General anesthesia and consciousness

[stevevw]

You are so familiar with this event. But you still keep getting details wrong. Nobody at any time confirmed that the doctors were the first to hear about what the patients experiences were. Nobody at any time said they saw the patient before his wife. She was only mentioned once when they said they told her they thought he had died.

Your missing the whole point of what I said. It doesn't matter who met the patient first or at anytime. Your contention is someone told the patient about the post it notes and the doctors standing in the doorway and the several other details he mentions.

My question was how did whoever was first (assuming it wasn't the doctors) know to tell the patient about the post it notes and the other details without knowing about the post it notes and other details. Did they make this up and put it in the patients head so that he then told the doctors.

If so if it was the wife how did she know about the details such as the post it notes. I am not trying to make up anything but rather thinking out loud about the possible scenarios your talking about and the logical conclusions.

No matter who you think told the patient they either had to know about the post it notes before anyone else to get things so right. Perhaps a nurse or theatre assistent. But even so why would they make up a story about post it notes.

In fact I can't workout how anyone would bother telling the patient anything about a NDE before the patient mentions it happening because absolutely no one was even thinking about a NDE happening before the patient mentioned it.

Are you saying that someone on the back of the 'Lazarus event' decided to add to this and make up a NDE story as well and this got back to the patient.

I am just trying to work out your line of thinking.

No more discussions, mate. You can't even get basic details right. You can't even give a factual account of what happened. You seem to be making up things as you go. I'm sure that you don't mean to, but every post you make is an example of how people get simple things wrong. I didn't need to give my personal details about how people can be confused about actual events. You give more than enough examples yourself.

No I am using your possible scenarios and following them through to see if they are realistic. I whole heartedly agree that people can get things wrong but I also know this doesn't mean they always get things wrong. That is why we have to nut out the details, question things, look for rational explanations which can sometimes get complicated and confusing. But we have to go through that to achieve the truth.

I am quite willing to admit I am wrong but rather than just attack me attack my arguement. If it doesn't make sense then tell me why or give me a counter example which may show how my arguement is not necessarily so. That is all I am doing with the skeptic.

 

[stevevw]

Unsubscribing. I've reached my tolerance limit. Hasta la vista.

Fair enough I appreciate your input.

 

[BeyondET]

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?

It appears the brain isn't fully shut down during anesthesia. The cortex is quite active during Anastasia. Even more interesting it's still of a mystery how the brain actually does it. Physicians know what drugs to use to induce the comatose but that's about it.

What happens when we lose consciousness during anaesthesia?

The first successful surgery under anaesthesia occurred in the 1840s. Since then—more than 170 years later—people have been developing theories about what might be going on in the brain while a person is unconscious. And many mysteries remain.

healthcare-in-europe.com

Anaesthesia: unconscious brains are anything but "silent"

The cerebral cortex is thought to be the seat of conscious processing in the brain. Rather than being inactivated, specific cells in the cortex show higher spontaneous activity during general anesthesia than when awake, and this activity is synchronized across those cortical cells.

healthcare-in-europe.com

 

[partinobodycular]

In fact if you take all lines of evdience like tests on brains signals for consciousnes when unconscious or dead, evolution, psychology and in quantum physics a pretty strong case can be made.

I applaud the idea that we need to examine all the evidence, but as a skeptic I'm guided by one overarching principle, what looks like magic... never is. Now the day may come when that principle is proven to be wrong, but so far I find no reason to believe that today is that day, or that this is the exception to the rule.

But like I said earlier, there are thousands of markers sitting on hospital shelves all around the world, just waiting for someone to prove me wrong. But guess what, I don't think they ever will. But hey, you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Meanwhile I'll keep wondering why you're crazy, and you'll keep wondering why I'm obstinate. If it wasn't for the fools who would us wise folks have to complain about?

 

[stevevw]

I applaud the idea that we need to examine all the evidence, but as a skeptic I'm guided by one overarching principle, what looks like magic... never is. Now the day may come when that principle is proven to be wrong, but so far I find no reason to believe that today is that day, or that this is the exception to the rule.

What is classed as magic, thats at the crux of the matter, the metaphysical and ontological assumption. We see a solor system and galaxies somehow floating in space like clockwork and somehow think that explains things because we can attribute some laws to it. Yet its still large celestial bodies floating in space as to what we would understand as magic, defying our own spatial experience.

Quantun mechanics has shown for a long time that our conception of time and space is only a surface understanding of whats going on fundementally What goes up doesn't just come back down. In the quantum world it can go in any direction. Information can travel faster than the speed of light with action at a distance and they have now supported this with the science.

So we already know that fundemental reality, that which bears out the macro world we see has what we would normally term as magic because it defies our intuitions of time and space like instantaneous travel, particles moving through solid objects and being in all places at the same time. Strangle enough these same counter intuitive aspects are found in the idea of consciousness beyond brain which also has growing scientific support.

So I guess its what you deem magic but just because science may describe what is happening doesn't also explain its nature. For all we know science is just explaining a surface description of something that is more fundemental like Mind and consciousness. Afterall it is the subjects conscious experience that is creating these concepts. Everything comes back to consciousness. Without it there would be no material world.

So science itself, has had a paradigmatic shift from a purely determistic and reductionist view of reality being caused by material processes (the billiard ball schema) to a more non determine or reductive form of energy force or field that prevades the universe. Now ideas like consciousness being fundemental are becoming more popular in science itself and not religion. Not because of belief but because it seems to fit so well with the data.

So why can't there be some additional force or field that is fundemnetal that exists which involves consciousness that goes beyond the physical brain.

But like I said earlier, there are thousands of markers sitting on hospital shelves all around the world, just waiting for someone to prove me wrong. But guess what, I don't think they ever will. But hey, you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Meanwhile I'll keep wondering why you're crazy, and you'll keep wondering why I'm obstinate. If it wasn't for the fools who would us wise folks have to complain about?

Actually there are not thousands of markers and there is only about 6 or so hospitals participating. The problem with using this logic as the way to gather evidence is that your restricting the parameters down to one line of evidence. OBE is rare and its hard to get the data in the first place as most people die and don't come back to tell. So this makes it doubly hard to come by.

We only started looking at this seriously in recent years. So give it time. But in some ways its like asking for the miracle before believing in miracles, it may never happen when you want it too. People may describe other things besides the specific markers so in the meantime that same project is finding evidence of NDE which you are overlooking like brain testing for conscious signals while unconscious or dead.

Skeptics don't accept this because it didn't happen to their standard of evidence which may be restictively too narrow. All I can say is perhaps open the mind and look at the current experiences to see if they have any merit. If this still doesn't sway you or get you rethinking then well you can leave it at that.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not all the time. They quite often bubble along somewhere under the surface. But if you know that they are there then you can eliminate the negative actions you might take based on them. Eventually most of them dissapear.

This just shows how inconsistent your worldview is. How does one do this? Through their own effort? That would be the thinking here. But if only the natural exists, then there is nothing to say that you should be able to eliminate your biases at all. Why? Because truth is not conducive to keeping you alive via Neo-Darwinism. Everything is just run on autopilot and so there's no reason to think the human mind is conductive to knowing truth at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

not accepted

Exactly. It's just pure incredulity.

 

[All Becomes New]

Unsubscribing. I've reached my tolerance limit. Hasta la vista.

That's not what someone says who is on the winning side of the argument.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Science is always open to reinterpreting things that are taken as "fact." "Fact" is boogie man. It hardly ever exists.

Of course they are, because facts change and evolve with time, information, advancements, education, etc. Science is the living metric that captures that. “Fact doesn’t exist” is literally one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

So there are a few different NDE's that have happened. First there's the ones in the example we are debating which is most common. A single person having a NDE and later coming back.

Then theres the NDE where a person is dying or has actually died vists someone alive usually a relative and then is resuscitated or lives to describe their experience.

Then theres the situation where a living person (not dying) can experience the NDE of a dying person who either comes back to life or ends up dying and crossing over. The living person actually sees the dying or deceased person going to the light, meeting other deceased people.

Then theres the NDE's where more than one person has deceased in some accident or event and they see each other in an OBE but end up living to descibe the experience later. An example was some fire fighters were overcome by a fire and they experienced the same NDE.

You need to read up on these experiences and then decide whether they have some credibility. BUt you can't just dismiss them out of hand before knowing what happened. I think reading a number of cases allows you to get an understanding of the first hand experiences and helps determined whether people are just deluded or imagining things hearing their stories.

No need to mansplain NDE. I’m in training to be a death doula and know all about them. Frankly, I’ve likely researched more in depth than anybody on this thread. You seem to be basically to moderately informed on NDE, but only the ones that plug into the narrative you want to see… White light, family members coming to get them… The Hollywood version of death fed to the populace. However, you seem to have little-to-no knowledge of the stuff that isn’t the Hollywood Christian death experience. You don’t acknowledge they don’t happen as much or more than they do happen, that people of other cultures and religious backgrounds experience fundamentally different NDE, that they can be experienced (and have been) by those who have no religious background, and that it’s an entirely subjective phenomenon that occurs when the body is in maximum physiological stress and as a result it could really influence NDE.

A living person saying that they see a person dying and seeing family members come down “out of the light” to get a dying family member is not an NDE, nor is it verifiable or provable. Is it possible? I suppose anything is possible. I’ve seen fetches and “ghosts,” but other than saying “I saw it,” it’s not independently verifiable beyond anecdotal storytelling and evidence. And your Steven Speilberg-esque “the heavens opened and I saw spirits come and get somebody” narrative is a great story, but so completely, impossibly uncommon and the narratives collected in such a way that it would be silly to regard it as anything substantive. You can accept it as a faith-led truth, which is fine because that has a much lower threshold of accountability, but not a science based, factual narrative.

Collective NDE or shared NDE are a thing, but again, anecdotal.

It’s far more authentic to say “I believe in NDE because I feel it’s congruent with my faith and I find the stories to be believable as the level of circumstantial evidence is too much for me to ignore” than it is to say “they’re real, a sign the Christian God is real, and science and medicine agree they happen due to supernatural as opposed to physiological means.”

Keep in mind, I’m saying this as a person who believes in NDE, researched them extensively, was in a field where people reported them to me and was there when people experienced them, and entering a field where I will be seeing death regularly. Even with all that, I’m saying they nothing you have said would make anybody believe they are unequivocally real, religious, and scientifically verified as spiritual in nature.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

That's not what someone says who is on the winning side of the argument.

It’s what somebody says when the person they’re trying to have a real discussion with retorts with things like that. You’ve just shown us all you want to be right and you want to be acknowledged as right, not that you want to have a discussion and hear other perspectives.

At least they listened to your points. You didn’t do them the same courtesy beyond just repeating different anecdotes like that was proof of anything.

 

[All Becomes New]

It’s what somebody says when the person they’re trying to have a real discussion with retorts with things like that. You’ve just shown us all you want to be right and you want to be acknowledged as right, not that you want to have a discussion and hear other perspectives.

At least they listened to your points. You didn’t do them the same courtesy beyond just repeating different anecdotes like that was proof of anything.

You have clearly got a problem with me, so I'd like to know why. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather do that.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You have clearly got a problem with me, so I'd like to know why. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather do that.

What an odd thing to say… Me not agreeing with you doesn’t I have “a problem” with you. It means I think your viewpoint is wrong.

 

[All Becomes New]

It means I think your viewpoint is wrong.

You said a lot more than just that my view point was wrong. You attacked me personally.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You said a lot more than just that my view point was wrong. You attacked me personally.

Again, disagreement is not a personal attack. Saying you’re not listening isn’t a personal attack. Saying that you’re on the “winning side” of an argument reveals to everybody you just want to be right and it explains why you don’t respond to people’s counterpoints is not a personal attack.

 

[All Becomes New]

Again, disagreement is not a personal attack. Saying you’re not listening isn’t a personal attack. Saying that you’re on the “winning side” of an argument reveals to everybody you just want to be right and it explains why you don’t respond to people’s counterpoints is not a personal attack.

You questioned my motivation for being in this thread by saying all I want to do by being here is to be right. I was the one who brought up NDEs in the first place. I've discussed it at length with people. When someone else takes the reigns and I post to support them (because they are on the side of reality) I don't really need to do much heavy lifting because it's already been done by me before and now other people.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You questioned my motivation for being in this thread by saying all I want to do by being here is to be right.

No, I didn’t question your motivation. Even if I did, that’s not a personal attack. I also didn’t say that all you want to do by being here is be right. I said that your comment reveals you want to be seen as right and not listen to other people’s perspectives. That’s not only not a personal attack, but a comment made by other people.

I was the one who brought up NDEs in the first place.

So? Who cares? Bringing it up first doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

I've discussed it at length with people.

And other people have tried to discuss it at length with you. So what?

Unless you’re saying that you’ve discussed the topic at length with other people, at which case why wouldn’t it dawn on you that others have too? Or that somebody else, in this case me, could possibly have done more and learned more and know more? I was an EMT. I was a 911 dispatcher. I’m like five minutes away from finishing training as a death doula. I have seen, quite literally, dozens of people die. I’ve seen, quite literally, dozens and dozens and dozens of people almost die, many of whom report firsthand to me their NDE. After seeing the “ghost” of my grandfather as a child, I researched all death topics to try and understand them. My mother handed me the book “Life After Life” and I read it voraciously. After realizing I saw fetches while working as an EMT, I studied more. When I decided to enter a field that is about death and helping people to prepare to die, I was taught by numerous experts, read a lot of books, read a lot of research. Like, ACTUAL research that covered a broad range of NDE and the lack of NDE, secular, spiritual, and scientific.

Despite all of that, I don’t think my saying “I was in the room when MiMa had a NDE and she told me all about it and so that’s proof they are real” constitutes a scientific, provable fact. It’s an anecdote. I don’t think my saying “the devout Catholic police Captain I worked with would always ask me when were on-scene if I saw a fetch after that one time said I saw one on a seemingly routine call and he thought I was nuts until the patient went from lucid, walking, talking, and normal to dead in less than 5 minutes. That proves others can witness aspects of a person’s NDE.” That’s an anecdote. The fact he’d ask me is provable fact, but the fact I could see them is not. It’s subjective and unprovable. You can believe me based off the story, but there is nothing I can do to make it objectively provable.

NDEs are internal, self-reported, and perceptive. To treat them as anything else is disingenuous and does not consider all the facts or science. To not acknowledge their existence could be the result of a brain under stress and trauma, coping with processing an overwhelming amount of sensory information to make sense of what’s going on internally and externally is disingenuous and not presenting or considering all the facts.

When someone else takes the reigns and I post to support them (because they are on the side of reality) I don't really need to do much heavy lifting because it's already been done by me before and now other people.

That is a word salad that makes no sense.

“They” are on the side of reality? Who is “they?” “It” had been done by “other people?” What is “it?” Who is “they?” Nobody here has proven NDE are a spiritual experience. Nobody has proven that what people experience in NDE are real. There’s a general consensus that NDE occur and exist, but not that they occur as proof of faith or externally, or that the actual spirits of actual loved ones ascend from wherever to meet them. NDE events are still firmly classified as pseudoscience.

Even if as the result of some anecdotal story somebody told here about a thing they read about a person who once said they had a NDE that NDE were regarded as actual science, when you say directly and passively “I’m right and other people believe me so I don’t have to hear any other perspectives and I don’t need to be able to defend my views,” people are going to reply back that a discussion with you isn’t worth their time and attention. Which is what that other poster did. They rebutted your points and you didn’t do anything other than share more anecdotes.

Though, if we are inventorying personal attacks, saying that you and the people who agree with you are on the side of reality, that would be a personal attack.

 

[All Becomes New]

NDE events are still firmly classified as pseudoscience.

Okay, nice talking with you. This is objectively false. In fact, if what you have said about yourself is true, then you know it is false and you don't care.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Okay, nice talking with you. This is objectively false. In fact, if what you have said about yourself is true, then you know it is false and you don't care.

That's not what someone says who is on the winning side of the argument.

Just saying.

 

[All Becomes New]

That's not what someone says who is on the winning side of the argument.

Just saying.

Don't try and compare the two things. What you said is either lying and manipulative or IDK what. Not the same thing at all.