General anesthesia and consciousness

[trophy33]

During a general anesthesia, communication between sub-regions of brain is halted and this causes consciousness to disappear. No dreams, no observation, no experience, no memories. Just a full shut down and a restart later.

How do you interpret it from Christian and others perspective?

 

[stevevw]

During a general anesthesia, communication between sub-regions of brain is halted and this causes consciousness to disappear. No dreams, no observation, no experience, no memories. Just a full shut down and a restart later.

How do you interpret it from Christian and others perspective?

Perhaps they have discovered the on/off switch in the brain for consciousness. Just like the on/off switch on a radio reciever for radio waves.

 

[All Becomes New]

How do you interpret it from Christian and others perspective?

This does not pose a problem for Christians. It poses a problem for naturalists. Why? NDEs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps they have discovered the on/off switch in the brain for consciousness. Just like the on/off switch on a radio reciever for radio waves.

That's an irrelevant analogy. The brain is not a receiver.

 

[stevevw]

That's an irrelevant analogy. The brain is not a receiver.

How do you know.

 

[partinobodycular]

It poses a problem for naturalists. Why? NDEs.

Let me take a crack at it... brains... dying... problem solved. Got any other profound mysteries that you'd like me to solve for you?

 

[partinobodycular]

This does not pose a problem for Christians.

Of course it doesn't cause a problem for Christians, they simply fall back on their two favorite strategies... deny that it's a problem at all (without explaining why), or make something up (very popular).

To be fair, it ain't just Christians that use those two strategies. As the old saying goes, "Nothing is impossible for a man who won't listen to reason". That describes a whole lot of people.

 

[All Becomes New]

@partinobodycular, I would suggest you look into NDEs. Some of them show that even when a person has no brain activity they still experience things that cannot be reduced to something the brain is doing.

 

[trophy33]

@partinobodycular, I would suggest you look into NDEs. Some of them show that even when a person has no brain activity they still experience things that cannot be reduced to something the brain is doing.

Most people who went through anesthesia have no memories of it, its like a blackout.

Some few do, but its maybe because anesthesia is not always done perfectly, it must be constantly monitored and regulated. It also seems to be related to sex or other differences:

During general anaesthesia 1 in 10 people may be conscious following intubation

www.sydney.edu.au

What do you think happens to the first group?

During the NDE, the brain activity is undetectable. While during a general anesthesia (at least from what I read), the brain has a lot of common activity, but the frequency on which parts of the brain communicate with each other is distorted and so one part does not understand the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

@partinobodycular, I would suggest you look into NDEs. Some of them show that even when a person has no brain activity they still experience things that cannot be reduced to something the brain is doing.

Hey, I'm old. So at this point I've looked into just about everything. The idea that NDE's can't be explained by something that the brain is doing... simply suggests that we don't know enough about what the brain is doing. It doesn't suggest a need for fanciful explanations of life after death, or grandma still existing in heaven somewhere.

But hey, all in all it's a pretty harmless idea so I say stick it in there with all the other odd things that people believe, and we'll all have a good laugh about it when we're dead... or not.

 

[All Becomes New]

maybe

That's certainly not good enough.

What do you think happens to the first ones?

First one's what?

Besides, I'm not opposed to the idea that people are conscious during anesthesia. Maybe our whole idea of using anesthesia is ill-founded, meaning it does not do what we thought it did regarding consciousness?

I'd maintain that NDEs are not simply being unconscious, but that they are people who are clinically dead and there is no brain activity.

Hey, I'm old. So at this point I've looked into just about everything. The idea that NDE's can't be explained by something that the brain is doing... simply suggests that we don't know enough about what the brain is doing. It doesn't suggest a need for fanciful explanations of life after death, or grandma still existing in heaven somewhere.

But hey, all in all it's a pretty harmless idea so I say stick it in there with all the other odd things that people believe, and we'll all have a good laugh about it when we're dead... or not.

You might want to look at this:

Gary R. Habermas, Evidential Near‐Death Experiences - PhilPapers

The popular subject of near‐death experiences (NDEs) occupies a potentially crucial place in scholarly discussions of topics such as human nature and the possibility of an afterlife. This chapter investigates primarily ...

philpapers.org

 

[partinobodycular]

You might want to look at this:

Okay, I read the abstract... I hope that you don't expect me to read the whole book. I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but if you've got some cold, hard verifiable evidence then by all means hit me.

 

[All Becomes New]

Okay, I read the abstract... I hope that you don't expect me to read the whole book. I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but if you've got some cold, hard verifiable evidence then by all means hit me.

I'll give you an example. A woman was born blind. She could not see. She was at one point considered clinically dead. While she was dead she had experiences of seeing relatives and described them perfectly even though she had never seen them in her life. She reported this when she was brought back to life. Another example is a person who was clinically dead who memorized a number that was 11 digits long. I believe because of the nature of the surgery her brain was drained of blood and it was even the case that she had a device that clicked at decibels that would make it impossible for her to hear what was going on during her surgery. When she came back alive, she told a nurse to right down the number. The number was from a machine some ways away, which they found out later. These things cannot be explained naturally.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'll give you an example. A woman was born blind. She could not see. She was at one point considered clinically dead. While she was dead she had experiences of seeing relatives and described them perfectly even though she had never seen them in her life. She reported this when she was brought back to life.

This one's anecdotal, so I'm not really interested.

Another example is a person who was clinically dead who memorized a number that was 11 digits long. I believe because of the nature of the surgery her brain was drained of blood and it was even the case that she had a device that clicked at decibels that would make it impossible for her to hear what was going on during her surgery. When she came back alive, she told a nurse to right down the number. The number was from a machine some ways away, which they found out later. These things cannot be explained naturally.

This one's almost certainly anecdotal as well, but if you've got some verifiable evidence to back up the claims then I'm willing to consider it. Just give me a name and I'll Google it.

 

[All Becomes New]

This one's anecdotal, so I'm not really interested.



This one's almost certainly anecdotal as well, but if you've got some verifiable evidence to back up the claims then I'm willing to consider it. Just give me a name and I'll Google it.

What is your definition of anecdotal? It's evidence. It's not just what someone says. It's scientifically validated. You would know that if you read the source I gave you.

 

[All Becomes New]

Additionally, you can read this.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58820073.pdf

 

[partinobodycular]

What is your definition of anecdotal? It's evidence. It's not just what someone says. It's scientifically validated.

Here's the problem, and this always seems to be the problem. You cited the example of a woman who had an NDE, after which she remembered an 11 digit number that she couldn't have possibly seen. But you couldn't give me her name.

So here's the BIG problem... there's no evidence that this woman ever existed.

The only evidence that we have for this story is a claim made by Dr. Norma Bowe who stated that this incident actually occurred, but beyond Dr. Bowe's claim we have absolutely no actual evidence at all for this story... none. We don't even have a name.

So at this point I'm more than a little skeptical, because when asked for an actual example you gave me the case of a woman who may never have existed. But I'm willing to give you another chance. Can you cite a case that actually has some of this supposedly 'scientifically validated' evidence? Like I said, I'm willing to consider it, but I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase looking for something that doesn't exist.

Just cite me one case... that's all that I'm asking.

 

[All Becomes New]

Here's the problem, and this always seems to be the problem. You cited the example of a woman who had an NDE, after which she remembered an 11 digit number that she couldn't have possibly seen. But you couldn't give me her name.

So here's the BIG problem... there's no evidence that this woman ever existed.

The only evidence that we have for this story is a claim made by Dr. Norma Bowe who stated that this incident actually occurred, but beyond Dr. Bowe's claim we have absolutely no actual evidence at all for this story... none. We don't even have a name.

So at this point I'm more than a little skeptical, because when asked for an actual example you gave me the case of a woman who may never have existed. But I'm willing to give you another chance. Can you cite a case that actually has some of this supposedly 'scientifically validated' evidence? Like I said, I'm willing to consider it, but I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase looking for something that doesn't exist.

Just cite me one case... that's all that I'm asking.

I linked something that was in a peer-reviewed journal. You didn't want to read it. So how is it my fault?

Do you apply the same amount of skepticism toward all academic literature? My guess is you don't and you do here because it contradicts your worldview.

 

[partinobodycular]

I linked something that was in a peer-reviewed journal. You didn't want to read it. So how is it my fault?

You'll have to forgive me, I do have other things to do... but I promise I'll get to it, but anyone else is free to read it in the mean time. I'd actually be interested to hear what others have to say.

Do you apply the same amount of skepticism toward all academic literature? My guess is you don't and you do here because it contradicts your worldview.

Actually, I apply the same amount of skepticism to absolutely everything. But as I said, if you're relying on anecdotal evidence then the bar's obviously going to be a whole lot higher.

Let's hope that your 'peer-reviewed paper' isn't simply more of the same. We'll see, I should have time to read it in a couple of hours or so... I'll get back to you.

EDIT: Sorry... falling behind... I'll get to it when I get to it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know.

When you put your head in a Faraday cage you don't go unconscious.