Does the conscious mind survive death? If so does it ALL survive death, or just our "core" self?
Consider that the brain is closely tied to conscious experience. And we know that upon death, the brain disintegrates and dies. With it goes all of our memories and things we've learned, like how to ride a bike or do algebra.
But what about things of a more personal nature? When you think about what's really important, you're probably going to lean towards matters of the heart. Psychic phenomena and interpersonal connections cut to the core of who we are a lot more than algebra or calculus does. Is it possible that interpersonal, emotional part of our being survives death? Do the connections between a mother and child exist outside of time and space?
Thinking about the mind, it seems like my core "inner" self, what we call "I" exists unchanging throughout life. Yes, tastes may change and you may learn something new like how to speak French or ride a skateboard and form new memories. Learning French might make you more interesting at a party or useful on a trip to Europe, but does it fundamentally change who you are? The answer seems to be no. You are still you after learning French. These extra things, like learning French seem to be tied to higher parts of the brain. But maybe consciousness resides somewhere else.
If the higher parts of the brain are involved in learning complicated activities, maybe its the lower centers, the limbic system say-that's involved in the generation of conscious experience.
One interesting theory is that the brain doesn't actually cause consciousness. Instead its a receiver of some sort--just like a radio receiver. In this view, consciousness exists as part of the universe as a whole. Or maybe saying its a "part" of the universe isn't accurate, maybe its woven into the universe at a fundamental level. The brain, or at least some part of it, taps into consciousness by somehow receiving a signal from the universe at large. In this theory, your soul or conscious mind transcends time and space and is not separate or distinct from the universe at large. Its manifested in the physical here and now by the receiver, which is the brain structured to "tune in" to your consiousness the way a radio can be tuned in to a particular frequency, and then picking up a specific radio station.
The part of the brain that does this must be in the so-called lower centers. "Knowing" (learning French or calculus) isn't the same as being more conscious. A man who doesn't know calculus is equally as conscious as a man who does, although the latter has more knowledge. This applies whether comparing two individuals or the same individual through time. In other words, I am equally conscious before and after learning French, its the same "me" even if I'm able to chat with people who don't speak English that I couldn't converse with directly before. I feel as if I have the same "me" inside that I did at age 5, age 12, and age 20.
If the conscious reciever of the brain is in the so-called lower part of the brain, this would indicate most if not all animals are conscious. Yes a rabbit can't speak French, but that doesn't mean the rabbit doesn't experience its life, along with happiness, excitement, or fear, the way you and I do.
Something else that's interesting about viewing the brain as a receiver is that death becomes irrelevant. If you smash up the radio on your desk, that radio can't pick up 98.3 FM anymore, but the signal generated by 98.3 FM is still there-all around you and ready to be picked up by another radio that tunes into the station's signal. Is your consciousness always there, able to be picked up if only the right receiver is constructed? This makes the possibility of reincarnation make sense from a physical perspective. Or another idea: a synthetic reciever could be constructed somehow out of some currently uknown technology that could do the same thing. Then a persons mind could remanifest in the physical. Certain people such as Ray Kurzweil have proposed that a person's mind could be "downloaded" to an advanced computer system allowing for a type of immortality.
Right now our scientific knowledge on these topics is limited at best.
Fascinating! I always thought that was possible, you've given me a lot to think about now!
ReplyDeleteThough our scientific knowledge is limited we can still play a couple thought experiments. Imagine the difference in experience a living human being has after serious brain trauma, or a change in medication effecting the chemical balances in the brain. In cases like bi-polar disorder, the personality and (by some reports from family) the soul of the person is irrevocably altered. A gentle man becomes violent. A loving husband becomes unable to control his sexual urges. These aspects of our personality that supposedly dictate the quality of our "soul" become comprised when brain chemistry changes. As neuro science continues to explore the mind, more and more aspects of our "self" can be linked directly to the operation of very specific parts of the brain. So when full brain DEATH occurs, what is it exactly that you purpose carries on?
ReplyDeleteHi Alana,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great compliments. Let us know what your thoughts are!
This is some mind blowing shit!!!
ReplyDeleteThe difference is, research has shown that damaging the brain has a direct effect on consciousness. Unlike a radio receiver, where damaging parts might distort the signal, damaging the brain has a qualitative effect on the 'owner's subsequent behavior.
ReplyDeleteDamaging impulse control lobes has, for instance, changed people from having an otherwise reserved personality to an out of control, impulse enabling one.
Also, all evidence supports the theory that it's the *higher* levels of the brain that supports self-awareness, not the lower. The lower parts of the brain are inherited from 'older' animals in an evolutionary way: we have, in a very real sense, a reptilian brain deep down in our tissue, wrapped with subsequent layers of evolved cognition.
Yet, it is only the mammalian brain that even has a concept of empathy, or deep-set emotions towards others; This is why so many reptiles will eat their young without a second thought.
Above emotions, metacognition, or thinking about thinking, is an even higher level of evolution.
Thinking about thinking may be a higher level of evolution, but it seems to me you can be conscious without thinking about thinking. By conscious I just mean there is an "I" experiencing life.
ReplyDeleteAs to research showing damaging the brain has a direct effect on consciousness, I'm not sure how this argues against the analogy. You certainly could damage a radio such that the signal it receives is "distorted", which would be analagous to brain damage.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Certain people such as Ray Kurzweil have proposed that a person's mind could be 'downloaded' to an advanced computer system allowing for a type of immortality."
This shows that the content of the person's mind is similar to the content of computer memory. Or in other words, memory can manifest (in our brains or in the computer) only as ordered matter. (as combinations of zeros and ones; or of synaptic connections or whatever).
What is denied is not the immortality of the contents of memory (or the "self"). What is denied is that memory or self can ever manifest detached from matter.
Anand Nair
Anand,
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but when reading Kurzweils books, I get the feeling he believes the "self" will continue in computer memory. He proposes this as a mechanism for immortality. But isn't it more likely downloading someone's brain to a computer would just make an indistinguishable copy (to the outside observer)?
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kurzweil that some time in the future, we may have computers that manifest the illusion of "self" -- not too dissimlar to the illusory "self" that manifests in human beings (and indeed, in many animals too).
Downloading a human being's brain memory on to a computer is a theoretical possibility, though our technology is nowhere close to pull off such a feat in the fore-seeable future!
But then, the "self" is NOT immortal (or immutable) even within the brain of a human being! We continously add to our memory based on our every day experiences. Even if my "self" is transferred inside the brain of another person (or into a computer), the two "selfs" will be identical only for the moment. Within a very short period of time, the two "selfs" start to diverge from each other based on individual experiences!
We are already "immortal" in the sense that our genes (or a large part of these) get transferred to our kids -- and through them to their kids and so on. Our ideas and memory content too attain a measure of immortality when we record these in books, tapes, CDs and so on. These will remain available for access long after we die!
And the other point remains -- that memory can manifest (in our brains or in the computer) only as ordered matter (as combination of zeros and ones; or of synaptic connections, squiggles of ink on paper or whatever).
Immortal or not, the overwhelming evidence is that memory or "self" can never manifest detached from matter.
Anand
Hi there Michael,
ReplyDeletedoes this suggest that one day when i am dead, i would still remember everything like i would wake up in some next place and be able to see my parents and my wife? Your thoughts please.
secondly,
the human brain stores all the memories, events etc, in short it acts like a memory storage device. However, brain is made up of cells which keep on dying n new ones made, so how does the information get saved from dying ones to new generating cells?
all of this confuses n disturbs me, please respond
Hi Godspeed,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some difficult issues.
Actually while some brain cells die and recent evidence is showing that new brain cells are formed to some degree, I don't think its fair to describe the brain as being made up of cells that keep on dying as new ones are being made. That being said, it is the pattern of connections between the cells, and not really the cells themselves, that represent the information whether its memories or personality.
So while this hasn't been proven I would assert that its the pattern of information itself which is important, rather than the physical configuration of cells.
I am not sure about your other question. I think its possible.
It's very interesting finding this post with this date, since I recently been thinking about it, not really influenced by anything except my own ideas and this being not the first time I "come up" with something that is being discussed somewhere else (almost) simultaneously, it actually gives me the proof that some ideas travel through a fifth dimension that it's not visible or can be measured yet.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the ego is the "individuality" that dies and the one that cannot survive after the separation with the matter that gives it substance. However, there is definitely too many coincidences and patterns that can demonstrate that there is information traveling through routes other than the mere physical expressions of this ego.
If we still have access to these routes or not after death it may be speculative. I personally believe everything in the Universe transforms. Nothing just disappears.
kudos from Lisbon
Creatures of every species eat their young. From microscopic organisms, insects and fish - to reptiles, birds and MAMMALS - polar bears, wolves, hyenas, and hamsters - to name a few of many.
ReplyDeleteYou’ve obviously never been friends with a reptile. They’re one-person bonders, capable of forming lasting attachments with human individuals, towards whom they can be very affectionate. I know.
I had a Painted Box Turtle named Gertie, I rescued from the neighbors dog. For the six years she lived after that, she was never caged. .Like our cats and dog, she went wherever she pleased in our house. She loved cantaloupe, and would magically appear when I came home from the store with one. She liked to watch me from the corners of rooms. She’d come beside my bed and make this little barking sound when she wanted to get in under the blankets.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm disappointed that you never responded to my comment on reptiles' capacity for affection.