What do you believe happens when we die

pauldla

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...

I think an error here many people make is to assume that if a patient is entirely unconscious that their brain is "off". That is a dangerous assumption. The brain can still be quite active on it's own without the person being conscious.

...

Not meaning to interject, Nozz, but this paragraph reminded me of that phenomenon, surely familiar to many, of when you are driving and suddenly realise that you have absolutely no memory of the previous ten kilometers. 'Autopilot' driving. Yet had there been an incident - a child running on to the road, for example - you would immediately have snapped back to reality.

'On' and 'off' are much more complex than may seem.

babi-hrse

All our material parts just erode away into another form of physical matter or energy. Our consciousness goes probably back to wherever it came from.
I find it difficult to wrap my head around how we can all be born the same way but yet all confined to our vessel. You may look like me even twins may look alike but yet each has their own consciousness and can't just flit from one body to the next or share both experiences. The closest thing to discribe it and still fall so short of what I'm trying to say to make it a poor similae is every computer could be built the same but each one will have their own Mac address making them different in some small way that separates them.

babi-hrse

pauldla wrote: »

Not meaning to interject, Nozz, but this paragraph reminded me of that phenomenon, surely familiar to many, of when you are driving and suddenly realise that you have absolutely no memory of the previous ten kilometers. 'Autopilot' driving. Yet had there been an incident - a child running on to the road, for example - you would immediately have snapped back to reality.

'On' and 'off' are much more complex than may seem.

Its amazing how one can be focused writing a letter but when it comes to driving they can follow all the rules and end up at a location following all rules of the road and stopping at amber crossings yet have no memory of most of the journey as you said only snapping back when something requires deliberate thought.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And as we live in a Republic we should be able to live our lives utterly free from each and every diety should we wish.

That's just one thing which a secular republic should provide - also needs generally to guarantee the freedom for all citizens to hold, without state interference one way or the other, whatever metaphysical beliefs they wish, including none.

It's something which should in theory appeal to all religious people - the state shouldn't tell people what to believe - but in practice, it tends to appeal only to members of minority religious beliefs, as the majority religious belief usually manages to pervert elements of the state to its own ends.

I recall tell of a book or report or something from a few years ago which compared the RCC's approach to secularism in different countries - main finding was that where the RCC was a minority religion, the RCC supported secularism, and where it was majority, it didn't. Any idea what that might have been?

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is why I said "thus far". Parnia and a few others have been doing this work for a very long time. I first heard of the studies quite some years ago. And thus far nothing of note has come from them.

The visual tests are the interesting one as it would require the patient be outside their body.

"Audio hits" however is more vague as hearing things in your surroundings while apparently unconscious is less indicative of the paranormal or the supernatural than it is of us simply not understanding the workings of the brain.

I think an error here many people make is to assume that if a patient is entirely unconscious that their brain is "off". That is a dangerous assumption. The brain can still be quite active on it's own without the person being conscious.

When sound hits the ear hairs the body will still translate that into electrical impulses. Those impulses will still travel to the brain. And at some level the brain will still process them. I know of no reason why the brain can not "hear" sound, and even lay down that sound as memory, without a conscious perceiver being on line at the time.

So while "Audio Hits" will be very interesting in terms of our understanding the brain and it's functionality.... it will be much less interesting in terms of subjects like consciousness existing outside the body, after the death of the brain, or the existence of an after life.

Fair enough but the jury is still out and a disembodied consciousness has yet to be definitively ruled out. Imagine the excitement if it is eventually proved.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I recall tell of a book or report or something from a few years ago which compared the RCC's approach to secularism in different countries - main finding was that where the RCC was a minority religion, the RCC supported secularism, and where it was majority, it didn't. Any idea what that might have been?

This article I found to be solid in it's broad strokes history of secularism - at least in the areas I would be familiar with : Early Modern, Revolutions, and 19th century.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/secularism-its-discontents

If anyone has access to jstor this is an interesting examination of the RCC and secularism in Modern societies.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24457037?seq=1

saabsaab

Mod snip of off topic link

Nope. No link dumps not even if it's ol Blue Eyes himself singing away (whom personally I can't stand but that's by the by)

If you feel compelled to share some music with the group you will find this thread https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056234801&page=8 a more welcoming venue.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Fair enough but the jury is still out and a disembodied consciousness has yet to be definitively ruled out. Imagine the excitement if it is eventually proved.

The term "jury is out" makes it sound like it is 50:50 or something. Which is potentially misleading. There is currently NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of a "disembodied consciousness". A situation that is not captured well with the phrase "jury is out".

I could make something up right now like.... give me a moment..... ok when people are unconscious tiny little leprechauns wait until they are JUST about to regain consciousness.... jump into their ear as they are waking up.... and tell them everything they missed. That is how they think they see/hear things while they were unconscious.

Now I have absolutely no arguments, evidence, data or reasons to suggest that thing I made up is credible, likely, or true. I have nothing. Is "the jury still out" on whether it is true then? You could say so I suppose, but it would not really capture the reality of the situation there either.

I will be excited whatever the outcome turns out to be though, I agree with you there. If it turns out it is a disembodied consciousness, sure that will be massively exciting. However progress at all in understanding the brain is exciting to me. If we learn more about brain pathways and how the brain operates even when the subjectivity riding on that brain is off line... that will be exciting stuff.

For me it is analogous to "blind sight". Blind people have been shown to be able to see certain things. One interesting occurrence for example are patients who can see nothing at all. If something is in front of them in reality or on a screen they can not even tell you if it is there. However if that something MOVES, they can tell you it moved and in which direction.

This was explained because there are pathways from the eye to the brain we did not know about. While the patients were "blind" in the primary pathway we know about, it turns out a pathway for detecting motion exists too. That was exciting stuff too. At least for people like me who are excited by that sort of thing I did not need a magical woo explanation of "astral vision" or the like to be excited by the puzzle, the research, the conclusion and the answers.

Mark Hamill

saabsaab wrote: »

Fair enough but the jury is still out and a disembodied consciousness has yet to be definitively ruled out.

150,000 people die every day on earth. That is 150,000 tests a day for disembodied consciousness. Over a billion since the start of this millenium. Billions since the start of the previous one. And those tests have never once produced anything reproducible or testable to show that disembodied consciousness is possible.

The jury isn't just out, it's gone home and forgotten all about this non-starter.

saabsaab

Mark Hamill wrote: »

150,000 people every day on earth. That is 150,000 tests a day for disembodied consciousness. Over a billion since the start of this millenium. Billions since the start of the previous one. And those tests have never once produced anything reproducible or testable to show that disembodied consciousness is possible.

The jury isn't just out, it's gone home and forgotten all about this non-starter.

I assume that you left out 'die'? Many have believed they have seen dead persons close to them or in some cases not know to them and other difficult to explain phenomena. I know that such things are not repeatable scientifically testable phenomena. Mostly due to the fact that in our current state people don't come back to life. Perhaps this could happen in the future bodies in deep frozen state may be revived? I say bring on scientific investigations into this area, they are really just beginning.

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

I assume that you left out 'die'? Many have believed they have seen dead persons close to them or in some cases not know to them and other difficult to explain phenomena. I know that such things are repeatable scientifically testable phenomena. Mostly due to the fact that in our current state people don't come back to life. Perhaps this could happen in the future bodies in deep frozen state may be revived? I say bring on scientific investigations into this area, they are really just beginning.

Do you have a link supporting that assertion? (Guessing you may have meant 'are not' rather than 'are' there).

I'm not aware of cryogenics for suspending and restoring consciousness is a thing beyond sci-fi but certainly an interesting area of research. I'm sceptical as to whether it is achievable but no admittedly little about the state of current research.

saabsaab

smacl wrote: »

Due have a link supporting that assertion? (Guessing you may have meant 'are not' rather than 'are' there).

I'm not aware of cryogenics for suspending and restoring consciousness is a thing beyond sci-fi but certainly an interesting area of research. I'm sceptical as to whether it is achievable but no admittedly little about the state of current research.

Yep, are not. Many scientific discoveries have been made on previously non testable ideas as in time dilation effect at high sub light speeds. What may be next? Parallel universe?

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

Yep, are not. Many scientific discoveries have been made on previously non testable ideas as in time dilation effect at high sub light speeds. What may be next? Parallel universe?

We can but speculate. As a life long sci-fi fan I'm easily (and happily) enthralled by what might be but I suspect what will likely be is a very small subset of the same.

Hotblack Desiato

1. Propose some random possibility

2. State, correctly, "you can't absolutely rule this out"

3. Think that (2) somehow lends some sort of credence to (1).

:rolleyes:

saabsaab

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

1. Propose some random possibility

2. State, correctly, "you can't absolutely rule this out"

3. Think that (2) somehow lends some sort of credence to (1).

:rolleyes:

Yes, you can do that with anything but the trick is getting many to believe it could be true unless they think it may be seriously possible.

saabsaab

Interesting interview below..

For reasons below..

Death would be accepted, at least until recently, that if the heart stops and also brain activity stops for any reasonable period of time then you are dead. It is also interesting that in recent times people can be brought back from that state with consciousness intact. If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain? Perhaps it can remain in some form independent of the body? This may be a surprise to many and in the context of this thread interesting.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz_4FGdWVF8

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure which part is interesting? After minute 1 Parnia starts speaking and absolutely does not answer the question he was asked before bringing it back to the first thing the interviewer said about statistics on believers. So it started quite badly with a blatant evasion.

He than shows his equally blatant bias (which incidentally I am glad he has because his failure to come up with ANY evidence for his views after all these years can not be written off as him being an anti-believer scientist) when he describes studying patients who have, in his exactly words gone "beyond death". That they have done any such thing is his bias, his assumption, and his fantasy and nothing more.

The rest of the interview is him basically saying things we do not know, and showing that not knowing gives us the chance to imagine whatever conclusion we wish to. Which is hardly revelation or interesting either.

What he does not do in the interview is offer a single reason to think there is an after life after the death of the brain. The most he offers here is something we already suspected.... that actual full death of the brain may take longer than we before assumed.

What does strike me is one hypothesis he does NOT mention in the interview. So what he did not say is actually the most interesting thing about the whole clip. He is trying to understand what happens to consciousness during this period. That if it is there before a point X, not there after a point X, and then back again after some later point Y.... then what "happens" to it in this interim? Where does it go? What is it doing?

But.... why assume it "Goes" anywhere or anything "happens" to it at all? If I have a candle lit beside me it is giving off a flame. If I extinguish the candle the flame has not "gone" anywhere. Nothing is "happening to it". The candle is simply not producing it any more. If I re-light the candle the next day, because nothing has changed about the candle it gives off pretty much the exact same flame as before. It would be ridiculous to talk about what happened to the flame in that interim, or where it went, or what it was doing the whole time.

Why could consciousness be any different? Why can it not be something a brain gives off due to the underlying processes of the brain just like a candle gives off a flame due to the underlying processes going on in the wick? And if so, why would we be so surprised that if the flame (consciousness) ceases to be produced.... that hours later if the candle (brain) has not degraded that it could be relit?

The only difference under that hypothesis would be that the degradation that would prevent this happens in the brain monumentally faster than it does in a candle.

Bannasidhe

saabsaab wrote: »

Interesting interview below..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz_4FGdWVF8

MOD

Not big on link dumps in these parts - or using the likes of you tube to make your arguments.
Can you please edit your post to state what is interesting about it in your opinion, what relevance it has to this discussion etc etc?

saabsaab

I found it interesting at any rate and I’d say others would feel the same.



Death would be accepted, at least until recently, that if the heart stops and also brain activity stops for any reasonable period of time then you are dead. It is also interesting that in recent times people can be brought back from that state with consciousness intact. If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain? Perhaps it can remain in some form independent of the body? This may be a surprise to many and in the context of this thread interesting.

Bannasidhe

saabsaab wrote: »

I found it interesting at any rate and I’d say others would feel the same.



Death would be accepted, at least until recently, that if the heart stops and also brain activity stops for any reasonable period of time then you are dead. It is also interesting that in recent times people can be brought back from that state with consciousness intact. If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain? Perhaps it can remain in some form independent of the body? This may be a surprise to many and in the context of this thread interesting.

Possibly it's utterly fascinating, but rather than expect people to sit through a video - or read an article -in an attempt to discover what the person who posted it finds interesting it's considered common courtesy around here that the person posting the link provides some contextual information.
A few words explaining what is contained therein and why the poster deems it interesting/relevant will suffice. This then allows fellow posters to decide if they wish to bother.

Official mod bit
Stop dumping links with no contextual information. This is the second time in this thread you have done so. Thanking you.

saabsaab

Updated now.

Hotblack Desiato

saabsaab wrote: »

If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain?

Why would it? and hours?

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain?

As I said in my longer post above, I do not think that reviving such people suggests that their consciousness "remained intact" during death at all. Rather it just suggests that the definitions we use to define the point of death are wanting.

Even then, it still does not suggest that consciousness "remained intact". Like my candle analogy, the candle can stop producing a flame entirely for a long period of time and then be made to produce it again.

The flame (consciousness) did not "remain intact" in this time. It was simply not being produced any more. It was not the flame (consciousness) that remained intact but the candle (brain) that can produce it.

Mark Hamill

saabsaab wrote: »

I assume that you left out 'die'? Many have believed they have seen dead persons close to them or in some cases not know to them and other difficult to explain phenomena. I know that such things are not repeatable scientifically testable phenomena

Which makes them completely indistinguishable from not having happened.

saabsaab wrote: »

Mostly due to the fact that in our current state people don't come back to life. Perhaps this could happen in the future bodies in deep frozen state may be revived? I say bring on scientific investigations into this area, they are really just beginning.

And when such tests fail, watch the goalposts get shifted and such conditions be declared not dead enough or not dead in the right way to allow the spirit leave the body.

Mark Hamill

saabsaab wrote: »

Yep, are not. Many scientific discoveries have been made on previously non testable ideas as in time dilation effect at high sub light speeds. What may be next? Parallel universe?

There is a difference between non-testable because we don't have the technology and ability to test, and non testable because the claim is non-falsifiable.

Mark Hamill

saabsaab wrote: »

If consciousness can remain intact for minutes or hours after being ‘dead’ does it mean it is independent of the brain?

When a heart is transplanted, it's beating is stopped in the donor (or has already stopped), it gets put into a new person after upwards of 6 hours on ice (i.e. not beating). It can then start beating again.

Would it really make sense to say that the "beating" of the heart is independent of the heart? Or is more accurate to say that the action of an organ can be re-initiated after stopping, if the organ is kept in optimal conditions?
Consciousness is simply the action of the brain, like the beat is the action of the heart.

saabsaab

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When a heart is transplanted, it's beating is stopped in the donor (or has already stopped), it gets put into a new person after upwards of 6 hours on ice (i.e. not beating). It can then start beating again.

Would it really make sense to say that the "beating" of the heart is independent of the heart? Or is more accurate to say that the action of an organ can be re-initiated after stopping, if the organ is kept in optimal conditions?
Consciousness is simply the action of the brain, like the beat is the action of the heart.

Ok, I see where you are coming from but it was thought by many scientists that consciousness was the by electrochemical byproduct of the functioning brain. Thus it would not be expected to remain after brain activity ceases at all yet it does for a time at least.

Hotblack Desiato

A large enough clump of cardiac cells on a microscope slide will beat.

We may well find that consciousness is simply an emergent property of a sufficiently complex arrangement of neurons (or switches.) This has massive implications for AI and even what we consider to be "alive".

Certainly, looking at the animal world, we associate increasing levels of awareness / consciousness / intelligence with increasingly complex brains.

Hotblack Desiato

saabsaab wrote: »

Ok, I see where you are coming from but it was thought by many scientists that consciousness was the by electrochemical byproduct of the functioning brain. Thus it would not be expected to remain after brain activity ceases at all yet it does for a time at least.

Define "brain activity ceasing".

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

Ok, I see where you are coming from but it was thought by many scientists that consciousness was the by electrochemical byproduct of the functioning brain. Thus it would not be expected to remain after brain activity ceases at all yet it does for a time at least.

I think the issue there lies with the limitations of our current instrumentation's ability to measure this activity. Deep anesthesia for example can result in a flat EEG. This does not indicate brain death, simply levels of brain activity too low to measure by this method.