Vegetative state & Consciousness

[Sriram]

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

[torridon]

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.

[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.

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.?!

[torridon]

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.

[floo]

It must be hell on earth being in a vegetative state but conscious, death might be welcomed by people in that condition.

[Udayana]

...
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.

[Sriram]

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?!

[torridon]

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.

[Enki]

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. 

[Sriram]

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?!

[SusanDoris]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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?!

[torridon]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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]

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'. 

[ekim]

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.

[Enki]

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?

[Sriram]

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.

[Sriram]

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?

[torridon]

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 ?

[Gordon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ekim]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.