Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism

Even if that is the case (and it's not obvious to me that it is), it doesn't prove that consciousness is retained during general anaesthetic but forgotten due to the anaesthetic, as opposed to what seems more plausible to those like me who have been through it: that consciousness temporarily ceases.

But that would suggest that mind is simply the result of brain activity ~ when brain activity ceases, so does mind.

However, if mind is not the brain, then consciousness does not logically cease, but is suppressed as the brain is suppressed.

Because, actually, brain activity doesn't stop until the brain dies from lack of oxygen and blood flow.

Is it? It doesn't seem to be the usual scenario in which people have NDEs or OBEs, i.e., in those cases - like mine - when the procedure is not putting their life at risk. At most, it's a mere possibility, and one that seems remote to me.

But people have reported having an OBE or NDE during anesthesia ~ though rarely. It has no explanation, either, as far as I can tell.

It's not nearly an inexplicable as terminal lucidity, but it's still very unexpected.

That's all agreeable to me, but it does seem to concede the lack of analogy.

Maybe I'm missing something, I'd say you can make analogous inferences? ->

1.) Some people experience Survival, either of their own or someone else's => Everyone will experience Survival.

2. ) Some people have had OOBE & NDE experiences, or other forms of conscious awareness/awakening during anesthesia

=>

Consciousness remains "on" during anesthesia, but memory formation is affected.

To say it in another way -> The continuity of consciousness is preserved during anesthesia just as it presumably preserved during sleep or unconsciousness due to some physical damage of the body.

Of course one can say continuity of consciousness is not preserved during sleep and/or unconsciousness due to physical damage....but that to me would then require novel explanations for what happens during dream telepathy, OOBEs, and NDEs.

[Laird]

The thing you are not seeing

Quit making these pseudo-authoritative pronouncements on others. You don't have the right.

there is just an appearance of the cessation of consciousness!

Yet another bare claim pronounced pseudo-authoritatively. How would you know?

there is no evidence that this is what actually occurs.

Dude, I (and others) have been under general anaesthetic, and that's the most straightforward description of what occurred to me (us).

Unless we have a good reason not to, we should accept the most straightforward description. You have not given us a good reason not to.

I have made my case many times ~ or tried to!

You've failed.

Re your later post:

But that would suggest that mind is simply the result of brain activity ~ when brain activity ceases, so does mind.

You're arguing selectively, because if that was what followed, then it would follow too from the general fact that drugs affect the mind, such as when taking psychedelics for recreational or spiritual purposes (as you do), or even just when getting drunk. You clearly don't think that it follows in the general case, because you accept that mind is not the result of brain activity.

It's anyway only one potential explanation. The better one is that while the mind is embodied it is strongly intertwined with and influenced by the brain, such that it can be temporarily rendered non-conscious by the brain. That's the sort of explanation you'd accept in the general case (of drugs), and it's what you ought to accept in this specific case of anaesthetic drugs.

[Laird]

Maybe I'm missing something, I'd say you can make analogous inferences? ->

1.) Some people experience Survival, either of their own or someone else's => Everyone will experience Survival.

2. ) Some people have had OOBE & NDE experiences, or other forms of conscious awareness/awakening during anesthesia

=>

Consciousness remains "on" during anesthesia, but memory formation is affected.

The two inference are not analogous; they only seem that way because of the way you've formulated the first. More accurately, it is more complex than that and should be formulated something like this:

Some persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead => persons can survive biological death => we have no reason to think that some persons will be arbitrarily annihilated at biological death despite being capable of surviving it => every person will survive biological death

If it were a truly analogous inference, it would be as simple as the second, and formulated like this:

Some persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead => all persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead

Not many people would accept that inference though, not even many NDE researchers, most of whom would, I think, maintain that some people simply don't have NDEs in circumstances in which others do.

I am one of those who doesn't accept it, and it would beg the question to expect me to.

To say it in another way -> The continuity of consciousness is preserved during anesthesia just as it presumably preserved during sleep or unconsciousness due to some physical damage of the body.

I've been (separately) both asleep and under general anaesthesia, and I can tell you that the two are different.

I see no reason to insist on a continuity of consciousness other than for the metaphysical awkwardness of discontinuity. In this respect, ironically, you and Valmar are arguing like the skeptics argue: this (some given) phenomenon is metaphysically awkward for us, but there is a possible scenario in which we can explain it away, therefore - ta da! - the possible is actual, and we can dispense with that otherwise uncomfortable evidence.

Quit making these pseudo-authoritative pronouncements on others. You don't have the right.

Well, that's how I also see your pronouncements ~ as pseudo-authoritative. It's not fun.

I state it like that because that's how it feels ~ that I feel that you're not considering all of the possibilities, so I want to point them out.

Yet another bare claim pronounced pseudo-authoritatively. How would you know?

Because you don't know, and neither do I! All I know is that people have reported NDEs and OBEs during anesthesia, so it logically follows that mind doesn't "cease", but that something else happens.

There's nothing "pseudo-authoritative" about that. You don't know that mind "ceases" under anesthesia. That is what I would call "pseudo-authoritative".

Dude, I (and others) have been under general anaesthetic, and that's the most straightforward description of what occurred to me (us).

Unless we have a good reason not to, we should accept the most straightforward description. You have not given us a good reason not to.

I've also been under anesthesia, yet I wouldn't conclude that my consciousness, my mind, "ceased". I simply experienced a skip in time, unable to recall the interlude. Who knows what my full mind state was in that moment. I would have to be outside of my ego, looking from the outside, to know.

Yes, you experienced a skip in time ~ but does that mean that consciousness, mind, "ceases" in that period? You cannot know for certain.

Think about it ~ you can sleep, experience a skip in time, and yet, you might have had a dream that you cannot recall having had.

I know, because it happened to me.

You've failed.

Or rather you simply didn't try to comprehend.

Re your later post:


You're arguing selectively, because if that was what followed, then it would follow too from the general fact that drugs affect the mind, such as when taking psychedelics for recreational or spiritual purposes (as you do), or even just when getting drunk. You clearly don't think that it follows in the general case, because you accept that mind is not the result of brain activity.

Minds are not the result of brain activity ~ but I fully accept and believe that brain activity influences the mind to a significant degree while minds are perceiving through brains.

Drugs do not directly affect the mind ~ they affect the brain, which then alters the mental state in certain ways that are not understood, however known.

It's anyway only one potential explanation. The better one is that while the mind is embodied it is strongly intertwined with and influenced by the brain, such that it can be temporarily rendered non-conscious by the brain. That's the sort of explanation you'd accept in the general case (of drugs), and it's what you ought to accept in this specific case of anaesthetic drugs.

Not that I disagree... but why are you telling me what I'd accept, and what I ought to believe, irrespective of anything else...?

[Laird]

Dude, I'm not interested in engaging further with you in these threads. It's a waste of time.

The two inference are not analogous; they only seem that way because of the way you've formulated the first. More accurately, it is more complex than that and should be formulated something like this:

Some persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead => persons can survive biological death => we have no reason to think that some persons will be arbitrarily annihilated at biological death despite being capable of surviving it => every person will survive biological death

If it were a truly analogous inference, it would be as simple as the second, and formulated like this:

Some persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead => all persons remain conscious despite being temporarily biologically dead

Not many people would accept that inference though, not even many NDE researchers, most of whom would, I think, maintain that some people simply don't have NDEs in circumstances in which others do.

I am one of those who doesn't accept it, and it would beg the question to expect me to.


I've been (separately) both asleep and under general anaesthesia, and I can tell you that the two are different.

I see no reason to insist on a continuity of consciousness other than for the metaphysical awkwardness of discontinuity. In this respect, ironically, you and Valmar are arguing like the skeptics argue: this (some given) phenomenon is metaphysically awkward for us, but there is a possible scenario in which we can explain it away, therefore - ta da! - the possible is actual, and we can dispense with that otherwise uncomfortable evidence.

But not everyone who has an OOBE was necessarily having an NDE? Also not sure if every person on anesthesia while having an NDE is clinically dead? The Psi Encyclopedia mentions something about 5 or so cases of OOBE under anesthesia but sadly there was no footnote so not sure where the number comes from or exact nature, been looking for more detail and will post if I find the reference.

For myself, I did get put under when I was rather young, and at least for me the feeling was akin to going to sleep. I even have an incident from Thailand where my sister and I went into such a natural deep sleep my parents - who were downstairs in the hotel restaurant - had to get security to break the locks. That was actually deeper to me than my time under anesthesia.

Additionally, when I awakened from being put under actually felt like I might have gone somewhere else and then returned, but I later figured that was just a figment of my imagination. So for me anesthesia did mean turning consciousness off, something I figured was true for years until I came across some stuff about anesthesia awareness, and the possibility that anesthesia doesn't turn off consciousness but rather blocks memory access and formation of correlative structure in the brain.

So my initial thinking [as an adult] that anesthesia doesn't actually turn off consciousness had nothing to do with the paranormal, though I did later learn about the NDEs/OOBEs.

I've also read about people recalling dreams possibly had during anesthesia, and it seems there's some recent attempt to make a treatment for trauma using such dreams though AFAICTell this new treatment isn't the full "going under" done during surgeries.

Given the exact action mechanism of anesthesia seems to be a mystery, at least to some degree, I think the state of consciousness under anesthesia is still a mystery even without taking into account any paranormal phenomena?

[Laird]

But not everyone who has an OOBE was necessarily having an NDE? Also not sure if every person on anesthesia while having an NDE is clinically dead? The Psi Encyclopedia mentions something about 5 or so cases of OOBE under anesthesia but sadly there was no footnote so not sure where the number comes from or exact nature, been looking for more detail and will post if I find the reference.

For myself, I did get put under when I was rather young, and at least for me the feeling was akin to going to sleep. I even have an incident from Thailand where my sister and I went into such a natural deep sleep my parents - who were downstairs in the hotel restaurant - had to get security to break the locks. That was actually deeper to me than my time under anesthesia.

Additionally, when I awakened from being put under actually felt like I might have gone somewhere else and then returned, but I later figured that was just a figment of my imagination. So for me anesthesia did mean turning consciousness off, something I figured was true for years until I came across some stuff about anesthesia awareness, and the possibility that anesthesia doesn't turn off consciousness but rather blocks memory access and formation of correlative structure in the brain.

So my initial thinking [as an adult] that anesthesia doesn't actually turn off consciousness had nothing to do with the paranormal, though I did later learn about the NDEs/OOBEs.

I've also read about people recalling dreams possibly had during anesthesia, and it seems there's some recent attempt to make a treatment for trauma using such dreams though AFAICTell this new treatment isn't the full "going under" done during surgeries.

Given the exact action mechanism of anesthesia seems to be a mystery, at least to some degree, I think the state of consciousness under anesthesia is still a mystery even without taking into account any paranormal phenomena?

I'll try to make this my last response on this topic, because the exchange is becoming repetitive.

I selectively read from your links. My sentiments:

Yes, sometimes a general anaesthetic doesn't work, such that while immobilised, the patient remains fully conscious and feels the full pain of the surgical procedure, unable to do anything about it. That happened to a family member, and although I haven't spoken with her about it directly, I understand that it was a ghastly experience for her.

It seems that sometimes, too, people dream as the anaesthetic wears off.

Sometimes, too, people have NDEs and/or OBEs while under anaesthetic.

It remains the case though that for the most part, general anaesthetic seems to work as expected: to totally shut down experience.

Any claim to the contrary is based on the possibility that experience persists but that the memory of it is blocked.

Nobody in this thread has, though, given a solid reason as to why that possibility should be taken to be actual.

The only reason I can see is that the possibility of a temporary cessation of experience is metaphysically uncomfortable for those who identify the person with his or her experience, such that if experience ceases, the person ceases to exist too.

I don't share that metaphysical belief, so I have no reason to entertain the possibility under consideration.

As I've also noted elsewhere, general anaesthesia is not the only scenario in which experience seems to temporarily cease: the case of Annika and Tristan offers another example, in which Tristan gave up his body to Annika, and effectively died and remained dead for several years, experiencing nothing during that time, after which Annika found a way to bring him back to life.

Finally: Sci, if you'd like this discussion of experience and anaesthesia broken out into a separate thread, just let me know.

I'll try to make this my last response on this topic, because the exchange is becoming repetitive.

I selectively read from your links. My sentiments:

Yes, sometimes a general anaesthetic doesn't work, such that while immobilised, the patient remains fully conscious and feels the full pain of the surgical procedure, unable to do anything about it. That happened to a family member, and although I haven't spoken with her about it directly, I understand that it was a ghastly experience for her.

It seems that sometimes, too, people dream as the anaesthetic wears off.

Sometimes, too, people have NDEs and/or OBEs while under anaesthetic.

It remains the case though that for the most part, general anaesthetic seems to work as expected: to totally shut down experience.

Any claim to the contrary is based on the possibility that experience persists but that the memory of it is blocked.

Nobody in this thread has, though, given a solid reason as to why that possibility should be taken to be actual.

The only reason I can see is that the possibility of a temporary cessation of experience is metaphysically uncomfortable for those who identify the person with his or her experience, such that if experience ceases, the person ceases to exist too.

I don't share that metaphysical belief, so I have no reason to entertain the possibility under consideration.

As I've also noted elsewhere, general anaesthesia is not the only scenario in which experience seems to temporarily cease: the case of Annika and Tristan offers another example, in which Tristan gave up his body to Annika, and effectively died and remained dead for several years, experiencing nothing during that time, after which Annika found a way to bring him back to life.

Finally: Sci, if you'd like this discussion of experience and anaesthesia broken out into a separate thread, just let me know.

I think it’s fine to leave it in this thread as it follows through from the essay in the OP.   

I can see the fundamental aspect of consciousness being the potential for experience rather than the constant flow of continuous experience being had, though I’m not if that’s what you think is happening…or do you think consciousness “turns off” as in ceases to exist?

[Laird]

I can see the fundamental aspect of consciousness being the potential for experience rather than the constant flow of continuous experience being had, though I’m not if that’s what you think is happening…or do you think consciousness “turns off” as in ceases to exist?

I've been preferring recently to talk about "persons" and (their) "experience(s)", which I feel are kind of conflated as/in "consciousness", which is why I'm preferring to avoid that latter term.

The way I'd put it, then, is (to simply suggest) that under certain conditions, a person's experience temporarily ceases. The person doesn't cease to exist, nor does his/her capacity to experience (or as you put it "potential for experience"), only his/her actual experience - temporarily - does.

Maybe you and Valmar are right that a person's experience never ceases, even temporarily. I just don't see a good reason to accept that though given what we know.