Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Awareness at Death

community.macmillanlearning.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Awareness at Death

#171

Post by bumby »

ericmay wrote: post #170
bumby wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s why it’s generally broken down into the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Easy in the sense that we can use our existing scientific toolset; hard as in we cannot.

Sure but as it relates to the after-life there's not even a "hard" problem to speak of because there is nothing we can assert except that maybe it is the same experience as the one before birth. We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.

How can we grapple with the edges of the hard problem, except at a philosophical level? To me, that sounds very much like the afterlife debate. I think it just feels different because we each have an innate “feeling” of subjective experience that’s not easy to dismiss.

Re: Awareness at Death

#172

Post by MilStdJunkie »

Nextgrid wrote: post #74
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #31

"It's like a labyrinth you can't see, innit? And by the time - heeheehee, by the time, heehee - by the time - you can see it, it's too late. There's no way out"[1] The phrase "invisible labyrinth" describes perfectly the relationship of the self inside the complexity of the human brain. When the body tries, in drips and drops, to save the organism, parts of the resource-hungry labyrinth are taken apart like a travell…

> you get an emergent evolutionary impulse to maintain internal narrative. I suppose it's just an implementation detail that it works for near-death experiences? I can't see it being "intentionally" evolved, first because a large (most?) number of NDEs actually make people less afraid of death (which evolution should technically be selecting against ), and also because until modern medicine/resuscitation, the NDE beh…

The internal narrative is important, but yeah, the NDE is just a side effect of trying to maintain that narrative when the stage falls to pieces around you.

We hold onto that narrative of self through some astonishing events. Instead of "oh, the visual cortex is dying, so it's trying to see through the other sensory systems, triggering memories", we have a white tunnel narrative[1], but in the white tunnel our persona remains intact. We don't need to start simulating the outcomes of having our simulation / sensory system fall apart - we can keep going, if we make it. Simulating the failure of your simulation capacity, that's a lot of complexity the organism doesn't need.

Again, just shooting my mouth off here. Some observations as science gadfly.

[1] Psychedelics introduce similar paths to having mystic narratives, and have been used as such for at least thousands of years. Probably longer than that, judging from their usage among even primitive mammals.

Re: Awareness at Death

#173

Post by bracketslash »

ddj231 wrote: post #165
bracketslash wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question of “why” could be a human construct. There doesn’t have to be a “why”.

But it seems to be more an observation of the world rather than a human construct. When we look out at the world we see causes and effects. The “why” in this case is asking what is the cause(s) of a subset of effects

cause and effect still doesn’t necessitate a “why”, just a cause. once you start leaving a realm where empirical evidence is not possible, I think you’re more into philosophy which…is a world of its own. in any case, I appreciate the discussion. have a good one!

Re: Awareness at Death

#174

Post by ASalazarMX »

wutwutwat wrote: post #127
MPSimmons wrote: post #40

In January, 2022, I experienced a 100% blockage of my Left Anterior Descending artery (a "widowmaker" heart attack), and I experienced cardiac arrest for a minute or two while on the exam table in a local emergency room. CPR was administered, and I was shocked back into rhythm, whereupon I regained consciousness immediately. During the time I was dead, I have a memory. It is a singular experience of non-existence. Ev…

Loss of consciousness is not death, your brain was alive the entire time. It takes upwards of 10 minutes before the brain dies, usually longer, and each minute approaching those thresholds has a high probability of severe brain damage. Check out cerebral anoxia or brain death to learn more.

If you were expecting actual death, then no revived person has ever experienced death because they weren't completely dead to begin with, even if tissue damage happened. Let's compromise on near death experience.

Re: Awareness at Death

#175

Post by ASalazarMX »

nirui wrote: post #128
MPSimmons wrote: post #40

In January, 2022, I experienced a 100% blockage of my Left Anterior Descending artery (a "widowmaker" heart attack), and I experienced cardiac arrest for a minute or two while on the exam table in a local emergency room. CPR was administered, and I was shocked back into rhythm, whereupon I regained consciousness immediately. During the time I was dead, I have a memory. It is a singular experience of non-existence. Ev…

I read quite a few reports claiming the similar experience, a deep sleep. That's how I view death now, a sleep so deep that no one can wake up from it. With all external inputs are muted, the brain left itself alone in the "void", doing what brains do, fade to "dreaming". But then again, I imagine one could experience almost the same when under anesthesia or just regular sleep, so I guess you don't really have to do…

They say life is the space between two black eternities.

I suppose we already know what death is like: exactly the same than before we were born, vast non-existence.

Re: Awareness at Death

#176

Post by taberiand »

bumby wrote: post #169
taberiand wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apply the same logic in all cases (as much as any fallible person can), which in your example leads me to assume just as confidently that of course other people have subjective experiences and obviously exist separate to my self. It's the logical conclusion using the same reasoning behind believing the after-life does not exist. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the a…

It’s usually not considered hard only by those who don’t recognize the difference between the hard and soft problem of consciousness. (And of course, those people exist) Can you prove to me, an external observer, that you have subjective experience? Can you prove the “redness” you see?[1] You really can’t, and that’s why the problem is hard. You can show brain scans, you can explain the interaction of wavelength on t…

Subjective experience is measurable and provable:

I have something that is defined as "subjective experience". That subjective experience exists - as a physical, measurable, system; an emergent phenomenon of the composition and interaction of my brain, body and associated inputs - and it stands to reason that everyone else with the same comparable physical existence also has the same kind of subjective experience.

I think the issues that you describe are only problems of definition and categorisation. It seems me you're basically saying subjective experience is defined as "something impossible to prove" which yeah if you want it that way sure, it's impossible.

Re: Awareness at Death

#177

Post by bumby »

taberiand wrote: post #176
bumby wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s usually not considered hard only by those who don’t recognize the difference between the hard and soft problem of consciousness. (And of course, those people exist) Can you prove to me, an external observer, that you have subjective experience? Can you prove the “redness” you see?[1] You really can’t, and that’s why the problem is hard. You can show brain scans, you can explain the interaction of wavelength on t…

Subjective experience is measurable and provable: I have something that is defined as "subjective experience". That subjective experience exists - as a physical, measurable, system; an emergent phenomenon of the composition and interaction of my brain, body and associated inputs - and it stands to reason that everyone else with the same comparable physical existence also has the same kind of subjective experience. I…

I’m not saying subjective experience is by definition that which is unprovable. I’m saying there is a different type of information that may be outside the measure ability of scientific methods. I’m saying there is a different experience being had by a conscious being seeing the redness of something vs something inanimate processing the information of red light.

From the link above, despite Mary knowing everything objective there is to know about color,

“The central question of the thought experiment is whether Mary will gain new knowledge when she goes outside the colorless world and experiences seeing in color.”

By your statement above, it sounds like you define consciousness as a level of information processing. So do you think anything that processes information is conscious? Or is there a tipping point where consciousness emerges? If so, how do you measure when a plant or animal or machine crosses that threshold? That is, how do you measure qualia? You claim that conscious experience is a measurable phenomenon but that makes me think you don’t recognize the distinction between the easy and hard problem of consciousness. You actually describe the hard problem in terms if the definition of the easy problem. (Which is fine, and plenty of people have that view, but it’s a different point than seems debated here and it’s imperative to not conflate the two. You might as well just say there is no hard problem)

Re: Awareness at Death

#178

Post by wutwutwat »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #174
wutwutwat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loss of consciousness is not death, your brain was alive the entire time. It takes upwards of 10 minutes before the brain dies, usually longer, and each minute approaching those thresholds has a high probability of severe brain damage. Check out cerebral anoxia or brain death to learn more.

If you were expecting actual death , then no revived person has ever experienced death because they weren't completely dead to begin with, even if tissue damage happened. Let's compromise on near death experience.

I’m basing it off of people saying they died, and they didn’t, because like you said, you literally can’t come back from death. What was described was loss of consciousness/passing out, and it’s odd so many people pass out and claim they died.

Re: Awareness at Death

#179

Post by verteu »

DougN7 wrote: post #136
verteu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing -- could you describe it a bit more?

Well, I was with someone who had threatened to kill me, and I took that threat very seriously, as it was also made very seriously. It was sort of watching a film that was doing fast forward through my life. I could see it playing in front of me. I guess the room was there in the background. The whole thing took place in about 5 seconds, and my background thought (besides being concerned about dying) was just sort of…

Wow -- thanks for sharing.

Re: Awareness at Death

#180

Post by southernplaces7 »

MailleQuiMaille wrote: post #152

We don’t even know what consciousness is, where we come from and why we are here. When you start to delve in the areas of synchronicities, archetypes, placebo effect and quantum mechanics, you realize that science can only get you so far. I long for a new company exploring the fringe of such phenomena, something like Sony did with ESPER (google it, it’s a nice rabbit hole). I could bet that some people in the world a…

>I long for a new company exploring the fringe of such phenomena, something like Sony did with ESPER (google it, it’s a nice rabbit hole).

Followed your advice but could find nothing except repeat mentions of the Xperia phone (thanks Google, because obviously ESPER is the same thing as Xperia...)

Care to share a link maybe?

Post reply on HN