Is true brain death reversible, even in principle?

[Fanghur]

Does anyone know whether the state of brain death is reversible? In other words, can a person who is brain dead ever be revived, and by 'revived' I mean up and walking around as if nothing ever happened? I ask because I am having a discussion with someone who is making the, as far as I am concerned, absolutely absurd claim that near-death experiences are proof that consciousness survives the death of the brain because there have been cases where people who were literally brain dead have reported experiencing near-death experiences.

 

Is this guy just being obstinate, or is he correct? Because as I understand it, brain death is characterized by the complete necrosis of the brain neuronal tissue due to oxygen deprivation or other similar catastrophic conditions. And if this were true then there would be zero chance of recovery, and even if the body were kept alive, the person would be left in a permanent vegetative state.

 

Am I correct here or is he?

[Ringer]

To the brain dead being revived, brain death is defined as being irreversible. He may be equivocating brain death with persistent vegetative state.

 

To the near death experience, using that as proof is absolutely absurd. That's no more proof than having a dream is.

[Genecks]

Brain death is used in a modern medical context to help medically define what it means for someone to be dead. As such, an individual who is dead has brain damage that is irreversible. There are other problems, of course, such as whether or not a person in a vegetative state holds a sense of consciousness, whereby the individual can perceive the outside world but have no control over his or her body.

 

When I think of brain death, I think of a lack of consciousness, an inability to awake from a state of rest, no sense of personhood, and no memories to be recalled. The individual would be little more than a central nervous system attached to various muscles: A puppet with a motor cortex. If the person did hold memories, however, and the "sense" of consciousness could be re-instated, it would make for quite an argument in resuscitating individuals who have encountered traumatic brain injuries, despite what retardation may become present. So, I'm saying a brain-dead person is little more than a puppet. You could probably keep them alive, physically, but their generally accepted neuronal functions that involve personhood are gone.

 

If a person is arguing for particular criteria that meet the definition of brain-death, such as the above stated criteria, then the person would have to argue that he or she held an inability to awake from a state of rest. However, the individual did have the ability to awake from a state of rest. A state of rest implies that consciousness is hibernating. A person could argue that there was no state of rest and consciousness had "left the body." However, I think it is better argued, in that case, that the person had a death experience rather than a "near-death" experience.

 

The person died and came back to life. However, I think if there was a level of mysticism involved with these claims, and I were to follow with the mechanics and logic of the individuals, then I don't see why possession by some other worldly consciousness would not be possible: for example, demon possession. However, there haven't really been many arguments about such, to the best of my knowledge. Most arguments have been people attempting to argue about their so-called near-death experiences as evidence for there being a life beyond the Earthly realm.

 

So, I'd say the guy is wrong. If he was near death, then he didn't die.

 

There is a whole philosophy to this stuff. My argument has often been that a person has to claim that he or she feels to be the same person after coming back from a true brain death to claim that he or she is the same person. As such, the problem becomes, again, consciousness.

 

What is consciousness?

 

That's the philosophical question. Identity often relates to memories of past experiences. And then you have all kinds of sociological theories that describe how a person holds an identity in society. If the person had brain damage, that person may have part of his or her personality affected by loss of neurons or memories. You would have to examine their past and most recent memories, in line with Ribot's law. I believe Ribot's law relates mostly to neuroanatomy.

 

Yeah, I wrote the above without looking through the Internet. Most of what I've read on wikipedia states similar arguments. I didn't include the fact that imaging is not done, but I considered it. Another thing that would need to be considered is neuroimaging, but that is expensive. If the study of death experience was of such high importance, then people would be doing more neuroimaging research. It may not be worthwhile, especially for scientists who consider the near-death experiences to be from brain injuries or brain damage. There would be arguments, etc. etc..

Edited May 10, 2013 by Genecks