An Experiment For Consciousness?

I suppose the primary aim of anaesthesia is to suppress pain. It isn't really intended to target consciousness.

In fact, there are other effects of anaesthesia, one being paralysis. There are the horrific accounts where the anaesthetic has not suppressed either pain or consciousness. But the patient is under a drug-induced state of paralysis. There, they experience and feel the pain, but are unable to scream, or even to raise a finger. The idea that it targets consciousness is clearly not correct, it seems to be an accepted side-effect.

With respect, Typoz that post is not actually right. It's different drugs for different needs (apparently) and anaesthesia was certainly intended to take away consciousness but (apparently again) it all happened more or less accidentally. Pain killers and muscle relaxants are added extras in the procedure.

From S. Hammeroff, in explanation of his theory of consciousness: 
Quite the claim.

There is a reason for this line of thinking, based on Penrose's ideas re: non-computable nature of consciousness and looking for an answer by extrapolating known physics.

This was then combined with Hammeroff's examination of micro-organisms and their cognition.

Where it gets more complicated is Penrose and Hammeroff are a bit all over the place when it comes to metaphysics. Both have talked about Platonism, and Panpsychism. Hammeroff has also talked about mind uploading but also a "quantum soul".

For myself I think they are wrong about much - not convinced by the "objective collapse" aspect - but I do think there will be a link between consciousness and quantum biology, and my layperson guess is microtubulues will have some import there.

With respect, Typoz that post is not actually right. It's different drugs for different needs (apparently) and anaesthesia was certainly intended to take away consciousness but (apparently again) it all happened more or less accidentally. Pain killers and muscle relaxants are added extras in the procedure.

Yes, you're right Tim. I was generalising from some simple example using local anaesthetic and making too much of it. Sorry about that.

Yes, you're right Tim. I was generalising from some simple example using local anaesthetic and making too much of it. Sorry about that.

No need to apologise, Typoz ! I'm only relating facts about anaesthesia.  In fact, no anaesthesia expert/practitioner actually has the slightest idea how or why the drugs they administer remove consciousness, only that they do.  

  Banishing consciousness: the mystery of anaesthesia | New Scientist

I picked this article out by a simple google.

No need to apologise, Typoz ! I'm only relating facts about anaesthesia.  In fact, no anaesthesia expert/practitioner actually has the slightest idea how or why the drugs they administer remove consciousness, only that they do.  

  Banishing consciousness: the mystery of anaesthesia | New Scientist

I picked this article out by a simple google.

Well, maybe I didn't have to say anything. But both Valmar and yourself have mentioned the Pam Reynolds case, and I wanted to be clear that my own comments were not about that. It was just a bit of an off-the-cuff remark and somewhat spurious train of thought from me.

Interestingly that New Scientist article does not mention paralysis at all. It does say that consciousness is mysterious and not understood, and that the term 'unconscious' "is usually defined as failing to move in response to commands". I have to say my first response to that was rather flippant, thinking, "well, failing to move in response to commands could just mean someone is bone idle. Or stubborn and recalcitrant". 

Well, maybe I didn't have to say anything. But both Valmar and yourself have mentioned the Pam Reynolds case, and I wanted to be clear that my own comments were not about that. It was just a bit of an off-the-cuff remark and somewhat spurious train of thought from me.

Interestingly that New Scientist article does not mention paralysis at all. It does say that consciousness is mysterious and not understood, and that the term 'unconscious' "is usually defined as failing to move in response to commands". I have to say my first response to that was rather flippant, thinking, "well, failing to move in response to commands could just mean someone is bone idle. Or stubborn and recalcitrant". 

From what I've been able to find out, general anaesthesia is a drug induced coma, nothing to do with deep sleep. The level of anaesthesia that Reynolds was under is the deepest possible without killing the patient. Paralysis does not necessarily exclude consciousness, it can of course but it's a separate state.