I think it would have been Greenfield. Susan Blackmore is a sort of eliminativist about consciousness, I think.
I agree with barbc56 that this is no very big deal I am afraid. I have had people aware while I kept them alive for many minutes with heart massage despite their heart having stopped. OK you might say that then their brain had enough oxygen but the reality is that most of the time we start heart massage before anybody has got an ECG on to tell the heart has stopped. You can stay aware for quite a few minutes with just the occasional tweak from a heart - I have had it myself with a Stokes Adams attack when I was 23.
I think the business of 'out of body' experience is easily enough explained. When you are anaesthetised or suffering from shortage of blood to the brain in a faint it is not unusual for some sensations to disappear but others, often hearing, to remain. When I had nitrous oxide as a kid for tooth extraction I remember hearing the dentist talking but not feeling any touch or seeing anything. My guess is that if you lose proprioception and touch you fell pretty much 'out of body' because you cannot have any sense of being in a body you cannot feel. I think the thing about being on the ceiling is a bit fanciful and as far as I know nobody confirmed it.
For me the best account of what consciousness is comes from Leibniz in 1714, exactly 300 years ago. He got one or two things wrong technically but explained that everything in the universe exists only in the sense that it perceives the rest of the univere. In most cases the perceiving is confused but for our 'souls' the perceiving is clear consciousness. Leibniz did not know quite what a soul would be but he gave an account of something that sounds exactly like what you get in modern quantum mechanics. But is would not just be an electron or a proton, it would be a unit of 'force' that occupies an entire body. Quantum theory actually has things like that, so I think he was pretty nearly right.
I thought this was an ME site though?!!
BTW you had me stumped with 'eliminativist', and the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries were too. Found it
here.
I think it would have been Greenfield. Susan Blackmore is a sort of eliminativist about consciousness, I think.
I agree with barbc56 that this is no very big deal I am afraid. I have had people aware while I kept them alive for many minutes with heart massage despite their heart having stopped. OK you might say that then their brain had enough oxygen but the reality is that most of the time we start heart massage before anybody has got an ECG on to tell the heart has stopped. You can stay aware for quite a few minutes with just the occasional tweak from a heart - I have had it myself with a Stokes Adams attack when I was 23.
I think the business of 'out of body' experience is easily enough explained. When you are anaesthetised or suffering from shortage of blood to the brain in a faint it is not unusual for some sensations to disappear but others, often hearing, to remain. When I had nitrous oxide as a kid for tooth extraction I remember hearing the dentist talking but not feeling any touch or seeing anything. My guess is that if you lose proprioception and touch you fell pretty much 'out of body' because you cannot have any sense of being in a body you cannot feel. I think the thing about being on the ceiling is a bit fanciful and as far as I know nobody confirmed it.
For me the best account of what consciousness is comes from Leibniz in 1714, exactly 300 years ago. He got one or two things wrong technically but explained that everything in the universe exists only in the sense that it perceives the rest of the univere. In most cases the perceiving is confused but for our 'souls' the perceiving is clear consciousness. Leibniz did not know quite what a soul would be but he gave an account of something that sounds exactly like what you get in modern quantum mechanics. But is would not just be an electron or a proton, it would be a unit of 'force' that occupies an entire body. Quantum theory actually has things like that, so I think he was pretty nearly right.
I thought this was an ME site though?!!
Hi Jonathan. We haven't spoke before. So I would like to say Thanks for trying to help the patients. The field needs experts like you. And it often requires a certain amount of courage to be involved in such a controversial illness.
So I was very pleased to see you using your expertise on the forum.
I originally posted this under community, but it was merged with a previous thread I hadn't seen.
I have not made my mind up about the subject under discussion. I do understand what you are saying. and you may well be right. But your explanations may not always add up to some of the visual accounts that people have given. Especially some I read recently from Professor Ring who Studied OBEs and NDEs in the blind.
He said
ABSTRACT: This article reports the results of an investigation into neardeath
and out-of-body experiences in 31 blind respondents. The study sought
to address three main questions: (1) whether blind individuals have neardeath
experiences (NDEs) and, if so, whether they are the same as or different
from those of sighted persons; (2) whether blind persons ever claim
to see during NDEs and out-of-body experiences (OBEs); and (3) if such
claims are made, whether they can ever be corroborated by reference to independent
evidence. Our findings revealed that blind persons, including
those blind from birth, do report classic NDEs of the kind common to sighted
persons; that the great preponderance of blind persons claim to see during
NDEs and OBEs; and that occasionally claims of visually-based knowledge
that could not have been obtained by normal means can be independently
corroborated. We present and evaluate various explanations of these findings
before arriving at an interpretation based on the concept of transcendental
awareness.
Ring continues
do blind persons in fact have
NDEs and, if they do, are they the same as or different from those
of sighted persons? Second, do blind persons, if they do report either
NDEs or OBEs, claim to have visual perceptions during these experiences?
And, finally, if such claims are made, is it ever possible to
corroborate them through independent evidence or the testimony of
other witnesses? In other words, can one establish that these claims
are something other than mere fantasies or hallucinations?
These were the issues, then, this study was designed to probe.
Here Ring attempts to demonstrate, the explanations you put forward, may not be enough to explain the discrepancies seen.
Corroborative Evidence for OBE
and NDE Visions
Obviously, in order to demonstrate that the perceptions described
by our blind experiencers are something other than mere fantasies
or even complex hallucinations, it will be necessary to provide some
kind of confirming evidence for them, preferably from other independent
witnesses or from reliable documentation. But just here, not
surprisingly, is where it proves difficult to gather the type of indispensable
corroboration that would help to cinch the argument
But Ring tries to gather independent witnesses that corroborate the testimony of these experiences. He fails to do so in one case. but gets very close in another.
saying here.
So here, although we lack the crucial confirming facts we need
from the witness involved, we nevertheless have a highly suggestive
instance that this man's recall of his experience is essentially accurate.
However, the obvious weaknesses in and ultimate inconclusiveness
of this case were overcome in our second example.in which a
direct and independent corroboration of the respondent's own testimony
was obtained.
Here is the full study if your interested Jonathan. While I agree this is not proof. it does at the very least suggest it may be worth doing more studies. With images placed high up on shelves. To determine if these accounts really are only fanciful memories.
I have no idea. But remain open minded until such time that it is either proven correct, or very unlikely with further in depth studies
Professor Rings full study is here
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal of Near-Death Studies_1997-16-101-147.pdf
