Consciouness without brain activity

[Rlyeh]

What do you think Ketamine is?

Is this a trick question? It's a drug.

[Karlis]

Then the consciousness should always be present whether the brain receives it or not?

I guess the answer may depend on the reasoning applied to this aspect. *Strictly speaking* from Bible-Scripture reasoning, the answer as I see it is clear. Scriptures state that when a person dies (brain fails beyond repair) the "spirit in man" that imparts human self-awareness, mind, or whatever name one may care to use -- departs back to God who imparted that "spirit in Man" in the first place.

Note: this "spirit in man" must not be confused with the word commonly used as *soul*.

There are two basic ways that the word"soul" is usually used in the Bible. The general meaning of "soul" in Scriptures means the living, self-aware physical entity ... a human being. Another, completely different meaning of "soul" in Scriptures, refers to the conscious part of the human being = the spirit in Man (which I mentioned earlier).

Hope this is not confusing.

Karlis

[Mattshark]

I guess the answer may depend on the reasoning applied to this aspect. *Strictly speaking* from Bible-Scripture reasoning, the answer as I see it is clear. Scriptures state that when a person dies (brain fails beyond repair) the "spirit in man" that imparts human self-awareness, mind, or whatever name one may care to use -- departs back to God who imparted that "spirit in Man" in the first place.

Note: this "spirit in man" must not be confused with the word commonly used as *soul*.

There are two basic ways that the word"soul" is usually used in the Bible. The general meaning of "soul" in Scriptures means the living, self-aware physical entity ... a human being. Another, completely different meaning of "soul" in Scriptures, refers to the conscious part of the human being = the spirit in Man (which I mentioned earlier).

Hope this is not confusing.

Karlis

Yes but scripture is a world away from reality.

[White Crane Feather]

Yep, that is basically it.

Seeker, when I say how can you say people with NDE are actually dead when they have their NDE? That is just conjecture, especially when it occurs in such a tiny minority of cases.

How does it also fall with into the experience being able to be recreated in labs etc?

And finally, at how do you ideas fit in around the evidence we have?

Of course they are not dead. But they are dieing. Its safe to assume that at least a parody of people who actually do die have the experience after all they were dieing to right?

As I have mentioned several times before. The brain is most probably a receiver. In a lab you create the conditions for an experience. It is not the slightest bit logical to create the conditions for an experience and then turn around and say the persons brain created it. You did!!! I'm no neurologist, but Id bet my left nut, that a talented neurologist by meddling with your brain and perceptions can make you experience all sorts of things artificially. Peanut butter, pleasure, pain, whatever. That didn't mean at all that peanut butter dosnt exist. Somewhere in your brain there is a spot that corolares to getting hit in the nuts. if Somone has the ability to stimulate that in a lab, then quite abviously no one is going to suggest that getting hit in the nuts is not a real possibility.

What evidence? I have addressed everything so far. Read back.

[_Only]

Is this a trick question? It's a drug.

Then we should be conscious under anesthetic. Right? Everyone should be having an OBE when unconscious.

It's a dissociative anesthetic that often has out of body experiences experienced with it was the point.

Anesthetics, whether they be hindering awareness to only certain parts of the brain, or the whole brain, have odd experiences of consciousness connected with them. And out of body experiences are also common under general anesthesia.

If your point is that everyone should experience an out of body experience when the brain is unaware, there can be reasons why someone might not have one, or might not remember it.

[_Only]

Yes but scripture is a world away from reality.

Your (the most commonly accepted) reality.

[Mattshark]

Of course they are not dead. But they are dieing. Its safe to assume that at least a parody of people who actually do die have the experience after all they were dieing to right?

As I have mentioned several times before. The brain is most probably a receiver. In a lab you create the conditions for an experience. It is not the slightest bit logical to create the conditions for an experience and then turn around and say the persons brain created it. You did!!! I'm no neurologist, but Id bet my left nut, that a talented neurologist by meddling with your brain and perceptions can make you experience all sorts of things artificially. Peanut butter, pleasure, pain, whatever. That didn't mean at all that peanut butter dosnt exist. Somewhere in your brain there is a spot that corolares to getting hit in the nuts. if Somone has the ability to stimulate that in a lab, then quite abviously no one is going to suggest that getting hit in the nuts is not a real possibility.

What evidence? I have addressed everything so far. Read back.

Yet most people who die and are revived don't experience NDE's, what does that say?

It is not most probably a receiver at all, that is completely illogical. It is most like the signal source. You are suggesting the far less parsimonious answer is accurate because you want it to be, not because it is the most likely answer and not because of evidence.

You do realise you are using examples that are ALL to a point are physical and involve chemistry, well done at contradicting your own argument.

No, you have made stuff and acted like it is evidence.

[White Crane Feather]

What is a 'normal brain', seeker? Disorders such as schizophrenia do not have to be based on trauma, and a simple difference in brain structure means nothing unless you can point to there being a 'typical' brain? Furthermore, schizophrenia (and many other neurological disorders) are not diseases in that they are not necessarily the result of the action of a pathogen.

Can you learn when not conscious? If not then this is evidence that learning is based on the consciousness (as in the state, not the phenomenon) of the subject.

Speculating that a 'spirit consciousness' exists and is capable of learning adds nothing to the argument, and provides no evidence.

Comeone Leo. Schitzo is a mental illness... It does not need a pathogen but can certainly be cause by one, or trauma.

I am merely pointing out that changes in the brain, illness, whatever affects a complex antenna just as much as a generator. Don't believe me.. Try meddling with your cell phone, get it wet, put a powerful magnet up to it. See if it works properly.

I certainly can learn while unconscious. I do all the time. I even practice things and develop new ideas. So can you. There may not be a such thing as unconsciousness, only the lack of memory of it makes it apear that way. I'll proove it to you. Do you remember all your dreams last night? No? We're you conciousnes or unconciouse? I bet if I asked your dream self at the time, you would say conciousnes, but then when I asked your physical self later who did not remember the conversation, you would say unconciouse. Right?

Oh, I'm not speculating. We are discussing NDEs. If they are what they apear to be ( to the experiencer) then quite obviously the spirit body has the ability the remember and carry that memory to physical existence. Otherwise there would be no discussion.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Seeker79

[Mattshark]

Your (the most commonly accepted) reality.

Yes, darn that actual evidence over blind belief. I mean where has that gotten us! Oh wait.

[Karlis]

Yes but scripture is a world away from reality.

You are free to hold that opinion Matt. Far-fetched as it probably sounds to many people, it may be possible that Society's gradual distancing itself from Bible values is a major factor in the escalating breakdown of Western Society. ... unless one decides that society is progressing positively, rather than heading towards dissolution.

[White Crane Feather]

Yes, darn that actual evidence over blind belief. I mean where has that gotten us! Oh wait.

I would challenge you to point out my blind belief or onlys for that matter.

[Mattshark]

You are free to hold that opinion Matt. Far-fetched as it probably sounds to many people, it may be possible that Society's gradual distancing itself from Bible values is a major factor in the escalating breakdown of Western Society. ... unless one decides that society is progressing positively, rather than heading towards dissolution.

That is a myth, unless you think the Victorians lived in a far better society with less crime and less problems.

I mean it is terrible how using science over scripture has given us things like medicine!

[Mattshark]

I would challenge you to point out my blind belief or onlys for that matter.

I already have pointed out your blind beliefs.

As I have mentioned several times before. The brain is most probably a receiver.

See look, that is a blind belief, it is not evidentially supported, very much the opposite.

[Leonardo]

Comeone Leo. Schitzo is a mental illness... It does not need a pathogen but can certainly be cause by one, or trauma.

You have been making part of your case around the brain being an "antenna for consciousness", and therefore a change to that antenna affects the reception of the consciousness. I have only presented evidence to counter that belief, and asked for the evidence for your own claim.

To bring credibility to the claim that a change in the "antenna" necessarily results in the change in reception of consciousness, you have to show there is a "typical antenna" against which you can measure any 'change'. If you cannot, then please do not complain my argument is unreasonable, but accept that your own is pure speculation without any basis in actuality.

I certainly can learn while unconscious. I do all the time. I even practice things and develop new ideas. So can you. There may not be a such thing as unconsciousness, only the lack of memory of it makes it apear that way. I'll proove it to you. Do you remember all your dreams last night? No? We're you conciousnes or unconciouse? I bet if I asked your dream self at the time, you would say conciousnes, but then when I asked your physical self later who did not remember the conversation, you would say unconciouse. Right?

Please back up your claim to be able to learn while not conscious. And no, sleep (and dreaming) is not unconsciousness, it is an altered state of consciousness.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

I already have pointed out your blind beliefs.

See look, that is a blind belief, it is not evidentially supported, very much the opposite.

What evidence? again you have presented nothing that cannot apply to both. I'm actually open to both ideas. It would seem you are the one with blind faith.

There is not a shred of evidence that the brain is a producer of conciousness not a shred that cant be applied to a receiver as well. Then you through in the continuing evidence of NDEs, OBEs, and my own experiences... Then you will see that my belief are far from blind, and are supported by more evidence than the opposite.

[_Only]

Yes, darn that actual evidence over blind belief. I mean where has that gotten us! Oh wait.

Darn nothing. I'm just saying people will make their own reality in one form or another, whether it agrees with yours or not.

I find them both great things if they are helpful. Evidence from this physical reality may save my life some day. That blind belief (though not from any scripture) I might have found may also save my life. All I know is that the latter makes me want to. That's what it has gotten me. And that's pretty important if I may be blatantly selfish.

[Mattshark]

What evidence? again you have presented nothing that cannot apply to both. I'm actually open to both ideas. It would seem you are the one with blind faith.

There is not a shred of evidence that the brain is a producer of conciousness not a shred that cant be applied to a receiver as well. Then you through in the continuing evidence of NDEs, OBEs, and my own experiences... Then you will see that my belief are far from blind, and are supported by more evidence than the opposite.

Well, Leo has. You are funny. You present a ridiculously unlikely scenario and act like it as much worth as a highly likely scenario and you accuse me or blind belief. You just keep on ignoring what you don't like Nothing like wilful ignorance.

Your experience is not evidence, basic error there seeker. Just because you think you can astrally project doesn't mean you can.

[Karlis]

That is a myth, unless you think the Victorians lived in a far better society with less crime and less problems.

I mean it is terrible how using science over scripture has given us things like medicine!

Matt, I was thinking of the social progress in "early America, Founding Fathers etc., when I posted, "... it may be possible that Society's gradual distancing itself from Bible values is a major factor in the escalating breakdown of Western Society. ... unless one decides that society is progressing positively, rather than heading towards dissolution. ..."

Technological progress is not the point here, imo. That said, if we take scientific progress into consideration -- don't you think that this Planet should be a virtual paradise? Why is it not a paradise now? Maybe human values have gone downhill instead of keeping up with the developments in the sciences?

Karlis

[Mattshark]

Darn nothing. I'm just saying people will make their own reality in one form or another, whether it agrees with yours or not.

I find them both great things if they are helpful. Evidence from this physical reality may save my life some day. That blind belief (though not from any scripture) I might have found may also save my life. All I know is that the latter makes me want to. That's what it has gotten me. And that's pretty important if I may be blatantly selfish.

No, people can have their own perception of reality, that is a very different from having a different reality.

So, why has modern medicine led to significant increase in life expectancy? Blind belief hasn't. The fact is that only one of these thing has had a significant effect on society. Well, I say that, no one has have blown up a building in the name of modern medicine to be fair.

[_Only]

Your experience is not evidence, basic error there seeker. Just because you think you can astrally project doesn't mean you can.

^ Pushing his reality into others realities again.

And don't say how your reality is better because science can create seedless watermelons. I see this theme coming up again and again in this thread from you.

No, people can have their own perception of reality, that is a very different from having a different reality.

Reality is perception. Perception is reality. I think this is something you have an extremely hard time seeing.

Edited May 20, 2012 by _Only

[Mattshark]

Matt, I was thinking of the social progress in "early America, Founding Fathers etc., when I posted, "... it may be possible that Society's gradual distancing itself from Bible values is a major factor in the escalating breakdown of Western Society. ... unless one decides that society is progressing positively, rather than heading towards dissolution. ..."

Technological progress is not the point here, imo. That said, if we take scientific progress into consideration -- don't you think that this Planet should be a virtual paradise? Why is it not a paradise now? Maybe human values have gone downhill instead of keeping up with the developments in the sciences?

Karlis

Oooh America's founding fathers would be unhappy with how the US government has not distanced itself from from religion.

No, not unless you are happy to bring back segregation, increased homophobia, slavery, removal of womans rights.

Yeah, it was soooo much better before.

[Mattshark]

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

^ Pushing his reality into others realities again.

And don't say how your reality is better because science can create seedless watermelons. I see this theme coming up again and again in this thread from you.

How about curing cancer? I'd be dead but for that. You are arguing for ignorance and conjecture. Something that has provided nothing.

[White Crane Feather]

Yet most people who die and are revived don't experience NDE's, what does that say?

It is not most probably a receiver at all, that is completely illogical. It is most like the signal source. You are suggesting the far less parsimonious answer is accurate because you want it to be, not because it is the most likely answer and not because of evidence.

You do realise you are using examples that are ALL to a point are physical and involve chemistry, well done at contradicting your own argument.

No, you have made stuff and acted like it is evidence.

Most people that fall asleep and wake up don't remember their dreams. What does that say? Defiantly not that they weren't dreaming. We know this as fact.

If we were to use the unsupported materialist assumption that an NDE is a dream, why is it now different that dreams not remembered still exist but NDEs not remembered dont? There just dreams right?!?!? Seems to me like there are some extremely biased games being played, and completely erroneous assumptions.

I have not made one signle thing up. Not one.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Seeker79

[Mattshark]

Most people that fall asleep and wake up don't remember their dreams. What does that say? Defiantly not that they weren't dreaming. We know this as fact.

If we were to use the unsupported materialist assumption that an NDE is a dream, why is it now different that dreams not remembered still exist but NDEs not remembered dont? There just dreams right?!?!? Seems to me like there are some extremely biased games being played, and completely erroneous assumptions.

Yes that is exactly what you are doing.

[Karlis]

Oooh America's founding fathers would be unhappy with how the US government has not distanced itself from from religion.

No, not unless you are happy to bring back segregation, increased homophobia, slavery, removal of womans rights.

Yeah, it was soooo much better before.

Those were the standards of those days Matt. Progress has been made there.

Why are you ignoring the positive aspects of stability of society?