What is Death?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Laziness on your part not mine.

No, 100% yours. You're the one making the claim, so the onus is entirely on you to back it up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's just sheer intellectual laziness. Since you are the person who is saying they can name these "multiple Nobel laureate neurophysiologists and neurosurgeons", then the onus is squarely on you to provide their names.

There are only 2 Nobel prizes in this century that are possibly on neuroscience (depending on how you classify these things). It wouldn't be hard to name names.

Saying "OH! Read the books, and look at the references!" is absolute bunk and shows us that you don't even care about the topic you claim to give two poos about.

Agree.

 

[Mountainmike]

There are only 2 Nobel prizes in this century that are possibly on neuroscience (depending on how you classify these things). It wouldn't be hard to name names.

Agree.

Hans. There is a lot of this. I am not pointing at one single issue.
The entire science of death has moved on massively which is begging many questions about consciousness
there are a lot of researchers involved two of which Are Nobel laureates who have concluded consciousness is not just a process of the brain , but it isnt only them .

There are many others drawn from a variety of areas of science, including many neurosurgeons,
I point at the laureates to provide it is anything but quack, and gave a couple of books as a way in to a complex subject, Their Arguments are diverse not just one. The first , sherrington , and his able protege wilder penfield concluded it from brain stimulation response in all parts of the brain for epileptic surgery. Penfield wrote a fascinating book Of his own.

It is high time this forum stopped expressing knee jerk reactions about complex scientific matters based only on core belief.
in this case that consciousness is just a process of the brain. Many researchers have concluded it isn’t.

My maxim as always , study first , opinion second.
as we say in yorkshire “ owts for nowt” you get nothing for nothing, nothing without effort .
It is pointless speaking of conclusions without the reasoning leading to them, and that takes effort.

I urge you - Study death it is fascinating.
Read lucid dying and , consciousness beyond life. Both point at many research results and history of other able researchers . .

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans. There is a lot of this. I am not pointing at one single issue.
The entire science of death has moved on massively which is begging many questions about consciousness
there are a lot of researchers involved two of which Are Nobel laureates who have concluded consciousness is not just a process of the brain , but it isnt only them .

Do they have names, or do they go to a different school (in Canada)?

There are many others drawn from a variety of areas of science, including many neurosurgeons,
I point at the laureates to provide it is anything but quack, and gave a couple of books as a way in to a complex subject, Their Arguments are diverse not just one. The first , sherrington , and his able protege wilder penfield concluded it from brain stimulation response in all parts of the brain for epileptic surgery. Penfield wrote a fascinating book Of his own.

It is high time this forum stopped expressing knee jerk reactions about complex scientific matters based only on core belief.
in this case that consciousness is just a process of the brain. Many researchers have concluded it isn’t.

My maxim as always , study first , opinion second.
as we say in yorkshire “ owts for nowt” you get nothing for nothing, nothing without effort .
It is pointless speaking of conclusions without the reasoning leading to them, and that takes effort.

I urge you - Study death it is fascinating.
Read lucid dying and , consciousness beyond life. Both point at many research results and history of other able researchers . .

 

[Mountainmike]

Do they have names, or do they go to a different school (in Canada)?

Yep. Read the books.

I don’t get the reference to Canada .

Sherrington a Brit. Eccles an Aussie.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yep. Read the books.

There names are in the books? I didn't ask about your claims in the "science", only the names of these Nobelists.

I don’t get the reference to Canada .

It's a reference to the mythical "HS girlfriend" that goes to another school, and if challenged (my cousin goes to that school) suddenly shift to "from Canada".

Sherrington a Brit. Eccles an Aussie.

Since you didn't directly answer the question, I had to *assume* that these two were the answer to the repeated inquiries to *name the Nobel laureates*, and indeed they were. They were also long dead, not even close to contemporary with 21st century neuroscience.

 

[Mountainmike]

There names are in the books? I didn't ask about your claims in the "science", only the names of these Nobelists.

It's a reference to the mythical "HS girlfriend" that goes to another school, and if challenged (my cousin goes to that school) suddenly shift to "from Canada".

Since you didn't directly answer the question, I had to *assume* that these two were the answer to the repeated inquiries to *name the Nobel laureates*, and indeed they were. They were also long dead, not even close to contemporary with 21st century neuroscience.

I hope your enquiring mind is more enthusiastic in your day job.

The Sherrington Penfield results of what happens when you stimulate brains are just as valid now.
you dispute them why?

Eccles - “how the self controls its brain “ is a 1994 publication.

By comparison
Clausers validation of the bell experiments on entanglement were 20 years before that!
Do you think we shoukd revoke clausers nobel prize because he is old or out of date?

I used those laureates only to suggest to the ideological Zealots of CF this is neither quack nor niche and they should study contemporary science which does not confirm their world view , I gave two books as a way in With bibliographies.

There are many current neurosurgeons who also dispute consciousness as a brain process,

Read the Introductions.
or stay uniformed take your pick.
you have no valid opinion till you study.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I hope your enquiring mind is more enthusiastic in your day job.

Why do you feel the compulsion to be so condescending?

The Sherrington Penfield results of what happens when you stimulate brains are just as valid now.
you dispute them why?

I've disputed nothing at this point in the thread. I haven't even engaged in your mortal topic. Nor do I intent to.

Eccles - “how the self controls its brain “ is a 1994 publication.

By comparison
Clausers validation of the bell experiments on entanglement were 20 years before that!
Do you think we shoukd revoke clausers nobel prize because he is old or out of date?

I used those laureates only to suggest to the ideological Zealots of CF this is neither quack nor niche and they should study contemporary science which does not confirm their world view , I gave two books as a way in With bibliographies.

There are many current neurosurgeons who also dispute consciousness as a brain process,

Read the Introductions.
or stay uniformed take your pick.
you have no valid opinion till you study.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I hope your enquiring mind is more enthusiastic in your day job.

The Sherrington Penfield results of what happens when you stimulate brains are just as valid now.
you dispute them why?

Eccles - “how the self controls its brain “ is a 1994 publication.

By comparison
Clausers validation of the bell experiments on entanglement were 20 years before that!
Do you think we shoukd revoke clausers nobel prize because he is old or out of date?

I used those laureates only to suggest to the ideological Zealots of CF this is neither quack nor niche and they should study contemporary science which does not confirm their world view , I gave two books as a way in With bibliographies.

There are many current neurosurgeons who also dispute consciousness as a brain process,

Read the Introductions.
or stay uniformed take your pick.
you have no valid opinion till you study.

Or you could make the effort and give us the names for the people who you feel qualified to name instead of just being a condescending fool who would be fired from every teaching job on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[SelfSim]

I hope your enquiring mind is more enthusiastic in your day job.

The Sherrington Penfield results of what happens when you stimulate brains are just as valid now.
you dispute them why?

Eccles - “how the self controls its brain “ is a 1994 publication.

By comparison
Clausers validation of the bell experiments on entanglement were 20 years before that!
Do you think we shoukd revoke clausers nobel prize because he is old or out of date?

I used those laureates only to suggest to the ideological Zealots of CF this is neither quack nor niche and they should study contemporary science which does not confirm their world view , I gave two books as a way in With bibliographies.

There are many current neurosurgeons who also dispute consciousness as a brain process,

Read the Introductions.
or stay uniformed take your pick.
you have no valid opinion till you study.

This game is worn out.

Withholding information that would promote rational discussion, is the height of ignorance.
No-one on the planet has complete information in any one area of science .. no-one!

Nearly all of your arguments always boil down to nothing more than: 'See how smart I am because I know something you do not.'

Its not the knowledge of information that makes someone smart .. its how they use what knowledge they acquire from it, which engenders feeling of 'smartness' amongst others.

Your constant withholding of information and repetitive pseudoscientific claims, does nothing more than demonstrate your ignorance of human nature and the scientific method.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why do you feel the compulsion to be so condescending?

I've disputed nothing at this point in the thread. I haven't even engaged in your mortal topic. Nor do I intent to.

I’m not condescending . It was a back handed complement.

I just have failed to meet scientists and geeks who dont radiate enthusiasm for some part of science and a thirst for knowledge . it’s part of who they are, For one thing they wouldn’t last . So I am assuming ” Hans the miserable”” can’t be bothered” is a forum persona, not the real you . I assume The real you is still interested and well informed and thirsty for knowledge on a lot of things as a professional scientist Is. I’m giving you respect.

You begged a question on the lifetime of scientific models which is of course variable, but the best science sticks for longest. Penfields test results are fascinating. The results and method live on, as does the basic nature of epileptic surgery,


I’ve never understood why people go to forum posts on a topic to say they aren’t going to talk about it!
In your case refusing to talk mortality on a mortality thread . I think Psychologists would have a field day with that !

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I’m not condescending . It was a back handed complement.

I just have failed to meet scientists and geeks who dont radiate enthusiasm for some part of science and a thirst for knowledge . it’s part of who they are, For one thing they wouldn’t last . So I am assuming ” Hans the miserable”” can’t be bothered” is a forum persona, not the real you . I assume The real you is still interested and well informed on a lot of things as a professional scientist Is. I’m giving you respect.

You begged a question on the lifetime of scientific models which is of course variable, but the best science sticks for longest. Penfields test results are fascinating. The results and method live on, as does the basic nature of epileptic surgery,


I’ve never understood why people go to forum posts on a topic to say they aren’t going to talk about it!
your case mortality on a mortality thread Psychologists would have a field day with that .

So do you have the names of these scientists or not, and are you going to present them or not?

 

[Mountainmike]

This game is worn out.

Withholding information that would promote rational discussion, is the height of ignorance.
No-one on the planet has complete information in any one area of science .. no-one!

Nearly all of your arguments always boil down to nothing more than: 'See how smart I am because I know something you do not.'

Its not the knowledge of information that makes someone smart .. its how they use what knowledge they acquire from it, which engenders feeling of 'smartness' amongst others.

Your constant withholding of information and repetitive pseudoscientific claims, does nothing more than demonstrate your ignorance of human nature and the scientific method.

Right boot. Wrong foot.

 

[sjastro]

So do you have the names of these scientists or not, and are you going to present them or not?

We know from Project Steve, there is a chance their first name is Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephanie, Stefan, or Esteban.

 

[Mountainmike]

Or you could make the effort and give us the names for the people who you feel qualified to name instead of just being a condescending fool who would be fired from every teaching job on both sides of the Atlantic.

If you read the books I referenced you would see the bibliography comprising between them hundreds of references and at least a hundred researchers . What they found and why it matters. Some will interest you , sone of it wont. That’s how I found Sherrington and wilder penfield and so I found and read penfields book. Thats how research and aquiring knowkedge works.

There are no fast food or one line answers to difficult questions .

There are many reasons why consciousness cannot just be a process of brains, drawn from multiple disciplines and many researchers that focussed on them.

If you read one of the books, or studied the advanced science you would see why.

ALL I suggested is people read two books as a summary who want to know about death and consciousness .Thats less than a week. You care or you don’t.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you read the books I referenced you would see the bibliography comprising between them hundreds of references and at least a hundred researchers . What they found and why it matters. That’s how I found Sherrington and wilder penfield and so I read penfields book. Thats how research and aquiring knowkedge works.

There are no fast food or one line answers to difficult questions .

If you read one of the books, or studied advanced science you would see why.

Oh, and here's the much easier and actually more intelligent thing to do instead of just going "READ A BOOK!", you can actually give the names of the people you feel are worth mentioning and the names of their books so people can look them up easily.

Why is that so damn hard for you?

 

[SelfSim]

Right boot. Wrong foot.

We wanna know what you think you know and how you got there .. because you're the poster here and not the people who wrote your books!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not condescending . It was a back handed complement.

Whatever it is, I can do without it. I am not interested in complements or condescension or respect, or your assessments of me.

I just have failed to meet scientists and geeks who dont radiate enthusiasm for some part of science and a thirst for knowledge . it’s part of who they are, For one thing they wouldn’t last . So I am assuming ” Hans the miserable”” can’t be bothered” is a forum persona, not the real you . I assume The real you is still interested and well informed and thirsty for knowledge on a lot of things as a professional scientist Is. I’m giving you respect.

It is not misery, it is disdain.

You begged a question on the lifetime of scientific models which is of course variable, but the best science sticks for longest. Penfields test results are fascinating. The results and method live on, as does the basic nature of epileptic surgery,

I did no such thing. Neurobiology is a relatively young field and a complex one. Many of the old case studies of the kinds of things you have posted in the past on NDEs, OBEs, etc., have been checked with more rigorous tests. That you were building your "case" on the backs of the reputations of researchers who haven't been active in decades was suspicious (and a bit surprising).

I’ve never understood why people go to forum posts on a topic to say they aren’t going to talk about it!

I never engaged you on this thread, I responded to someone else. There is nothing useful to be had in discussing consciousness or mind with you or a few other posters here.

In your case refusing to talk mortality on a mortality thread . I think Psychologists would have a field day with that !

I'm not interested in your amateur psychology anymore than your other amateur science assessments.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Now we have Ex vivo normothermic machine perfusion (EVNP) a method of organ preservation where a machine continuously pumps oxygenated blood through a harvested organ, mimicking its natural circulation at normal body temperature (normothermic). This technique is used to improve organ quality and reduce the risk of ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) during transplantation.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now we have Ex vivo normothermic machine perfusion (EVNP) a method of organ preservation where a machine continuously pumps oxygenated blood through a harvested organ, mimicking its natural circulation at normal body temperature (normothermic). This technique is used to improve organ quality and reduce the risk of ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) during transplantation.

Eureka.
A post on topic.

On similar theme :
For those who studied the source I suggested , they will know that
1/ the supposed window of minutes to avoid brain damage on cardiac patients arrest is because of oxygen toxicity ( ie repurfusion) , so Traditional methods of bringing back from arrest - oxygen too quickly- are part of the problem .
2/ that with the right chemical mix, and progressive repurfusion, entire pig brains have been brought back to function after several days in a slaughter house , and that human cadaver neural cells have also been cultured to around the size of foetus brains.
So the supposed need for rapid organ harvesting after death May not be necessary with the right treatment.