Consciousness Collapses In On Itself At Death?

[kyjds]

Please stay on topic, guys. I was just checking in before I go to rest. I have a very bad flu, and I hope it's not the swine flu, because I'm an asthmatic... It's funny to think I could end up going through conscapsis the day after I started this thread.

Anyway, please stay on topic about conscapsis. Peace, y'all. ✌

 

[Milton Platt]

I have coined a term out of a lack of a better word, Conscapsis, which means that when a person dies from brain death, their consciousness collapses in on itself, just like how a super massive star collapses in on itself into a black hole.

This, as a Deist, is what I believe about the afterlife. But, beyond Conscapsis, I have no idea what happens at the singularity of this collapsed energy of consciousness.

In your honest opinion, what would happen to the conscious mind after Conscapsis, if my theory is true?

This presupposes that consciousness is anything but a state of mind or a product of chemical processes in the brain. When the brain dies, consciousness simply ceases to be. Your reference to a black hole is of no value as that is caused by an immensely massive object. Asking what would happen after "Conscapsis" is asking what would happen if the sky was green instead of blue.

 

[Fool]

I have coined a term out of a lack of a better word, Conscapsis, which means that when a person dies from brain death, their consciousness collapses in on itself, just like how a super massive star collapses in on itself into a black hole.

This, as a Deist, is what I believe about the afterlife. But, beyond Conscapsis, I have no idea what happens at the singularity of this collapsed energy of consciousness.

In your honest opinion, what would happen to the conscious mind after Conscapsis, if my theory is true?

https://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
no, consciousness, or intelligence doesn't cease to exist.


there are more than a few studies around the world in non-local consciousness.

neuroscience still doesn't have a clue as to what causes consciousness. like gravity, they know it exists and somewhat how it operates but they don't understand what causes it. case in point, we shouldn't have dreams if consciousness is from experiences apart from self, or exterior to self.

 

[David T]

I voted no, since I am not a substance dualist. To me consciousness dissipates upon death as it is a function of a living brain, abstracted much like data on a computer. Death of the hard drive equals death of the data.

How does a starfish fit into that? Is it all about humans? star fish have no braIns.

 

[David T]

I have seen an anesthesiologist interviewed about this very topic
He finds it fascinating how chemistry can separate the awareness from the body
if not...shock and pain will kill the patient under surgery

he has no explanation

I find it remarkable the notation of sleep while a rib is removed from a man.....in Genesis

Dream state has distinct meaning in cultures

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How does a starfish fit into that? Is it all about humans? star fish have no braIns.

Starfish, jellyfish, and other animals without a centralized nervous system aren't considered to be conscious, let alone self-aware.

 

[Thief]

Dream state has distinct meaning in cultures

and an anesthesiologist would note REM .....

last I heard there are three states of mind that a machine can note
awake
asleep
and dreaming

modern day machines might do more refined exam, but that would be the thrust of it

I assume (correct me if you like)
the surgeon wants your head completely doing nothing...during the cut

to get there.....the body must trip over that line we call dead

oh yeah...a very fine line indeed

 

[Willamena]

Consciousness is not a thing in itself, that there is anything to collapse in on itself. Things reside in consciousness; consciousness isn't one of them.

 

[MD]

Starfish, jellyfish, and other animals without a centralized nervous system aren't considered to be conscious, let alone self-aware.

How do you define conscious?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How do you define conscious?

In the context the OP is using it,
-the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

 

[MD]

In the context the OP is using it,
-the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Strong emergence is a form of magic too, can you defend that?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Strong emergence is a form of magic too, can you defend that?

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. And anyway I'm not interested in debating the difference between strong and weak emergence and its relation to operations of mind here, especially given the OP's request to stay on topic. You're welcome to make a thread about it.

 

[MD]

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. And anyway I'm not interested in debating the difference between strong and weak emergence and its relation to operations of mind here, especially given the OP's
request to stay on topic. You're welcome to make a thread about it.

Lol I love your pompous and presumptuous attitude. I do in fact know what it means and I know that your definition of what consciousness is wrong, especially given the existence of qualia and intentionality.

 

[David T]

and an anesthesiologist would note REM .....

last I heard there are three states of mind that a machine can note
awake
asleep
and dreaming

modern day machines might do more refined exam, but that would be the thrust of it

I assume (correct me if you like)
the surgeon wants your head completely doing nothing...during the cut

to get there.....the body must trip over that line we call dead

oh yeah...a very fine line indeed

Dead Or truly unconcious I would say. We can think of, the dream state, or we can contemplate it. In pre literate history dream state is primary, in literate culture we begin to to think of it as secondary. Dead is a domain that in a wierd way is correctly understood in lots of pre literate traditions innately only to become a phenomenology separate from life in action on life. That's false and rather cultural not real and has manifested first through literary religion culture accedemics etc. Dead is an interesting topic that's not clear.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Lol I love your pompous and presumptuous attitude. I do in fact know what it means and I know that your definition of what consciousness is wrong, especially given the existence of qualia and intentionality.

"Pompous and presumptuous" followed by "I do in fact know." Whatever helps you sleep at night, bub. Anyway, not the place for this conversation. You're welcome, as I said, to make a new thread about it.

 

[David T]

Starfish, jellyfish, and other animals without a centralized nervous system aren't considered to be conscious, let alone self-aware.

So. Christian actually if you think about it. Who cares what's considered actually? As an artist that's silly.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So. Christian actually if you think about it. Who cares what's considered actually? As an artist that's silly.

...What?

 

[MD]

"Pompous and presumptuous" followed by "I do in fact know." Whatever helps you sleep at night, bub. Anyway, not the place for this conversation. You're welcome, as I said, to make a new thread about it.

Yes your statement was about me, while my statement was about myself. Thus you're the arrogant one here since you're assuming things about others, while I am simply asserting my own philosophical knowledge.

 

[David T]

...What?

I have a degree in theology you have stated exactly the ChristiAn reasoning in context to God or consciousness Where do you imAgine it came from science? It's like a collection agreement is it true? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? We are smart you are stupid you are a star fish. We are smart you are stupid you are a native American. We Re smart you are stupid we have science you have mythology. I am all about nature not our ideas about nature. You should try actually getting out and camping a 1000 days in the wilderness really changed ones perspective. John Muir wasn't a fool bit a pretty sharp eyed scientist Artist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes your statement was about me, while my statement was about myself. Thus you're the arrogant one here since you're assuming things about others, while I am simply asserting my own philosophical knowledge.

Once again, whatever helps you sleep at night. If you approach your philosophical knowledge as absolute and approach debate that way you shouldn't be surprised to be labeled as arrogant as you accuse. (Which, incidentally, is an assumption about others presented as fact, so I'd also call you a hypocrite, but you're not really worth the effort.)