This has probably been asked before ...but

If I were 100% convinced - i.e. enough to say "case closed", i.e. enough to make me closed-minded - I would not even bother with this forum. The fact is that I have many questions and also the need to test my own conclusions, all of which makes discussion in such a forum helpful. There are plenty of echo-chambers out there. Look at the multitude of evangelical or atheist boards for examples.

Skeptics are welcome here but that doesn't mean that there is going to be no push-back when some skeptics arrogantly attempt to "educate" us.

Yeah. I get it. I guess I feel like a knife sharpens best against a stone. I much prefer to see intelligent skeptics post here and present arguments than folks who just repeat the same crap ad nauseum.

Yeah. I get it. I guess I feel like a knife sharpens best against a stone. I much prefer to see intelligent skeptics post here and present arguments than folks who just repeat the same crap ad nauseum.

The trouble is that it seems to be the intelligent ones who say the least.

The trouble is that it seems to be the intelligent ones who say the least.

heh

Chris: 297 posts

heh

heh

Chris: 297 posts

heh

Some mistake, surely? You seem to be missing more than 200.

I was talking about sceptics, though. But I suppose it's all relative.

A coincidence?

I've just watched a documentary on Amazon called Science of the Soul which investigates consciousness. It includes reincarnation, nde's, shamens as well as mainstream neurologists and others.

I was pleased to see Stuart Hammeroff back up my own impression that the disappearance of time is what's different about being under anaesthetic, he appears to agree that consciousness disappears while we are in that state. However he states that consciousness may well survive the body, citing something about quantum theory in his proposal.

It's quite a good programme, which spends time looking at familiar cases such as James the fighter pilot reincarnation case. They reveal details I haven't heard before.

It's incoherent to propose that consciousness can "disappear" completely under the same state that dreams are known to take place, mundane ones at that. Hammeroff, AFAIK, posits that the quantum state is lost when microtubules stop functioning properly, but that is irrelevant to the question in the OP because he also believes in some sort of proto-consciousness that is not physical (per Penrose's ideas that consciousness can't be reduced mathematically) and fundamental.

Anyways... Ever heard of people remembering previous dreams in a subsequent dream (despite not remembering them while awake)? There is quite a bit about it online (as simple as Googling "remembering previous dreams while dreaming"), and it implies that the state of consciousness at the moment is relevant to the recall process in the future. Much simpler explanation, especially in light that anesthesia has been known to produce effects that affect recall for days, even after leaving the system.

It's incoherent to propose that consciousness can "disappear" completely under the same state that dreams are known to take place, mundane ones at that. Hammeroff, AFAIK, posits that the quantum state is lost when microtubules stop functioning properly, but that is irrelevant to the question in the OP because he also believes in some sort of proto-consciousness that is not physical (per Penrose's ideas that consciousness can't be reduced mathematically) and fundamental.

Anyways... Ever heard of people remembering previous dreams in a subsequent dream (despite not remembering them while awake)? There is quite a bit about it online (as simple as Googling "remembering previous dreams while dreaming"), and it implies that the state of consciousness at the moment is relevant to the recall process in the future. Much simpler explanation, especially in light that anesthesia has been known to produce effects that affect recall for days, even after leaving the system.

I quote Hammeroff:

"Generally one does not dream under anaesthesia, you're just gone for the duration of the anaesthetic"

It at around 50mins of Science of the Soul.

I quote Hammeroff:

"Generally one does not dream under anaesthesia, you're just gone for the duration of the anaesthetic"

It at around 50mins of Science of the Soul.

But how does one distinguish that from:

"Generally one does not form memories under anaesthesia, you are unable to recall anything from the duration of the anaesthetic"

Is there any way to tell which is most correct? (or neither?).

(or a related possibility that one both dreams and forms memories, but is ordinarily unable to access those memories).

I might be missing the point here but it seems to me that often we use the word memory when we are talking about recall. For example, I have trouble remembering a dream if I don't grasp it the moment I awake. Something in the process of recall fails me and the memory of the dream seems to be gone. Yet, I am in no doubt that the dream happened because I had a fleeting image of it and a lingering feeling, or mood impression, for a while thereafter.

So how do we know that there are no memories or dreams in periods of unconsciousness? Perhaps we lack access to those memories because recall fails us. Does that explain why hypnosis seems able to recover memories that have evaded the normal recall mechanism? Or do we assume that those are not retrieved memories but fresh re-imaginings?

Again, it seems to me that recall is a function of the brain whereas memory is a non-physical and indestructible representation of an event. So, if recall can be impaired, the memory can seem lost yet if the brain and its recall mechanism can recover, access to the memory is regained.

I might be missing the point here but it seems to me that often we use the word memory when we are talking about recall. For example, I have trouble remembering a dream if I don't grasp it the moment I awake. Something in the process of recall fails me and the memory of the dream seems to be gone. Yet, I am in no doubt that the dream happened because I had a fleeting image of it and a lingering feeling, or mood impression, for a while thereafter.

So how do we know that there are no memories or dreams in periods of unconsciousness? Perhaps we lack access to those memories because recall fails us. Does that explain why hypnosis seems able to recover memories that have evaded the normal recall mechanism? Or do we assume that those are not retrieved memories but fresh re-imaginings?

Again, it seems to me that recall is a function of the brain whereas memory is a non-physical and indestructible representation of an event. So, if recall can be impaired, the memory can seem lost yet if the brain and its recall mechanism can recover, access to the memory is regained.

That’s a good point: I didn’t lose my memory when I had an anaesthetic- if that was the case I doubt anyone would have surgery under anaesthetic - but whatever new memories were created (if any), I can’t recall. I guess it would be easy to tell if a patient was dreaming under anaesthetic or not but that may not be the only thing our ‘consciousness’ does when we’re asleep. I’d be surprised is there was zero activity during anaesthetic as a general rule, even if there was there are events such as those reported in NDEs. Then there’s terminal lucidity to consider....