Consciousness Survives Death

https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2015/07/consciousness-after-clinical-death-the-biggest-ever-scientific-study-published/

Thought ya all might find this interesting

 

This is an article reporting on a scientific paper.

The science and technology part of this site has me at a loss for words...

 

THE 21G SOUL: DO OUR BODIES BECOME LIGHTER AFTER DEATH?
http://endlessforms.net/2012/10/29/the-21g-soul-do-our-bodies-become-lighter-after-death/

 

Interesting read.

 

If you take the article at its word then it would seem a living brain is not required for some sense of awareness, however long it lasts. If consciousness can exist even for a period of time without the brain, that gives me hope, as maybe there is a way to prolong consciousness without the brain. In any case we're definitely learning something new about the nature of reality.

 

The proof actually goes much farther than this study and Parnia is well aware of it. I've read his books and he has much more to say on the subject.

 

Once again, this is not a scientific paper. Rather, an article offering ones opinion on a single study which admittedly drew inconclusive results and has yet to be replicated.

If you have academic access or are a paying subscriber to the actual journal in which the study was published, you can view the abstract here (full publishing available via the link as well): http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(14)00739-4/abstract

Astounded that even when something is written in plain English (as the point of this article is to make it accessible for students and non-scientists), there is still utter confusion as to what data has been collected.

It probably would have been best to post an actual link to the study (which unless you meet the criteria listed above, you haven't), rather than linking to the tabloid section of an unaffiliated university:

"The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors / blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University."

 

Obviously this link itself is not to a scientific paper? Are you trying to persuade me to believe that hipforums posters only post scientific papers under the science category now? That would be very impressive if true, and if that is your intention just let me know and I'll admit this was a terrible post. I just thought it was an interesting article.

 

DNA

 

No, my intent is not to persuade anything of the sort. I also don't doubt that you find the article interesting.

I enjoy poking fun at sensational headlines. For instance, the title of the article you posted is "Consciousness after clinical death. The biggest ever scientific study published". I'm sure you see where I'm going.

To be fair, the abstract for the official paper is relatively interesting (regardless that it failed to prove what it set out to). Note that it is titled "AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation—A prospective study".

 

Yes sensational headlines annoy me all the time. Especially science ones.

I don't think it set out to prove anything. It was just an investigation into the stages of death with some surprising results. You are still arguing that it hasn't been proven that consciousness exists during periods where the brain is not functioning?

 

Consciousness itself has yet to be explained (or even met with a unanimous definition). Until this changes the entire argument is essentially counting angels on the head of a pin.

 

We're exploring consciousness in order to define it. It's just like anything. You can't define it without knowing what it is. In this case, it's us, which puts us in quite a predicament.

There's no question that consciousness exists. It's just that there are different ways of knowing something. One way is to define it. Another way is to experience it. What you experience directly you don't need to define. It is known to you. It is known to everyone, and what is known to everyone is silent.

I say let's forego any notion that we can or ought to define consciousness. Instead let's just carefully note it's attributes.

 

The results in the abstract seem far less sensational than what is reported in the article, perhaps still noteworthy but I don't know if I really feel different about the situation than before.



Results
Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resuscitation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected.

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(14)00739-4/fulltext

 

Perhaps the religion forum is more your thing...

 

I am only speaking in factual terms, so I don't see why it would be. I think you're not so much interested in defining consciousness as you are in looking like you know something about it.

 

Couldn't be bothered. In fact, if I were hoping to "look like I know something about it" (cleverly worded by the way), I probably wouldn't respond with such facetious posts toward the only other person active in the thread.

 

Try to keep your posts real, my man.