Can consciousness be observed?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
As far as I know, we have been dissecting human bodies for thousands of years…we’ve got a name for every biological system in our bodies, every cell, every organ, every piece of tissue. We’ve dissected peoples brains and every single time we never find anybody home?

So who is it that is doing the observing? Who is behind your eyes looking out to the world, to the screen infront of you, down to the keyboard? Who is at the controls?

Can consciousness be observed?
[/QUOTE]

You asked who is behind my eyes looking out into the world. The answer is, no one. The one looking out into the world has edges coinciding with the outer edges of my eye. I’m not behind my eyes–I’m at my eyes.

Similarly, regarding the question “who is at the controls,” the question implies that there is the thing controlled (I guess my body) and the one controlling it (my consciousness). But the locus of control is not a different entity than my body. The thing controlled is the thing controlling.

There, I’ve solved the mystery. You can rest.

-FrL-

82

[QUOTE=lekatt]
OK, this thread is going as a lot of threads go that I post in – it stops being about the OP and starts being about me. So it is time to leave this thread so those who want can continue discussing the OP.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t about you-it was the unsubstantiated claims you made pertaining to the subject at hand. This only becomes a problem when you refuse to provide links to studies that you say exist.
Provide links to peer-reviewed studies, and problems go away.

83

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
[hijack 1]
From what I’ve read, the big issue (I see) with FPGA fault-tolerance is that the fixes need to be pre-computed and stored in an accessible area on the chip. Is that right? Again, I’m not a hardware guy, and so my knowledge/exposure to this is not only pretty limited, but may also be out of date.
[/hijack 1]

[/quote]

The image of the hardware (which sits in a memory on the FPGA) usually get stored in a ROM on the board, and loaded during boot. It’s true that fixes have to be preloaded, but that isn’t very hard, since there are usually only a few blocks. You don’t try to work around individual gates.

Damn. I thought it was on my PC at home, but I’m going to have to ftp it from work. Coming soon.

84

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
It wasn’t about you-it was the unsubstantiated claims you made pertaining to the subject at hand. This only becomes a problem when you refuse to provide links to studies that you say exist.
Provide links to peer-reviewed studies, and problems go away.
[/QUOTE]

I think there was a lot going on in this thread I had no idea about. Peoples past posting behaviours in GD I wouldn’t have known anything about… I agree with Czarcasm but I do not know to what extent lekatt has made unsubstantiated claims in the past. From what I can gather…it may be more often than not. But I agree this original post has gotten somewhat out of hand and away from what I was truly looking for. Thank you all for posting your thoughts…I’m going to go watch the fireworks in my town and maybe comeback latenight and read through some of the other posts that need some answering, as this is a subject I am very interested in at the moment.

85

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
As far as I know, we have been dissecting human bodies for thousands of years…we’ve got a name for every biological system in our bodies, every cell, every organ, every piece of tissue. We’ve dissected peoples brains and every single time we never find anybody home?

So who is it that is doing the observing? Who is behind your eyes looking out to the world, to the screen infront of you, down to the keyboard? Who is at the controls?

Can consciousness be observed?
[/QUOTE]

May I recommend Dr James Bernat for further contact and/or reading?

He is a Dartmouth professor who testified in front of the Senate HELP committee…

A sample quote:

“Human consciousness has two clinical dimensions: wakefulness, served by the brain stem ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and its connections; and awareness of self and environment, served by the thalamus, the cerebral cortex, and their connections…
There is a biological limitation to our ability to know the awareness of another person. We cannot get inside their minds and experience what they experience. Therefore, we can know their awareness only by inference: we interact and stimulate them and study their responses. We infer whether they are aware by analyzing the quality of their responses and judge if a response is such that could be made only by an aware person.”

And another possibly helpful link:
http://invention.swmed.edu/ric/Users/Lewis_James/profile_this_year.shtml with a representative quote:

"With the rapid development of functional neuroimaging during the 1990s, we are beginning to witness the first applications of imaging technologies to consciousness-related issues, ranging from nonconscious aspects of perception (Sahraie et al., 1997; Whalen et al., 1998) to the development of automatic habits (Raichle et al., 1994) and distinctions among conscious and nonconscious forms of memory (Schacter et al., 1996; Squire et al., 1992). "

86

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Clinically dead is not the same as no brain function. Care to give evidence that any of those with NDEs brain function stopped? That doesn’t happen until long after the heart has stopped.
[/QUOTE]

I am sorry I didn’t see this post earlier, I will answer it.

In studies I have read the brain can function on about 20 seconds or less after the heart stops beating, but I can not find where I read this study.

So I will post a link that will answer most questions you may have.

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a3

87

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I am sorry I didn’t see this post earlier, I will answer it.

In studies I have read the brain can function on about 20 seconds or less after the heart stops beating, but I can not find where I read this study.

So I will post a link that will answer most questions you may have.

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a3
[/QUOTE]

Here is a link that says people can be resuscitated for several minutes after the heart has stopped. Other links say about four. I doubt in an OR situation someone’s heart is going to be stopped for that long - in fact, since brain death hadn’t occurred, we can be sure of it. Your link has a section supposedly claiming NDEs while brain dead, but clicking on the link led to something not mentioning that at all.

88

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Here is a link that says people can be resuscitated for several minutes after the heart has stopped. Other links say about four. I doubt in an OR situation someone’s heart is going to be stopped for that long - in fact, since brain death hadn’t occurred, we can be sure of it. Your link has a section supposedly claiming NDEs while brain dead, but clicking on the link led to something not mentioning that at all.
[/QUOTE]

There are now surgeries being preformed such as Pam Reynolds’ where the brain is without blood for more than one hour and can still be brought back to life. There are many examples showing the link you provided is not accurate. I don’t know which link you refer to, but show me and I will look at it. However there are many studies that show NDEs had to have happened after the death of the brain. Dr. Greyson of Virginia University has collected many veridical near death experiences, that is experiences where the subject was certified as brain dead and when brought back to life could accurately describe what happened while he was brain dead. I believe that to be well established.

89

No more debate?

90

I don’t feel that a brain being reactivated after long periods of inactivity is in contradiction with the position that the mind is a function of electrical and/or chemical activity contained entirely within the brain. I mean, if I think really hard, I can think of a common electrical device that is capable of ‘booting up’ to full functionality after a period of unpowered inertness that can possibly be hours or even days long. And if a device can do so, why not the brain, under the right conditions? So, assertions that people have recovered from brain death seem beside the point.

This doesn’t mean I have absolute proof that the brain actually functions in a manner analogous to any particular electrical device. It just means that nobody has successfully convinced me that the brain doesn’t function in such a manner. Until somebody brings evidence demonstrating that the analogy does not apply, I can be satisfied that the prevailing scientific opinion that the brain is itself the source of conscousness, and that when one sees imaging of the electrical activity of a brain, one is indeed seeing consciousness, or at lest part of what makes up consciousness.

Somebody else will have to unseat me from this comfortable position before I feel the need to debate further.

91

[QUOTE=lekatt]
There are now surgeries being preformed such as Pam Reynolds’ where the brain is without blood for more than one hour and can still be brought back to life.
[/QUOTE]

Cite?

92

[QUOTE=Anduril]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t have a cite, but I’ve heard of what he’s talking about. There’s a procedure used for brain aneurysms which involves using a combination of hypothermia and drugs to shut down the body for a short time, and for the patient’s blood to be removed so that the aneurysm can be fixed without bursting and damaging the brain.

Thing is, that’s not brain death. If you can come back from a condition, that’s simply not death. If the doctors declare you brain dead and you recover anyway, that doesn’t mean you came back from brain death; it means the doctors were wrong.

93

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Thing is, that’s not brain death. If you can come back from a condition, that’s simply not death. If the doctors declare you brain dead and you recover anyway, that doesn’t mean you came back from brain death; it means the doctors were wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not familiar with the technique, but if the brain is not damaged by being shut down, and can be restarted, the computer analogy is even better. Our memories are stores by physical connections of neurons, not by evanescent electrical pulses, so there should be little loss. How does the soul know the difference between a brain shutting down after an operation and it being truly dead. Did Teri Schiavo’s soul hang around, just in case?

94

[QUOTE=begbert2]
I don’t feel that a brain being reactivated after long periods of inactivity is in contradiction with the position that the mind is a function of electrical and/or chemical activity contained entirely within the brain. I mean, if I think really hard, I can think of a common electrical device that is capable of ‘booting up’ to full functionality after a period of unpowered inertness that can possibly be hours or even days long. And if a device can do so, why not the brain, under the right conditions? So, assertions that people have recovered from brain death seem beside the point.

This doesn’t mean I have absolute proof that the brain actually functions in a manner analogous to any particular electrical device. It just means that nobody has successfully convinced me that the brain doesn’t function in such a manner. Until somebody brings evidence demonstrating that the analogy does not apply, I can be satisfied that the prevailing scientific opinion that the brain is itself the source of conscousness, and that when one sees imaging of the electrical activity of a brain, one is indeed seeing consciousness, or at lest part of what makes up consciousness.

Somebody else will have to unseat me from this comfortable position before I feel the need to debate further.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct, of course, this in itself is not evidence of a non-local consciousness, but if when the person is revived, this person knows what went on while his brain was dead, then we have a puzzle. How could consciousness still function while the brain is dead? All the research being done on near death experiences are aimed at solving this problem. People who have near death experiences do know, and describe accurately those things that happen around them, and even at some distance from their body, during the time their brain is clinically dead. Now this is evidence of a non-local consciousness. This is evidence of a separation of consciousness and brain.

So now we begin to look at the research being done in this area.

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a2

Dr. Bruce Grayson, has been published in a peer-reviewed journal “The Lancet.”
He collects veridical NDEs, ones that have been verified by the physicans in attendance at the time.

There are dozens of these studies, but we can start with one.

95

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You are correct, of course, this in itself is not evidence of a non-local consciousness, but if when the person is revived, this person knows what went on while his brain was dead, then we have a puzzle. How could consciousness still function while the brain is dead?
[/QUOTE]
It can’t, and it’s never happened. A dead brain can’t recover.

96

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Don’t have a cite, but I’ve heard of what he’s talking about. There’s a procedure used for brain aneurysms which involves using a combination of hypothermia and drugs to shut down the body for a short time, and for the patient’s blood to be removed so that the aneurysm can be fixed without bursting and damaging the brain.

Thing is, that’s not brain death. If you can come back from a condition, that’s simply not death. If the doctors declare you brain dead and you recover anyway, that doesn’t mean you came back from brain death; it means the doctors were wrong.
[/QUOTE]

While this may not be brain death for you, it is to the medical profession.

97

[QUOTE=lekatt]
While this may not be brain death for you, it is to the medical profession.
[/QUOTE]
Not that I’ve ever seen. What I have seen is the medical profession redefining how they diagnose brain death as treatments and diagnostic tools evolve. And people such as yourself who misinterpet terms like “clinical death” to mean actual death.

98

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m not familiar with the technique, but if the brain is not damaged by being shut down, and can be restarted, the computer analogy is even better. Our memories are stores by physical connections of neurons, not by evanescent electrical pulses, so there should be little loss. How does the soul know the difference between a brain shutting down after an operation and it being truly dead. Did Teri Schiavo’s soul hang around, just in case?
[/QUOTE]

You will know by the condition of your body. Now, here I am guessing, but yes, I believe Terri’s spirit did hang around the body until the final death of the body. She would have witnessed all the controversary and known exactly what had happened that caused her body to be in the condition it was in. In the spirit world there are no secrets of any kind.

99

[QUOTE=lekatt]
In the spirit world there are no secrets of any kind.
[/QUOTE]
Or anything else, being imaginary.

I skimmed the Wiki article about clinical death and noticed a mention of that medical procedure discussed earlier.

100

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not that I’ve ever seen. What I have seen is the medical profession redefining how they diagnose brain death as treatments and diagnostic tools evolve. And people such as yourself who misinterpet terms like “clinical death” to mean actual death.
[/QUOTE]

Whatever you want to believe is fine with me, I realize there is a controversy over what is “brain dead” now that near death experiences are being studied. But for the purposes of near death experiences a brain that is not functioning, shows no activity of any kind, can not collect data as done by the experiencers, so it makes little difference what you call it. Remember the eyes are closed and fixed as in death, but things are still seen by the experiencers. Some experiencers have been declared dead and sent to the morgue before “coming back.”