Death and Sleep

[Paradoxum]

When you go to sleep, do you die? I mean, your conscious self seems to disappear for a bit, when you aren't dreaming... so is your Self dead then?

Or does it make sense to think we continue on, since our mind still exists in some way, even if it isn't currently formed into the Self (that it could form)? The brain still can still wake up, and make the Self conscious again... but does that prior state really count as existing?

Even if you do die, perhaps it still makes sense to think the person who wakes is still you... since the brain (which is you most of the time) still holds all the data to turn you back on. Or maybe your Self exists unconsciously/ subconsciously through sleep. eg: the same (or similar) sorts of mental or physical processes go on as if there were a Self, but aren't integrated into a conscious Self. Am I talking nonsense?

So what do you think is needed for the 'me' of this moment to be the 'me' of the next?

(I'm also thinking about this in relation to the idea of a teleporting machine, which scans you, makes a copy of you, and then destroys the original. I'd think it's quite obvious here that you would die though.)

 

[Soul2Soul]

When you go to sleep, do you die? I mean, your conscious self seems to disappear for a bit, when you aren't dreaming... so is your Self dead then?

Or does it make sense to think we continue on, since our mind still exists in some way, even if it isn't currently formed into the Self (that it could form)? The brain still can still wake up, and make the Self conscious again... but does that prior state really count as existing?

Even if you do die, perhaps it still makes sense to think the person who wakes is still you... since the brain (which is you most of the time) still holds all the data to turn you back on. Or maybe your Self exists unconsciously/ subconsciously through sleep. eg: the same (or similar) sorts of mental or physical processes go on as if there were a Self, but aren't integrated into a conscious Self. Am I talking nonsense?

So what do you think is needed for the 'me' of this moment to be the 'me' of the next?

(I'm also thinking about this in relation to the idea of a teleporting machine, which scans you, makes a copy of you, and then destroys the original. I'd think it's quite obvious here that you would die though.)

Incidentally there is a thread in the "Ethics & Morality" section that raises this idea: "Is it morally wrong to kill someone while they are asleep?"

I can't see how a person who is asleep can be considered to be dead especially if they are still breathing? Perhaps I might not be fully conscious/aware that I exist say whilst in a deep sleep but I would find it hard to believe that someone who saw me sleeping would think that I was dead ..... especially if they heard my snoring

I think that terms like "death" and/or "cease to exist" used in this type of consideration are much more philosophical than medical ... aren't they?

 

[prov1810]

Instead of thinking of the self as a particular state we could think of it as the background of our waking and sleeping states. A creatively allowing space for self-awareness to happen. Self-awareness is something that a self has.

To assume an intermittently non-existent self in moments of sleep is like saying that the universe doesn't exist in the space between entities.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

When you go to sleep, do you die? I mean, your conscious self seems to disappear for a bit, when you aren't dreaming... so is your Self dead then?

I would argue that the Self requires self-awareness and consciousness.

By pretty much every definition, sleeping is a state of unconsciousness. Thus, the Self does not exist while asleep.

Or does it make sense to think we continue on, since our mind still exists in some way, even if it isn't currently formed into the Self (that it could form)? The brain still can still wake up, and make the Self conscious again... but does that prior state really count as existing?

I think the bolded part is nonsensical. The Self is necessarily conscious. Without consciousness, there is no Self. So "making the Self conscious again" doesn't make sense.

Even if you do die, perhaps it still makes sense to think the person who wakes is still you... since the brain (which is you most of the time) still holds all the data to turn you back on. Or maybe your Self exists unconsciously/ subconsciously through sleep. eg: the same (or similar) sorts of mental or physical processes go on as if there were a Self, but aren't integrated into a conscious Self. Am I talking nonsense?

Again, I think the idea of an "integrated consciousness" is what we call "the Self". So I think the bolded part is nonsensical.

So what do you think is needed for the 'me' of this moment to be the 'me' of the next?

From a materialist standpoint, all that is needed is a continuation of the physical processes that are occurring in your brain. Just like any other physical process: what is it about a ball rolling down a hill one moment that causes it to continue rolling in the next moment? Answer: the physical processes acting on the ball.

(I'm also thinking about this in relation to the idea of a teleporting machine, which scans you, makes a copy of you, and then destroys the original. I'd think it's quite obvious here that you would die though.)

If such a machine were possible. It seems reasonable to assume that the Self would remain coherent.

For example, lets say you go to sleep. A very deep sleep, maybe with the help of medication. Then, lets say a group of people move you from your bed and drive you out of town and leave you on a hill. When you awake, your Self is still coherent despite being moved to a different location. All the atoms in your body remained coherent despite being transported a long distance.

 

[Paradoxum]

Incidentally there is a thread in the "Ethics & Morality" section that raises this idea: "Is it morally wrong to kill someone while they are asleep?"

Oh, I didn't read that.

I can't see how a person who is asleep can be considered to be dead especially if they are still breathing? Perhaps I might not be fully conscious/aware that I exist say whilst in a deep sleep but I would find it hard to believe that someone who saw me sleeping would think that I was dead ..... especially if they heard my snoring

Because you might consider the body to be alive, but the person/ personality to be dead.

I think that terms like "death" and/or "cease to exist" used in this type of consideration are much more philosophical than medical ... aren't they?

I'm not sure you can draw a strong distinction. What is considered medical death will depend on philosophical reflect. eg: someone could be considered dead (brain dead) if they are still breathing.

Instead of thinking of the self as a particular state we could think of it as the background of our waking and sleeping states. A creatively allowing space for self-awareness to happen. Self-awareness is something that a self has.

I don't know what that means.

To assume an intermittently non-existent self in moments of sleep is like saying that the universe doesn't exist in the space between entities.

I don't see how it is anything like that.

I would argue that the Self requires self-awareness and consciousness.

I'm not sure a Self would require self-awareness, but it would make sense for it to need consciousness. I'm not sure if that's true though.

Why would you argue that the Self requires consciousness?

By pretty much every definition, sleeping is a state of unconsciousness. Thus, the Self does not exist while asleep.

According to your definition, that would be true.

I think the bolded part is nonsensical. The Self is necessarily conscious. Without consciousness, there is no Self. So "making the Self conscious again" doesn't make sense.

Well it might be possible to consider the Self to be a process too... and such a process could perhaps be unconscious. Such a process (if expressed through the body) would act with my personality, but without consciousness.

I'm not saying this is true... I'might just putting forward an idea.

Again, I think the idea of an "integrated consciousness" is what we call "the Self". So I think the bolded part is nonsensical.

And you may be right, I'm just asking.

From a materialist standpoint, all that is needed is a continuation of the physical processes that are occurring in your brain. Just like any other physical process: what is it about a ball rolling down a hill one moment that causes it to continue rolling in the next moment? Answer: the physical processes acting on the ball.

Well I'd think it would be more specific than that. ie: A particular part of brain activity.

If such a machine were possible. It seems reasonable to assume that the Self would remain coherent.

For example, lets say you go to sleep. A very deep sleep, maybe with the help of medication. Then, lets say a group of people move you from your bed and drive you out of town and leave you on a hill. When you awake, your Self is still coherent despite being moved to a different location. All the atoms in your body remained coherent despite being transported a long distance.

But my point isn't that you are turned off then on. Such a teleporter scans you, makes a copy of you, and destroys the original. If such a copy could be made without destroying the original, then it would be very clear that the teleporter machine is actually a murder machine.

 

[Soul2Soul]

Oh, I didn't read that.


Because you might consider the body to be alive, but the person/ personality to be dead.

Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure about that although I think I understand what you are suggesting. I am finding it difficult to imagine a live body as being devoid of any personality and/or personhood even whilst asleep.

I'm not sure you can draw a strong distinction. What is considered medical death will depend on philosophical reflect. eg: someone could be considered dead (brain dead) if they are still breathing.

Perhaps not .... although in the case of being asleep I am not aware of any medical suggestions referring to any type of conscious(?) "death" .... maybe more about inactivity? For me the issue of being medically declared brain dead is not quite the same as suggesting "one" is dead whilst asleep ...... given all the complex considerations involved in that particular case of decision making.

 

[Paradoxum]

Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure about that although I think I understand what you are suggesting. I am finding it difficult to imagine a live body as being devoid of any personality and/or personhood even whilst asleep.

Well while you are asleep, and not dreaming, you aren't conscious of anything. So how is that not a lack of Self while asleep?

I'm just giving ideas, I'm not totaly sure either way.

Perhaps not .... although in the case of being asleep I am not aware of any medical suggestions referring to any type of conscious(?) "death" .... maybe more about inactivity? For me the issue of being medically declared brain dead is not quite the same as suggesting "one" is dead whilst asleep ...... given all the complex considerations involved in that particular case of decision making.

I may have understood the question incorrectly. I agree that medically someone wouldn't be declared dead because of sleep. It's more of a philosophical or psychological consideration of what it means for 'me' to exist.

 

[durangodawood]

When you sleep the self is still alive. Its just sleeping.

 

[Paradoxum]

When you sleep the self is still alive. Its just sleeping.

Does the Self exist while asleep? In what sense?

 

[durangodawood]

Does the Self exist while asleep? In what sense?

Of course it exists. When you wake up, the self is still there.

I dont know in exactly what sense the self exists during sleep, but the self that awakens proves that it carries on.

 

[jayem]

Does the Self exist while asleep? In what sense?

The Self exists in the sense that the mechanism which produces it is still functional--it's just turned off. Like a computer in sleep mode. The circuitry and information in the memory is all there, it's just powered down. Restore the juice to the processor, and it all comes back.

 

[durangodawood]

The Self exists in the sense that the mechanism which produces it is still functional--it's just turned off. Like a computer in sleep mode. The circuitry and information in the memory is all there, it's just powered down. Restore the juice to the processor, and it all comes back.

How would that allow for dreaming?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would that allow for dreaming?

The reality is that most of the brain isn't "shut off" when we sleep, and some parts become more active, hence the dreams.

 

[bhsmte]

Does the Self exist while asleep? In what sense?

I think you are reading too much into this.

Do some reading on what happens to your brain when you sleep and it may be helpful.

 

[Davian]

When you go to sleep, do you die? I mean, your conscious self seems to disappear for a bit, when you aren't dreaming... so is your Self dead then?

Not dead, just ceases to exist.

Or does it make sense to think we continue on, since our mind still exists in some way, even if it isn't currently formed into the Self (that it could form)? The brain still can still wake up, and make the Self conscious again... but does that prior state really count as existing?

Even if you do die, perhaps it still makes sense to think the person who wakes is still you... since the brain (which is you most of the time) still holds all the data to turn you back on. Or maybe your Self exists unconsciously/ subconsciously through sleep. eg: the same (or similar) sorts of mental or physical processes go on as if there were a Self, but aren't integrated into a conscious Self. Am I talking nonsense?

How about, the potential for your brain to re-create your conscious self exists. If something happens to your brain or body while you sleep, that potential changes, or disappears.

So what do you think is needed for the 'me' of this moment to be the 'me' of the next?

Remembering yourself to yourself.

When that memory falters, so does the coherency of 'self'.

(I'm also thinking about this in relation to the idea of a teleporting machine, which scans you, makes a copy of you, and then destroys the original. I'd think it's quite obvious here that you would die though.)

Yes, you would be dead, and the other would be a copy.

Technically, your 'self' is a copy, a process that begins each day when your body wakes, but at least it is the same body, and you have the memories that create the illusion of continuity from the self(s) of previous days.

Do you find these concepts to be disconcerting?

 

[Soul2Soul]

Well while you are asleep, and not dreaming, you aren't conscious of anything. So how is that not a lack of Self while asleep?

I'm just giving ideas, I'm not totaly sure either way.

Yes I see what you are getting at. I think for me, what throws a spanner in the works (in addition to me having a few screws loose ), is the notion of a cessation of self: death implies finality - in the conventional sense - so it would suggest that each time someone is asleep and their self is dead/ceases to exist then there would have to be numerous instances of resurrections - for want of a better word? Also does this resurrected self then still possess and/or maintain it's "previous" identity/personality etc?

I may have understood the question incorrectly. I agree that medically someone wouldn't be declared dead because of sleep. It's more of a philosophical or psychological consideration of what it means for 'me' to exist.

It's an interesting concept and I'd be keen to hear more.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When you go to sleep, do you die? I mean, your conscious self seems to disappear for a bit, when you aren't dreaming... so is your Self dead then?

Is the Self alive? Or is life more accurately thought of as the self-sustaining activities of the body?

If the latter, then sleep is part of those self-sustaining activities. When one is dormant, the faculty that generates the Self is refreshed, allowing the Self to re-activate. It is part of the Self's cycle of functioning. The Self doesn't "die" because it is not by itself a lifeform. It is a function of a lifeform.

Even if you do die, perhaps it still makes sense to think the person who wakes is still you... since the brain (which is you most of the time) still holds all the data to turn you back on.

Or maybe we reincarnate every morning.

But, yes, I think of the person as being the same person, just as the person is the same person from waking moment to the next waking moment. My reason for this is that there is a dynamic causal continuity along human patterns of change.

(I'm also thinking about this in relation to the idea of a teleporting machine, which scans you, makes a copy of you, and then destroys the original. I'd think it's quite obvious here that you would die though.)

That's not at all obvious to me. I come to the opposite conclusion. While one instance of you dies, you the person survive in your duplicate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mmksparbud]

Even when we are asleep--the brain continues to function. There have been many studies done on the brain during sleep--esp. with the increased numbers of people with bibromyalgia. The did studies on many individuals, while they slept, and using many more electrodes than normally used. They can see in the scans there is brain activity, it goes way down, like the lights go down as the brain slows down in preparation for sleep and goes almost dark---unfortuneately, the brains of the people with fibro were still lit up. As we are all different, there were varying areas of activity, but it was clear that the reason people with fibro feel exhausted after they wake up is because their brains never do go to sleep like the "normals."---Besides. Even people who are in a coma can register brain waves, different from brain scans,-and they can tell when a person is brain dead.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

My 2 cents:

For me sleep - as a lack of consicousness - is remembered as an absence, and that is a basic anaolgy we have for any annihilation at death.

The difference: sleep is remembered as part of a temporal experiential epispode or complex (eg I slept between evening and dawn). Its part of a life.

Annihilation is on the other hand the complete absence of all forms of knowing, including perception, recollection etc.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm not sure a Self would require self-awareness, but it would make sense for it to need consciousness. I'm not sure if that's true though.

Fair enough. Thinking about it, I'm not sure self-awareness is a prerequisite for the Self.

Why would you argue that the Self requires consciousness?

To me, the Self is the "little person inside my head" that's "looking out" into the world. That's also what consciousness is, in my opinion.

What other definitions could you give?

Well it might be possible to consider the Self to be a process too... and such a process could perhaps be unconscious. Such a process (if expressed through the body) would act with my personality, but without consciousness.

I'm not saying this is true... I'might just putting forward an idea.

The way you are defining "Self" makes it a catch-all word for anything that happens in the brain. I don't think the Self is a process, its that undeniable "little person" that is watching what's happening. It is the "observer" and the observer requires consciousness.

Well I'd think it would be more specific than that. ie: A particular part of brain activity.

I.e. A continuation of the physical processes occurring in your brain.

But my point isn't that you are turned off then on. Such a teleporter scans you, makes a copy of you, and destroys the original. If such a copy could be made without destroying the original, then it would be very clear that the teleporter machine is actually a murder machine.

I disagree. Seems like a Ship of Theseus scenario. If there was an identical copy of you, you would be an identical person for a brief instant...and then immediately start to diverge as experience dictates.