Consciousness in death

[SuperCoolGuy]

It can't do if people really are seeing events unfold from some out-of-body perspective. On the other hand, if we assume that's just a fabrication, then that's begging the question to a large measure.

In my view, the CLAIM of out-of-body experience isn't a fabrication. However, simply assuming that the experience occured at the exact time that the brain in question was fully non-functioning (brain dead: see the OP), that's where the problem lies. Most (myself) assume OBE operate in a similar manner to dreams, or at the very least, occur because of something going on in the brain.

The point of the OP were two examples where the brain was completely shut down, yet an OBE occured. However:

For the man mentioned in first case in the OP: assuming it actually happened, the OBE could have occured anytime while the guy was in the freezer, right after the car accident, on the slow ride to the coroner, etc.

For the second case, an OBE could have occured as the women was sedated prior to surgery, anytime during the surgery when her brain had some function, and anytime when her brain regained function and prior to her fully waking up. That amount of time could have been minutes to hours. How long was her OBE?

In other words, the OBE can still be tied to a functioning brain in both cases mentioned in the OP. That's all.

 

[Lamuella]

All my dreams certainly occur in real time.

"I don't believe you."

 

[Imaginative]

Just a thought here but...


What if the entire atomic structure of the brain operates as a unique wave function which gives us that feeling of I'ness and when brain activity is interupted/stopped consciousness is unable to manifest itself but on resumption, the wave funtion harmonises with surrounding matter/reality and full consciousness is resumed with restored identity as if no time time had passed for the affected person.

This could explain the experiences of people who come back from uncousious states.

I'm bullet proof you know, so do your worst.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

What if the entire atomic structure of the brain operates as a unique wave function which gives us that feeling of I'ness and when brain activity is interupted/stopped consciousness is unable to manifest itself but on resumption, the wave funtion harmonises with surrounding matter/reality and full consciousness is resumed with restored identity as if no time time had passed for the affected person.

First off, this conversation is doomed to fail if consciousness is not clearly defined. For the purposes of what I'm about to say, I'm treating consciousness as the ability to actively perceive and process outside stimuli. If a person is asleep, their consciousness is decreased.

A single wave function describing a brain would account for all the probablity distributions of energy and position of all the electrons, protons and neutrons making up the variety of cells, as well as electrochemical actitivity.

Problem is, what about blood and oxygen going in and out. What about energy from food. Body temperature as heat. The brain isn't an isolated system by a long shot in the body.

I don't understand how describing a brain as a single wavefunction gives us our oneness or "feeling of I'ness".

Anyway, it sounds like once the brain activity is stopped, the wave function is shut off. Well, no, because the brain is still there. Sure, there's less to no electrical activity with loss of consciousness. But the brain (atoms, electrons) still exists. The wavefunction still exists. Loss of brain activity doesn't mean loss of wavefunction.

Now I'm going to talk about consciousness as a more complex concept (sense of me, perception, sapience):
If we treat consciousness as electrical activity (active communcation between parts of the brain), then things make a lot more sense. Interrupt communication between certain parts, and the qualities of the consciousness change (sense of self, recognition of self, identity, emotions, ability to perceive outside stimuli). This has been widely observed.

Now, how can you suppress all electical activity in the brain? Stop the heart. Starve the brain of oxygen. Starve the cells of nutrients. Suppress sufficient heat to get to the brain. In all cases, destroying the cells that serve to keep that electrical activity going.

If your "wavefunction" for consciousness is electrical activity, and the "surrounding matter/reality" are the cells that generate, conduct, and receive that electrical activity, then your analogy/model kinda works.

However, the electrical activity in the brain and the brain cells themselves really can't be seperated. That's because the processes that keep the cells alive are embedded with the processes that provide the electrical activity. That is, I am not aware of any approach that can shut down all electrical activity in the brain but keep all the brain cells alive. If there is, I'd very much like to hear about it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

First off, this conversation is doomed to fail if consciousness is not clearly defined. For the purposes of what I'm about to say, I'm treating consciousness as the ability to actively perceive and process outside stimuli. If a person is asleep, their consciousness is decreased.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what consciousness is. And consciousness is impossible to define.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

First off, this conversation is doomed to fail if consciousness is not clearly defined.

Interesting Ian: "That has absolutely nothing to do with what consciousness is. And consciousness is impossible to define."

Sigh. See what I mean.

 

[Meffy]

<KennethWilliams> We be doomed, I tell'ee, dooomed. </KennethWilliams>

 

[Interesting Ian]

And that is the proof of logic, Ian says it is weird so it must be the way it happens.

Well no. I accept that the fact it is weird, and doesn't happen to me doesn't prove it doesn't happen.

Oh well 'sceptic and non-sceptics'. And now you can communicate by random eye movements, when did the REM become prearranged?

Remember that everyone dreams every night and REM always occurs when one dreams.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'll weigh in on the side of common knowledge that dreams do not occur in real time. I often have dreams that seem to take place over several hours when I've only been asleep a short time. I've spoken to others about this, and they have concurred. As someone else said, in the time between snooze alarms (seven minutes on my clock), I can have an entire dream that spans a lot longer than seven minutes.

Are you saying that all of your dreams do not occur in real time? So how is it that I'm the only person it never happens to then? I'm suspicious of this and wonder if people only think that they are existing in some sort of accelerated state whilst dreaming.

 

[Interesting Ian]

{from site I linked to}
"We do not observe the spirit cease to exist, because we do not observe the spirit at all, only its manifestations in the body."

SuperCoolGuy
How convenient.

What the guy says is so obviously correct. It's very very clear to me (and probably all normal people) that we never observe consciousness but only ever observe its manifestations in the body. My behaviour is not itself consciousness, but rather the result of consciousness i.e the causal efficaciousness of my consciousness causes some of my body movements.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I would say it does not.

What it does do, though, is put the burden of proof back on the "survival" claim. If these NDE's could be dreams before or after the "death" incident, seeming longer than that time could seemingly explain, we are back to square one, with no definitive proof of survival.

This is not direct evidence against, but merely discounts the phenomenon as evidence for.

Of course it doesn't discount the phenomenon as evidence for! How could it possibly do that? You're mixing up evidence for survival with definitive proof of survival (everyone on here seems to mix up the words evidence and proof except me).

Who is claiming that NDEs give definititive proof of survival? They merely powerfully suggest it (although not as powerful as the reincarnation research from the alleged memories of young children).

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think that lucid dreams would be more likely than other dreams to occur in real time. If the research looks mostly at lucid dreams (for very good reason, I might add--it gives the opportunity for a clear signal from the dreamer to the researcher), this would tend to pile up "real time" evidence, perhaps artificially.

Remember that lucid dreams are just the same as ordinary dreams except one realises one is dreaming. In most of our dreams when we question whether we are in fact dreaming we reject that hypothesis. The minority where we conclude we are dreaming become lucid dreams (by definition). The only difference therefore is that in lucid dreams we might be more conscious than in normal dreams.

So if lucid dreams occur in real time where as normal dreams do not, this presumably will be due to how conscious we are during our dreams. The less conscious we are the more accelerated time appears to be relative to normal time. But these dreams -- being less conscious -- are more prone to being misremembered. I still feel sceptical that people are inhabiting a Narnia type Universe in their dreams! (many 1000's of years sometimes passed in Narnia for only 1 of our years).

There's another thing to consider. If lucid dreams occur in real time because we are more conscious, then in OBEs we would expect precisely the same. Indeed these phenomena are supposed to be very closely related.

On the other hand, in the NDE, especially the life review stage, people allege that they appear to be living in a timeless state, and that although they experience everything that has ever happened to them as well as how it effected other people, they have no idea how much time passed when this occurred. The concept of time just didn't seem to have any relevance rather them living in an accelerated state though.

On the other hand, "real time" is relative. Einstein's example was "when you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours. That's relativity."

I have to say that's never happened to me either. Time always appears to pass at the same rate to me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

In my view, the CLAIM of out-of-body experience isn't a fabrication. However, simply assuming that the experience occured at the exact time that the brain in question was fully non-functioning (brain dead: see the OP), that's where the problem lies.

I don't assume it. However it is backed up by a huge amount of anecdotal evidence.

In other words, the OBE can still be tied to a functioning brain in both cases mentioned in the OP. That's all.

I don't think many people would deny that it could be. But the pertinent question here is what is it reasonable to believe?

 

[Meffy]

Are you saying that all of your dreams do not occur in real time? So how is it that I'm the only person it never happens to then?

Because it does not happen to you either. You are deceiving yourself. That's understandable. The impression is strong and convincing. But an impression is all it is.

I take it you have never actually tested your subjective impression that your dreams are taking place in real time. Is that the case? Or have you undertaken actual, rigorous, scientific testing? Not "I feel this is so" but "this has been measured."

Read up a little on sleep research. I think your claim of uniqueness is a phantom, and a large body of knowledge agrees.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Because it does not happen to you either. You are deceiving yourself. That's understandable. The impression is strong and convincing. But an impression is all it is.

I take it you have never actually tested your subjective impression that your dreams are taking place in real time. Is that the case? Or have you undertaken actual, rigorous, scientific testing? Not "I feel this is so" but "this has been measured."

Read up a little on sleep research. I think your claim of uniqueness is a phantom, and a large body of knowledge agrees.

I "test" my subjective impression of elapsed time in dreams in the very same way as I test my subjective impression of elapsed time in real life -- namely I look at my watch. I look at my watch when I wake up that is. And just as in real life I have pretty much a good idea what time it is even before I look at my watch (although actually I still have a good idea even in dreamless sleep).

You're saying that my impression that time passes at the same rate in my dreams as in real life is an illusion?? You must be kidding, right?

 

[Meffy]

There's an ambiguity here. Let's clear it up or further palaver will be counter-productive. Even more so than usual.

Are you saying that your dreams don't go past as if watching fast-forward on a video tape, or in slow motion? That's not in question as far as I know. I can think of nobody ever claiming they experienced Keystone Kops-style fast action or molasses slow-mo as a regular mode of time perception in dreams. Though the slow thing does seem to happen sometimes in my dreams, I'm always aware within the dream that I've slowed down while the rest of the world is going on as usual.

The issue as I see it is whether the real-world elapsed clock time is the same as (or close to) the time you believe has passed in your internal dream world. And all the research seems to point to "no, it isn't."

 

[Dredred]

I'm suspicious of this and wonder if people only think that they are existing in some sort of accelerated state whilst dreaming.

Likewise I wonder if people only think they've had an OBE or NDE.

 

[Interesting Ian]

.

The issue as I see it is whether the real-world elapsed clock time is the same as (or close to) the time you believe has passed in your internal dream world. And all the research seems to point to "no, it isn't."

What research? I only know of research into lucid dreamers. As far as I'm aware their dream time goes at the same rate as real time. So can you point to any of this research?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Likewise I wonder if people only think they've had an OBE or NDE.

The only way that would be possible would be if it's a false memory -- a rather implausible hypothesis. Otherwise, by definition of the word experience, you cannot think you are having an experience whilst you are not really.

 

[Dredred]

The only way that would be possible would be if it's a false memory -- a rather implausible hypothesis. Otherwise, by definition of the word experience, you cannot think you are having an experience whilst you are not really.

Well I'm not saying they didn't have an experience. It's just the moment they've had it (during or right before or after the non-functioning of the brain), and the interpretation of their experience that's questionable.