THE CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Pim van Lommel, M.D.
Cardiologist, Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, PO Box 9555, 6800 TA Arnhem, The Netherlands.

For the full article, see: http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. INTRODUCTION
Some people who have survived a life-threatening crisis report an extraordinary experience.
Near-death experiences (NDE) occur with increasing frequency because
of improved survival rates resulting from modern techniques of resuscitation.

The content of NDE and the effects on patients seem similar worldwide,
across all cultures and times. The subjective nature and absence of a
frame of reference for this experience lead to individual, cultural, and
religious factors determining the vocabulary used to describe and
interpret the experience. NDE can be defined as the reported memory of
the whole of impressions during a special state of consciousness,
including a number of special elements such as out-of-body experience, pleasant feelings,
seeing a tunnel, a light, deceased relatives, or a life review.

Many circumstances are described during which NDE are reported,
such as cardiac arrest (clinical death), shock after loss of blood, traumatic
brain injury or intra-cerebral haemorrhage, near-drowning or asphyxia,
but also in serious diseases not immediately life-threatening. Similar
experiences to near-death ones can occur during the terminal phase of illness,
and are called deathbed visions. Furthermore, identical experiences, so-called
"fear-death" experiences, are mainly reported after situations in which death
seemed unavoidable like serious traffic or mountaineering accidents.
The NDE is transformational, causing profound changes of life-insight and
loss of the fear of death. An NDE seems to be a relatively regularly
occurring, and to many physicians an inexplicable phenomenon and
hence an ignored result of survival in a critical medical situation.

And should we also consider the possibility of conscious experience when
someone in coma has been declared brain dead by physicians, and organ
transplantation is about to be started? Recently several books were
published in the Netherlands about what patients had experienced in their
consciousness during coma following a severe traffic accident, following acute
disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), or following complications with
cerebral hypertension after surgery for a brain tumour, this last patient
being declared brain dead by his neurologist and neurosurgeon, but the
family refused to give permission for organ donation. All these patients reported,
after regaining consciousness, that they had experienced clear
consciousness with memories, emotions, and perception out of and above
their body during the period of their coma, also "seeing" nurses,
physicians and family in and around the ICU. Does brain death really means death,
or is it just the beginning of the process of dying that can last for hours to days,
and what happens to consciousness during this period?

Should we also consider the possibility that someone who is clinically dead
during cardiac arrest can experience consciousness, and even whether
there could still be consciousness after someone really has died, when his body is cold?
How is consciousness related to the integrity of brain function?
Is it possible to gain insight in this relationship?
In my view the only possible empirical approach to evaluate theories
about consciousness is research on NDE, because in studying the several
universal elements that are reported during NDE, we get the opportunity
to verify all the existing theories about consciousness that have been
discussed until now. Consciousness presents temporal as well as
everlasting experiences. Is there a start or an end to consciousness?

In this paper I first will discuss some more general aspects of death, and
after that I will describe more details from our prospective study on near-
death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest in the Netherlands, which
was published in the Lancet.1 I also want to comment on similar findings
from two prospective studies in survivors of cardiac arrest from the USA2
and from the United Kingdom.3 Finally, I will discuss implications for
consciousness studies, and how it could be possible to explain the
continuity of our consciousness.

Next: About Death
For the full article, see: http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel.php

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,526 • Replies: 21

No top replies

Happened to me twice. There is nothing. Happy polling.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Happened to me twice. There is nothing. Happy polling.

Most people only remember waking up.
Some people have had multiple such experiences,
and remember nothing for some of them
and recount adventures for others of them.
David

0 Replies

David, it depends on the conditions causing the state. After losing bloodflow to the brain you have about 5-10 seconds of consciousness left. Maintaining consciousness requires energy and it can't happen magically. If the conditions caused a severe deprivation of blood flow or oxygen in the blood then I'm sure it would be possible to go into a temporary "death" state while still experiencing some primitive form of dreaming/consciousness, as long as there is some minimal source of energy left.

0 Replies

Does consciousness rely, for its existence,
upon the material flesh n bones ?

How about out-of-body experiences ?

0 Replies

No, flesh and bones and body are not required...just a supply of oxygen coming in through blood. The majority of this energy is used to fire neurons and neurotransmitters. Without neuronal action your brain is no different than a lump of coal.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

No, flesh and bones and body are not required...just a supply of oxygen coming in through blood. The majority of this energy is used to fire neurons and neurotransmitters. Without neuronal action your brain is no different than a lump of coal.

OK, but is the mind, and its consciousness,
limited to the BRAIN ?

0 Replies

Can't say for sure, except insofar as I think of consciousness and mind as functions of brains, AND--at the same time--the thought, "brain" as an activity of consciousness.
I've said this before in my attempt to point to the fallacy of the dualism, mind-brain (like all such dualisms).

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

stuh505 wrote:
No, flesh and bones and body are not required...just a supply of oxygen coming in through blood. The majority of this energy is used to fire neurons and neurotransmitters. Without neuronal action your brain is no different than a lump of coal.

OK, but is the mind, and its consciousness,
limited to the BRAIN ?

1. Were you conscious before your brain existed?

2. Is it possible to temporarily lose consciousness by depriving the brain of oxygen?

3. Can you think of anything that runs without using an energy source?

4. Is there any other possible energy source for consciousness that does not come in through the brain?

5. Can you alter the way that your consciousness thinks and perceives by altering chemical interactions in your brain with drugs?

6. If consciousness continues after death, and consciousness is created at birth, then the universe would be constantly creating new energy. This is a violation of the law of Conservation of Energy.

7. Don't the answers to questions 1-6 prove without a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is a product of brain function?

0 Replies

Stuh asks: "Don't the answers to questions 1-6 prove without a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is a product of brain function?"

No doubt, but is it not also clear that all the components of your statements are mental phenomena? Can't you see that this coin as two sides?

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
stuh505 wrote:
No, flesh and bones and body are not required...just a supply of oxygen coming in through blood. The majority of this energy is used to fire neurons and neurotransmitters. Without neuronal action your brain is no different than a lump of coal.

OK, but is the mind, and its consciousness,
limited to the BRAIN ?

1. Were you conscious before your brain existed?

Is that like asking whether a radio wave existed b4 it crawled into a radio ?

Does the Law of the Conservation of Energy
apply to conscious life ?

Quote:

2. Is it possible to temporarily lose consciousness
by depriving the brain of oxygen?

The human body, including its brain, will lose consciousness.
As to whether consciousness continues to exist
on any other level, in any other form: your guess is as good as mine.

Quote:

3. Can you think of anything that runs without using an energy source?

A proton ?

Quote:

4. Is there any other possible energy source for consciousness
that does not come in through the brain?

That is a BIG word.
Is a photon conscious ?
Is a membrane conscious ?

Quote:

5. Can you alter the way that your consciousness thinks
and perceives by altering chemical interactions in your brain with drugs?

Yes.

Quote:

6. If consciousness continues after death,
and consciousness is created at birth, then the universe would be constantly creating new energy.
This is a violation of the law of Conservation of Energy.

Agreed; good point.

Quote:

7. Don't the answers to questions 1-6 prove without a shadow of a doubt
that consciousness is a product of brain function?

Yes; thay DON 'T.
Is there proof of whether consciousness existed b4 the first material brain evolved ?
David

0 Replies

Quote:

Is that like asking whether a radio wave existed b4 it crawled into a radio ?

It may sound like a stupid question to some, but this is very similar to the one greatest scientific question that Richard Feynman's dad had (if you don't know who that is, Richard Feynman was one of the greatest physicists of all time). Although the question did not particularly confuse Feynman, I believe that he was never able to satisfactorily explain it to his father. I believe it was in reference to sound waves, though.

The question is, do electromagnetic waves come from nothing? Quite simply, no. Just as you can create a sword from metal, an EM wave can be created from energy. Energy is conserved always. EM waves are actually one of the most common forms of energy. There is fundamentally no difference between the radio waves coming out of a radio, and the heat waves coming off of your skin, or the light waves coming off of a light bulb. The only difference is the wavelength or frequency of the wave.

Quote:

Does the Law of the Conservation of Energy
apply to conscious life ?

If scientists ever found reason to believe that it did not, they would stop teaching it. The fact that we still consider it a law means that we still agree that it applies to everything.

Quote:

The human body, including its brain, will lose consciousness.
As to whether consciousness continues to exist
on any other level, in any other form: your guess is as good as mine.

I say no, and I do not consider my answer to be a guess, although you may consider my answer to be a guess if you like.

Quote:

[Can you think of anything that runs without using an energy source?] A proton ?

And what is it about a proton that "runs"? Certainly it exists, but the conservation laws do not require an energy source for things to continue to exist in a state -- only to change between states.

Indeed, we can still observe these laws in effect when it comes to the motion of large particles such as protons and neutrons. They react in collisions pretty much in the classical sense showing that they too do not move unless imparted with energy from an external source. Of course, if the closed system being considered is simply the radius enclosed by the proton itself, then there is generally a constant flow of energy in due to collisions and interactions with other particles.

Quote:

That is a BIG word.

It is, now that you increased the font size.

Quote:

Is a photon conscious ?
Is a membrane conscious ?

No, and no. Anybody disagree?

Quote:

Is there proof of whether consciousness existed b4 the first material brain evolved ?

No, there is no such proof, except for those of the naive opinion that "all this" is proof of a higher intelligent being.

0 Replies

To ask if a photon and a membrane are conscious is to assume that only "brains" are conscious, forgetting that brains consist of all kinds of qualities, among which we have atoms, molecules, photons and perhaps membranes. To me the most interesting, if scientifically unanswerable, question is if the COSMOS has and had consciousness before the advent of human brains. Since the Cosmos contains conscious human brains, we must conclude that to that extent the Cosmos HAS consciousness. But it seems to me that the Cosmos (whatever that may be) IS neither conscious nor unconscious as the terms may be applied to human beings. Its state is beyond such notions. It is or has something far beyond what we mean by consciousness or unconsciousness. The Hindu notion of Brahma is not that of an infinitely large human mind. But, at the same time, it refers to something that is IN A SENSE alive, or at least not "dead".

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

To ask if a photon and a membrane are conscious is to assume that only "brains" are conscious,

I did not make that assumption;
( nor did I make ANY assumption in raising the question )

Quote:

forgetting that brains consist of all kinds of qualities, among which we have atoms, molecules, photons and perhaps membranes.
To me the most interesting, if scientifically unanswerable, question is if the COSMOS has and had consciousness before the advent of human brains.

I join u in finding that to be an interesting question.

Quote:

Since the Cosmos contains conscious human brains, we must conclude that to that extent the Cosmos HAS consciousness. But it seems to me that the Cosmos (whatever that may be) IS neither conscious nor unconscious as the terms may be applied to human beings.
Its state is beyond such notions.

How is its state beyond such notions.
David

It is or has something far beyond what we mean by consciousness or unconsciousness.
The Hindu notion of Brahma is not that of an infinitely large human mind. But, at the same time, it refers to something that is IN A SENSE alive, or at least not "dead".

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Quote:
Is that like asking whether a radio wave existed b4 it crawled into a radio ?

It may sound like a stupid question to some, but this is very similar to the one greatest scientific question that Richard Feynman's dad had (if you don't know who that is, Richard Feynman was one of the greatest physicists of all time). Although the question did not particularly confuse Feynman, I believe that he was never able to satisfactorily explain it to his father. I believe it was in reference to sound waves, though.

The question is, do electromagnetic waves come from nothing? Quite simply, no. Just as you can create a sword from metal, an EM wave can be created from energy. Energy is conserved always. EM waves are actually one of the most common forms of energy. There is fundamentally no difference between the radio waves coming out of a radio, and the heat waves coming off of your skin, or the light waves coming off of a light bulb. The only difference is the wavelength or frequency of the wave.

Quote:
Does the Law of the Conservation of Energy
apply to conscious life ?

If scientists ever found reason to believe that it did not, they would stop teaching it. The fact that we still consider it a law means that we still agree that it applies to everything.

Quote:
The human body, including its brain, will lose consciousness.
As to whether consciousness continues to exist
on any other level, in any other form: your guess is as good as mine.

I say no, and I do not consider my answer to be a guess, although
you may consider my answer to be a guess if you like.
Thanx for your permission.

Quote:
[Can you think of anything that runs without using an energy source?] A proton ?

And what is it about a proton that "runs"?

It continually generates a positive EM charge.

Certainly it exists, but the conservation laws do not require an energy source for things to continue to exist in a state -- only to change between states.

Indeed, we can still observe these laws in effect when it comes to the motion of large particles such as protons and neutrons. They react in collisions pretty much in the classical sense showing that they too do not move unless imparted with energy from an external source. Of course, if the closed system being considered is simply the radius enclosed by the proton itself, then there is generally a constant flow of energy in due to collisions and interactions with other particles.

Quote:

That is a BIG word.

It is, now that you increased the font size.

Quote:

Is a photon conscious ?
Is a membrane conscious ?

No, and no. Anybody disagree?
I deny having sufficient knowledge nor information
to formulate a disagreement.

Do u have EVIDENCE in support of your conclusion ?
or did u arrive at it by naked ASSUMPTION,
chosen arbitrarily n capriciously ? perhaps by the flip of a coin ?

Quote:

Is there proof of whether consciousness existed b4 the first material brain evolved ?

No, there is no such proof, except for those of the naive opinion that "all this" is proof of a higher intelligent being.

0 Replies

David, try to be more careful with the quoting. You put your own words in my quote tags and vice versa.

A photon does not continually generate an EM charge. To the contrary, a photon has no mass and no charge.

Protons and electrons, on the other hand, have charge. They do not continually generate an EM charge, though. An electric field exists around them, but this is just a mathematical construct to explain how they will react if another charged particle interacts with them. It does not actually mean that something is being constantly created, like running an engine at idle.

Imagine an extremely bitchy person who will yell at anyone who comes near. We can say that this person has a "field of bitchiness" around them. If noboody else is nearby, this field doesnt mean anything. When another person comes by, they bitch.

Now, as a matter of fact, the forces that are described by electromagnetic fields are actually enabled by photons. Photons are created, basically from nothing, to cause a force reaction to occur.

Does this violate conservation of energy you ask, to create something from nothing?

No, it does not -- because the heisenburg uncertainty principle tells us that the amount of energy of a system is actually uncertain to some small degree. The energy of a photon is less than this amount. It is possible for an arbitrary amount of energy to "come into existence" for a period of time proportional to the amount of energy, because the amount of energy is not fixed at a specific amount anyway. Given the speed of light, this allows a virtual photon to travel a certain distance...with higher probability of existing for shorter distances, which is why the electromagnetic force follows the inverse square law.

JNL,

The more aware I become of the physics behind things, the more humbled and open minded to such theories I am forced to become.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

David, try to be more careful with the quoting.
You put your own words in my quote tags and vice versa.

Did u notice any distinction of font or of coloration ?
After the first 2 cycles,
it becomes a bit awkward.
I believe that u understood my meaning.

Quote:

A photon does not continually generate an EM charge.

If u read it again,
u 'll see that your question,
to which I responded was:
"And what is it about a proton that "runs"?"

Quote:

To the contrary, a photon has no mass and no charge.

Very true; thank u for pointing that out.

Quote:

Protons and electrons, on the other hand, have charge.
They do not continually generate an EM charge, though.

Its just a myth ??

Quote:

An electric field exists around them, but this is just a mathematical construct to explain how they will react if another charged particle interacts with them. It does not actually mean that something is being constantly created, like running an engine at idle.

Imagine an extremely bitchy person who will yell at anyone who comes near.
We can say that this person has a "field of bitchiness" around them.
If noboody else is nearby, this field doesnt mean anything.
When another person comes by, they bitch.

Now, as a matter of fact, the forces that are described by electromagnetic fields are actually enabled by photons.
Photons are created, basically from nothing, to cause a force reaction to occur.

Is this motivational reference
an invocation of Intelligent Design ?

Quote:

Does this violate conservation of energy you ask, to create something from nothing?

No, it does not -- because the heisenburg uncertainty principle tells us that the amount of energy of a system is actually uncertain to some small degree. The energy of a photon is less than this amount. It is possible for an arbitrary amount of energy to "come into existence" for a period of time proportional to the amount of energy, because the amount of energy is not fixed at a specific amount anyway. Given the speed of light, this allows a virtual photon to travel a certain distance...with higher probability of existing for shorter distances, which is why the electromagnetic force follows the inverse square law.

JNL,

The more aware I become of the physics behind things, the more humbled and open minded to such theories I am forced to become.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

bm

" Until a man uncovers himself he cannot see " = nudists have better vision ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID

Perhaps nudists have seen it all before Smile

As far as "consciousness" goes we need to address the following questions.

1. Is there a difference between "consciousness" and "self-consciousness" ?

2. Is brain activity "necessary" or "sufficient" (or both) for "consciousness" or is the latter an aspect of general existence like a "field phenomenon" which the brain taps into ?

3. Is "self awareness" a solipsistic phenomenon or is it an aspect of "social reality" established via language.

Questions 1 and 2 are to some extent covered by JLN's esoteric analysis.

Just to take on question 3 for the moment. it seems to me that what is going on within discussions of "near-death experiences" is a social transaction regarding the status of "self" under extreme biological stress.
Given that such status is undergoes bizarre metamorphosis in what we call "dreams" or "personality disorders" why should we attach particular significance to any metamorphosis ? Oxygen starvation has been cited to account for apparent similarities of "experience" so to pursue the matter further is perhaps merely to indulge in the same socially beneficial metaphysical speculation which supports "religion".

And to return to OmSigDAVID then, the philosophical point here is that one thing that "man sees" when he "uncovers himself" is an actual lack of coherence as "an individual" even in his so called waking state ! His multifarious "selves" slip in and out like actors on a social stage. What then is the status of the ghost in Hamlet .....merely another role in the play ?

0 Replies

THE CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know