This has probably been asked before ...but

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.

There is a body of literature related to dreams under anesthesia. It's also available for public scrutiny. 

I'm not sure why you are ignoring that, or why you have been asking the same things here (and Skeptiko before that) and at Bernardo's forum at the same time.

There is a body of literature related to dreams under anesthesia. It's also available for public scrutiny. 

I'm not sure why you are ignoring that, or why you have been asking the same things here (and Skeptiko before that) and at Bernardo's forum at the same time.

Well, Hammeroff disagrees. So do the papers that nbtruthman has just posted!

Maybe I'm ignoring that because you haven't pointed me to where it might be. Maybe in your head?

What is it to do with you or anyone else where and when as well as why I've been posting? It's not as if the answer to the question has been answered to anyone's satisfaction, here or anywhere else, is it?

If we are to compare anaesthesia with the state of coma, that broadens the scope. What happens during coma, is consciousness tied to the physical or free to roam? I don't have any references to hand, but I seem to recall that both may occur. If brain activity is at a low level, that doesn't need to imply nothing is happening with consciousness, it may simply be that the consciousness is 'elsewhere'.

[Laird]

It's not as if the answer to the question has been answered to anyone's satisfaction, here or anywhere else, is it?

Hi Steve!

I'm going to try again, because I think I have a satisfactory answer, even if (perhaps) it is one that you might not be willing to accept.

I think interactionist dualism is both a satisfactory as well as the best explanation for all of the sorts of phenomena and evidence that we consider on this forum, including that which you raise (anaesthesia).

I suggest that, generally, mind and brain are tightly-coupled, but that occasionally the mind (or a non-physical entity even more deeply coupled with the mind) is decoupled from the brain in what is commonly referred to as an "out-of-body" or "visionary" experience. Clearly, there must be certain "freeing" conditions under which this occurs - conditions such as extreme trauma or being near death - and I would suggest that in the absence of such conditions, the tight coupling between the dual aspects of brain and mind severely constrains the subjective experiences of the mind, as a sort of "prisoner" of the brain.

This tight coupling in the absence of any conditions which might free the mind from the brain means that when the brain is "powered down" by anaesthetics, the mind tightly coupled to the brain, not able to free itself, is likewise "powered down".

OK, but why do I think that this dualistic "coupling" theory makes sense in the first place?

Well, consider learning how to walk. This is essentially an "algorithmic" activity which robots have already been programmed to duplicate, including in the context of very, very tricky terrain. It seems to me to be basically a matter of training a neural network, which could be either biological or computational. This is very plausibly and very likely something that the brain handles on behalf of the mind which it is hosting - which is not to say that the mind could not handle it on its own if it had to! But then, consider the rare gifts that are sometimes bestowed upon those who have had a near-death experience or the like - gifts such as suddenly being able to play the piano like a virtuoso. Clearly, these don't originate in the brain, because there is no time or opportunity to learn them computationally - they are sudden and unexpected. On the other hand, they very clearly mediate via the brain - thus entailing a mind-brain dualism.

I think then that there is evidence both for learning via the brain as well as inspiration by the mind to which it is attached, implying that these two entities are tightly coupled (why, I don't know), and I would encourage you to think about what I wrote above with respect to the idea that - unless it encounters conditions which free it - the mind is generally so tightly coupled with the brain that when the brain powers down (e.g.via anaesthetics), so does the mind with which it is coupled.

P.S. This is a worst-case scenario! As others have pointed out, it is totally possible that whilst the brain is anaesthetised, the mind dreams or otherwise remains conscious, and it is simply the case that we don't recall the dreams or other conscious experiences when we emerge from anaesthesia.

I appreciate your attempt at solving this puzzle.

However....

It is just one more idea among many that might be considered. When no one in the field of neuroscience seems to properly understands things, I just prefer to stay ignorant until eventually scientists, or in this case it's possibly someone else, find a theory that everyone accepts. 

As I said, I just don't know.

My interest in the topic comes from my personal experience from having had a few operations under general anaesthetic. My guess is that as long as we/God/whoever is running the show does not feel that the body's in danger of dying, it is quite content with having us 'lose consciousness' for a bit. Without dreaming.  The question of coming out of normal sensual awareness into a different sort, is one for religious/spiritual  types to ponder. Scientists have unfortunately exempt themselves from such  discussions.

The question of coming out of normal sensual awareness into a different sort, is one for religious/spiritual  types to ponder. Scientists have unfortunately exempt themselves from such  discussions.

I would have thought it was exactly a suitable topic for scientific investigation. One is more likely to find an answer by examining the evidence than via theoretical speculations.

I would have thought it was exactly a suitable topic for scientific investigation. One is more likely to find an answer by examining the evidence than via theoretical speculations.

How can you investigate what you don't believe exists?

That's my point. Scientists don't think it's even possible.

Well, Hammeroff disagrees.

I must have missed the convention where his opinion was declared infallible. He is pushing his own theory and you can sympathize with that, but you can't ignore the data.

Maybe I'm ignoring that because you haven't pointed me to where it might be. Maybe in your head?

Charming. Try Googling "dreams under anesthesia".

What is it to do with you or anyone else where and when as well as why I've been posting? It's not as if the answer to the question has been answered to anyone's satisfaction, here or anywhere else, is it?

The thing is that the resident troll(s) back at Skeptiko used to do the same. Post some rhetoric question there, at Bernardo's, Prescott's, etc. and then sit back and see the two camps clash, only swooping in to bump the thread when it cooled down. 

That you have been doing the same is suspicious, as is the fact that the last user to do so changed names twice back in August. Are you comfortable as Stan, or shall I call you Cole Jesen or Alex Meteos? Given all the impersonators that we have seen, how can I know that you are actually Steve?

I must have missed the convention where his opinion was declared infallible. He is pushing his own theory and you can sympathize with that, but you can't ignore the data.


Charming. Try Googling "dreams under anesthesia".



The thing is that the resident troll(s) back at Skeptiko used to do the same. Post some rhetoric question there, at Bernardo's, Prescott's, etc. and then sit back and see the two camps clash, only swooping in to bump the thread when it cooled down. 

That you have been doing the same is suspicious, as is the fact that the last user to do so changed names twice back in August. Are you comfortable as Stan, or shall I call you Cole Jesen or Alex Meteos? Given all the impersonators that we have seen, how can I know that you are actually Steve?

Oh do fuck off!! 

You are very guilty of casting ridiculous dispersions around. It is you that is the Troll! Why do you feel the need to question anyone (everyone?) that you somehow perceive as being against you or against the forum? I have raised my eyes to heaven a few times on seeing such posts on Skeptiko and now here.

If you paid any real attention to my posts, you would see that it is the same person that's posting! I gave my reasons for the name change in the introductions thread. I've a good mind to report you for being so annoying!

Oh do fuck off!! 
 

ROFL.

Let 'em have it, Stanley.

ROFL.