Consciousness surviving the destruction of the brain. Any evidence of any kind?

[Fanghur]

I am currently having a discussion with someone regarding whether or not our consciousness is able to survive after death. Personally, I do not believe that it can or even that that is a logically coherent concept. However, as an intellectually consistent skeptic, I never completely rule anything out. Does anyone know whether there is a single shred of valid evidence, whether anecdotal or not, that consciousness is able to survive the complete destruction of the brain? Now, many people cite near-death experiences as evidence; I do not. In fact I would go so far as to say that I know for a fact that NDEs cannot be considered evidence for an afterlife for one very important reason: the brain is still intact and at least partially active during them.

 

The way I see it, in order to actually have evidence for consciousness surviving death, you would need to have someone whose brain was completely destroyed to the point where we could be absolutely sure that no vestige of their neural network remained intact, and then put their brain back together to see if they experienced anything. Obviously that has not and cannot happen. Anything short of that, however, I do not see as evidence for any kind of afterlife.

 

What are everyone's thoughts?

[Villain]

Do you mean consciousness or the concept of a soul?

 

Consciousness by definition would imply life, while one could be alive and unconscious, you certainly couldn't be conscious and dead.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure that could ever be tested. Even if you believe consciousness survives the death of our bodies, how much of our consciousness relies on the body's sensory organs? How does consciousness interact with our world without at least sight and sound?

[Bill Angel]

It might be possible to suspend someone's brain activity via cryogenics, making the body and brain cold enought that all biochemical processes are brought to a halt. If in the future this person could be revived, one might assert that his consciousness had returned from the dead.

[PeterJ]

The difficulty is the word 'consciousness'. It is not quite the same word as 'awareness'. If intentional consciousness does not survive the destruction of the brain this does not mean that all awareness need cease. Meditators say that it is possible to visit a post-death state in order to confirm that it ain't so bad.

[PeterJ]

Yes. Interesting indeed. And also quite encouraging. Thus the Upanishads can claim that there is no consciousness after death and yet still be an optimistic vision of life and death. Kant and Hegel also arrive at this idea of (something like) a pre-intellectual awareness that stands outside of the cycle of life and death. Schrodinger never quite managed to make the idea respectable in physics despite forty years of trying, but it's a very common one elsewhere.

 

It seems to me that much confusion is caused by casually associating 'intentional consciousness' with the sort of processless awareness that Kant defines as 'not an instance of a category'. As such, this cannot be in the category 'alive' or 'dead', and so this pristine awareness prior to the categories of thought must be either a mass meditative delusion suffered by countless thousands of Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Gnostics and other assorted hippies, or a real and timeless phenomenon. Hegel calls it a 'spiritual unity', a phrase that might tempt many to dismiss it as a superstition. But nobody who dismisses it as a superstition can show that they are right to do so, and so we are still allowed to be optimistic about life, death, the universe and everything.

 

.

[krash661]

I once came across this,

 

" All matter is merely energy, condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. "

 

i like this,

 

" Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange

-Inception "

[PeterJ]

Good stuff. The perennial philosophy, being perennial, has a vast and very repetitive literature.

[krash661]

it appears nature is self consistency.

[MU!!]

I am currently having a discussion with someone regarding whether or not our consciousness is able to survive after death. Personally, I do not believe that it can or even that that is a logically coherent concept. However, as an intellectually consistent skeptic, I never completely rule anything out. Does anyone know whether there is a single shred of valid evidence, whether anecdotal or not, that consciousness is able to survive the complete destruction of the brain? Now, many people cite near-death experiences as evidence; I do not. In fact I would go so far as to say that I know for a fact that NDEs cannot be considered evidence for an afterlife for one very important reason: the brain is still intact and at least partially active during them.

 

The way I see it, in order to actually have evidence for consciousness surviving death, you would need to have someone whose brain was completely destroyed to the point where we could be absolutely sure that no vestige of their neural network remained intact, and then put their brain back together to see if they experienced anything. Obviously that has not and cannot happen. Anything short of that, however, I do not see as evidence for any kind of afterlife.

 

What are everyone's thoughts?

 

The NDE does not address the afterlife per se since no one who has an NDE makes it to the Summerlands. This is why there are inconsistencies between the reports from spirit (human-spirit communications ala Leslie Flint recordings e.g.) and the NDE as commonly relayed.

 

If you are looking for afterlife evidence, i.e. evidence of the ethereal planes (spirit world) the two best tools that offer such evidentiality are incarnate-discarnate communications and physical mediumship. The first is best exampled by Independent Direct Voice (IDV) mediums (Flint, Sloan, others) which allow their physical bodies to be used to create ectoplasmic structures - often voice box similar - to transfer spirit thought to physical auditory vibrations (sound). Conversations can commence.

 

The second tool of afterlife observation is the materializing physical medium (Higginson, Best, Duncan, dozens of others) who cooperated with the spirit world in generating ectoplasmic "shields" for the covering of spirit bodies which apear as solid, physical entities on our earthly plane. Fully capable of speaking, feeling, being touched, heart-beating, vocalization, walking, etc.

 

Both the IDV or ectoplasmic materialization enjoy the single empirical requirement for evidence (proof) of the continuity of life, the ethereal plane, the afterlife. They allow for the communication of discrete information that only the spirit and the incarnate can know. That is impossible of being known by the medium.

[Greylorn]

I am currently having a discussion with someone regarding whether or not our consciousness is able to survive after death. Personally, I do not believe that it can or even that that is a logically coherent concept. However, as an intellectually consistent skeptic, I never completely rule anything out. Does anyone know whether there is a single shred of valid evidence, whether anecdotal or not, that consciousness is able to survive the complete destruction of the brain? Now, many people cite near-death experiences as evidence; I do not. In fact I would go so far as to say that I know for a fact that NDEs cannot be considered evidence for an afterlife for one very important reason: the brain is still intact and at least partially active during them.

 

The way I see it, in order to actually have evidence for consciousness surviving death, you would need to have someone whose brain was completely destroyed to the point where we could be absolutely sure that no vestige of their neural network remained intact, and then put their brain back together to see if they experienced anything. Obviously that has not and cannot happen. Anything short of that, however, I do not see as evidence for any kind of afterlife.

 

What are everyone's thoughts?

You might want to read F.W.H. Myers' two-volume book, "Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death." You could also study the cross-correspondence seance data that Myers provided after his own death.

 

However, you won't do that. Your final paragraph says that you will not be convinced of the survival of consciousness under any conceivable set of circumstances. Your brain has already made up your mind.

 

The actual reason behind your position was pointed out by Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Data that contradict a currently accepted theory, no matter how bad the theory is, will not be accepted as valid data unless they fit into an alternative paradigm.

 

The entire history of psi or paranormal research has been marked by a notable absence of any useful paradigm. The data would fit into most religious belief systems. However these are simply dogmas which are defined by specific beliefs, and are not functional paradigms.

 

Because the scientist paradigm to which you ascribe does not allow for the possibility of an independent conscious entity to exist, for you (and others who adopt the same paradigm) to accept such a possibility would require that you discard your entire belief system. This requires considerable independence, and only 3% of a given population are capable of making up their own minds in the face of contrary agreement systems. Since you have already made it clear that you will not change your belief system, why am I wasting time discussing this?

 

I mention this by way of grinding my own axe, a general purpose paradigm derived from physical data into which paranormal phenomena fit nicely and consciousness is explained in the context of "dark energy."

[Greylorn]

I am currently having a discussion with someone regarding whether or not our consciousness is able to survive after death. Personally, I do not believe that it can or even that that is a logically coherent concept. However, as an intellectually consistent skeptic, I never completely rule anything out. Does anyone know whether there is a single shred of valid evidence, whether anecdotal or not, that consciousness is able to survive the complete destruction of the brain? Now, many people cite near-death experiences as evidence; I do not. In fact I would go so far as to say that I know for a fact that NDEs cannot be considered evidence for an afterlife for one very important reason: the brain is still intact and at least partially active during them.

 

The way I see it, in order to actually have evidence for consciousness surviving death, you would need to have someone whose brain was completely destroyed to the point where we could be absolutely sure that no vestige of their neural network remained intact, and then put their brain back together to see if they experienced anything. Obviously that has not and cannot happen. Anything short of that, however, I do not see as evidence for any kind of afterlife.

 

What are everyone's thoughts?

As with any subject, research is the foundation of knowledge. If you were serious about acquiring knowledge you might begin with F.W.H.Myers' Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death and follow up with the "cross-correspondence" studies, highly credible information conveyed by Myers after his death. (I assume that "dead and buried" is enough to establish the premise that the brain is no longer functional.)

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38492

 

This research will keep you busy for a few months. Enjoy! Serious psychic research is more interesting than you have imagined.

[benevolenthellion]

Our concept of death is forever changing, 50 years ago it was when the heart stopped beating, these days circulatory respirators can pump for you. so going on total brain stem death - enough brain stem cells have died it is no longer able to support its self and the body, then no, as far as I'm aware there an no evidence that there is any sign of activity after that point.

[Semjase]

Consciousness survives death, research seems to support this

 

Quote

 

" A number of scientific studies carried out by independant researchers have

demonstrated that 10-20 percent of people who go through cardiac arrest and clinical

death report lucid, well structured thought processes, reasoning, memories and

sometimes detailed recall of events during their encounter with death."

 

Here's a documented case where essentially the brain wasn't required for the functioning

of the consciousness.

 

Quote

 

"in 1980, Roger Lewin published "Is Your Brain Really Necessary ?" in

the prestigious journal Science, discussing the work of Dr John Lorber-

arguably the world's top expert on a condition called hydrocephaluas,

or "water on the brain".

 

"Here's a direct quote from Lewin's paper about this astonishing phenomenon.

 

"There's a young student at this university," asys Lorber, "who has an IQ of 126,

has gained a first-class hoors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely

normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain." The student's physician at the university

noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than normal head, and so referred him

to Lorber, simply out of interest. "When we did a brain scan on him," Lorber recalls,

"we saw that instead of the normal 4.5- centimeter thickness of brain tissue between

the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle a millimeter

or so.. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."

Edited July 20, 2013 by Semjase

[Greylorn]

Our concept of death is forever changing, 50 years ago it was when the heart stopped beating, these days circulatory respirators can pump for you. so going on total brain stem death - enough brain stem cells have died it is no longer able to support its self and the body, then no, as far as I'm aware there an no evidence that there is any sign of activity after that point.

Then perhaps you've not done any research. Awareness is not conferred by the universe as if by magic. It comes from study, or experience.

 

Much of what people mistake for "awareness" is merely the mental absorption of an agreement system invented by others. Do you believe in the existence of black holes? Do you believe in Darwinian evolution? Why? Because you've personally studied cosmology and evolutionary biology, or because you know that others who have done so have come to agree upon those beliefs?

[benevolenthellion]

Then perhaps you've not done any research. Awareness is not conferred by the universe as if by magic. It comes from study, or experience.

 

Much of what people mistake for "awareness" is merely the mental absorption of an agreement system invented by others. Do you believe in the existence of black holes? Do you believe in Darwinian evolution? Why? Because you've personally studied cosmology and evolutionary biology, or because you know that others who have done so have come to agree upon those beliefs?

 

You're mixing awareness and consciousness. Awareness comes from adapting ones actions based on ones surrounding and the to events that involve it, like how bacteria will move away from a threat in a rudimentary way. Consciousness is choosing weather or not to act, eg; I need to move away from this moving car, it is advantageous to my survive yet I chose not to fro reasons that are my own.

[Gees]

 

You're mixing awareness and consciousness. Awareness comes from adapting ones actions based on ones surrounding and the to events that involve it, like how bacteria will move away from a threat in a rudimentary way. Consciousness is choosing weather or not to act, eg; I need to move away from this moving car, it is advantageous to my survive yet I chose not to fro reasons that are my own.

 

I disagree. Although it is true that the concepts of awareness and consciousness are often confused and do not have a very clear and distinct difference in definition, consciousness is generally regarded as thought.

 

Greylorn is correct in the position that people become aware of an idea, become aware of the fact that it is accepted, and simply accept the idea without study, experience, or thought. As a friend of mine has often noted, "People would rather die than think." History bears out this simple truth over, and over, and over.

 

G.

[pears]

Our consciousness survives the death of our bodies every ten years or so does it not? Beyond that I would have thought consciousness without a physical body is pure philosophical speculation.
Some people believe that consciousness (or rather conscious experience) is itself non-physical, even though it depends on physical processes for its existence. If that non-physical consciousness could be transferred to another medium at body death then it could theoreticallly survive its physical body. But in answer to your actual question: I don't know.