Researchers say there's evidence that consciousness continues after clinical death

I think the day will come, in the not too far distant future, where science will acknowledge that 'conciousness' exists apart from the physical body and does not perish with the body when the body does perish. As for what happens to that consciousness and/or where does it go ( does it 'reincarnate' does it 'go to heaven' or achieve 'spiritual enlightenment/bliss'? etc ) , is more of the subject for the Religion & Philosophy forum and that is not the purpose of this thread to debate that particular point.

Here, I'm only thinking that science has moved a step closer to this acknowledgement that consciousness does not exist in the brain. That's what I get from the article and the video, so, my question is for you soul/spirituality - skeptics, what does the video do for you in this regard? Has the needle moved at all? Not even a tiny bit? (Note: just for clarification purposes, I do not believe in personal god, and for me, God is the sum total of everything, including our consciousness, so I'm more of a pantheist, not an agnostic or atheist, and I believe in the immortal soul which exists in all living things).

When you die you know you are dead: Major study shows mind still works after the body shows no signs of life



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...iousness-sam-parnia-nyu-langone-a8007101.html

 

Medical science has long pointed out that the whole body does not die in unison. Thus there isn't even one definition of death.

In fact, it's common to keep bodies "alive" after death in order to allow for transplantation of living portions of the body to others who need them.

The fact that a portion of a brain can have activity after a particular definition of death has been confirmed should not be seen as surprising.

There is't some system in a mammalian body that transmits a message to every cell that the cell is now dead. Some portions of the body get the bad news later than other portions, depending on the mechanism of the specific death.

 

Not talking about cells, tissue, etc. Talking about consciousness.

 

How I wish we could live on. But scans of living or still active cells tells me nothing. But I admit I didn't watch the video. I have been curious lately.

 

Is there some way I can order a chocolate latee with sprinkles after I'm declared dead? Seriously are these the same 'scientists' telling us that climate change is our worst enemy?

 

That's totally YOUR assumption.

What these medical experts were examining was the function of a brain in a person who had been declared dead by some definition of death.

You can tell, because they did MRI work showing brain cell activity.

If there is sufficient brain cell activity, it might create some level of consciousness. Only a portion of the brain is involved in consciousness. Death probably does not hit all parts of the brain in unison.

There are numerous functions that brains carry out. We have autonomic systems that control all sorts of stuff - breathing, heart rate, operation of our musculature, vision, hearing, taste, intestines, liver, kdneys, etc., etc. We don't have to actually think about that stuff unless our brains sense problems and give us warnings.

Quite possibly, all that could die and brain portions supplying consciousness might still survive.

 

Are you objecting to progress in medical science here?

If I had a brain tumor that some doctor was about to carve out of my brain, I'd be more than a little interested in what portions of my brain were going to be damaged in the process.

If it meant that after the operation I would no longer have "consciousness", that mght make a difference in my decisions making.

Also, if some doctor thought I or a loved one was dead, but was in fact conscious, I'd probably want the doctor informed of that, too - even if survival might not be of interest at that point.

 

As a future dead person let me just say I don't care to have my remans cremated an spread over the fields of glory. I'll just skip that part of my burial service.

 

Do watch it.

 

You're really clinging to the 'man is the sum total of molecules' approach.

Why? Because science can't see beyond it.

Some can, but since science can bring it to you, you doubt.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing. But keep an open mind.

If it happened to you, I guarantee you will sing a different tune, like that heart surgeon did, who, once upon a time, was just like you.

 

What is being described is the time lag between the cessation of the heart beating and the brain cells themselves dying. If the brain cells survive the period when there is no blood flow and the memory cells have recorded the experience because there was no sedation then they are able to recall what happened to them.

The ability to hear and record sounds when awake occurs automatically so there is nothing mystical in that aspect. The light, warmth, etc are just the body releasing stores of natural pain suppressants, AKA endorfins, which is already something known to science and not mystical either. Some people might never have experienced a "runner's high" and therefore this will be something new to them but still not evidence of anything mystical.

All that the study DOES establish is that CONSCIOUSNESS outlives heart cessation for a period of minutes up to hours for those who are NOT sedated. The NEED for sedation in patients in Intensive Care is a different matter entirely.

What the study has NOT established is that Consciousness exists and continues OUTSIDE of and/or UNATTACHED to the brain itself.

Nothing in the scientific study supports this SPECULATION by the OP.

At most the study establishes that we are aware of our surroundings even when we are not able to physically communicate our mental state to those around us.

A free floating Consciousness would have no ability to record memories without the physical memory cells of the brain. It would have no self awareness because that is contained within those cells of the brain. At most it would be an amorphous type of energy that would dissipate quickly without any means to communicate.

In other words it would die when they brain cells themselves die.

 

True, but you have taken it too far with:

These are the assumptions of those who think physicallity is the only valid reality. There are cases of dead relatives coming back spiritually to convey the location of a hidden will involving a hotly contested inheritance.

 

Those are ANECDOTES, not Science.

 

Check this out, a neuroscientist comments

 

When we don't know something, the correct answer is "I don't know".

Then it's possible to discuss how to go from there to find an answer.

That search may be outside of our capability to complete in some specified time period. And, we may need to discuss whether to use methods of religious/personal belief/metaphysics for exploration or to use the methods of experimental science.

Keeping an open mind means recognizing the answer "I don't know" and not insisting on an answer for which there isn't evidence.

I agree that there is a lot about the brain that we don't know. But, I'm not ready to accept an answer such as you propose, as there is no evidence for it and because I don't see evidence that the brain itself isn't fully capable of the tasks required. While I recognize that metaphysics/religion might propose the "soul" as an answer, I don't see any justification for closing the discussion at that.

That's opposition to being close minded.

 

What he says really has nothing to do with QM or neurology at all.

I'd point out that ALL the elements he wants to talk about have NO testable or verifiable component. In fact, metaphysics doesn't have methods for examining anything about the world around us.

In fact, metaphysics is directly in conflict with science in terms that start from root assumptions and go all the way up.

The fundamental root assumption off science is that one may meaningfuly observe the universe. Metaphysics absolutely disagrees.

Just like we have to place theoretical physics and religion in a separate place, we have to recognize metaphysics and not get confused by that.

 

I've seen this idea come up before. That clinical death(the heart stops beating) does not always mean that consciousness(the perception of one's surroundings) fades away at the same time as the heart stops.

Let me paint a picture in your imagination. Imagine as you will that your heart stops and everything fades to black. This is your experience of unconsciousness.

Next, imagine if you will that after some time there is a second darkness, distinct from the first, that is your death notice, a darkness that is different from the first. It will wash over you and you will know that you are dead. Perhaps darkness isn't the right word because, rather, your consciousness starts being ripped apart as your neurons start shutting down one by one. Different pathways that your consciousness held onto and shaped during your life will be closed off, one by one, as the in-between links are broken as the neurons die. It will be like a flame on a candle being extinguish/snuffed out.
o
Fade to black. Again, more permanent this time!

If there is a conscious existence outside of the body after death that's a whole other thing. It's not a subject related at all to/in the sources presented on various posts in this OP thread topic.

Spoiler: If you want spoilers on consciousness after death

If you want spoilers on consciousness after death, the answer is yes, there is an existence of consciousness after death. But let me tell you, it feels so much better to be alive than dead.

 

The only reason I believe that consciousness is not part of the physical, but beyond it, is because what I sense, and my sensibilities.

 

Yes, but he's a neuroscientist. He's no dummy.

The fact is, there is no way to 'test' the existence of the notion that the essence of life is spiritual.

Noting that you'll call it 'supernatural', and i don't. Because, in my view, if something IS, it is natural. There is no such thing as supernatural.

Either it's in your range of perception, or it's not.

Keep an open mind.

 

I 100% agree with this. I believe one day science and spirituality will be one and the same. Science just can't explain it all yet. But yeah, I think these bodies are just vehicles for consciousness, and that science will one day be able to explain this. Of course, I have no proof, just what my intuition tells me.

 

I sense differently. I guess hardware and software like a computer. The software won't run without hardware and I hope I am wrong.

 

It is supernatural in that it can not be tested. It is assumed magic. It is that which can not be associated with any natural phenomena.

It's the explicit difference between science and religion. If you want to call religion "natural" then we just need to search for different terms.

But, I don't object to religion. That can be your religion. Scientists have religion, too. They just don't allow religion to screw with their science. They honor the divide in assumptions and methodology.

I objected when in earlier posts, you explicitly and emphatically rejected the natural, the testable, in favor of your ideas of "soul". THAT is the only case of "closed mind" here, and that is what I objected to.

If you think you can find something in what I've said that is close minded, go for it.

 

That's clearly a religious rather than scientific view and I'm fine with that. I'm not here to dispute anyone's religion.

Yes, humans don't have all the answers. But, I don't see that as a significant revelation, nor does it suggest that the methods being used for investigating this universe are unsound.

I WILL say that science will never be able to test God in any way, regardless of how indirect. So, the idea of god based religions and science one day being "one and the same" is an idea that I see as totally unsupportable.

Consider that today, science can not even assure us that God isn't supplying what we see as gravity - moving objects around in a pattern consistent with what we call gravity.

There is absolutely not one single thing that science can say about god or any aspect of god. Nobody should think that divide can ever be crossed. It's just far too absolute.

 

In our current state, I pretty much agree. I believe our consciousness itself will evolve to where there will be nothing to prove, we'll just know. But this is a process that will take our consciousness many lifetimes to evolve to. But you're right, by today's standards my beliefs are purely metaphysical, and cannot at all be proven by science.

 

I am of the belief that there are realms. In the physical they all interconnect. But a thought or a feeling is not physical. The question is if a person continues to exist after death albeit in another form or on another plane or dimension.