There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

[James R]

Write4U:

I appreciate that you tried to answer some of the direct questions I asked you previously. Your responses don't make much sense, but at least you tried. That's a step in the right direction.

Because partial brain incapacity produces a state of oblivion that is identical to brain death. (Stuart Hameroff, Anil Seth).

That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.

The conscious mind is an emergent phenomenon of neural data proccessing.

You're just stating your belief, again. You can't show that your claim is true. It's just one more claim you make that you pretend has sufficient evidence.

When the neural network has been destroyed by any causality, the result is a gradually dimming mindscape as in Alzheimers and Dementia.

This only says things about the physical brain and the observable personality etc. It says nothing about souls or anything like that.

I did not say "it is the same". I said that the effect is the same. (Seth, myself).

The effect of being under an anesthetic is not the same as the effect of being dead. Seth and you are both wrong. You can tell him from me.

Define soul.

Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.

So, again: how do you know there is no soul?

First, OT.

What's an OT?

Then Cell Theory.

You think cell theory has explained life, along with the OT (whatever that is)?

Long strands of self-duplicating polymers (RNA, DNA) encased in a self-organizing envelope and all the way back to basic chemical reactions and self-organization of biochemistry (Robert Hazen).

Sorry? Is this relevant to something?

I don't. The bible claims to know.

Great! That's the first time you have actually admitted that you don't have all the answers to something - that you don't know.

Progress.

Maybe there is hope for you, yet.

Like Carlos Castaneda?

I don't know who that is.

Allow me to ask: do other dimensions have access to our three? And if they do are they measurable?

I'm not sure how to answer. For instance, consider the three familiar spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forwards-backwards. Would you say that the up-down has access to forwards-backwards? What do you mean by having dimensions having access to one another?

Have yourself anesthetized and you will understand.

I have been under a general anesthetic before. It didn't show me that heaven doesn't exist.

There is no evidence to the contrary.

You shouldn't claim to know something is true on the basis of "there's no evidence to the contrary". You should, in fact, only believe things for which there is positive evidence.

For instance, there's no evidence to the contrary that small jelly-like lifeforms exist in the sub-ice oceans of Europa. So, do you think you now know that those lifeforms exist there? It would be a mistake for you to think that.

Yep, and also the more scientific metaphysical approach, and the psychological approach that define Angels and Demons as the symbolification of human character models.

No. You're way off base, with that nonsense.

The common theme to my questions was your knowledge. Over and over, I asked you "how do you know?" that various things you believe are true. You completely missed the point.

I get the impression that you are content to just believe things, without appropriate justification. Questions about how you know what you know don't seem important to you. You just know what you know.

This forum has seen a parade of people just like you, over its lifetime. People who are utterly confident about the truth of their own beliefs, but at the same time completely unable to justify them to the satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers.

 

[Write4U]

No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.

You are being silly. There is nothing wrong with that phrase. If you cannot make sense of it, it isn't my problem.

So, far, the main argument against heaven that you have put has concerned anesthesia. That argument goes like this:

1. Human beings aren't conscious under anesthesia.
2. Human beings aren't conscious after they die.
3. Therefore, heaven doesn't exist.

Get it right. You are parsing!

Heaven doesn't exist for that person!

And from now on, if your post contains ad hominem I will not respond to it.
You play nice or we won't play at all, understood?

 

[Write4U]

No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.

Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.

And that is a meaningless statement. What exactly is an immaterial person and where does it come from?
The "actuating cause of an individual life" ? Just because it is listed in Webster's doesn't mean squat.
This is your claim now, so prove it!

Here I'll give a good start.

soul
/soʊl/
Noun

1. The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death.
2. The spirit or essence of anything.
3. Life, energy, vigor.

Verb

1. To endow with a soul; to furnish with a soul or mind.
   "(Can we find and add a quotation of Chaucer to this entry?)"
2. To beg on All Soul's Day.

"Often believed to live on after the person's death." Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
"Life after death", a new theory.
Oh, no, it's a 2000 year old claim made by non-scientists, that has never been proved, right?

 

[Write4U]

That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.

Well, it is clear that you have not read Hameroff and/or Seth.
If you had, you would know that homeostasis is a function of the brain but it is a sub-conscious function that is not affected by anesthesia.

Exploring the concept of homeostasis and considering its ...

Specifically, the traditional concept of homeostasis calls attention to a non-conscious form of physiological control which operates automatically without awareness or deliberation on the part of the organism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726811500325X

It is a function of the brain, unaffected by anesthesia.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
I appreciate that you tried to answer some of the direct questions I asked you previously. Your responses don't make much sense, but at least you tried. That's a step in the right direction.

If you had started reading my post a little closer the first time, my responses would have made a lot more sense.

That makes no sense at all. Partial brain incapacity logically cannot be the same as total brain incapacity. I assume you're misreading Hammeroff and/or Seth.

No, you are projecting again.
I said that anesthesia only affects the conscious part of the brain and that the effect on consciousness is the same as being brain-dead. Total oblivion, i.e. no emergent conscious thoughts, just like being dead.
Anesthesia does not affect homeostasis, but that is an unconscious control function.

You're just stating your belief, again. You can't show that your claim is true. It's just one more claim you make that you pretend has sufficient evidence.

No, I back up my beliefs with reason.
As atheists we play in the same playground. Don't tell me that mathematics is my religion. It is your refusal to critique religion that makes you agnostic, not atheist. Apparently you believe what the bible has told you might be true. That makes you just an agnostic, you just don't really know anything about God, Heaven and all that unknowable stuff that is religion, right?

This only says things about the physical brain and the observable personality etc. It says nothing about souls or anything like that.

What exactly is there to say about souls or anything like that?

soul
/soʊl/
Noun

1. The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death.
2. The spirit or essence of anything.
3. Life, energy, vigor.

1. Oxford Dictionary

1. Now that is an illogical position: "live on after death" is a contradiction in terms.
2. If mathematics is the essence of spacetime geometry, then the Universe has a mathematical soul, no?

The effect of being under an anesthetic is not the same as the effect of being dead. Seth and you are both wrong. You can tell him from me.

What do you remember about being anesthetized?

Soul: the immaterial part of a person. The actuating cause of an individual life.

Webster's dictionary.

Examples of actuating causes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33990-y

The above are examples of actuating causes. Are they examples of living systems?

So, again: how do you know there is no soul?

Like God, the concept of Soul is superfluous, unless you include the concept of a mathematical universe. Then the soul of the universe is a mathematical pattern and that is demonstrable.

What's an OT?

You have to be kidding? Never read the Old Testament?

You think cell theory has explained life, along with the OT (whatever that is)?

Yep, cell theory explains the evolution of dynamical systems into living systems. A cell is a self-organizing pattern of dipolar properties of biomolecules.

Sorry? Is this relevant to something?

Great! That's the first time you have actually admitted that you don't have all the answers to something - that you don't know.

And you do? I haven't heard you admit your limitations. Besides, I have never claimed to know everything. This is just another one of your projections.

Progress

Indeed, instead of ad hominem, you are asking me to clarify. And we are making progress!

Maybe there is hope for you, yet.

I think you are beginning to realize that you have underestimated me a little bit, no?

I don't know who that is.

Don't know what OT means, never heard of Carlos Castaneda? What do you know about spiritual matters?

I'm not sure how to answer. For instance, consider the three familiar spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forwards-backwards. Would you say that the up-down has access to forwards-backwards? What do you mean by having dimensions having access to one another?

I have been under a general anesthetic before. It didn't show me that heaven doesn't exist.

You shouldn't claim to know something is true on the basis of "there's no evidence to the contrary". You should, in fact, only believe things for which there is positive evidence.

For instance, there's no evidence to the contrary that small jelly-like lifeforms exist in the sub-ice oceans of Europa. So, do you think you now know that those lifeforms exist there? It would be a mistake for you to think that.

I know that those lifeforms exist. I can show you a picture.

Ice worm
Genus of annelid worms

Ice worms are enchytraeid annelids of the genus Mesenchytraeus. The majority of the species in the genus are abundant in gravel beds or the banks of riverine habitats, but the best-known members of the genus are found in glacial ice. They include the only annelid worms known to spend their entire lives in glacial ice, and some of the few... and some of the few metazoans to complete their entire life cycle at conditions below 0 °C (32 °F).[5]Wikipedia

Yep, and also the more scientific metaphysical approach, and the psychological approach that define Angels and Demons as the symbolification of human character models.

No. You're way off base, with that nonsense.

OK, you tell me what angels and demons are.

The common theme to my questions was your knowledge. Over and over, I asked you "how do you know?" that various things you believe are true. You completely missed the point.

You are completely missing the point that when you ask "how do you know", I cite a scientific paper that addresses that question, but you refuse to read them and insist that I tell the story "in my own words".
Then it is you who is complaining that I am offering too much supporting material. Read what I give you and you won't have any problem with the "meaning" of my posts.

I get the impression that you are content to just believe things, without appropriate justification. Questions about how you know what you know don't seem important to you. You just know what you know.

Obviously you haven't learned anything from my MT thread.

This forum has seen a parade of people just like you, over its lifetime. People who are utterly confident about the truth of their own beliefs, but at the same time completely unable to justify them to the satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers.

I am not so sure about that "satisfaction of reasonable critical thinkers."
More like the Inquisition. They were seldom satisfied. I guess they knew too much about the unknowable to fool around with mere mortal souls.

In reference to information processing in cytoplasm and cytoskeleton and neural network.
Collective behavior of oscillating electric dipoles (see microtubule thread)

 

[Write4U]

No it hasn't. Don't be silly. "Self-referentially quasi-intelligent" is just a meaningless term you invented.

Well, lets see.

What is the default mode network of self-referential processing?

Abstract. The brain's default mode network (DMN) has become closely associated with self-referential mental activity, particularly in the resting-state. While the DMN is important for such processes, it has functions other than self-reference, and self-referential processes are supported by regions outside of the DMN.May 15, 2016

Mapping the self in the brain's default mode network
ScienceDirect

In living cells, microtubules are organized relative to their intrinsic polarity into characteristic patterns of microtubule polarity orientation. These microtubule polarity patterns dictate the distribution of both ends of the microtubule, and hence the locations where in the cell microtubule assembly/disassembly occur, as well as where plus-end-associated proteins can interact with other cellular structures. In addition, the polarity patterns of microtubules direct motor-driven traffic within the cytoplasm, and hence establish asymmetric distributions of various organelles. For all of these reasons, the characteristic polarity patterns of microtubules in various types of cells are instrumental for establishing and maintaining the structural and compositional polarity of each cell type.

Highlights

1. Self-reference and rest-fixation evoked extensive common activation; though distinct differences were also evident.
2.Within commonly activated regions greater self-referential activation was shown in MPFC, PCC, and left IPL.
3. Dynamic causal modeling showed that self-related processes were driven via PCC activity, and moderated by MPFC.
4. We speculate that this brain model provides the basis for the conscious awareness of the self.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33990-y

OK, that takes care of self-referential

If human intelligence is an emergent property of the neural network then one can argue that the neural network is quasi-intelligent (can't say proto-) in order to produce the consciously intelligent results.

Now do the phrases "self-referential and "quasi-intelligent" make a little more sense? Just read what is meant by the compound definitions.

 

[Write4U]

Why don't you have a guess at what knowledge I might think I have that gives me confidence that the Eiffel tower exists? I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

I don't need to guess. It has been proven that when you are under anesthesia, you have no knowledge of ANYTHING!
That is how they can cut your body to pieces and you won't "experience" the pain because you are "dead to the world". (Oxford dictionary)

And to answer your question directly, on that fateful April 14, 1912, how many millions of people did not know that the Titanic had sunk. If on that day, you had stated; "I know that the Titanic (or Eiffel Tower) exists", you would have been wrong, no?

 

[James R]

You resurrected a dead thread to post that?

 

[Write4U]

You resurrected a dead thread to post that?

Yes, I wanted to clear up a few of your misunderstadings. Perhaps it was inadequate clarity on my part.
In any case, if it was relevant then it should be relevant now, no?

Isn't it curious that this prayer should posit: "Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust", from the funeral service in the Book of Common Prayer.

I see no mention of; "Heaven to heaven". If Heaven existed and we actually go there, why is that not promised?

 

[C C]

[...] It has been proven that when you are under anesthesia, you have no knowledge of ANYTHING! [...]

So the dogma goes, anyway. But...

• Dreaming under anesthesia
  
  

  Dreaming under anesthesia: is it a real possiblity? Investigation of the effect of preoperative imagination on the quality of postoperative dream recalls

  Images evoked immediately before the induction of anesthesia by means of suggestions may influence dreaming during anesthesia. This study is a retrospective re-evaluation of the original prospective randomized trial.Dream reports were studied in two groups. ...

  www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  
  EXCERPT: Dreaming under anesthesia: is it a real possibility? For years anesthetists believed that there was no dreaming during anesthesia, yet, a portion of patients reported dreams after recovery from anesthesia.
  
  Initially it was hypothesized that the patients who spoke of their dreams had been awake during a period of anesthesia. In this case dreams might show a relationship to external events; they are "dream-like” processes, unpleasant and undesirable side-effects that can sometimes lead to posttraumatic stress syndrome.
  
  However, Aceto’s and Leslie’s as well as our patients recalled dreams characterized by contents that were not operative events but similar to that of their habitual dreams with predominant positive emotions. It has been proved that dream reports can be obtained even after properly-carried out anesthesia with an adequate depth.
  
  [...] Suggestions used immediately before the induction of general anesthesia help us in guiding our patients’ imagination. Patients imagine their favorite place as a dream plan of their own choice which is emotionally important and pleasant to them. Guided imagination impacted the patients dream recalls experienced under recovery of general anesthesia.
  
  In addition to the subjective experience the characteristics of the recovery state supported the likelihood of dreaming. The recovery of the patients who reported dreaming was often accompanied by emotional manifestations corresponding to the dream content (smiles, anger, crying), elements of behavior in line with the dream (embracing arms, a foot pressing down on the accelerator).
  
  In the first statistical analysis of our study we examined the effect of the psychological method and the hypnotic agents on the incidence of dreams. It has been demonstrated that dream recalls are more frequent in patients with preoperative suggestions applied before and during induction. Furthermore, formation of dreams and dream recalls were dependent on the anesthetic technique, especially propofol as an induction agent.

Traditional view:

• 

  Unveiling the Mystery: Why Do You Not Dream Under Anesthesia? - MedicalHubNews

  Have you ever wondered why your dreams seem to vanish when you're under anesthesia? The intriguing connection between consciousness and dreams becomes even

  medicalhubnews.com
  
  EXCERPT: Anesthesia is a complex medical intervention that induces a state of unconsciousness, making patients oblivious to their surroundings and sensations. This is achieved by targeting specific neural pathways and blocking nerve signals. The suppression of brain activity under anesthesia is a key factor in why dreams do not occur during this period. The interaction between anesthetics and brain receptors alters the natural course of consciousness, leaving no room for the dreaming process to take place.

And clinical death is a condition where wholesale non-functioning of the brain should apply in all areas. And yet occasional near death experiences indicate that low-level maintenance of introspective experiences can continue as vivid dreams. The memory system must be still be storing information, also, in order for such to be recalled after revival.

This is the problem of a brain, which a rock does not share. Until the stubborn organ is well into the process of decay, the possibility of an internal presentation of "stuff" persisting can't be entirely rejected. The rock, in contrast, enjoys the nirvana of "absence of everything" without interruption throughout its long but still limited existence. Thanks to the rock's utter lack of organization devoted to consciousness (presentation, identification, understanding, and data retention slash retrieval).
_

 

[Write4U]

I am not talking about brain function but "consciousness". Homeostasis continues, but that is an unconscious process.

I was quoting Anil Seth, a respected British neuroscientist and professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex.

Apparently there are several different anesthetics used depending on the type of operation performed.

Introduction: Unconsciousness is the Sine Qua Non of General Anesthesia

The term “anesthesia” was originally used by the ancient Greek surgeon Dioscorides and resurrected by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe the insensible state produced by inhalation of ether (1,2). The goals of general anesthesia include amnesia, unconsciousness (also termed hypnosis), and immobilization.

By definition, general anesthetics reversibly produce all three of these therapeutic effects (3,4). General anesthetic drugs include inhaled gases as well as intravenous agents. Other classes of drugs may be used by anesthetists to achieve specific clinical goals during surgery (5). For example, anesthetists often use drugs that selectively inhibit neuromuscular transmission to reduce patient movement and facilitate surgery.

Benzodiazepines may be used to provide anxiolysis and anterograde amnesia, and opioids provide analgesia (an action that is produced by only a few general anesthetics). However, among the many drugs used by anesthetists, general anesthetics are uniquely used to produce unconsciousness.

General Anesthetics and Molecular Mechanisms of Unconsciousness

General anesthetic agents are unique in clinical medicine, because they are the only drugs used to produce unconsciousness as a therapeutic goal. In contrast to older hypotheses that assumed all general anesthetics produce their central nervous system ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Write4U]

And clinical death is a condition where wholesale non-functioning of the brain should apply in all areas. And yet occasional near death experiences indicate that low-level maintenance of introspective experiences can continue as vivid dreams. The memory system must be still be storing information, also, in order for such to be recalled after revival.

I understand, but I see "near death experience" as different from artificially induced "anesthesia" which is not supposed to induce death but unconsciousness.

This is the problem of a brain, which a rock does not share. Until the stubborn organ is well into the process of decay, the possibility of an internal presentation of "stuff" persisting can't be entirely rejected. The rock, in contrast, enjoys the nirvana of "absence of everything" without interruption throughout its long but still limited existence. Thanks to the rock's utter lack of organization devoted to consciousness (presentation, identification, understanding, and data retention slash retrieval).

I understand that, examples are single celled organisms that respond to external stimulus. But without a brain, are they conscious to begin with?
i.e. does maintenance of life require consciousness, or does conscious awareness require a functional brain?

 

[C C]

I understand, but I see "near death experience" as different from artificially induced "anesthesia" which is not supposed to induce death but unconsciousness.

Dreams are still "knowing or experiencing something", even if only pertaining to a private environment rather than an external one constructed/represented from exteroceptive input.

Anesthesia only selectively disrupts certain neurochemical processes. Whereas death is expected to pervasively close them all down. So if the latter condition still occasionally allows dream-like experiences (NDEs), then certainly it should be no surprise that dreams can slip into or violate the traditional dogma about the anesthetized brain forbidding them.

In either scenario, though, if those internal phenomenal events are not preserved in memory, then the revived person will have no recollection of them. Their interpretation of "what was presented" during the medical or death interval will be the same as if nothing was presented: "There was absence of everything -- time, space, personal thoughts, and all content of both potential internal and external worlds."

Which is to say, a report about "not even nothingness" should not be taken as absolute evidence or proof that such was the case, since the dependence on a properly functioning memory system can render it fallible.

I understand that, examples are single celled organisms that respond to external stimulus. But without a brain, are they conscious to begin with? i.e. does maintenance of life require consciousness, or does conscious awareness require a functional brain?

Human consciousness involves multiple features (manifestations and identification/understanding of them, reaction or deliberate non-reaction to them, information storage and retrieval, etc). If any of those are missing or pertain only at extremely primitive levels, then arguably at best it's some concept of "proto-consciousness" that might apply, which lacks a consensus standard.
_

 

[Write4U]

Anesthesia only selectively disrupts certain neurochemical processes. Whereas death is expected to pervasively close them all down. So if the latter condition still occasionally allows dream-like experiences (NDEs), then certainly it should be no surprise that dreams can slip into or violate the traditional dogma about the anesthetized brain forbidding them.

Yes, but according to Anil Seth (neuroscientist) and Stuart Hameroff (anesthesiologist), general anesthesia only affects the conscious part (level 3) of the brain and renders it totally unconscious. A vegetative state. However, homeostasis continues, but must be monitored.
Apparently, proper dosages are critical to obtaining controlled results.

Stages of General Anesthesia
Before they had machines to track your vital signs during general anesthesia, doctors came up with a monitoring system to keep patients safe. They divided the system into four stages:

Stage 1: Induction. The earliest stage lasts from when you first take the medication until you go to sleep. You’re calm but able to talk for a while. Your breathing is slow but regular, and you lose the ability to feel pain.

Stage 2: Excitement or delirium. The second stage can be dangerous, so the anesthesiologist will want to get you through it as quickly as possible. You can have uncontrolled movements, fast heartbeat, and irregular breathing. You might vomit, which could make you choke or stop breathing.

Stage 3: Surgical anesthesia. At this stage, surgery can take place. Your eyes stop moving, your muscles completely relax, and you may stop breathing without the help of machines. The anesthesiologist will keep you at this stage until the procedure is over.

Stage 4: Overdose. If you get too much anesthesia, your brain will stop telling your heart and lungs to work. It’s rare with modern technology, but it can be fatal.

When Do You Get General Anesthesia?​

The doctor might give you general anesthesia if your procedure:

• Takes a few hours or more
• Affects your breathing
• Affects a large area of your body
• Involves a major organ, like your heart or brain
• Could make you lose a lot of blood

What Is General Anesthesia?

You might need general anesthesia if you have surgery. It makes you go into a deep sleep, and you don’t feel pain during the procedure.

www.webmd.com

Note that the article does not mention anything about hallucination when fully anesthetized

There are instances of hallucinatory experiences, but that only happens with certain anesthetics

Anesthesia can cause disturbing sexual hallucinations, leading to lasting psychological trauma

Some patients can have vivid and detailed sexual hallucinations during anesthesia with sedative-hypnotic drugs like propofol, midazolam, diazepam and nitrous oxide. Some make suggestive or sexual comments or act out, such as grabbing or kissing medical professionals or touching themselves in a sexual way. Others awaken erroneously believing they were sexually assaulted. Why does this happen?

Anesthesia can cause disturbing sexual hallucinations, leading to lasting psychological trauma

Sedative-hypnotic drugs can distort a patient’s perception of reality. Some patients wake up from a procedure believing they have been sexually assaulted.

theconversation.com

And it appears that any incidences of "awareness" are experienced during emergency situations, where dosages may or may not be critically controllable.

Why it's done​

Your anesthesiologist, together with your surgeon or another specialist, will recommend the best anesthesia option for you. The form of anesthesia is chosen based on the type of surgery you're having, your overall health and your preferences.

Your team may recommend general anesthesia for certain procedures. These include procedures that may:

• Take a long time.
• Require the use of muscle relaxants.
• Result in significant bleeding.
• Significantly change your breathing, blood pressure or heart rate.

Other forms of anesthesia may be recommended depending on your procedure. Spinal anesthesia may be recommended for surgery below your waist such as a cesarean section or hip replacement. Regional anesthesia may be recommended for surgery on a specific part of the body such as a hand or foot. Local anesthesia may be appropriate for minor procedures that involve a small area such as a biopsy. While these forms of anesthesia are commonly combined with sedation during the procedure, they may not be appropriate for more-involved procedures.

Risks

General anesthesia is very safe. Most people don't have serious problems from general anesthesia. This is true even for people with significant health conditions.

Your risk of complications is more closely related to the type of procedure you're undergoing and your general physical health.

Older adults or those with serious medical problems are at increased risk of confusion after surgery. They're also at higher risk of pneumonia, stroke or a heart attack after surgery. This is particularly true if they're undergoing more-extensive procedures.

Conditions that can increase your risk of complications during surgery include:

• Smoking.
• Sleep apnea.
• Obesity.
• High blood pressure.
• Diabetes.
• Stroke.
• Seizures.
• Other medical conditions involving the heart, lungs, kidneys or liver.
• Medicines that can increase bleeding.
• Heavy alcohol or drug use.
• Allergies to medicines.
• Previous adverse reactions to anesthesia.

Anesthesia awareness​

During procedures in which someone only receives sedation, it's expected that the person will be relaxed and comfortable. The person won't necessarily be asleep or unaware. It's common that someone who's sedated may be aware for part or all of the procedure.

Although very rare, a person may be partially awake during general anesthesia. Estimates vary, but about 1 or 2 people in every 1,000 may experience unintended intraoperative awareness. It is even rarer to experience pain, but this can occur as well.

This is so rare that it's hard to understand why it happens. Most cases of unintended intraoperative awareness occur during urgent or emergency surgeries. Or they occur during unexpected emergencies in routine surgeries. When it happens, a person may experience stress or anxiety. For some people, the experience can result in long-term psychological problems similar to post-traumatic stress disorder.

General anesthesia - Mayo Clinic

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Pinball1970]

This is such a weird concept.

Nothing exists during anaesthesia, why pick on heaven?

I had my tonsils out in the 1970s and I lost 24 hours. At least.

I remember nurses trying to feed me, 1975 ISH?

Not sure this is a good line of enquiry.

 

[James R]

Nothing exists during anaesthesia, why pick on heaven?

The thread title made no sense when it was first started last year, and Write4U has made no further progress since then, unsurprisingly. Here's what I wrote in response initially:

There is no heaven when the brain is unconscious

Moderator note: This thread was split from another thread, for which the following discussion was off topic. For other parts of the discussion, see the following threads: Relationship of agnosticism to theist/atheism Why do people believe in God? Pascal's Wager. It works for some. "I don't...

www.sciforums.com

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I wanted to clear up a few of your misunderstadings. Perhaps it was inadequate clarity on my part.
In any case, if it was relevant then it should be relevant now, no?

Isn't it curious that this prayer should posit: "Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust", from the funeral service in the Book of Common Prayer.

I see no mention of; "Heaven to heaven". If Heaven existed and we actually go there, why is that not promised?

Because that particular prayer is about the fate of the body, said at the grave side. If you read the rest of the funeral service you will find plenty of references to heaven, obviously.

 

[Write4U]

Because that particular prayer is about the fate of the body, said at the grave side. If you read the rest of the funeral service you will find plenty of references to heaven, obviously.

And is that the same heaven as in:

IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I read about "metempsychosis" and "reincarnation", as described in Orphism.

But I have not seen any explanation how being unconsciousness (brain dead) allows one to consciously experience (requiring a live brain) the reality of the "created heaven"., i.e. spacetime?

AFAIK, the "self" (soul) resides in he brain, not somewhere else called "heaven".

That's not science, but spiritual fiction.

The problem lies in the attachment of morals to a fictional story. But all fables are based on moral messages.

Fables are characterized by their moral lessons. These short tales were once passed down as folklore to teach listeners the difference between right and wrong, give advice on proper behavior and manners, and offer maxims to live by.Aug 31, 2022

A number of colloquial phrases are derived from fables, such as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and “sour grapes.”

Fables are defined by four central essential elements.

1. 1. Symbolism. Characters in fables are stand-ins for humans, and their misadventures are meant to symbolize human behavior.
2. 2. Anthropomorphization. In fables, animals and even inanimate objects (like the wind, or the sun) are the main characters of the story and are given human qualities. Some animals have specific traits associated with them. For example, an owl is wise, a fox is cunning, and a lion is brave.
3. 3. Lessons. Every fable has a moral lesson at the end that arises from the story. For example: “Slow and steady wins the race.”
4. 4. Humor. Fables often have a humorous tone when showing the foolishness of human nature.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/writing-101-what-is-a-fable-learn-about-the-4-central-characteristics-of-a-fable-and-4-famous-fable-examples

And there is the fable of Scripture, where the characters are natural humans and and supernatural humans.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I'll pick up from where we left off, back in November last year, and start by replying to some things I didn't reply to back then.

You are being silly. There is nothing wrong with that phrase. If you cannot make sense of it, it isn't my problem.

When it is a phrase you invented, it is entirely your problem that it is meaningless.

Get it right. You are parsing!

Heaven doesn't exist for that person!

Have you been trying to disprove the objective existence of heaven, or only the subjective belief in heaven as it exists in some conscious people?

You're not going to go running off down the "true for you but not for me" hole of subjective relativism are you? The existence or non-existence of a real heaven is surely a question important enough to try to answer objectively, is it not?

And that is a meaningless statement.

No. It might be a factually incorrect statement or it might not, but whichever way it goes it isn't meaningless. Dictionaries don't include definitions of meaningless words.

What exactly is an immaterial person and where does it come from?

According to various religions, souls come from God. What are they exactly? I don't think I'm the best person to ask about that, seeing as I don't believe in them. Maybe you should ask a religious person. But the dictionary definition I gave earlier outlined what a soul's main function is: it is the "actuating cause of individual life".

The "actuating cause of an individual life" ? Just because it is listed in Webster's doesn't mean squat.

It means that this is how Americans typically use the word. Dictionaries record how words are used. You're not going to argue that dictionaries don't mean squat next, are you?

This is your claim now, so prove it!

Please tell me what you're talking about. What claim of mine do you want me to prove? What claim have I made that you disagree with?

Here I'll give a good start.

1. The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person's death.
2. The spirit or essence of anything.
3. Life, energy, vigor.

That's another dictionary definition. Does it mean squat or is it "a good start"? You need to decide what your position on dictionaries is at this point, I think, because it looks like you're flip-flopping back and forth about whether they are useful.

"Often believed to live on after the person's death." Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Clearly, the idea a soul makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

"Life after death", a new theory.
Oh, no, it's a 2000 year old claim made by non-scientists, that has never been proved, right?

I think the claim that souls exist is older than 2000 years. It has been made by both scientists and non-scientists over the past 2000 years.

I agree that it has never been proved, to my knowledge.

So what?

Well, it is clear that you have not read Hameroff and/or Seth.
If you had, you would know that homeostasis is a function of the brain but it is a sub-conscious function that is not affected by anesthesia.

I don't know enough about the biological effects of anesthesia to be able to tell you whether it is affects homeostasis. And you're right, I haven't read what Hameroff or Seth have to say on the matter. Did they say something relevant to your claim that there is no heaven? That's what we have been discussing, isn't it?

 

[Write4U]

Have you been trying to disprove the objective existence of heaven, or only the subjective belief in heaven as it exists in some conscious people?

Is the thread title not clear enough?