Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on August 30, 2017, 06:43:24 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about unresponsive patients who may actually be conscious.
http://nypost.com/2017/07/01/thousands-of-unresponsive-patients-might-actually-be-conscious/
**********
They called him a dead man.
Last month New York-Presbyterian Hospital issued a death certificate for 68-year-old Yechezkel Nakar after he suffered a stroke that rendered him unconscious and unresponsive.
Trouble is Nakar wasn’t dead. His heart was still beating, and he remained on life support at Maimonides Medical Center while his family filed a lawsuit asking the court to withdraw his death certificate so they could be reimbursed for his continuing care. He survived for another 21 days after doctors had officially declared him deceased.
Nakar’s story not only raises the role of morality in medical care (his family objected to removing him from life support on religious grounds), but also highlights medicine’s limited understanding about this borderland between the dead and the living — an area the British-born neuroscientist Adrian Owen calls “the gray zone.”
Dr. Owen has spent the last 20 years using brain scans to try to communicate with people written off as brain-dead — as unreachable as heads of broccoli. And to the shock of the neurological community he has been successful. His studies estimate that upwards of 15 to 20 percent of patients in persistent vegetative states or “unresponsive wakefulness” may actually be conscious but locked in their bodies and unable to communicate. Some, he’s found, have “intact minds adrift deep within damaged bodies and brains.”
Dr. Owen’s collaborator, Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys, confirmed that if we can reach them, these people often reveal they are living meaningful — even happy — lives. In one study of 91 people with “locked-in syndrome” like Pistorius, 72 percent reported that they were happy and only 7 percent expressed a wish for euthanasia.
“What began as a scientific journey more than 20 years ago, a quest to unlock the mysteries of the human brain, evolved over time into a different kind of journey altogether,” writes Dr. Owen, “a quest to pull people out of the void, to ferry them back from the gray zone, so they can once again take their place among us in the land of the living.”
***********
This shows that even what doctors think of as 'brain death' need not really be death or oblivion or even unconsciousness.
IMO these are cases supporting the hypothesis of Consciousness being independent of the brain and body.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
This shows that even what doctors think of as 'brain death' need not really be death or oblivion or even unconsciousness.
IMO these are cases supporting the hypothesis of Consciousness being independent of the brain and body.
Cheers.
Sriram
A view not shared by the clinician quoted though. Surely it would be better to read so that we can learn and better understand, rather than merely grasp at irrational interpretations to support naive other-worldly fantasy beliefs.
-
A view not shared by the clinician quoted though. Surely it would be better to read so that we can learn and better understand, rather than merely grasp at irrational interpretations to support naive other-worldly fantasy beliefs.
Why do you still think of it as 'fantasy belief' rather than as a hypothesis, given the amount of data available through the above cases and NDE's etc.?!
-
Why do you still think of it as 'fantasy belief' rather than as a hypothesis, given the amount of data available through the above cases and NDE's etc.?!
There isn't any data to support your hypothesis, just wild unwarranted interpretations. What the data actually provides is greater insight into the neurological basis of consciousness.
-
It must be hell on earth being in a vegetative state but conscious, death might be welcomed by people in that condition.
-
...
IMO these are cases supporting the hypothesis of Consciousness being independent of the brain and body.
...
How so? Obviously in these cases the brain is still functioning and is dependent on some, minimal, body functions.
-
There isn't any data to support your hypothesis, just wild unwarranted interpretations. What the data actually provides is greater insight into the neurological basis of consciousness.
To quote..."Some, he’s found, have “intact minds adrift deep within damaged bodies and brains.”" That says something doesn't it?!
-
To quote..."Some, he’s found, have “intact minds adrift deep within damaged bodies and brains.”" That says something doesn't it?!
It is not inconsistent with other insights into brain function such as conscious mind being only a tiny fraction of total mind or hydrocephalic patients presenting normally despite having only a fraction of normal brain mass. We are learning about adaptability, redundancy and plasticity in brain function and it's not so surprising to discover subtle levels of consciousness present below levels that we could detect with earlier crude techniques.
-
To quote..."Some, he’s found, have “intact minds adrift deep within damaged bodies and brains.”" That says something doesn't it?!
There seems to be some confusion about the terms brain death and a persistent vegetative state here. Although the article mentions brain death, it seems that Dr owen was concentrating on those who were in a persistent vegetative state. It is well known that such people can still have brain function.
For instance, NHS Choices says this:
However, the important difference between brain death and a vegetative state is that someone in a vegetative state still has a functioning brain stem, which means that:
some form of consciousness may exist
breathing unaided is usually possible
there's a slim chance of recovery, because the brain stem's core functions may be unaffected
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Obviously there is much more to learn about such conditions, and because the definition of brain death is now looked upon as equivalent to total patient death, it has led to major problems associated with this diagnosis, as was clearly stated as long ago as 1978, for instance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/680611
However there is nothing at all that I can see in the original article which lends any support to your conjecture that consciousness is independent of brain and body. Indeed, the emphasis is all on the idea that the brain is functioning, at least to some extent, in these particular cases. As to the evidence from NDEs, there is plenty of data, agreed. However the quality and the interpretation of that data is paramount and does not necessarily lead to your conclusions.
-
Ok....so none of you are willing to concede that Consciousness being independent of the brain and body could be one of the possible explanations for the above findings and NDE's etc?!
-
Ok....so none of you are willing to concede that Consciousness being independent of the brain and body could be one of the possible explanations for the above findings and NDE's etc?!
Certainly not as far as I'm concerned. There is zero evidence for such an idea and plenty of research into the necessity for a living brain (whether aware or not) for consciousness.
-
Ok....so none of you are willing to concede that Consciousness being independent of the brain and body could be one of the possible explanations for the above findings and NDE's etc?!
makes no sense to me. Consciousness implies subject and object relationships; there has to be a subject (me) of consciousness to be conscious of things (object). If there is no subject, there can be no focal point of subjectiveness. Consciousness independent of body makes no more sense than 'left' or 'right' independent of spatial context.
-
makes no sense to me. Consciousness implies subject and object relationships; there has to be a subject (me) of consciousness to be conscious of things (object). If there is no subject, there can be no focal point of subjectiveness. Consciousness independent of body makes no more sense than 'left' or 'right' independent of spatial context.
It doesn't have to make sense to anyone. Lots of theories in science don't make sense to specific individuals or don't fit in with common sense and are often counter intuitive.....that does not mean the ideas are automatically false. The universe hardly fits in with common sense or with what we may consider as correct.
My point is...if Dark Matter and Dark Energy and Strings and Parallel Universes can be considered as probable in spite of being completely undetectable to humans and our instruments, why can't the idea of Consciousness being independent of body and brain be even a possibility?!
-
It doesn't have to make sense to anyone. Lots of theories in science don't make sense to specific individuals or don't fit in with common sense and are often counter intuitive.....that does not mean the ideas are automatically false. The universe hardly fits in with common sense or with what we may consider as correct.
My point is...if Dark Matter and Dark Energy and Strings and Parallel Universes can be considered as probable in spite of being completely undetectable to humans and our instruments, why can't the idea of Consciousness being independent of body and brain be even a possibility?!
Dark matter etc might not be detectable directly but they are provisional attempts to explain observations that we cannot currently fully explain. There is hard observational evidence for the expansion of the universe for instance, it is measured by machines, and not somebody's funny feeling, we know there is something real there to explain. There is no parallel situation for an independent consciousness, there is no data currently without an explanation; if we look to NDE and OBE case histories, all we have is anecdotal claims, there is no measurable evidence requiring explanation. All you have is altered states of consciousness and such things are easily induced, just go out and have a pint of beer. We don't rewrite the fundamental rules of reality on the basis of anecdotal claims, that would be real bad science.
-
Sriram, you devalue your answer with "common sense".
"Common sense" means: "I have absolutely no evidence for my viewpoint but it seems OK to me, therefore it is OK for anyone else."
-
Sriram, you devalue your answer with "common sense".
"Common sense" means: "I have absolutely no evidence for my viewpoint but it seems OK to me, therefore it is OK for anyone else."
Oh...I didn't know that's what common sense meant....
I thought it meant... 'sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence'. ;)
-
makes no sense to me. Consciousness implies subject and object relationships; there has to be a subject (me) of consciousness to be conscious of things (object). If there is no subject, there can be no focal point of subjectiveness. Consciousness independent of body makes no more sense than 'left' or 'right' independent of spatial context.
Another way of looking at it is 'I' as the conscious subject and 'me' as the mentally constructed object 'self'. It is the mind which tries to 'make sense' and needs a focal point to do so. You have to be 'out of your mind' to appreciate the senseless. ;)
-
Ok....so none of you are willing to concede that Consciousness being independent of the brain and body could be one of the possible explanations for the above findings and NDE's etc?!
For me to consider your conjectures as having a sound basis, you(or someone) would have to produce good qualitative evidence which clearly backs up your ideas. As I do not see this forthcoming, as I have no reason to think that your idea of 'consciousness being independent of brain and body' is true and as neuroscience does not seem to be going in this direction at all, why should I think then that your ideas are of good explanatory value?
-
For me to consider your conjectures as having a sound basis, you(or someone) would have to produce good qualitative evidence which clearly backs up your ideas. As I do not see this forthcoming, as I have no reason to think that your idea of 'consciousness being independent of brain and body' is true and as neuroscience does not seem to be going in this direction at all, why should I think then that your ideas are of good explanatory value?
Alright... alright! You'll soon make this into a thread about me instead of about Consciousness. Thanks.
-
Dark matter etc might not be detectable directly but they are provisional attempts to explain observations that we cannot currently fully explain. There is hard observational evidence for the expansion of the universe for instance, it is measured by machines, and not somebody's funny feeling, we know there is something real there to explain. There is no parallel situation for an independent consciousness, there is no data currently without an explanation; if we look to NDE and OBE case histories, all we have is anecdotal claims, there is no measurable evidence requiring explanation. All you have is altered states of consciousness and such things are easily induced, just go out and have a pint of beer. We don't rewrite the fundamental rules of reality on the basis of anecdotal claims, that would be real bad science.
Ok...so what would you accept as valid evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain and body but requiring them to communicate and interact in this world?
-
Ok...so what would you accept as valid evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain and body but requiring them to communicate and interact in this world?
The whole notion is irrational. Consciousness is a state. There needs to be a something that is conscious. You cannot have happiness without there being a person to be happy. Consciousness is a particular form of attentional state of a complex being. I am conscious of a pain in my toe right now. How could I be conscious of a toe that is not there ?
-
Ok...so what would you accept as valid evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain and body but requiring them to communicate and interact in this world?
No idea - you'd need a testable hypothesis first: from that you have to design a method to test the hypothesis, where the method would include what data could be collected, how these data would be collected, how these data would be analysed and what the limitations and scope of this method are in terms of any conclusions. Then you'd have to stand the scrutiny of publishing in an academically credible peer-reviewed journal and with sufficient detail so that your study (if it gets past peer-review) can be replicated. Do you have a hypothesis that would stand scrutiny?
Anecdotes are insufficient, given that people can be fallible in respect of their own experiences or unduly credulous about what others claim.
-
The whole notion is irrational. Consciousness is a state. There needs to be a something that is conscious. You cannot have happiness without there being a person to be happy. Consciousness is a particular form of attentional state of a complex being. I am conscious of a pain in my toe right now. How could I be conscious of a toe that is not there ?
Phantom toe as in phantom limbs?
-
The whole notion is irrational. Consciousness is a state. There needs to be a something that is conscious. You cannot have happiness without there being a person to be happy. Consciousness is a particular form of attentional state of a complex being. I am conscious of a pain in my toe right now. How could I be conscious of a toe that is not there ?
I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being. It has the ability to permeate 'something' and cause it to act in a conscious way. 'Attention' is a directive aspect of consciousness, which in itself is simple, but can lead to complex life forms. 'You' are 'consciousness' and a disturbance in your toe attracts your 'attention' and your conscious mind labels it as pain. How could you be conscious of a toe if consciousness is no there?
-
I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being. It has the ability to permeate 'something' and cause it to act in a conscious way. 'Attention' is a directive aspect of consciousness, which in itself is simple, but can lead to complex life forms. 'You' are 'consciousness' and a disturbance in your toe attracts your 'attention' and your conscious mind labels it as pain. How could you be conscious of a toe if consciousness is no there?
Yes, while I don't think the OP has anything that helps Sriram's hypothesis, I don't see that we can dismiss it simply for it not making sense. If we assume a brain in a vat, then it could theoretically link into a simulation, let's go wild and call it the Matrix, where the toe, like the spoon, isn't.
-
I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being...
The state of something cannot be independent of the thing that it describes. An apple could be red, blood can be red, but can redness be independent of things that are colourful ? Redness doesn't exist, but things that are red, do.
-
Yes, while I don't think the OP has anything that helps Sriram's hypothesis, I don't see that we can dismiss it simply for it not making sense. If we assume a brain in a vat, then it could theoretically link into a simulation, let's go wild and call it the Matrix, where the toe, like the spoon, isn't.
Very much agree with Torri, on this. Consciousness is the state of something, so one has to establish what that something is. So far, all we have is the brain to go on, and science is making great strides in understanding how consciousness comes about as a brain state even though there is much that we cannot yet explain. If consciousness was linked to something else, then, as Torri says, evidence has to accrue that this is so. So far, nothing has been established that points to anything other than the brain being involved. That doesn't mean that we dismiss Sriram's suggestions out of hand, it simply means that there is no reason to accept them unless that evidence is forthcoming. And, as Torri says(in post 21), for Sriram's ideas to hold any weight(other than as a personal conviction), intersubjective evidence is needed, and for that to happen a rigorous methodology would have to be applied.
-
Very much agree with Torri, on this. Consciousness is the state of something, so one has to establish what that something is. So far, all we have is the brain to go on, and science is making great strides in understanding how consciousness comes about as a brain state even though there is much that we cannot yet explain. If consciousness was linked to something else, then, as Torri says, evidence has to accrue that this is so. So far, nothing has been established that points to anything other than the brain being involved. That doesn't mean that we dismiss Sriram's suggestions out of hand, it simply means that there is no reason to accept them unless that evidence is forthcoming. And, as Torri says(in post 21), for Sriram's ideas to hold any weight(other than as a personal conviction), intersubjective evidence is needed, and for that to happen a rigorous methodology would have to be applied.
Yes, I agree with all of that but Sriram had asked was his hypothesis possible and torridon appeared t state that it wasn't. I don't see that as correct. That I feel pain in a toe is anecdotal and does nothing to argue against Sriram's hypothesis
-
I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being. It has the ability to permeate 'something' and cause it to act in a conscious way.
Suppose consciousness is a distinct 'thing' that permeates matter, then we should be able to isolate it and measure it. We all gain consciousness and lose it every day as we awake and go to sleep, so this 'thing' would be pretty ubiquitous, not hard to determine.
A simplistic scenario involving the elimination of consciousness : when preparing you with a general anaesthetic before an operation, suppose the anaesthetist instead of injecting you, he pulls back his syringe and extracts consciousness from you. He could then hold his syringe up to the light and inspect the consciousness in it, measuring your lack of consciousness by the volume of consciousness in his syringe.
Of course that is not how it works and it serves to illustrate the naivety of the concept that consciousness is a thing. The model that has consciousness as the attentional state corresponding to the the level of cross brain information integration in a neurobiological system fits with the evidence from medical practice and neuroscience.
-
Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.
With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.
I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.
To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject). Now, what the Self really is no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).
The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.
-
Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.
With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.
Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.
I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.
Not without a nod towards some sort of methodology - you need something more than personal conviction to demonstrate that consciousness is independent of our biology but somehow interacts with our biology.
To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject). Now, what the Self really is no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).
If this 'self' is external to our biology then you need to, as noted above, have a testable hypothesis to explain this. The comparison to string theory seems spurious since at string theory does involve hypotheses and is being investigated as an aspect or particle physics.
The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.
Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?
-
Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.
A whiff of logical positivism pervades the forum.
Which is worrying since it passed away several decades ago.
-
Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.
Not without a nod towards some sort of methodology - you need something more than personal conviction to demonstrate that consciousness is independent of our biology but somehow interacts with our biology.
If this 'self' is external to our biology then you need to, as noted above, have a testable hypothesis to explain this. The comparison to string theory seems spurious since at string theory does involve hypotheses and is being investigated as an aspect or particle physics.
Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?
We have to first accept it as a possibility before it can be examined further. If the possibility is not accepted with all the evidence how can it even be considered for further research?
"Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?".....what is the 'we'?
-
We have to first accept it as a possibility before it can be examined further. If the possibility is not accepted with all the evidence how can it even be considered for further research?
Nope - you need a hypothesis of some sort, from which you then formulate a method to investigate your hypothesis, and this is where evidence that is being sought is justified, defined and analysed, and where the approach to the analysis is also defined.
So before you can consider something as being apt for further investigation you need to be able to express it in the form of a coherent hypothesis, since if you can't do that then you don't have a basis to think your notion is 'possible' since you don't have a basis/method to investigate.
"Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?".....what is the 'we'?
'We' - a collective term for people.
-
With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.
There isn't any evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain. All there is, is anecdotal claims; claims are not evidence. I could claim that the Moon is made of cheddar cheese; that does not qualify as evidence.
To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject). Now, what the Self really is no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).
The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.
Mostly woo. I agree that many people misuse the word; if you search for consciousness of Youtube you probably get more hits that turn out to be flakey New Age woo than people talking about real consciousness as used in medical and scientific literature.
I'd agree there is a close correspondence between the notion of self and consciousness; the two concepts are intimately linked; consciousness is inherently subjective, the self is the focal point of that subjectivity. I'd disagree that the self is an entity, no evidence to support that, rather what the evidence suggests is that consciousness and self are aspects of the same phenomenology. When consciousness is lost, the self goes too, both are processes of a brain processing information in peak waking state (normally). If consciousness were something independent of brain function, that would render the brain largely redundant.
-
Suppose consciousness is a distinct 'thing' that permeates matter, then we should be able to isolate it and measure it. We all gain consciousness and lose it every day as we awake and go to sleep, so this 'thing' would be pretty ubiquitous, not hard to determine.
Perhaps it is formless and cannot be detected with measuring devices. Perhaps in sleep the body just blocks the passage of consciousness in certain areas of the brain but it continues to function in other areas of the body so that physiological maintenance can take place more efficiently i.e. there is no gain nor loss just a redirection without intellectual interference.
A simplistic scenario involving the elimination of consciousness : when preparing you with a general anaesthetic before an operation, suppose the anaesthetist instead of injecting you, he pulls back his syringe and extracts consciousness from you. He could then hold his syringe up to the light and inspect the consciousness in it, measuring your lack of consciousness by the volume of consciousness in his syringe.
If consciousness is formless and cannot be detected objectively then his syringe method is doomed to fail.
Of course that is not how it works and it serves to illustrate the naivety of the concept that consciousness is a thing. The model that has consciousness as the attentional state corresponding to the the level of cross brain information integration in a neurobiological system fits with the evidence from medical practice and neuroscience.
That could be because neurobiology only works with neurons and other biological forms and has to base its models upon such forms and forces. If consciousness is formless then neuroscience would probably reach a 'dead' end.
-
Nope - you need a hypothesis of some sort, from which you then formulate a method to investigate your hypothesis, and this is where evidence that is being sought is justified, defined and analysed, and where the approach to the analysis is also defined.
So before you can consider something as being apt for further investigation you need to be able to express it in the form of a coherent hypothesis, since if you can't do that then you don't have a basis to think your notion is 'possible' since you don't have a basis/method to investigate.
'We' - a collective term for people.
What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!
I meant that....what is that which experiences 'our biology from a perspective that is within our biology'?
-
What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!
I meant that....what is that which experiences 'our biology from a perspective that is within our biology'?
No idea: don't know enough about it. However, I'm sure the experts investigating will have some form of theory and related method. Since you raise it perhaps you should check it out.
I'm simply pointing out that so far as is known what we think on any issue involves and requires our biology: so no functioning brain = no thoughts or experiences.
-
What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!
...
There are quite a few different ideas on "parallel universes" some testable some not. The string theory based ones are being investigated by looking for "signatures" in the cosmic microwave background.
https://phys.org/news/2015-09-theory-parallel-universes-maths-science.html
Other testable multi-verse theories predict other effects: eg particular ranges for universal constants or the existence of elementary particles with particular characteristics. A scheme to investigate possibility of our universe being a simulation was suggested, based on investigating energy quantisation.
The thing is that it is not worth considering any parallel universe theory unless it has explanatory power - ie. can be used to explain observable events - in which case it will be falsifiable. The problem of your idea of a "self" independent of brain, body and the rest of the material world, is that you have defined it in a way which guarantees that it does not have any explanatory use and cannot be falsified.
-
No idea: don't know enough about it. However, I'm sure the experts investigating will have some form of theory and related method. Since you raise it perhaps you should check it out.
I'm simply pointing out that so far as is known what we think on any issue involves and requires our biology: so no functioning brain = no thoughts or experiences.
My point is that without verifiable evidence and proper investigation if people can propose parallel universes and Strings then the Self being independent of the body can also be proposed as a possibility.
I agree that ' no brain...no experiences' . That is similar to ' no computer... No internet experience'. That does not mean we as individuals don't exist independent of the computer.
-
My point is that without verifiable evidence and proper investigation if people can propose parallel universes and Strings then the Self being independent of the body can also be proposed as a possibility.
Nope - I've no idea what the theories are around particle physics and I'm fairly sure experts in the field are formulating and testing any theories in a systematic manner and even then I suspect they would concede that they may be wrong. That they don't know for sure doesn't justify your notion that this 'independent Self' could then be possible - that is a non sequitur.
I agree that ' no brain...no experiences' . That is similar to ' no computer... No internet experience'. That does not mean we as individuals don't exist independent of the computer.
Which is a straw man since nobody has argued that, even so that is a bad analogy since while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.
-
while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.
You want to spend more time on 'Searching for God' ;)
-
Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.
With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.
I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.
To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject). Now, what the Self really is no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is)
The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.
I can see the possibility of alien abduction, fairies, and Arsenal winning the Premier League. I think you need to careful of the idea that anecdote is evidence and very careful of the idea that saying there is a 'lot' of it is at all useful. Again see the alien abduction idea, that there is lots of that doesn't add to it. It's all the same value as the one anecdote in the absence of testing.
As to the idea that you are talking philosophically rather than scientifically, your OP attempting to argue from some scientific findings, and argue in a way that is in specific opposition to the person you are reporting on, does not bear that out.
-
Which is a straw man since nobody has argued that, even so that is a bad analogy since while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.
The point is simple. In a world where we interact through computers, if the computer breaks down, we will not be able to interact...even though we continue to exist and are perfectly in a position to communicate albeit outside the computer world. The breakdown of the computer does not mean we go out of existence.
It is similar with brains and the Self. Any damage to the brain could affect our communication with others, but does not mean the Self goes out of existence.
The OP cases highlight how if the Self is given a means of communication through sophisticated technology, even in the absence of a fully functioning brain, it does manage to communicate. Being 'trapped' in the body ...means just that.
-
I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.
I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.
We all adopt philosophical attitudes, some see a glass half full, some see it half empty. When I am with my children I am a father, when I'm with my parents I am a child, with my boss, I'm an employee. We are all adept at stepping into different personas and that is OK so long as they don't become entrenched or we end up on the road to a multiple personality disorder. It is healthy to recognise that we all have multiple aspects and they all spring from the one source, and so it is with the self, it is useful to think of our selves as something distinct from our bodies, but if you are going down the road of making a scientific hypothesis out of that, that they are ontologically distinct things, then that is going too far into fantasy land for my money; we need to keep our feet on the ground, recognise that ultimately I am one being that is the source of all my different aspects; there is not two me's, my mind is the subjective aspect of my brain; also with my dog, he is one dog, not two dogs with another one living inside, and that spider crawling across the carpet right now, that is one spider it is not two spiders.
-
I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.
We all adopt philosophical attitudes, some see a glass half full, some see it half empty. When I am with my children I am a father, when I'm with my parents I am a child, with my boss, I'm an employee. We are all adept at stepping into different personas and that is OK so long as they don't become entrenched or we end up on the road to a multiple personality disorder. It is healthy to recognise that we all have multiple aspects and they all spring from the one source, and so it is with the self, it is useful to think of our selves as something distinct from our bodies, but if you are going down the road of making a scientific hypothesis out of that, that they are ontologically distinct things, then that is going too far into fantasy land for my money; we need to keep our feet on the ground, recognise that ultimately I am one being that is the source of all my different aspects; there is not two me's, my mind is the subjective aspect of my brain; also with my dog, he is one dog, not two dogs with another one living inside, and that spider crawling across the carpet right now, that is one spider it is not two spiders.
I think you are right about suggesting the difficulties arising from blurring the distinction between philosophy and science and I would add between both of those and religion. As regards the multiple personalities we adopt as aspects of the one individual, I think Sriram is suggesting something beyond that i.e. that there is perhaps one consciousness which permeates you, your dog and the spider and all life forms including vegetation, which could have a bearing on the 'vegetative state' mentioned in the heading of this thread. The vegetative state seems to suggest a living state but with a consciousness limited in its expression by damaged animal physiology.
-
I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.
Of course! The distinction is indeed blurred. Science is a subset of philosophy. Nothing more. You are trying to make the distinction rigid and water tight, which is not only undesirable but also impossible.