What is Death?

[dlamberth]

I think a main thing is that... even if there is consciousness existing outside of the human brain... what exactly does that and can that lead to?

I'm wondering what consciousness existing inside the brain is and what that leads to.

 

[SelfSim]

We can't prove consciousness in biology, now physics paints a different picture.

No .. not really .. I'm just suggesting another way to think about the problem which may, at least, stand a chance of producing something useful.

 

[SelfSim]

All . You should recognise parnia is no kind of religious believer

He is a renowned expert on the processes of death, keeping people alive , and the nature and science of consciousness.

He is convinced , as are many neurologists and neurosurgeons , cardiologists and ed specialists that consciousness is not a process of the brain, but instead it interacts with the brain.

The latter of which, is an active demonstration of his pseudoscientific approach .. Blackmore is on point about this and you are blinded by someone's professional expertise when they use an unrelated approach.

 

[SelfSim]

So if the consciousness is not of the brain or even from the brain, where is it from?

Its a great question for @Mountainmike. I predict he'll just come up with some kind of deflection or condescension .. but I can't resist having a stab at it by asking a slightly different question, (more of myself than necessarily anyone else) .. ie: something along the lines of:

If consciousness is a material property of at least some objects, what does it do, or cause in the world, that might be observed only for those objects that have it? Does that approach then stand a chance of maybe exposing evidence which might then lead towards something deeper which, in turn, might then explain what consciousness is and why it exists?

Dunno .. but its a way that might help escape the philosophical rabbit-hole and hop back into the more productive scientific approach to the problem(?)

 

[sjastro]

The scientist Antoine Lavoisier who discovered oxygen and hydrogen supposedly used his own execution by guillotine during the French Revolution as an experiment for consciousness immediately after death
Lavoisier would blink after his head was severed which was recorded by his assistant who had a ringside seat.

While the outcome was unknown, Lavoisier's execution was noted by the great mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange who invented Lagrangian mechanics.

"It took them only an instant to cut off that head, but a century may not produce another like it."

 

[dlamberth]

If consciousness is a material property of at least some objects, what does it do, or cause in the world, that might be observed only for those objects that have it? Does that approach then stand a chance of maybe exposing evidence which might then lead towards something deeper which, in turn, might then explain what consciousness is and why it exists?

Maybe not deeper? Could a variety/type of consciousness be as simple as the electrostatic attraction that draws atoms towards each other to form a chemical bond? Or that consciousness in it's variety of infinite forms might be one of the foundations of the universe? Must our models of consciousness be anthropocentric? Are there other ways of understanding consciousness? Just a bunch of questions.

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe not deeper? Could a variety/type of consciousness be as simple as the electrostatic attraction that draws atoms towards each other to form a chemical bond? Or that consciousness in it's variety of infinite forms might be one of the foundations of the universe? Must our models of consciousness be anthropocentric? Are there other ways of understanding consciousness? Just a bunch of questions.

Well I suppose one can always pose one's own questions and then research those oneself(?)

I'm gonna choose the more scientific route here which started out with a conditional, scientifically hypothetical question of: 'If consciousness is a material property of at least some objects ..', which at least gives a fighting chance to research it from a well-known, familar objective basis, ie: the physics of matter, (which includes chemical bond interactions). I don't see that as being anthropocentric beyond the simple recognition that its us doing the research starting out with well-understood Physics, using the scientific method.

 

[dlamberth]

Well I suppose one can always pose one's own questions and then research those oneself(?)

I'm gonna choose the more scientific route here which started out with a conditional, scientifically hypothetical question of: 'If consciousness is a material property of at least some objects ..', which at least gives a fighting chance to research it from a well-known, familar objective basis, ie: the physics of matter, (which includes chemical bond interactions). I don't see that as being anthropocentric beyond the simple recognition that its us doing the research starting out with well-understood Physics, using the scientific method.

My bad
I meant my post more as an open question to this thread and not intended to be directed at you. I didn't lay that out very well. I'm just questioning the lens through which consciousness is studied is all and the questions I have.

 

[Mountainmike]

The latter of which, is an active demonstration of his pseudoscientific approach .. Blackmore is on point about this and you are blinded by someone's professional expertise when they use an unrelated approach.

You have absolutely no idea.
you refuse to study him or the results of an army of neurologists, or neurosurgeons ,ED medics and cardiologists.
you refuse to study the current meaning of medical death.

You are not a scientist or a sceptic.
A sceptic studies even the science whose conclusion he disagrees and looks for holes.

You are trapped by ideology and you refuse to study.
so you are a pseudoscientist and your source is wiki, and you cite anyone you can find who disagrees with whatever you disagree.

When you have read at least five of the books , or a dozen papers you earn the right to an opinion.

 

[dlamberth]

I think a main thing is that... even if there is consciousness existing outside of the human brain... what exactly does that and can that lead to?

One of the aspects of the foundation of the universe perhaps?

 

[SelfSim]

One of the aspects of the foundation of the universe perhaps?

.. or a redefinition of whatever we mean by 'consciousness' .. (which is fair enough given that we don't have any meaty, workable definitions for it in the first place).

(FWIW): I am sceptical about treating it as a fundamental property of the universe without any evidence for that.
I can't see how that approach can lead to anything other than more opinions, beliefs and pseudoscience .. and let's face it, philosophers have also made zero in-roads after playing that game for centuries now.

There are actually deterring reasons for not going back down that rabbit-hole also. I mean the universe is unimaginably huge and consciousness could be extremely rare. Setting science off on that scavenger hunt based on a pure belief, presently looks to be a forlorn exercise because of the vastly, untravellable and the ever diminishing quality of useful information able to be retrieved over ever increasing distance spans the further out we look. Better clues are more likely to be found right under our noses .. as in Earth-based labs(?)

I prefer viewing consciousness as a pointer to, (or a window for seeing), something that's currently completely missing in our understanding of behaviours of highly complex configurations of (organic) matter, in highly specific physical and very specific evolutionary contexts. There's plenty of potential research scope left to investigate there .. (IMHO).

PS: This post isn't necessarily directed at yourself .. I'm finding your position on all of this as being useful 'triggers' .. thanks for your well-considered inputs .. they are appreciated.

 

[Mountainmike]

.. or a redefinition of whatever we mean by 'consciousness' .. (which is fair enough given that we don't have any meaty, workable definitions for it in the first place).

(FWIW): I am sceptical about treating it as a fundamental property of the universe without any evidence for that.
I can't see how that approach can lead to anything other than more opinions, beliefs and pseudoscience .. and let's face it, philosophers have also made zero in-roads after playing that game for centuries now.

There are actually deterring reasons for not going back down that rabbit-hole also. I mean the universe is unimaginably huge and consciousness could be extremely rare. Setting science off on that scavenger hunt based on a pure belief, presently looks to be a forlorn exercise because of the vastly, untravellable and the ever diminishing quality of useful information able to be retrieved over ever increasing distance spans the further out we look. Better clues are more likely to be found right under our noses .. as in Earth-based labs(?)

I prefer viewing consciousness as a pointer to, (or a window for seeing), something that's currently completely missing in our understanding of behaviours of highly complex configurations of (organic) matter, in highly specific physical and very specific evolutionary contexts. There's plenty of potential research scope left to investigate there .. (IMHO).

PS: This post isn't necessarily directed at yourself .. I'm finding your position on all of this as being useful 'triggers' .. thanks for your well-considered inputs .. they are appreciated.

until you study some of it you will have no idea.

Parnia traces the history of death research and the lack of any true binary moment , and how to prolong the period of bringing back from death , it is an entire discipline. what actually causes brain damage after arrest will surprise most people, but not you, you dont study.

As for consciousness as a brain process , there are multiple Nobel laureate neurophysiologists and neurosurgeons who dispute it, having earned thei Prizes studying brain process, and many others less known. I bet you cannot even name them..

As for consciousness influencing what we observe and reality. Slamdunk, proven, Realism is dead.


i prefer study, you prefer pseudoscientific opinion, even wiki!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

until you study some of it you will have no idea.

Parnia traces the history of death research and the lack of any true binary moment , and how to prolong the period of bringing back from death , it is an entire discipline. what actually causes brain damage after arrest will surprise most people, but not you, you dont study.

As for consciousness as a brain process , there are multiple Nobel laureate neurophysiologists and neurosurgeons who dispute it, having earned thei Prizes studying brain process, and many others less known. I bet you cannot even name them..

As for consciousness influencing what we observe and reality. Slamdunk, proven, Realism is dead.


i prefer study, you prefer pseudoscientific opinion, even wiki!!

Can you even name these 'multiple Nobel laureate neurophysiologists and neurosurgeons'?

 

[Mountainmike]

Can you even name these 'multiple Nobel laureate neurophysiologists and neurosurgeons'?

I can not only name them, but I have read their books and papers - and those of their protégés - and I heard some of them speak.
I look As a sceptic in the scientific sense.

Thats Because I study science a LOT before comment on it.


I read opponents of views not just promoters of them, although some of the sceptic pseudoscience makes you weep!

(Take Gerard woerlee commenting on Pam reynolds with complete nonsense about how she must have heard.“ with bone sound transmission!! during the best scientifically monitored OBE in history,

needless to say when he was offered the chance to demonstrate his nonsense, in a simulatiion, he declined, and he fails to say how someone with no blood or brain activity , plugged ears and covered eyes can hear Or see.
When they offered him the chance to “ prove “ he could, he would have been given the advantage of being conscious with blood and brainwaves, but still he declined because he knew his ideas were pseudoscientific nonsense!

it is a disappointment to me that on a so called “ science “ forum, most want to give an opinion before study so
they are ideologists not scientists who even quote wiki on occasion!

Study it warden it is fascinating.
I’ve told you a few places to start, in books chosen because they refer to the previous science.

One of the posters here remarked mockingly, from his apriori ideology (not science ) he would only believe that death was not an anbrupt halt, if one in the cemetery came back.
It is exactly the same logical nonsense as if in sailing ship days they only believed information about far off countries from the boats that never returned. But let that pass.

On the medical front , If he read the book I suggested he would know pig brains have been revitalised after several days of decapitation. , indeed cadaver human brain cells have also been propagated. He would know that 4 minutes to resuscitate after arrest is a myth. Oxygen toxicity causes the damage, the resuscitation process is the problem, one of parnias main messages as an emergency medicine researcher.

One of the hardest definitions in medicine is death.
The totality of evidence only starts to make sense as a dualist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can not only name them, but I have read their books and papers and I heard some of them speak.
I have read their books and papers. As a sceptic in the scientific sevse,

Thats Because I study science a lot before comment on it.
it is a disappointment to me that on a so called “ science “ forum, most want an opinion before study
they are ideologists not scientists Who even quote wiki on occasion,

Study ot warden it is fascinating. I’ve told you a few places to start, in books which refer to the previous science.

One of the posters here remarked mockingly, from his apriori ideology (not science ) he would only believe that death was not an anbrupt halt, if one in the cemetery came back.
It is exactly the same nonsense as if in sailing ship days they only believed information about far off countries from the boats that never returned. But let that pass.

On thre medical front , If he read the book I suggested he would know pig brains have been revitalised after days of decapitation. , indeed cadaver human brain cells have also been propagated.

One of the hardest definitions in medicine is death. The evidence only starts to make sense as a dualist.

Your inability to name them and your continued arrogant waffling throws the very first sentence of your response into doubt.

 

[Larniavc]

as are many neurologists and neurosurgeons , cardiologists and ed specialists that consciousness is not a process of the brain, but instead it interacts with the brain.

They do not.

 

[Larniavc]

I can not only name them,

But you didn’t.

 

[Mountainmike]

But you didn’t.

Nope, I am going to force you to study other than your own opinions! If you read the books I named you will find references.

i am urging a science forum to study science then comment!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope, I am going to force you to study other than your own opinions! If you read the books I named you will find references.

i am urging a science forum to study science then comment!

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.

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.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

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.

Laziness on your part not mine.