Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Consciouness without brain activity


markdohle

Recommended Posts

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

There is something rather ironic in an argument proposing that reality is entirely subjective, yet accusing another of not believing that.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Oh... I defiantly can. It's the nature of the experience that is debatable. The experience itself is well documented unless you want to say I'm a liar, then we can't really have a discussion about it. ( ask Ai guardian about it. He is a good skeptic that has been there) No, it is not added to the body of evidence for others it is anecdotal. All experiences can only be anecdotal. The best science can do is verify with eegs that the person is in an unusual state of conciousness. This has been done.

"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"

This is the priemo example of extreme bias. Many many many times in discovery of phenomenon people label it rediculouse only for it to one day become common knowledge. the real world is counter intuitive. It is not going to fit nicely into our limited abilities to observe and perspective. This has been prooven over and over again. Words like "rediculouse" "likely" "unlikely" mean absolutely nothing without supporting data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about curing cancer? I'd be dead but for that.

What the heck are you talking about? This is a thread about what might be behind out of body experiences and consciousness, which has nothing to do with medicine, cancer, or seedless watermelons, and has not been "cured" through science. Stop making this connection in order to further your points here. It doesn't work, and is downright silly.

You are arguing for ignorance and conjecture. Something that has provided nothing.

Yes, because realizing that my perception of all around me is my reality is ignorant and pure conjecture. And this has provided me nothing. I'm starting to get dizzy from going in needless circles with you.

But be sure to reply back with another unrelated thing to the topic that science has done. Because that is totally what this thread is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There is and always has been documented NDEs where consciousness without brain activitiy has been proved - http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

The problem is it threatens some peoples world view so they convince themselves there is no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is exactly what you are doing.

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Because it is a myth quite frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is and always has been documented NDEs where consciousness without brain activitiy has been proved - http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

The problem is it threatens some peoples world view so they convince themselves there is no evidence.

Yes I know. Pardimes are extremely hard to change and probably rightly so. Unfortunately as Max Planck and others warned us. It takes the death of the clingers of old age before things change. That's fine. At least most of them are enlightened enough not to show at my door and try to kill me for working on the truth. At least those days are pretty much behind us.

Edited by Seeker79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is exactly what you are doing.

Why don't you try addressing the actual argument? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something rather ironic in an argument proposing that reality is entirely subjective, yet accusing another of not believing that.

I didn't accuse him of not believing that. He said so, which is what I replied to. It's his continued attack on others realities, which he implies don't exist, that brought the need for me to say it. Context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck are you talking about? This is a thread about what might be behind out of body experiences and consciousness, which has nothing to do with medicine, cancer, or seedless watermelons, and has not been "cured" through science. Stop making this connection in order to further your points here. It doesn't work, and is downright silly.

Yes, because realizing that my perception of all around me is my reality is ignorant and pure conjecture. And this has provided me nothing. I'm starting to get dizzy from going in needless circles with you.

But be sure to reply back with another unrelated thing to the topic that science has done. Because that is totally what this thread is about.

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.

You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context ;).

There is and always has been documented NDEs where consciousness without brain activitiy has been proved - http://www.near-deat...m/evidence.html

The problem is it threatens some peoples world view so they convince themselves there is no evidence.

That is not evidence, it is someone making a unsubstantiated claim. Nothing more.

How so?

I think I have pointed that out numerous times, you amusingly then accused me of what you have been doing. You think that considering the brain to be an antenna for consciousness with no detected incoming signal and a significantly less parsimonious explanation it as valid as the brain being the cause for consciousness with a large volume of evidence to suggest so because you think your personal experience is evidence. Guess what, it isn't. Experience is not evidence, is too mailable to suggestion, too subjective especially when knowledge is lacking, it is the nature of the brain to form (a commonly illogical) explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might a physicist be able and allowed to contribute some insight to the questions before us? A philosopher? A mathematician? An engineer? Who's on your black list? Anybody who hasn't studied biology recently has been proposed. What's yours?

Sure, but if you want the nuts on human consciousness I'm not putting my money in with the physicists. Just like if I want the nuts on quantum chromodynamics I'm sure as hell not looking for a biologist.

For Max Planck? I think he can take care of himself. For ChloeB, who brought Planck into the conversation? I know she can take care of herself. For all my fellow non-biologists who would venture an opinion about the relation between matter and consciousness, but might be intimidated by the refined prose stylings somebody picked up dockside? Yeah, I'll stand up against that. But could I have that armor in red, please? Thanks.

Sorry mang, this just in from the warehouse. Were out of white and red. Pink is the only color available :D

I challenge anyone to offer any tid bit of evidence that the brain generates consciousness that can not be applied to the brain receiving consciousness. Anyone?

I did previously. I pointed some things out. I'd start with reading about the reticular activating system.

Just what is the evidence that conciousness arises in the brain. Don't say drugs, trauma, etc. those things will effect a generator just as much as an antenna.

If a cell phone is a receiver of the message and not the generator, then it ought to be possible to pick (either accidentally or intentionally) on the incoming message from time to time. This happens, used to happen to one of my cell phones all the time--Where I'd pick up others conversations. Likewise, you can tap into others incoming signals too.

If brains are just 'receivers' than that should happen too from time to time. Why aren't people waking up one day feeling like Seeker or Copasetic for a day? Because my consciousness isn't being beamed to my brain. The only way to circumvent the potential problem of mixed up signaling is special pleading on your part. So go ahead, lets hear the special pleading :o

It's simple. If the brain is the a generator then NDEs are just some highly accidental fluke. If its an Antenna then they are most probably exactly what they apear to be.

Why should that be a problem? Do you realize how many things that happen to you by way of your brain an accidental fluke? You looked at those neat optic illusions? Guess what, fluke. You ever been on a neurology ward? Guess what, whole bunch of flukiness going on there. Ever had a fasciculation? Fluke. Ever seen sparklers in your vision? Fluke. Ever had an itch when nothing was touching you? Fluke. Ever had pain in your shoulder and arm during a heart attack? Fluke. Ever had periumbilical pain during appendicitis? Fluke. Ever had a fever? Fluke. Ever hallucinated? Fluke. Ever had sleep paralysis? Fluke. Ever had thought a shaped looked like another person? Fluke.

Our biology is not perfect, despite what proponents of intelligent design might claim.

They may. Anestisia also affects memory aswell now dosnt it?

Yes/no. It depends on the type. Go back to my first post on this thread. Recall I said the brain has task-localized-specalization. Memory, a component of consciousness has different localizations than other aspects of consciousness. Ergo, some drugs can affect certain parts of consciousness while not affecting others.

For example arylcyclohexylamines, like ketamine since people were discussing it, works on NMDA receptors. If you would recall (or maybe you are unaware of) NMDA receptors potentiate glutamatine transduction in synaptic junctions--It is the main stimulatory neurotransmitter of the CNS. Which makes it very important for things like memory generation (tetanic stimuli of hippocampal neurons) and time-place associations (think mesolimbic areas of the brain). Hence blockade tends to generate amnesia and disassociation. However you can still be alert, because parts of the RAS are well and good which are using 5-HT (serotonin and derivatives) norepinephrine (NE). (note ketamine has pretty weak affects on memory though)

Conversely if I shot you full of fentanyl then cut you with a scalpel, you wouldn't feel it, but you'd remember every second of it. Why? Mu receptors now, different populations of neurons.

See? Localization of tasks. That why brain pathology is unique compared to other organs.

Everyone dreams but most people don't remember them now do they?

Again, you have to look at what is active and what isn't. You were incorrect when you said you were learning when you were unconscious. Like Leo pointed out, REM sleep (when you dream) is really a different degree of consciousness, but you are conscious nonetheless. In fact when you are most alert during the day, your brain is characterized by beta waves on an EEG (think RAS, LC, etc again). When you are in REM sleep your brain is also characterized by beta waves. Just as if you were awake. Hence REM EEG patterns are referred to as pseudowaking patterns.

Why don't you remember your dreams then (or lots of people)? Because REM is when we consolidate memory (via protein production, an act of creation). To do this the parts of your brain for "long-term" storage are disconnected from the parts that generate consciousness. Back to the RAS again: predominating in the RAS is now ACh instead of NE. With NE levels down (think of it as the neurotransmitter that opposes REM) GABA levels rise in your basal ganglia and block your thalamus from sending input to your premotor and secondary motor areas of your cortex. In effect you are paralyzed. Why is this important? Because you are conscious enough that were that not to occur you'd actually get up and act out dreams without the luxury of having an active front lobe (executive functions) to make decisions for you (Note people who do sleepwalk etc, do so in stage 3/4 sleep--not REM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

And hallucinations.
Anesthetics, whether they be hindering awareness to only certain parts of the brain, or the whole brain
Anesthesia suppresses brain functions that are attributed to consciousness and memory.
have odd experiences of consciousness connected with them. And out of body experiences are also common under general anesthesia.
OBEs aren't common to begin with, but you're trying to say they are common under anesthesia? Right..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know. Pardimes are extremely hard to change and probably rightly so. Unfortunately as Max Planck and others warned us. It takes the death of the clingers of old age before things change. That's fine. At least most of them are enlightened enough not to show at my door and try to kill me for working on the truth. At least those days are pretty much behind us.

You better quit dicking around then and get yourself a PhD in neuroscience. Because I interact with the up and coming neuroscientists, regularly. They are even less inclined to believe this "consciousness outside the brain" than the current "clingers of old age". You'll get a paradigm shift alright, just 180 degrees to what you guys are hoping.

Edit

Interestingly as I sit perched up on my terrace room above the library, over looking the grand atrium, there is a congregation of neuroscientists and their students presenting posters on neural cascades and DNA regulation in neurons. They've been here all weekend.

Maybe I'll mosey on down there to take advantage of the buffet (these kind symposiums food sucks compared to the grand rounds food tho :P). Maybe I'll hackle a few PhD candidates and see if they are likely to spend their careers buying into this kind of fluff :)

Edited by Copasetic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Yeah, all those chemicals that act on the brain that alter or suppress consciousness, they aren't evidence of anything.

I have to laugh when someone presents supported evidence and real examples, only for you to come along in denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Which materialists say its a dream? Oh right, you're making a straw man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.

You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context ;).

That's the thing you're not getting. I was talking about his reality, not science. You're saying his reality is wrong; trying to push yours into his. And I attempted to stop you from bringing science into that, but I realize now that is utterly impossible when conversing with you.

For you, science is the only reality, and all else is wrong. And again this competition of whose reality is better, or more right, with your non-related examples.

Come off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you could keep up with the conversation, apparently I was mistaken.

You were arguing for conjecture and why you thought it was relevant and as good as science, I pointed out it isn't and that science has done significantly more for society, gave examples, you sulked and forgot about context ;).

That is not evidence, it is someone making a unsubstantiated claim. Nothing more.

I think I have pointed that out numerous times, you amusingly then accused me of what you have been doing. You think that considering the brain to be an antenna for consciousness with no detected incoming signal and a significantly less parsimonious explanation it as valid as the brain being the cause for consciousness with a large volume of evidence to suggest so because you think your personal experience is evidence. Guess what, it isn't. Experience is not evidence, is too mailable to suggestion, too subjective especially when knowledge is lacking, it is the nature of the brain to form (a commonly illogical) explanation.

That's not what's been happening at all. I have shown that The brain being a receiver is just as likely as a generator. Nothing said here has been able to separate to two. Then we throw in NDEs and other human experiences the scales begin to tip. Unless you are going to deni the existence of the experiences them selves, but I don't think you can do that. Like it or not, NDEs exist. Their existence adds credibility to the spiritual. Conclusive? Of course not. But don't expect to throw empty unsupported arguments at it, with games, and misdirection attached and be able to get away with it with everyone. If you don't have any other evidence than ridiculouse and unlikely just say so. as it stands most of the world will disagree that conciousness can exist outside of a physical body. Evidence for the validity of NDEs, and materialists in ability to support their claims otherwise seems to be the case. Oh Iknow, I know. Brain lesions, dugs, anestisa, etc etc affect conciousness, mental illness etc etc. just read the thread. Both are perfectly explainable from both perspectives. Yet the one that you don't agree with is rediculouse and you are not biased ....rrrrriiighhhttt.

Edited by Seeker79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You better quit dicking around then and get yourself a PhD in neuroscience. Because I interact with the up and coming neuroscientists, regularly.

Edit

Interestingly as I sit perched up on my terrace room above the library, over looking the grand atrium, there is a congregation of neuroscientists and their students presenting posters on neural cascades and DNA regulation in neurons. They've been here all weekend.

Maybe I'll mosey on down there to take advantage of the buffet (these kind symposiums food sucks compared to the grand rounds food tho :P). Maybe I'll hackle a few PhD candidates and see if they are likely to spend their careers buying into this kind of fluff :)

Snip

Edited by Seeker79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which materialists say its a dream? Oh right, you're making a straw man.

Sorry some say it's a dream. Quite a few actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBEs aren't common to begin with, but you're trying to say they are common under anesthesia? Right..

Out of body experiences are common. If by common, we mean happening to many people over all of recorded history, then I'd consider that common.

But you're right, they aren't common in anesthesia. I should have said it has happened to multiple people. Nevertheless, it has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry some say it's a dream. Quite a few actually.

Who says this?

Technically being asleep is an altered state of consciousness, a dying brain is a very different thing than sleeping or dreaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but if you want the nuts on human consciousness I'm not putting my money in with the physicists. Just like if I want the nuts on quantum chromodynamics I'm sure as hell not looking for a biologist.

Sorry mang, this just in from the warehouse. Were out of white and red. Pink is the only color available :D

I did previously. I pointed some things out. I'd start with reading about the reticular activating system.

If a cell phone is a receiver of the message and not the generator, then it ought to be possible to pick (either accidentally or intentionally) on the incoming message from time to time. This happens, used to happen to one of my cell phones all the time--Where I'd pick up others conversations. Likewise, you can tap into others incoming signals too.

If brains are just 'receivers' than that should happen too from time to time. Why aren't people waking up one day feeling like Seeker or Copasetic for a day? Because my consciousness isn't being beamed to my brain. The only way to circumvent the potential problem of mixed up signaling is special pleading on your part. So go ahead, lets hear the special pleading :o

Why should that be a problem? Do you realize how many things that happen to you by way of your brain an accidental fluke? You looked at those neat optic illusions? Guess what, fluke. You ever been on a neurology ward? Guess what, whole bunch of flukiness going on there. Ever had a fasciculation? Fluke. Ever seen sparklers in your vision? Fluke. Ever had an itch when nothing was touching you? Fluke. Ever had pain in your shoulder and arm during a heart attack? Fluke. Ever had periumbilical pain during appendicitis? Fluke. Ever had a fever? Fluke. Ever hallucinated? Fluke. Ever had sleep paralysis? Fluke. Ever had thought a shaped looked like another person? Fluke.

Our biology is not perfect, despite what proponents of intelligent design might claim.

Yes/no. It depends on the type. Go back to my first post on this thread. Recall I said the brain has task-localized-specalization. Memory, a component of consciousness has different localizations than other aspects of consciousness. Ergo, some drugs can affect certain parts of consciousness while not affecting others.

For example arylcyclohexylamines, like ketamine since people were discussing it, works on NMDA receptors. If you would recall (or maybe you are unaware of) NMDA receptors potentiate glutamatine transduction in synaptic junctions--It is the main stimulatory neurotransmitter of the CNS. Which makes it very important for things like memory generation (tetanic stimuli of hippocampal neurons) and time-place associations (think mesolimbic areas of the brain). Hence blockade tends to generate amnesia and disassociation. However you can still be alert, because parts of the RAS are well and good which are using 5-HT (serotonin and derivatives) norepinephrine (NE). (note ketamine has pretty weak affects on memory though)

Conversely if I shot you full of fentanyl then cut you with a scalpel, you wouldn't feel it, but you'd remember every second of it. Why? Mu receptors now, different populations of neurons.

See? Localization of tasks. That why brain pathology is unique compared to other organs.

Again, you have to look at what is active and what isn't. You were incorrect when you said you were learning when you were unconscious. Like Leo pointed out, REM sleep (when you dream) is really a different degree of consciousness, but you are conscious nonetheless. In fact when you are most alert during the day, your brain is characterized by beta waves on an EEG (think RAS, LC, etc again). When you are in REM sleep your brain is also characterized by beta waves. Just as if you were awake. Hence REM EEG patterns are referred to as pseudowaking patterns.

Why don't you remember your dreams then (or lots of people)? Because REM is when we consolidate memory (via protein production, an act of creation). To do this the parts of your brain for "long-term" storage are disconnected from the parts that generate consciousness. Back to the RAS again: predominating in the RAS is now ACh instead of NE. With NE levels down (think of it as the neurotransmitter that opposes REM) GABA levels rise in your basal ganglia and block your thalamus from sending input to your premotor and secondary motor areas of your cortex. In effect you are paralyzed. Why is this important? Because you are conscious enough that were that not to occur you'd actually get up and act out dreams without the luxury of having an active front lobe (executive functions) to make decisions for you (Note people who do sleepwalk etc, do so in stage 3/4 sleep--not REM).

At the risk of trying to tackle copas usual regurgitation of his text books on my little i phone while laying in bed with a nasty stomach flue here I go.... Keep in mind it works best for me to work backwards.

Why and how we are pralyzed while sleeping is irrelevant. Cool to know however.

Right.... But some of us do remember our dreams don't we? In fact some of us remember a vast quantity of our dreams. Albeit time is irrelevant, yet if you wake someone up in REM they are more likely to remember their dream while in rem. but they are unconciouse so experience and learning is impossible right?

How the brain consolidates info into long term memory is also irrelevant. There obviously has to be memory for an experience to be articulated.

You are incorrect copa. People can conciously learn and practice things while dreaming. I have done it. Mabey your text book says that you can't, but that is your bible now isn't it.

It dosnt matter what or where you inject into Somone. What you block, what you don't. The fact remaines if the brain is a complex antenna, all of that still applies. You can do the same thing with your cell. Block this stop that. Eliminate the capability of this bit and you get that result. No argument here. The complexity of it dosnt mean much.

Well yes.... I know from the materialist perspective everything is a fluke. This conversation is a fluke, my kids brining me chicken broth to help ease my stomach ( I have got a stomach flue ....no ****) is a fluke. ( I'm supposed to be out hunting meteorights, it's fun there are NASA astrophysisists in town and I had some very interesting conversations with them)

Fluke fluke fluke. I guess it's useless to try and understand things if it's just a fluke. Fortunately I don't Agee with that. You want to degrade and reduce and really are stuck reducing everything down to chemistry that you ignore the obvious. Have you ever read a good book copa? What do you think would happen if all you did was study the ink on the paper? Yup no book. There is obvious meaning, but your nose is so close to the paper you can't even read. You would miss that Daniel tammet is gay, that socijaweea was a real 16 year old girl, that Socrates was a true scholar recording his own death from ingesting poison hemlock right up to the last second.

It's not a fluke because you say it is or because flukes and random events can happen and since it did its obviously a fluke. Proove it!! It just so happens that when many people get close to death they have an experience of traveling to another realm meeting loved ones etc etc.... Riiiigghhhttt.... A fluke. Why not flying Spagatti monsters or some other undefined thing?

Sometimes I wonder who is the spacy astral traveler and who is the logical scientist.

Just remember this conversation when you are a doctor, and your patient wakes up after your the anestisiaolgist has pumped her full of all that, and she describes what you were doing, saying, and whereing.

I wonder will you have the courage to report it accurately or will you deni the event as a fluke?

One more thing... You don't seem to have a concept of the difference between ego and conciousness.

There you go

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=ego&o=0&l=dir

Conciousness without ego is possible aswell.

Edited by Seeker79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You better quit dicking around then and get yourself a PhD in neuroscience. Because I interact with the up and coming neuroscientists, regularly. They are even less inclined to believe this "consciousness outside the brain" than the current "clingers of old age". You'll get a paradigm shift alright, just 180 degrees to what you guys are hoping.

Edit

Interestingly as I sit perched up on my terrace room above the library, over looking the grand atrium, there is a congregation of neuroscientists and their students presenting posters on neural cascades and DNA regulation in neurons. They've been here all weekend.

Maybe I'll mosey on down there to take advantage of the buffet (these kind symposiums food sucks compared to the grand rounds food tho :P). Maybe I'll hackle a few PhD candidates and see if they are likely to spend their careers buying into this kind of fluff :)

Id love to. Just To much life to be lived in other places. Mabey in my next life.

They can't spend their careers doing it... Their to chicken. Luckily there are some scientists that have real balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says this?

Technically being asleep is an altered state of consciousness, a dying brain is a very different thing than sleeping or dreaming.

No argument there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last thing. The universe is probably holographic. There is no need for there to be a signal or any other material medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.