General anesthesia and consciousness

[All Becomes New]

I'm wondering if your taking mystical experiences and calling them supernatural experiences.

Depends on how they are done/displayed/communicated/received.

I think, at the very least, they point to a supernatural reality based on what is communicated in these experiences. If not that, then they surely show a divine work on display.

 

[BeyondET]

It's closer to brain stem death than anything else.

 

[stevevw]

There are no more fundamental forces. Specifically there are no fundamental forces that *could* interact with ordinary matter in the fashion necessary to operate meat puppets.

Strong nuclear is too short range.
Weak nuclear is too weak.
Gravity is weak and accumulates, but we already know what effect gravity is having on the body. It certainly couldn't be gravity.

There is only electromagnetic. So if there is some external manipulation or control of the body as "consciousness" it would have to be electromagnetic, so we could block it. We can't. Therefore consciousness is internal to the body.

Consciousness is brain tissue doing weird brain stuff. Any other forces that *could* drive it have been physically excluded.

Congratualtions you've managed to solve the Hard Problem of consciousness that no other persons has managed to do.

Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?
Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman

Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness and that bet was lost this year. So the bet has been renewed for another 25 years and Chalmers recknons we still won't be able to find how the physical brain can create consciousness.

There are a number of theories involving electromagnetism that see no problem with it being blocked.

Solving the “Hard Problem”: Consciousness as an Intrinsic Property of Magnetic Fields
https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/835/859
Connection established between magnetism, gravity, time and consciousness?
Connection established between magnetism, gravity, time and consciousness? | Naked Science Forum
Brain Waves Study Shows Humans Can Sense Earth’s Magnetic Field
By placing participants inside of an electromagnetic-shielding Faraday Cage wrapped with powerful square “Merritt coils,” researchers were able to recreate a magnetic field on par with the planet’s, which they were able to manipulate. when measuring the subject’s alpha brain waves, scientists noticed a response tied to the various shifts in their Earthlike magnetic field.
Study Shows Human Brains In Tune With Earth's Magnetic Field | Gaia

Then there are other ideas that are more fundemental such as Quantum Mind theories which don't treat consciousness as a electromagnetic phenomena.

Study Shows Consciousness May Be Product of Quantum Effect
Study Shows Consciousness May Be Product of Quantum Effect | Gaia
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement
Brain experiment suggests that consciousness relies on quantum entanglement
Mindful universe: quantum mechanics and the participating observer
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642180750

Then theres other ideas like Panpsychism, Integrated Information Theory, Global neuronal workspace and Biocentrism to name a few,

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
What panpsychism offers us is a simple, elegant way of integrating consciousness into our scientific worldview.
Science as we know it can't explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death
Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death
Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience
The Origin of Consciousness in the Brain Is About to Be Tested
Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
Tononi's theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience(opens in new tab), is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness.

Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?

If we can find the answer, it may complete our understanding of the universe.

www.space.com

 

[Mountainmike]

Since you seem to have an extensive knowledge on the subject (As you do on every subject) please cite a specific example and I'll definitely look into it. Otherwise I risk spending valuable time looking for something which may not be what you're referring to.

A little help here would be nice, beyond just recommending a book to read. Thanks

You claim you have “looked into just about everything”, but how did you do that without reading a book on NDE first?
That’s quite a party trick. If you did study the EVIDENCE on NDE by reading books, you would not be so bold as to declare NDE as “ yet undiscovered brain function” -So what qualifies you to make such sweeping statements?

I don’t claim to know many subjects , let alone all, but I have studied the ones I comment on. The difference between us!

There are hundreds of research papers out there on NDE too. Many by qualified medics and neurosurgeons. Have you read them before conclude as you do?

As one example study “ Harold “ 2c in this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587850_There_is_no_death_Near-death_experience_evidence_for_survival_after_permanent_bodily_death_includes_TOC

consciousness of an unusual training room above the ceiling of his hospital emergency bed , off limits to all but staff.
Better still read Laurin bellgs book as an introduction. ( it was her case)

There are many of these so called “ veridical” experiences, which have
verifiavle details the patient cannot have known, or guessed at , and was not told.
They can ONLY have been known by separable consciousness.

That feeds in to origin of life debate.
if consciousnesss isn’t chemistry - no chemical abiogenesis or evolution can be the origin of life.
The profound question of our time. What is life?

 

[Emmawowee]

You claim you have “looked into just about everything” how did you do that without reading a book on NDE first?
That’s qite a party trick. If you did study the EVIDENCE on NDE by reading books you would not be so bold as to declare NDE as “ yet undiscovered brain function - so what qualifies you to make such sweeping statements?

I don’t claim to know many subjects let alone all , but I have studied the ones I comment on. The difference between us!

There are hundreds of research papers out there too. Many by qualified medics and neurosurgeons. Have you read them before conclude as you do?

As one example study “ Harold “ 2c in this

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587850_There_is_no_death_Near-death_experience_evidence_for_survival_after_permanent_bodily_death_includes_TOC

consciousness of an unusual training room above the ceiling of his hospital emergency bed , off limits to all but staff.
Better still read Laurin bellgs book as an introduction.

There are many so called “ veridical” experience
Verifiable detailsthe patient cannot have known, or guessed at , and was not told.
They can ONLY have been known by separable consciousness.

That feeds in to origin of life debate.
if consciousnesss isn’t chemistry - no chemical abiogenesis or evolution can be the origin of life.
The profound question of our time. What is life?

People are VERY stubborn when it comes to NDEs, until they actually have them themselves. r/NDE, as insufferable as reddit is, has great scientific resources/discussions on it, AND tons of NDE survivors giving their stories. It has both Christian and atheist people who believe in them being signs of an afterlife. People don’t realize you don’t have to be religious to believe there’s something beyond this reality. Materialism is long dead and debunked at this point.

 

[partinobodycular]

you would not be so bold as to declare NDE as “ yet undiscovered brain function”

Please refresh my memory, where exactly did I say this?

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis,

I understand your position. Unfortunately, your position does seem to go against scripture. Dreams and visions are something we in the West do not experience much in Christianity but they are much more normalized in other cultures. So that is just corroborative evidence and not what the Bible says, so you are not likely to believe such things. But if I were to say that the Bible teaches that dreams and visions are to last for all generations, what would you say? Acts 2 seems to say precisely that as it says, "For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

If we look at historic Christian practice and experience, not just in the West, but elsewhere, it's really not that different. The Armenians, Copts, and Syrians aren't relying on dreams and visions either; but on the historic standards of Christianity.

I want to be clear, also, I am not against "dreams and visions". I am against an uncritical acceptance of claims of supernatural or mystical experiences, and the use of private experience as a source of doctrinal authority.

And finally, I do not believe that good exegesis of Acts ch. 2 leads us to dreams and visions as being the promise; exegetically the promise is what is mentioned in Acts 2:38, thus here is Acts 2:39 with Acts 2:38, presenting the complete thought:

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.'" - Acts 2:38-39

The promise is the gift of the Spirit, which is attached to the call and invitation to "repent and be baptized". This conforms with other places in Scripture which either explicitly or implicitly speak of the Spirit's presence and activity in the Sacrament of Baptism, such as John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and 1 Corinthians 12:13.

There is no promise that everyone will dream dreams or have visions; the promise is the Holy Spirit Himself.

I can personally attest to many supernatural experiences in my own life. One is of a vision I had of heaven and another was of a dream of hell. I have also audibly heard a voice that said, "The Lord is here," and I live alone and my door was locked. Whether it was Christ Himself or an angel, I do not know except to say that the voice was indescribable. I've also had prophetic prayers and such. One such prayer was that I told my Elder that I felt God was telling me his wife would get a new heart. About a year later, she got a heart transplant. I've had plenty of other experiences as well. Anything from unlikely coincidences to full-on prophetic words. I don't say these things to tute my own horn. I say them because it is confirmation that the Bible is true and we can indeed count on the promises the Bible makes about us experiencing the supernatural in more frequent terms this side of the new covenant. I had a missionary tell me one time, "[O]ut here, if you don't believe in miracles, you might as well go home." I'm not saying you don't believe in miracles. I'm saying if you DO believe in miracles then choosing this or that supernatural thing to believe in is more or less limiting God.

I grew up in a church tradition that put a lot of emphasis on such experiences. Lots of "prophetic utterances". I was told that I had a calling as a prophet, and more than once when my mom was progressively getting sick from cancer that God was going to heal her (she fell asleep in Christ months later).

It might be tempting to read the above and think that that's why I don't put much stock in claims of dreams, visions, and prophetic utterances. Except that, in fact, that wasn't a factor. I continued to be an advocate for Charismatisism as a theological position for a long time afterward. It is ultimately a transition of biblical perspectives and larger more sweeping theological changes that led me to where I am now.

I'm not a cessationist; but I do reject Charismatisism; I won't get into all the reasons here.

It is not a lack of personal experiences (I have many) that leads me toward being critical of claims.

Finally, many people who have never even heard the name of Jesus report having a vision or dream of Him, and when someone explained who Jesus was they immediately recognized who they saw as Him. There are many stories about bringing just the right person at just the right time for someone to get saved. Many many examples of this.

And I'm willing to wager that these amount to largely just more hearsay and anecdotes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[partinobodycular]

but how did you do that without reading a book on NDE first?

Well people like you are very helpful in that regard. You're more than happy to offer up what you believe to be compelling evidence, sources, and quotes, without me having to go buy a book and read it. Now if an intelligent person like yourself, having read far more than I ever could, fails to provide a convincing argument on any particular subject, then I can only assume that this tells me something about the content of those books.

You're not going to provide me with the weakest possible argument from your vast wealth of knowledge, you're going to provide me with your strongest argument. Hence I get the best of those books, without having to actually read them. Perhaps I should thank you, and the many others like you who have saved me so much time and money over the years. I wouldn't be what I am without you. In your case unfortunately, what I am is skeptical.

Now having been doing this for a very long time I've assimilated a great deal of information, on a great many subjects... all without having to read a book, and where my knowledge is lacking I'm quite certain that people like you will be more than happy to point it out to me.

Speaking of which, although I don't have time to address it at the moment, I appreciate someone finally offering up a specific example of an NDE... i.e. Laurin Bellg and the case of Howard. My preliminary thoughts after reading it... I'm not impressed... it seems like an example of a perfectly natural phenomenon, no otherworldly explanations required.

But that post is going to have to wait until I've got more time.

 

[All Becomes New]

I am against an uncritical acceptance of claims of supernatural or mystical experiences, and the use of private experience as a source of doctrinal authority.

So am I.

And finally, I do not believe that good exegesis of Acts ch. 2 leads us to dreams and visions as being the promise; exegetically the promise is what is mentioned in Acts 2:38, thus here is Acts 2:39 with Acts 2:38, presenting the complete thought:

Which means the prophecy of Joel was for nothing.

Except that, in fact, that wasn't a factor.

If it wasn't you wouldn't have mentioned it.

And I'm willing to wager that these amount to largely just more hearsay and anecdotes.

Simply incredulity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So am I.

Except that you have rather boldly stated that you accept what people claim uncritically. When you say that you accept something as true unless there is reason not to accept it, that is an uncritical acceptance.

Which means the prophecy of Joel was for nothing.

If you believe the point of Joel's prophecy was about dreams and visions, then perhaps. But that ignores Peter's understanding of the prophecy as pointing toward the coming of the Holy Spirit then and there on Pentecost. It is not dreams and visions, it's the coming of the Holy Spirit, that is important. Dreams and visions is incidental.

A careful analysis of the text shows that to be the case, in particular how it relates to the themes of the text introduced in chapter 1, and as a call-back to not only what St. John the Baptist said concerning Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit, but also concerning the Johanine statements about the Paraclete. It also ought to be read in connection with the Spirit's activity in the Means of Grace, e.g. the preaching of the word, baptism, et al. Hence the Apostle St. Peter says "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, all of you, for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, this promise is for you, and for your children..." in response to which the text says about 3,000 of the pilgrims in Jerusalem that day received baptism and were added to the Church; and we can look to what is written in Ephesians 1:13, that "when you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit". To which we can add Romans 10:17, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" in connection with "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" in 1 Corinthians 12:3.

Indeed, St. Paul's talk about charisms of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12-14, as well as Romans 12 is to be understood that the Spirit's work and activity is manifold. Great warnings are additionally given in these places concerning the charisms of the Spirit. Such that, as Paul says in Romans 12:3 "none of you ought to think of themselves more highly than another" and the Apostle's admonishments in 1 Corinthians 14 concerning good ecclesiastical order.

Dreams and visions aren't the point of any of this. The point of all of this is the reality of the Spirit via the activity of God's grace in corporate life of the Church of which we are individually members.

If it wasn't you wouldn't have mentioned it.

In hindsight I can see the problem of putting faith in such things. Hence why it was mentioned.

Simply incredulity.

Scripture bids me to faith in the ordered and revealed activity of God: Word and Sacrament. I am under no obligation to believe unsubstantiated claims of private experience or private revelation. If that makes me incredulous--that's fine. Indeed, I believe in the wisdom uttered by Dr. Luther when he writes,

"Accordingly, we should and must constantly maintain that God will not deal with us except through His external word and sacrament. Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from such word and sacrament is of the devil."

A deep and troubling error arose among the Radicals of the Reformation, such as Thomas Muntzer, which sought to go beyond Scripture, beyond God's ordered and revealed means of Word and Sacrament, to direct unmediated experience of God--a view known as Enthusiasm.

I.e. the attempt to experience and know the unmediated God, which is always folly. For God can not be directly known in His Hiddenness; but only in His Self-Disclosure. So that Christ says, "No one can come to the Father except by Me" and St. Paul can say that we have one Mediator, Jesus Christ. Only through the mediation of Christ, only through the externals of Word and Sacrament, do we receive the Spirit, receive faith, and have our life hidden in Christ with God. To seek God elsewhere and outside of this is to walk away from the light of Christ and to wander in darkness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[partinobodycular]

As one example study “ Harold “ 2c in this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587850_There_is_no_death_Near-death_experience_evidence_for_survival_after_permanent_bodily_death_includes_TOC consciousness of an unusual training room above the ceiling of his hospital emergency bed , off limits to all but staff.
Better still read Laurin bellgs book as an introduction. ( it was her case)

Perhaps the biggest problem with NDE's is that they're based upon people's recollection of events. Unfortunately such memories can be adversely influenced by both time and the interaction with others, which is why the police make a point of separating witnesses so that each witness' testimony isn't unduly influenced by what someone else may say or infer, no matter how seemingly innocent that influence may be.

In Howard's case, unless someone actually wrote down exactly what Howard said after his intubation tube was removed we have no way of knowing what his initial description of events was. We don't know which details are purely Howard's, and which details he unwittingly and unintentionally picked up from Dr. Bellg's reaction. If it's just a simple sterile statement without any interaction with an outside source that's one thing, but the human mind can pick up on and integrate almost imperceptible cues, which can lead to Howard's story becoming embellished almost from the outset with details unwittingly furnished by Dr. Bellg herself. The human psyche likes the affirmation of others, so it will almost imperceptibly alter the words and phraseology of a story to make it more pleasing to the listener.

Now I have no doubt that both Howard and Dr. Bellg would thoroughly dismiss this possibility, but that wouldn't be unusual. We're often unaware of all of the minute things that go into shaping our memories, and how quickly those added details become indistinguishable from the actual events themselves. And in Howard's case those details matter.

So unfortunately, in this case I have to dismiss Howard's story. I don't know what Howard actually experienced. I don't know what Dr. Bellg inferred from Howard's description of it. And I don't know what she may have said or done to influence it, both initially and over time.

What we get from Dr. Bellg, years later, is a seemingly irrefutable case of Howard describing events and information that he couldn't possibly have known. But viewed through the eyes of a skeptic... I don't find it convincing at all. To me it's just a case of implanted memories

Sorry about that. Do you perhaps have another case that you'd like to have me address?

 

[All Becomes New]

Except that you have rather boldly stated that you accept what people claim uncritically. When you say that you accept something as true unless there is reason not to accept it, that is an uncritical acceptance.

No, it's not about doctrine. If you don't believe people whey they have no reason to be lying or mistaken, that is incredulity, pure and simple.

Dreams and visions is incidental.

Dreams and visions aren't the point of any of this.

It's a package deal though. That's the point of that passage. So, yes, the point was the coming of the Holy Spirit. And part of that is that people will have dreams and visions. I'm not saying dreams and visions is the point, I'm saying they come with the new covenant or the new covenant would be just like the old only getting an update to how it functions. God 2.0 as I would call it.

I believe in the wisdom uttered by Dr. Luther when he writes,

"Accordingly, we should and must constantly maintain that God will not deal with us except through His external word and sacrament. Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from such word and sacrament is of the devil."

Right, so you are taking to the testimony of Luther and then criticizing me because I say I believe more people than you when there is no reason to doubt them because of your presuppositions that Luther was right and other people are wrong. This is a religious conviction, not a well-reasoned out epistemic one. I'm simply more consistent than you in this regard.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've been following this thread for a while, and I have to say that is it an interesting topic since there has to be a basis FOR NDEs being a thing and a known thing.

But one thing I have to ask: if anecdotal evidence is not enough (and it's not; it's just a claim in terms of evidence), how exactly can you test for such a thing?

 

[All Becomes New]

But one thing I have to ask: if anecdotal evidence is not enough (and it's not; it's just a claim in terms of evidence), how exactly can you test for such a thing?

I believe the studies that have been linked (at least one by me I think) they give their methodologies of how they did the study.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I believe the studies that have been linked (at least one by me I think) they give their methodologies of how they did the study.

Very likely, but it's clear that those studies are not 100% accepted, as this very thread shows.

So how can you (general you not accusative you) show, definitely and with 100% evidence, that Near Death Experiences as described in this thread are a true thing that happens? Without doing something very unethical, I might add. Because I don't think there is a way to do it.

 

[All Becomes New]

Very likely, but it's clear that those studies are not 100% accepted, as this very thread shows.

So how can you (general you not accusative you) show, definitely and with 100% evidence, that Near Death Experiences as described in this thread are a true thing that happens? Without doing something very unethical, I might add. Because I don't think there is a way to do it.

Well, the problem with 100% proof is that it almost never exists. You can call almost everything into question. In fact, there are very smart scholars who deny that the earth is a sphere. If that can be contested, can't almost anything?

 

[Larniavc]

Depends on how they are done/displayed/communicated/received.

Why are they not explained by dreams, hallucinations and imperfect recall?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, the problem with 100% proof is that it almost never exists. You can call almost everything into question. In fact, there are very smart scholars who deny that the earth is a sphere. If that can be contested, can't almost anything?

Proof is for mathematics. I'm talking evidence. That's why I specifically said evidence and not proof.
So, again, how can it be done? What do you test for? How do you test it? What do you use as a control group? What do you even use? Claims have to be discarded as evidence since anecdotes as essentially just-so stories that have no way of being able to be substantiated one way or another.

 

[All Becomes New]

Why are they not explained by dreams, hallucinations and imperfect recall?

Some of them may be. But not all of them are.

It's also going to depend on whether there is a natural fruition to what the dream/vision is about and if it represents a reality that maps on to the reality we live in now. Some of them do do that.

 

[All Becomes New]

Proof is for mathematics. I'm talking evidence. That's why I specifically said evidence and not proof.
So, again, how can it be done? What do you test for? How do you test it? What do you use as a control group? What do you even use? Claims have to be discarded as evidence since anecdotes as essentially just-so stories that have no way of being able to be substantiated one way or another.

Read the studies rather than asking how the studies are done is my advice.