Talk:Consciousness after death/Archive 1

Article seems essay like

This article seems like an essay making an argument for a scientific materialist view of consciousness. There's nothing wrong with having an article about such views, my concern is that the article is propounding a point of view rather than giving an encyclopaedic description of a topic. See WP:NPOV. The title of the article seems odd too. The article argues that consciousness ends with death, so the title seems to refer to something that does not exist. I would suggest that the article be retitled, although I'm not sure what would be best.--Smcg8374 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write in the talk page. In the current circumstances, I'm sure you have a better vision of how to keep this article encyclopedic than I do. I don't in the slightest deny that I, as an individual, am biased in favor of materialism—but isn't it what other Wikipedians are here for?—to bring balance of neutrality—as long as objectivity, logic and criteria of empirical validity are not neglected. As a matter of fact, in order to encourage counter arguments, I made sure to create a criticism section with a “This section is empty” tag—to be filled by an oppositionist. Mind you, I'm just doing my job—stating facts and inferring logical implications. I wish to emphasize that this article describes not a dispute in philosophy but a phenomenon in science—namely, the phenomenon of postmortem unconsciousness in neuropsychology, contrasted by brain death in neuroscience. This article is in full consistency with scientific data and cites its sources accordingly—no more, no less than what the title promises. I agree that the title could have been better—admittedly, it was chosen hastily—but I'm concerned that if it were changed now, all external links to this article would have to be modified—which would risk the infrastructure between this article and other articles. This article deals with what happens to consciousness at death and whether it is preserved thereafter—hence, “Consciousness after death.” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The article seems to jump to a conclusion.

How does brain death disprove the afterlife exactly? An afterlife would not necessarily contain a person's biological consciousness but rather an intangible essence of a person's being, a soul as some call it. Being intangible, incorporeal, it does not seem as if the disappearance of one's consciousness disproves the afterlife in general, only a natural afterlife which would require a person physical mind.

Furthermore, the article equates soul and consciousness as if they were the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.125.202 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing this proves is that the human body doesn't survive but doesn't prove the supernaturality of the soul that goes to the afterlife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiswaser (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked! You see, originally and historically, the concept of soul was identical to the concept of psyche. That's what it evolved from. The Wikipedia article for psyche states, “The English word soul is sometimes used synonymously, especially in older texts.” A fortiori, the Wikipedia article for soul states, “[The word “soul”] can function as a synonym for ‘spirit’, ‘mind’ or ‘self’; scientific works, in particular, often consider 'soul' as a synonym for 'mind'.” The superstitious concept of a soul separate from the psyche, I dare say, has been popularized in the West by Christianity, which likely got it from Plato. This article does not deal with what happens at death to a presupposed immortal soul separate from the psyche, the question of its existence left aside; rather, it deals with what happens to consciousness at death. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I had been hoping that an oppositionist would appear and fill the criticism section, but some time had past, and I eventually decided to write it myself. Thus far, I have only mentioned the quantum consciousness argument. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, we may have had an edit conflict, and it's possible that the past few minor edits that you made may not have made it into the most current version. I could not identify the specific changes you made.

I think the article needs a little more work to avoid being POV. I wasn't aware that science had determined (proven) that consciousness is a function of the brain and ceases to exist at death. I actually thought that was only a theory, but I will look into the research to try to bring myself up to speed. Actually, if it has been proven, then the criticism section seems to be for naught, and probably should be removed. The anecdotes or examples may not be well placed in the article, unless they can all be attributed to sources that definitively support the premise that consciousness is a function of the brain and does not survive physical death. — MrX 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. POV is the chief concern regarding this article. Assuming good faith, I'm afraid the situation is more complex than you perceive it to be. Ever since Karl Popper, the trend within science has been to falsify (negativism), not to prove (positivism). That one's consciousness does not exist after death is something I personally would never call a scientific theory: scientific theories are about what is, not about what's not. Rather, the central theory with which this article is occupied with is that consciousness survives bodily death. By far, the consensus among neuroscientists is that consciousness is produced in the brain. This fact is openly stated in the article for brain because that particular article deals with a scientific topic, but this article deals with a topic that's much more commonly addressed by religion than science, so it's met with great controversy. Due to the sensitivity of this topic, I supposed that it would be good to have a “Criticism” section, which encourages opposing views to be included in the controversy and, hopefully, avoid seeming partiality. The second paragraph in “Neuropsychology” demonstrates examples pointing out to interrelation between mind and brain, a crucial notion in this article. Keeping in mind the fact that all brain activity stops at death, it's inferred that consciousness does not survive death. However, stating it just like this as I have now, creates an improper synthesis; for this, see the next section on the talk page. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was having difficulty with the phrase "... it was determined that consciousness is a component of the functioning brain." Based on your explanation above, it would seem that a more correct way of stating this would be "The general consensus among neuroscientists is that consciousness may be a function of the brain. Science has not determined whether consciousness may survive death." (Or something along those lines - perhaps the inability to falsify it is worth mentioning.) In any case, the word determined strongly implies that it has been proven, which I don't think it has. — MrX 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that you marked the word “determined” with bold in two out of the three instances you typed it, I understand that it's your prime concern. I would have no trouble with changing the wording, BUT—bear with me—that wording wasn't mine. Rather, it was a quotation from the brain article. I quote: “In the early part of psychology, the mind was thought to be separate from the brain. However, after early scientists conducted experiments it was determined that the mind was a component of a functioning brain that expressed certain behaviors based on the external environment and the development of the organism.{source}” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and appreciate that you supplied the direct quote. My concern is that that statement is bold and conclusive, which raises the question of whether or not it represents scientific consensus. I'm well over my head knowledge-wise on this topic, and I don't have access to the referenced journal article, so I can't be of much more help. Perhaps an expert will come along and contribute this article. MrX 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with your implication that this matter is unfalsifiable. It is falsifiable: by demonstrating that consciousness is parallel to brain activity. It's an understatement that we still have much to discover about the brain, but it's no longer coated in mystery that the neocortex is the source of rational thought in mammals [P.S. though there are other parts of the brain structure involved in conscious processes]. By evolutionary convergence, some non-mammalian animals have too developed remarkable intelligence (e.g., common ravens) with brain structure different from that of mammals. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The NDE argument will be added soon. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not by accident, I'm fairly forceful and assertive at defending my convictions, and I have my share of motives, but I neither expect nor desire evaluators to accept any claim at the expense of objectivity. I had raised this issue on the Brain talk page, and it was decided to rephrase the wording in the Brain article. My next intended move is to do the same in this article. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, however, that no-one here is questioning—beyond reasonable doubt—the brain as the location and birthplace of mind. We might as well question the Apollo 11 landing, Michael Jackson's death, and the fraudulence of “congratulations, you've won” email. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The picture captioned "Brain activity is terminated upon death" is, according to its info page, an fMRI of memory activity in a schizophrenic patient. It has nothing to do with the caption and misleads readers into thinking that the picture is indicative of the activity of a corpse. 128.171.61.17 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Improper synthesis

This article appears to show the following improper synthesis: consciousness is a function of the brain, and all functions of the brain cease as the brain dies, so consciousness ceases as the brain dies. In order to avoid improper synthesis, I'm going to cite a paper arriving at the same conclusion. I take it that these measures are sufficient to remove the “improper synthesis” tag. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but again, "consciousness is a function of the brain" -- is that exactly what the paper says, or does it say consciousness may be a function of the brain, or something else? Perhaps a direct quote from the (reliable, third party) source would address that concern. — MrX 01:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's already a source provided for “consciousness is a function of the brain”—the same as on the brain article—but considering how both crucial and controversial that point is, I'm planning to cite additional sources for verification. That's not what this section is trying to solve; instead, I'm focusing on a source arriving at the same logical conclusion about consciousness after death, based on the same two premises, so as to avoid improper synthesis. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignorant drivel

and a wiki embarrassment. Action should be taken, there are more than enough other complaints and it's a straightforward case of synth, essay, etc. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As Carrite notes on the AFD page, prolly the best action, if the content is to be salvaged, is a merge into Near death experience. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The improper synthesis problem has been solved (see above). The whole “essay thing”? Well, even though I do, alas, fail to see how this article is “essay-like,” you're welcome to reform it in whatever manner may help it be less resembling of an essay. Lastly, I'm affected neither by complaints nor compliments: you, my superstitious interlocutor, sound as though you should read up on Argumentum ad populum. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, Lycurgus, you took part in the AFD discussion and you saw the outcome for yourself: the nays (6.5) surpassed the yeas (2) by more than 300%. I'm certainly no fan of mobocracy—who you seem to be—but that might be something you'd like to keep in mind. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Quantum consciousness

The more I look at this the more I think the whole section needs to be deleted. The current text is perfectly accurate but it's not connected to the question of whether consciousness survives or can survive death, so it's not actually relevant to the article. Now that I've removed the self-published Forberg source, I can't actually see any basis for including this section at all.—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am content with your decision. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding more mentions and/or citations of notable literature

S Marshall recommended, to our aid, the following works: The Emperor's New Mind by Sir Roger Penrose, Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett, and The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle. Peace. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas

Viriditas, before you begin erasing entire articles, I invite you to discuss the matter civilly. Thank you. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

POVFORK

This is a WP:POVFORK of Life after death (Afterlife) and should be redirected there.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality: Belief in mental materialism

Here are some strong believers in mental materialism, which like to use science, to support their own opinion. Real science accept several point of views. Absolutism is part of belief. Wega14 (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ironrage : you are strong believer of mental materialism, which doesn't accept any other position. A good scientist would work different. Wega14 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I included the following, which was deleted at once: -> But there exists also serious studies, which can't be ignored, which doesn't support this hypothesis.

instead there are sentences like: and with considering everything that is currently scientifically known about the relationship between brain and mental function is that the mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist

that is no NPOV. Wega14 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you on all points. My intention here was to edit the neuropsychology section to make it better by explaining the science and the logic behind the evidence and the materialist hypothesis a little bit more, because i thought that that was missing. There was also a need for some additional references for certain sentences, and the expansion for some of them. And i also added the "deleted" NDE section so that there is some balance between those two views.

There is no "belief" or bias at work here, i'm afraid that that is a "Ad hominem" type argument from your side. I explained why i deleted your claim that "there exists also serious studies, which can't be ignored, which doesn't support this hypothesis" - by simply stating that that is not true. I wrote: "you are here making fringe and controversial claims, there is no consensus that there is any such reliable evidence or studies falsifying mental materialism. The NDE section is for the alternative views." If there were some serious scientific evidence or studies for mental phenomena in the absence of brain function for example the scientific comunnity would accept it and the current model would be either modified, or abandomed. That is how science works. And i am not aware of any such evidence of that nature and quality. There are, of course, claims being made by believers and proponents of the paranormal or parapsychology that such scientific evidence exist and that the scientific community is "ignoring it", but i'm not taking it seriously. There is evidence for all kinds of stuff, but not solid empirical or scientific evidence.

There is a bigger study, AWARE Study, which is currently undergoing peer review, which if positive, and if successfully replicated, would give the scientific evidence that we are talking about. But that one study from Pim van Lommel that you gave doesn't "prove" anything. And there is also some criticism If i remember correctly. I also watched the interview - and there are some straw man arguments and lies in it about the dominant hypothesis in neuroscience.

In short, i don't see a problem here. And you missed a very important point that i made: "that is currently scientifically known" - in other words, it's about making a inference on the basis of the things that are currently known, and the reference for that is also in the section in the "no mental life after brain death: the argument from the neural localization of mental functions" article. - Ironrage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

the problem is, that you doesn't accept any other position, which are written in journals like The Lancet. I included a paper from that journal in the source, but you just deleted it. here again:

But there exists also serious studies, which can't be ignored, which doesn't support this hypothesis.

there is also an interview on video with van Lommel.

you say, you would talk for the scientific community. But you doesn't accept the results, which are written in scientific journals, here The Lancet. Sorry, you have a strong belief. That is all. Nothing is proven on that field. There are only different kind of theories, hypothesis. But you would like to tell the people, that all is proven, just because may be a majority support one of the hypothesis. Nothing is proven until now. And that is, what in such an article should be written. and a sentence like:

"and with considering everything that is currently scientifically"

that is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with any science and is even to bad to be written in wikipedia.

regards Wega14 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don’t accept any other position? Let me tell you something about my personal background.

I have spent three years of my life searching and exploring various alternative, spiritual, and paranormal sources - that was in the times i was asking myself some important “deep questions” about the meaning of it all. One year or even less was enough to convince me that reincarnation, past life regression, astral projections and similar things were all real. And in fact i was an idealist.

And my worldview was evolving – i learned more and more. But before all that, i was an atheist and a materialist, i didn't believe in life after death, in souls, in god, or in any such things. A recommendation of a book by a friend of mine about past life regression was enough to send me on a wild ride.

But today, i abandoned all of that, and become an agnostic. My position is that i don’t know. But i accept claims based on the evidence, or at least i try to. It's very simple, for some things the evidence at this point in time is overwhelming - and for some, the evidence is weak and anecdotal. If the evidence will shift in some other direction, then i will go there. As will all other genuine scientist and skeptics. I will change my point of view – as i have many times in the past.

I don’t think that i am here talking for the scientific community. I am well aware that nothing is proven. And i am not talking about proof. Yes, there are different kind of theories, hypothesis – but some are well established. There is a reason why there is a consensus, some things and explanations are not controversial at all. That does not mean that they are proven.

Just a personal opinion, that has nothing to do with any science (evidence)? seriously? i don't know what to say. But i think that we are done here. - Ironrage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think, you should do a difference, between a hypothesis, which is well established, and a proven fact. Well, van Lommel is from the Netherlands. He made his studies in the Netherlands. I would say, that the hypothesis you see as well established, isn't in the Netherlands. And it isn't about paranormal, spiritual or whatever. I'm talking about hard science. And in science, if there is a hypothesis, and that isn't proven so far, it isn't a fact. There can be also other hypothesis, which can be true. And I think, here in wikipedia, which should show the different hypothesis, show, that they are not proven so far, we should show different positions like pro and contra of course only with very good sources. But we never should leave the neutrality. regards Wega14 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

“I would say, that the hypothesis you see as well established, isn't in the Netherlands.” – well, i think that i know why – you might have a look at this definition: http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/consensus.htm

And i know that in the case of some NDE researchers there is the special reason of not knowing what you are talking about, but that's another story. And of course, someone might be of the opinion, based on the evidence that he or she finds compelling, that a explanation is wrong.

And, again, to clarify - i never said anything about facts or proofs. That the 'brain causes the mind' is not a metaphysical fact or proof. Neither do i see it that way.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

you changed it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consciousness_after_death&diff=613787588&oldid=613784741

I can't believe it. That isn't very clever, I would say. Wega14 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The beginning of this page? I changed it for two reasons: 1) the grammar was bad and 2) it was demonstrably scientifically false.

What's the problem?

Do you think that consciousness is not somehow connected with the activity or the functioning of the brain? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/associated

We know, scientifically, that it is. As any general anaesthesia, or hard blow to the head, or any disorder of consciousness - as coma, will show. That is all that the current text at the beginning says.

And i see now that you have deleted that. You have returned the text to a version which is not only false, but worse.

Now that isn't very clever.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironrage (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You are from Zagreb, isn't it? Wega14 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion?

You have also deleted the better version of the brain death section, which was far more accurate, and it linked to better references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_studies#Explanatory_models Ironrage (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Consciousness after death and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The key to this is probably to distinguish between normal consciousness and what Wega14's Lancet source calls "a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which perception, cognitive functioning, emotion, and sense of identity function independently from normal bodylinked waking consciousness." It's pretty clear from several sources, even including Wega14's Lancet source, that normal waking consciousness is closely connected with the physiological functioning of the brain. Wega14's source acknowledges that there are many theories about the causes of NDEs. The passage I've just quoted doesn't refute the transcendence theory. Another passage, towards the end of the document, states: "Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception." Neither of these passages supports the transcendence theory, but they do recognise it and do not refute it or dismiss it as a fringe theory. In my opinion, the current wording in the article (With scientific method, today it isn't decided, if consciousness can be associated with the physiological functioning of the brain.) is far too strong and fails to recognise the distinction between normal waking consciousness and transcendence. The other version is also somewhat too strong, but can be made good with some editing. Here is how I would edit it: The question of consciousness after death is a very common theme in society and culture in terms of athe context of "life after death". With the scientific method it wasScientific research has established that the mind and normal waking consciousness are very closely connected with the physiological functioning of the brain, the cessation of which defines brain death. However, many unknowns still surround the question of the exact nature of the relationships between those twonature of near-death experiences, including out-of-body experiences, and many people believe in some form of life after death, which is a feature of many religions. Wega14's other source is a YouTube video and as such is inadmissible. It's not a question of who is speaking: simply, YouTube videos are not peer reviewed, and therefore are unreliable sources. (There is also a risk of linking to a copyright violation.) Other YouTube sources need removing from the article, too. And it is not permissible to use a Wikipedia article as a source, so the citation to the Wikipedia article Focal neurologic signs (currently FN12) needs to be removed. I hope these suggestions will help you. WP:3O only addresses content issues, but as an ordinary editor, I advise Wega14 to confine your discussions to the sources themselves, and to identifying precisely what they do and don't say. Accusing the other editor of being unscientific and of POV-pushing doesn't progress the debate, and speculating on where another editor comes from is a serious violation of WP:OUTING, which is a Wikipedia policy. Stfg (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(I've corrected the above to insert a missing <ins> HTML tag. Also, I've now removed the citation to another WP article.) --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"but they do recognise it and do not refute it or dismiss it as a fringe theory." – That's not what i said at all. What i dismissed and called fringe was Wegas insertion of a study in a section which is for highlighting examples of the evidence for the scientific perspective that the mind is what the brain does as if it is some scientific evidence against it. I also called it controversial, which it is. Like i said, there is no consensus that there is any such reliable evidence. And in addition to all of that, wegas reference isn't even that good - there are some criticisms of it, it might not be something but the peer-reviewed skeptic article from senior lecturer in cognitive psychology Jason J Braithwaite has some good points. And it doesn't belong in that section, which is why i added the second point in my edit – that the NDE section is for the alternative views. My personal position when it comes to the models which are trying to explain NDEs is, in fact, neutral (which i expressed in some way in my second response here). It is at this point in time premature to say that any model is the right one. I am not dismissing the possibility that NDEs are indeed the mind existing independently of the brain.

But let's put all of that aside – i agree with your version of my edit of the first sentences of this article. - Ironrage (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ironrage: I haven't made any claims about what you said or didn't say. I was responding to this request at WP:3O, in which Wega14 took issue with this edit to the article's lead, which he also mentions above. My words, which you quote out of context, are part of a sentence in which I describe my reading of the source presented by Wega14. In short: the source recognises but neither supports nor refutes the idea of transcendent consciousness, and there is nothing in it to support a claim that "With scientific method, today it isn't decided, if consciousness can be associated with the physiological functioning of the brain". As to the rest of the above discussion, if you review it keeping in mind a sharp distinction between normal waking consciousness and transcendental consciousness, then I think you may find that this distinction should help you both to resolve all the other content issues raised here as well. Glad you like the proposed edit. By all means go ahead and incorporate it. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"My words, which you quote out of context.." - I apologize, indeed it seems that i got it wrong. It seemed to me that you were talking about what i said to wegas, you must know that english is not my native language so that a misunderstanding like this can happen.

And thanks, i will. - Ironrage (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)