Recalled Experience of Death (RED)

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Yes. And when these parts are damaged then the functionality of subconscious and conscious activities is changed or impaired. This is a pretty good indication that these activities are occurring in these parts of the brain. It does not though suggest that an invisible little gremlin called a “soul” is not is only pulling the strings but also selecting different parts of the brain to which it also somehow decides to attach those strings.       
 
But it does explain that different parts of the lived experience emanate from different parts of the brain, which is the point.

...

I think the whole concept of brain damage and abnormalities  is something that causes huge problems for sny idea of a single entity even in materialist terms. Indeed, the idea of a single entity in the terms of consciousness has to be dualist?

(As an aside, the term 'lived experience' just seems tautologous to me)

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think the whole concept of brain damage and abnormalities  is something that causes huge problems for sny idea of a single entity even in materialist terms. Indeed, the idea of a single entity in the terms of consciousness has to be dualist?

Yes, but they’re informative nonetheless inasmuch as they indicate where various mental functions occur (or cease to occur after the episode). I would go further and say “likely emanate from”, whereas AB for reasons he’s never been able to explain adds a “soul” that presumably therefore selects different parts of the brain to interact with according to which behaviour it’s trying to initiate. Or control. Or something – it’s impossible to know what he thinks about that because his entire case begins and ends “soul” with no supporting detail of any kind.       

(As an aside, the term 'lived experience' just seems tautologous to me)

I agree, but “different parts of experience” seem to be missing something somehow. I’ll try to do better next time though. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but they’re informative nonetheless inasmuch as they indicate where various mental functions occur (or cease to occur after the episode). I would go further and say “likely emanate from”, whereas AB for reasons he’s never been able to explain adds a “soul” that presumably therefore selects different parts of the brain to interact with according to which behaviour it’s trying to initiate. Or control. Or something – it’s impossible to know what he thinks about that because his entire case begins and ends “soul” with no supporting detail of any kind.       

I agree, but “different parts of experience” seem to be missing something somehow. I’ll try to do better next time though.

As should I, since I obviously didn't make clear thar brain damage and abnormalities seem to me yo be good evidence for a materialist approach, as well as damaging to the idea of a seperate entity.

In terms of damage, I often think of Phineas Gage, and split brain syndrome here but there are many other examples.

[Sriram]

Why should brain damage and such things imply a materialistic source to consciousness? If you are sitting inside a robot under the sea, any damage to the robot or its circuits or software, would naturally affect your vision through ts cameras, its movement, hearing through its microphones etc. That does not mean you as a person don't exist independent of the robot.

It is important to realize that by consciousness we mean not just wakeful awareness but also the unconscious mind which is a much larger and more powerful component compared to wakeful consciousness.     

[torridon]

Why should brain damage and such things imply a materialistic source to consciousness? If you are sitting inside a robot under the sea, any damage to the robot or its circuits or software, would naturally affect your vision through ts cameras, its movement, hearing through its microphones etc. That does not mean you as a person don't exist independent of the robot.
 

The idea of a person inside the robot watching the camera feed has long been debunked not just because of the evidence (or lack of it) but in logical terms as it implies an infinite regress of inner homonculae needed to perceive what the outer guy is perceiving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The idea of a person inside the robot watching the camera feed has long been debunked not just because of the evidence (or lack of it) but in logical terms as it implies an infinite regress of inner homonculae needed to perceive what the outer guy is perceiving.

Cue Intervention by those who advocate an infinite regress to explain the universe...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Come on chaps....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Why should brain damage and such things imply a materialistic source to consciousness? If you are sitting inside a robot under the sea, any damage to the robot or its circuits or software, would naturally affect your vision through ts cameras, its movement, hearing through its microphones etc. That does not mean you as a person don't exist independent of the robot.

It is important to realize that by consciousness we mean not just wakeful awareness but also the unconscious mind which is a much larger and more powerful component compared to wakeful consciousness.

“Pain is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. The mechanism by which a damaging stimulus in the body is perceived as painful by the brain is a complex one which is not yet fully understood.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534269/#:~:text=Pain%20is%20defined%20as%20an,actual%20or%20potential%20tissue%20damage.&text=The%20mechanism%20by%20which%20a,is%20not%20yet%20fully%20understood.

When my friend had crippling stomach pain that stopped when his gallstones were removed was it a reasonable working hypothesis that:

i.  The gallstones caused the pain even though the phenomenon of pain is not yet fully understood; or

ii. There is a universal property of pain just floating about the place that lampposts and rocks experience too, and that somehow decides to attach itself to gallstones?

I assume you’d opt for i., yet with no greater evidence for it you'd opt for ii. when “pain” is replaced with “consciousness”. But for your a priori superstitious beliefs, why would you do that? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Cue Intervention by those who advocate an infinite regress to explain the universe...

No-one has done that.

Come on chaps....

What are you asking people to defend your straw man?

[jeremyp]

Why should brain damage and such things imply a materialistic source to consciousness? If you are sitting inside a robot under the sea, any damage to the robot or its circuits or software, would naturally affect your vision through ts cameras, its movement, hearing through its microphones etc. That does not mean you as a person don't exist independent of the robot.

We are not talking about damage to our sensory organs, we are talking about damage to our brains.

[Nearly Sane]

Why should brain damage and such things imply a materialistic source to consciousness? If you are sitting inside a robot under the sea, any damage to the robot or its circuits or software, would naturally affect your vision through ts cameras, its movement, hearing through its microphones etc. That does not mean you as a person don't exist independent of the robot.

It is important to realize that by consciousness we mean not just wakeful awareness but also the unconscious mind which is a much larger and more powerful component compared to wakeful consciousness.   

Because brain damage and abnormalitirs seem tk affect the personality. See Phineas Gage

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage


And look at split brain syndrome effects
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Anyone who has had contact with people with dementia will also likely see affects.


If the entity is independent, that shouldn't change.


Note you also switch between talking about independent entities and there being only one consciousness. This seems contradictory.

[Outrider]

Cue Intervention by those who advocate an infinite regress to explain the universe...

Cue non sequitur by someone who totally has a cogent argument against the notion of an infinite regress somewhere around here...

O.

[Sriram]

It is obviously more complicated than that. 

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.   

[jeremyp]

It is obviously more complicated than that. 

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.   

How do you explain dementia then?

[Sriram]

The mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world.  Dementia is a problem with the brain/mind (hardware/software). Obviously if the interface is affected, communication and interactions with the world will get affected.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is obviously more complicated than that.

Not in principle it isn’t. Why do you think otherwise – other that is than just asserting it to be so?

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind.

So now you’re asserting there to be consciousness somehow just floating about the place that when the mood takes it decides to “project” itself onto minds. And your evidence-denying grounds for that remarkable claim would be what exactly?   

That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.

Perhaps it would help if you started by telling us what you think the difference between the mind and personality to be maybe supported with some citations to academic research into this matter, or at least by some reasoned grounds rather than unqualified guesses and assertions? 

Or are we supposed just to take your word for it? 

[jeremyp]

The mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world.  Dementia is a problem with the brain/mind (hardware/software). Obviously if the interface is affected, communication and interactions with the world will get affected.

Have you never had a loved one or a friend with dementia? My friend got somewhat distressed when her father couldn't recognise her anymore, or recall that he had a daughter. This is more than just a communication issue.

I'm sure that I could find some form of brain damage that will affect just about any aspect of consciousness. If every part of consciousness is dependent on the brain in one way or another, what reason could there be for pretending that any of it is separate from the brain?

[Maeght]

It is obviously more complicated than that. 

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.   

That's not obvious at all.

[Outrider]

It is obviously more complicated than that.

Given that we don't have a complete explanation, you mean? 

Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind.

You can assert that, but you need to justify the claim. Why do you think consciousness is separate from the physical body?

That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected.

It's not inconsistent with your claim, but it's not inconsistent with the materialist explanation, either.

The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness.

I don't know that anyone's arguing against that, although there are probably a number of us who would contest with you what your suggestion is for the reason why.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world.  Dementia is a problem with the brain/mind (hardware/software). Obviously if the interface is affected, communication and interactions with the world will get affected.

This reads as if you've never dealt with anyone with dementia. It's not just forgetfullness.

[Sriram]

If the mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world, naturally all interactions and behaviors will be affected in a person with dementia.

[Nearly Sane]

If the mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world, naturally all interactions and behaviors will be affected in a person with dementia.

Including what appears to be personality? Why would that happen if the entity is seperate from the brain. Given that it does happen with damage to the brain, see earlier mention of Phineas Gage, and split brain syndrome, that argues that there is no seperate entity. 

[Outrider]

If the mind is the interface between consciousness and the physical world, naturally all interactions and behaviors will be affected in a person with dementia.

What do you suggest would be the difference between a consciousness produced by material activity in a body, and consciousness imparted onto a physical body by some non-physical source?

O.

[Sriram]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/understanding-grief/202311/terminal-lucidity-and-the-near-death-experience

********

An NDE occurs when a person is close to death or pronounced dead. It is often triggered by a medical trauma such as a car accident, heart attack, etc. Typically, there is an out-of-body experience: The individual viewing themselves from above, traveling through a tunnel, seeing vivid imagery, encountering deceased family members, and bright lights, and perhaps perceiving angelic-like beings. The person is often told that it is not their time to die and returns to life. Terminal lucidity occurs more often when someone who is close to death and has been uncommunicative and unresponsive—as in the late stages of dementia—becomes alert, lucid, and verbal at the end of their life. It is as though the old self has returned after all have assumed the “self” has been destroyed. Sadly, it is followed closely by death.

They go against everything we know so far about death and dying, and yet these events are well documented. It seems that initially when the near-death experiences were brought to the public’s attention, they were dismissed as delusions, wishful thinking, or simply lies. Professionals did not deem them worthy of research and criticized those who did. Today, NDEs are more widely accepted as phenomena that can occur when someone is dying. With increased public and professional acceptance, people are more willing to share their experiences without fear of ridicule. Recognition of terminal lucidity is still in its early stages;

In exploring these end-of-life experiences, many questions arise: Is the mind separate from the brain? Where was the former self during the time that the person was “away?" Was it hibernating or preserved somewhere? Do changes in neurochemical transmitters trigger the experience? What implications does this have for the treatment of Alzheimer's or dementia? Do both TL and NDE suggest that there may be more to us than our biological self? What can we learn from these experiences about consciousness?

*********

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/understanding-grief/202311/terminal-lucidity-and-the-near-death-experience

********

An NDE occurs when a person is close to death or pronounced dead. It is often triggered by a medical trauma such as a car accident, heart attack, etc. Typically, there is an out-of-body experience: The individual viewing themselves from above, traveling through a tunnel, seeing vivid imagery, encountering deceased family members, and bright lights, and perhaps perceiving angelic-like beings. The person is often told that it is not their time to die and returns to life. Terminal lucidity occurs more often when someone who is close to death and has been uncommunicative and unresponsive—as in the late stages of dementia—becomes alert, lucid, and verbal at the end of their life. It is as though the old self has returned after all have assumed the “self” has been destroyed. Sadly, it is followed closely by death.

They go against everything we know so far about death and dying, and yet these events are well documented. It seems that initially when the near-death experiences were brought to the public’s attention, they were dismissed as delusions, wishful thinking, or simply lies. Professionals did not deem them worthy of research and criticized those who did. Today, NDEs are more widely accepted as phenomena that can occur when someone is dying. With increased public and professional acceptance, people are more willing to share their experiences without fear of ridicule. Recognition of terminal lucidity is still in its early stages;

In exploring these end-of-life experiences, many questions arise: Is the mind separate from the brain? Where was the former self during the time that the person was “away?" Was it hibernating or preserved somewhere? Do changes in neurochemical transmitters trigger the experience? What implications does this have for the treatment of Alzheimer's or dementia? Do both TL and NDE suggest that there may be more to us than our biological self? What can we learn from these experiences about consciousness?

*********

All of which shows no clarity of thought around dementia, or other examples of brain damage and abnormality in that it ignores the effects of dementia in terms of the 'entity' existing seperately from the brain.