can't find where I said anything like that. As to the rest of your post, I read the words but did not find meaning. Too deepackity for me.

 

[Belz...]

Morse still fosters a supernatural view if i remember rightly, where spirits come to children as cartoon characters so as not to scare them......you couldn't make this stuff up

Indeed. As an atheist and a... asupernaturalist, I can't wrap my head around some of these beliefs, though we see similar thinking with conspiracy theorists and the like.

More accurately, all the evidence is physical and says nothing except what individual determines, and that depends on the particular beliefs of the individual, as I have already pointed out.

Are you denying the possibility of evidence and knowledge ?

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.

Why would you "think" this ? Why would you ned to come up with an explanation for something not in evidence ?

There are perfectly good, if unsatisfactory, explanations for this phenomenon. That alone is enough to discard the more fantastical ones... unless you want them to be true, that is. And even then, some people can ignore what they want and reach the proper conclusion.

 

[Belz...]

There has to be something more to life

Supernatural belief in a nutshell.

Why do you need more ?

 

[Navigator]

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.

So you do have reservations then?

 

[Navigator]

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.

If you read my posts there is no implied wishful/magical thinking.

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.

Or that makes it able to interact with the physical which gives you something you are able to measure.

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

As a matter of interest. When you experienced moving through ceiling and roof, were there any accompanying sensations?

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.

I touched on that earlier. The whole biological experience could well retard the abilities of consciousness and the lab triggers could very well be pointing to that being the case.

As to 'ghost limbs' these could be partially the result of wishful thinking and trauma.

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.

The 'glitches' can be triggered and interpreted differently. Essentially the interpretations are guesswork based upon the preferences of those doing the interpreting.

No.

Then all things are physical just not necessarily observable?

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;

Maintained or held captive?

that consciousness is a result of brain activity ought to be sufficient to establish that.

Consciousness could be or might not be the result of brain activity. Even if it were, this does not signify that without the brain the consciousness perishes. It might be that consciousness survives the death of the brain. That btw is not 'wishful thinking'. It may be a natural occurrence which we have no choice over.

On the subject of wishful thinking (since you brought it into the conversation), it could be that those like yourself who feel relief at the belief that you (an individual consciousness) will cease to exist upon the death of your body, may be the one who is thinking wishfully and why you choose to believe as you do.

As I said (and will continue to say until I get bored at having to repeat myself) I can take it or leave it. Either way does not bother me, so no - there is no 'wishful thinking' involved in the process of remaining on the middle ground rather than applying belief (for or against) the idea the consciousness might or might not survive the death of the body.

 

[Navigator]

Are you denying the possibility of evidence and knowledge ?

No.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

Only for the same reason that we can't be certain that there isn't a giant purple Tinky-Winky dancing the Macarena at the center of the universe.

Hint: for any meaningful definition of the word "certain", we are certain that this is not 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.'

In which case there is no reason to believe in it.

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.

No, there aren't, and no, you didn't.

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.

Yes, the question can be answered.

We know consciousness is brain function. This is not a hypothesis or speculation. We know. No brain function? No consciousness. Arguing that it might persist in some undetectable way after the brain stops functioning is nonsensical. A house is not a house if it is an empty lot.

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.

You could say that, yes. And you would be correct, but only in the most technical sense.

You are only correct in the same way that someone who says "there is currently no way to support an engine's functionality after it has been smashed to pieces that we know about".

 

[Belz...]

No.

Then what's your point ?

 

[dlorde]

So you do have reservations then?

I have confidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the same as belief without reservation, but it doesn't imply that I have reservations.

I can conceive of unreasonable doubts about the workings of the universe (e.g. magic, the supernatural, etc). Irrationality comes with being human. Fortunately, we are often able to suppress or replace it with rationality.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Or that makes it able to interact with the physical which gives you something you are able to measure.

If it interacts with the physical it has physical properties, that makes it physical. The interaction can be considered a measurement or observation. That which it interacts with can be considered the measuring device or observer.

As a matter of interest. When you experienced moving through ceiling and roof, were there any accompanying sensations?

Yes; predominantly nausea with disorientation, akin to vertigo (or the 'whirlies'). I still don't know exactly what was in that spliff...

The whole biological experience could well retard the abilities of consciousness and the lab triggers could very well be pointing to that being the case.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

As to 'ghost limbs' these could be partially the result of wishful thinking and trauma.

Trauma - obviously - they're amputees! but wishful thinking? why would someone wish to have excruciating pain in a non-existent limb?

The 'glitches' can be triggered and interpreted differently. Essentially the interpretations are guesswork based upon the preferences of those doing the interpreting.

I don't know what you mean by this. A seizure is a brain 'glitch', i.e. relatively large scale abnormal neural activity. Small scale misfirings or lack of synchronization occur quite often, resulting in unusual or inappropriate sensations, e.g. sensory anomalies, sense-of-self anomalies, myoclonic twitches or jerks, sensed presence anomalies, affectual anomalies, etc., depending on the area(s) involved. There's always going to be interpretation, it's how we make sense of the world.

Then all things are physical just not necessarily observable?

What? I said empty space is physical.

... 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;

Maintained or held captive?

OK, I'm out.

 

[Navigator]

Then what's your point ?

You want me to repeat the point I have been making?

 

[Navigator]

I have confidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the same as belief without reservation, but it doesn't imply that I have reservations.

I can conceive of unreasonable doubts about the workings of the universe (e.g. magic, the supernatural, etc). Irrationality comes with being human. Fortunately, we are often able to suppress or replace it with rationality.

I am trying to understand your (and other like-minded individuals) position. You have confidence beyond reasonable doubt (that consciousness does not survive the death of the body) and as such you have no reservations.

You have confidence in your belief that you (consciousness) will not survive the death of the body - that upon your death the consciousness that is you, will cease to be.

You don't know for certain but that is not the point.

You are confident enough in your belief regarding this that you seriously don't consider that as being possible, so you feel relief that you will not be experiencing anything after your body has died.

(If you find yourself still existing after your body has died, you would likely be surprised and anxious but will have to deal with it at the time.)

But you are confident beyond reasonable doubt that such a thing won't occur, thus there is no need to even contemplate that you may be incorrect.

In the here and now you are confident that will not be the case and thus you are able to believe accordingly, and feel the relief.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

 

[Navigator]

If it interacts with the physical it has physical properties, that makes it physical. The interaction can be considered a measurement or observation. That which it interacts with can be considered the measuring device or observer.

Agreed. Apparently the theory is that everything including 'empty space' is physical, even if it cannot be observed. It can be measured theoretically.
'Empty space' of course cannot be seen, but it still is physical.
Consciousness cannot be seen unless it interacts in some way which can be observed and measured.

Yes; predominantly nausea with disorientation, akin to vertigo (or the 'whirlies'). I still don't know exactly what was in that spliff...

Maybe something a little more than just weed? I 'felt' my self move through the solid object and also heard sound as this was happening. It wasn't unpleasant and it wasn't anything I had felt or heard up to that time. It was just different.

Once I cleared the roof, the stars were particularly bright, there were much more of them - like when you view them from a city perspective and then view the same sky from a country perspective. I was in the country at the time and could see far more stars than the naked eye usually sees. There was a certain stability to them as well.
The whole feeling at the time was that what I was experiencing was a clearer - more real perspective of physical reality. As this was occurring I was floating upwards and backwards and became slightly fearful.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I am turning the argument the other way around. Poking and prodding the brain (or using drugs to open up areas) may help free the consciousness from the 'normal' state it is experiencing. Consciousness may have abilities which are retarded by the biological instrument.
Think of consciousness as water. Water flows freely. Place some in a jar and it is separated from that free flowing state and captured.

Trauma - obviously - they're amputees! but wishful thinking? why would someone wish to have excruciating pain in a non-existent limb?

True. I was thinking more along the lines of 'phantom' limb where the individual has the distinct feeling that the limb is still there only it isn't. My bad.

I don't know what you mean by this. A seizure is a brain 'glitch', i.e. relatively large scale abnormal neural activity. Small scale misfirings or lack of synchronization occur quite often, resulting in unusual or inappropriate sensations, e.g. sensory anomalies, sense-of-self anomalies, myoclonic twitches or jerks, sensed presence anomalies, affectual anomalies, etc., depending on the area(s) involved. There's always going to be interpretation, it's how we make sense of the world.

I won't assume all OOB type experiences have to do with seizures or glitches and if they do, then it may be these very things which allow consciousness an insight into other possibilities of which it has not being aware of.

OK, I'm out.

The universe is a complex physical structure. We know that consciousness can interact through complex biological structures. We do not know if consciousness can be maintained through other physical structures which are non biological.
We know that generally speaking consciousness is confined (constricted, captured) to the particular complex structure it is involved with and that occasionally - depending on the variables 'glitches' occur which allow for consciousness to experience something it normally wouldn't. It is most likely from these experiences that certain types of concepts arise, along with accompanying arguments against these concepts. When the human position is viewed more holistically such concepts and the opposing arguments are quite understandable and natural.

AI (since you mentioned it) is part of that natural evolving process. Mapping the human brain may give valuable insight on how to artificially create something similar and thus see if from that, consciousness would form naturally. This would go a long way in providing more evidence for the argument that consciousness is indeed a product of the brain.

Or, it may work out that no matter how powerful the AI itself is, no consciousness will come from that. It might be super intelligent but unable to be self aware.

Unless somehow consciousness can be downloaded into it - possess it. Imbue the machine.

I think that is why there is a lot of interest in developing AI. To see if that is a way of discovering more about the nature of consciousness.

 

[Nonpareil]

Agreed. Apparently the theory is that everything including 'empty space' is physical, even if it cannot be observed. It can be measured theoretically.
'Empty space' of course cannot be seen, but it still is physical.
Consciousness cannot be seen unless it interacts in some way which can be observed and measured.

Empty space can be observed.

So can consciousness.

I am turning the argument the other way around. Poking and prodding the brain (or using drugs to open up areas) may help free the consciousness from the 'normal' state it is experiencing. Consciousness may have abilities which are retarded by the biological instrument.
Think of consciousness as water. Water flows freely. Place some in a jar and it is separated from that free flowing state and captured.

No evidence.

I won't assume all OOB type experiences have to do with seizures or glitches and if they do, then it may be these very things which allow consciousness an insight into other possibilities of which it has not being aware of.

No evidence.

The universe is a complex physical structure. We know that consciousness can interact through complex biological structures.

No. We know that consciousness is the result of certain complex structures which are capable of computation. The idea of the brain being a receiver goes against the evidence in hand and has no supporting evidence itself.

This would go a long way in providing more evidence for the argument that consciousness is indeed a product of the brain.

Consciousness is a product of the brain. This is not an assertion. This is not just a hypothesis. We know this is true. Barring an earth-shattering discovery that overturns everything we know about neuroscience and the brain, this is not going to change.

And something like that would be on a level with evidence against gravity.

 

[Belz...]

You want me to repeat the point I have been making?

Stop playing games. You said:

More accurately, all the evidence is physical and says nothing except what individual determines, and that depends on the particular beliefs of the individual, as I have already pointed out.

In other words, even objective evidence is subjective. That means nothing can be known. When I pointed this out you said "no", implying that either I misunderstood your point, or that you have no idea what you're saying.

So which is it, and why ?

 

[Belz...]

No. We know that consciousness is the result of certain complex structures which are capable of computation. The idea of the brain being a receiver goes against the evidence in hand and has no supporting evidence itself.

Consciousness is a product of the brain. This is not an assertion. This is not just a hypothesis. We know this is true. Barring an earth-shattering discovery that overturns everything we know about neuroscience and the brain, this is not going to change.

And something like that would be on a level with evidence against gravity.

This bears repeating over and over. These ideas might make sense if we didn't know what we know, but we DO know what we know. The problem is that the people proposing the ideas do NOT know, and do not WANT to know because logic and reason and evidence aren't the source of their believe. They WANT it to be true.

 

[dlorde]

You have confidence beyond reasonable doubt (that consciousness does not survive the death of the body) and as such you have no reservations.

Iv'e said nothing about whether I have reservations or not.

You are confident enough in your belief regarding this that you seriously don't consider that as being possible, so you feel relief that you will not be experiencing anything after your body has died.

Wrong. Please read what I say instead of making up your own version. I am confident beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness does not survive death. I'd rather like to be around to see what the human race gets up to next, but I don't think I will be.

In the here and now you are confident that will not be the case and thus you are able to believe accordingly, and feel the relief.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

No. When did I suggest any sense of relief?

I am confident beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness does not survive death, for the reasons I have described. If anything it's a slight disappointment to me, but such is death.

 

[dlorde]

Apparently the theory is that everything including 'empty space' is physical, even if it cannot be observed. It can be measured theoretically.
'Empty space' of course cannot be seen, but it still is physical.

Quantum field theory predicts that the vacuum will be permeated with quantum fields. There are empirical confirmations of this, including the Casimir Effect. As I understand it, the fields are a property of spacetime.

Consciousness cannot be seen unless it interacts in some way which can be observed and measured.

Consciousness is a process involving neural activity. The neural activity can be observed, and the results of this activity can be observed. Similarly, running is a process involving repetitive leg activity. The leg activity can be observed, as can the results of this activity.

Maybe something a little more than just weed?

It was called 'opiated Pakistani black' (hash); I'm just not sure that's what it was.

The whole feeling at the time was that what I was experiencing was a clearer - more real perspective of physical reality. As this was occurring I was floating upwards and backwards and became slightly fearful.

Hyper-real or vivid experiences are a common feature of lucid dreams and may also occur as a result of extreme mental or physiological stress (PTSD, NDEs), and psychoactive drugs. I've had several hyper-vivid lucid dreams over the years; you don't forget them.

I am turning the argument the other way around. Poking and prodding the brain (or using drugs to open up areas) may help free the consciousness from the 'normal' state it is experiencing. Consciousness may have abilities which are retarded by the biological instrument.

That is not consistent with the evidence, unless 'freeing' consciousness typically involves a variety of impairments. Pretty much all of the aspects of consciousness as commonly understood can be modified or impaired by brain trauma. One wonders what functions are left for a 'free-floating' consciousness.

Perhaps you could suggest what aspects of consciousness might be independent of the brain - personality? attention? focus? alertness? awareness? memory? emotion? recognition? sense of self? orientation? location? conscience? ethics & morality? sense of humour? language? reasoning? anything else?

We know that generally speaking consciousness is confined (constricted, captured) to the particular complex structure it is involved...

Uh-huh. Like running is confined, constricted, captured by the legs, and breathing is confined, constricted, captured by the lungs...

It is most likely from these experiences that certain types of concepts arise, along with accompanying arguments against these concepts. When the human position is viewed more holistically such concepts and the opposing arguments are quite understandable and natural.

??

AI (since you mentioned it) is part of that natural evolving process.

No, I didn't mention AI. I mentioned uploading human consciousness to artificial brain emulations. Something I do have reservations about.

Mapping the human brain may give valuable insight on how to artificially create something similar and thus see if from that, consciousness would form naturally.

This is being done (though not with the intention of generating consciousness).

This would go a long way in providing more evidence for the argument that consciousness is indeed a product of the brain.

The evidence for that is already overwhelming.

 

[Jodie]

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?



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.

If you read the article, it seems that science wasn't exactly sure where the electrical activity picked up by an EEG originated from. The point I was trying to make should be obvious.

Brain function is much more complicated than we think, we haven't identified what consciousness is, or where it originates precisely. If we don't know those things then how can we definitively say that an NDE is caused by a brain deprived of oxygen?

A person with no brain activity is medically and legally dead, but if all the brain is, is a group of cells dependent on it's oxygen content and nutrients supplied through artificial means then life support should be adequate to maintain the brain whether it has electrical activity or not.