6 ms·

Perhaps I did not phrase this question properly, hence the downvotes. Let me retry: Consider a situation perhaps 5-10 years from now when this procedure is wid

Perhaps I did not phrase this question properly, hence the downvotes. Let me retry: Consider a situation perhaps 5-10 years from now when this procedure is widespread. A critically wounded person has two treatment options: the best is this procedure followed by repairs. Second best is traditional surgery, which carries some risk. If the person is unconscious and cannot give consent, are we going to treat this as just another procedure? In which case the doctor can make the decision. I ask because humans tend to identify themselves with an area localized somewhere in the space behind their heads. The do not identify themselves with exact mental replicas of themselves. This has never been a problem in history because such replicas do not occur in nature and we never had the technology to create them. But this procedure may -- I repeat may -- produce a virtual replica of sorts by putting a pause in between brain activity. Like I said, people have already asked this about cryogenics, but no cryogenically frozen person has ever been reanimated. This procedure, however, is viable.

jnbiche 13y ago
Actually, this type of procedure done succesfully would strongly imply that there is something beyond simple neuronal activity that comprises a person's "selfhood". Dr.Sam Parnia, the resuscitationist mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has some thoughts on this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/06/sam-parnia-resurrection-lazarus-effect http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/06/sam-parnia-re...
- throwaway5752 13y ago
  There's nothing in this article or the one you linked to that suggests consciousness is anything but the product of biochemical activity in the brain. I'm sincerely curious how you think that's the case. edit: i use 'neuronal' and 'biochemical' interchangeably in this context, because I don't see a sharp distinction. I read the whole article, but I missed the quote you excerpted. I am boggled by it. Systemic death means nothing if neurons don't die (apoptosis) and the brain remains structurally intact - it's structural and chemical properties of neurons that determine self, and if those are preserved then it's fairly shallow notion of death. I mean, what does he say about people that suffer strokes or TBI and are completely changed by it, even though they never were clinically dead? Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but you utilized the passive voice in a way that made it seem like you were strongly implying it. edit: you may be unaware of the enormous structural complexity of the brain (see purkinje cells) and the fact that sensitivity to input can result in structural changes (synaptic plasticity). It's the graph structure of the billions of neurons and hundreds of trillions of connections combined with the structural changes at those connections that effect their sensitivity to neurotrasmitters - not the series of impulses at any point in time - that encodes self.
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    >There's nothing in this article or the one you linked to that suggests consciousness is anything but the product of biochemical activity in the brain. First, both the article and I mentioned "neuronal activity" not "biochemical activity". Second, did you even read the article? Money quote from Dr. Parnia: "All I can say is what I have observed from my work. It seems that when consciousness shuts down in death, psyche, or soul – by which I don't mean ghosts, I mean your individual self – persists for a least those hours before you are resuscitated. From which we might justifiably begin to conclude that the brain is acting as an intermediary to manifest your idea of soul or self but it may not be the source or originator of it… I think that the evidence is beginning to suggest that we should keep open our minds to the possibility that memory, while obviously a scientific entity of some kind – I'm not saying it is magic or anything like that – is not neuronal."" >I'm sincerely curious how you think that's the case. Did I even say I did? I said "if..." and "would strongly suggest". First a conditional and then a qualifier. I personally have no strong opinion on the matter. Clearly you do.
    - khafra 13y ago
      What do you mean by "neuronal activity"? If you're saying it's not just the electrical activity of the brain that constitutes the self, that seems to be true; electrical activity can come to a complete halt and be restarted without apparent loss of selfhood. If you're saying the self is something more than whatever the entire brain does--including neurons, glial cells, and all the rest--that's off in woo-woo-ville.
- vidarh 13y ago
  That's a huge stretch. For starters, we know that the brain is extraordinarily good at inventing detail to fill in gaps. A lot of what you think are memories are pure fiction propped up by sufficient real information to pass. There are many much more likely scenarios to rule out long before there's any reason to consider those ideas, and in most cases there is no reliable way of ruling them out, because there's been insufficient controls in place (unsurprisingly, given that it's not why they are there) - just like a cold reader can extract vast amounts of information from people without them realising, so can normal people with a fascinating story that gets people involved. Anyone that have talked to anyone present in the operating theatre afterwards, for example, can not be considered a reliable source, because lots of information might have been filled in (and such information can easily get recalled as memories by the patient later, without any intent to deceive).
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    I think both you and the other commenter are assuming I was referring to something religious. I most assuredly was not, nor is Dr. Parnia. Read the article. The quote from Dr. Parnia that sums up his thoughts: "All I can say is what I have observed from my work. It seems that when consciousness shuts down in death, psyche, or soul – by which I don't mean ghosts, I mean your individual self – persists for a least those hours before you are resuscitated. From which we might justifiably begin to conclude that the brain is acting as an intermediary to manifest your idea of soul or self but it may not be the source or originator of it… I think that the evidence is beginning to suggest that we should keep open our minds to the possibility that memory, while obviously a scientific entity of some kind – I'm not saying it is magic or anything like that – is not neuronal." Really, this should be obvious. If a human being emerges alive on the other end of a two-hour period with no neuronal activity, then is simple neuronal activity really what comprises a human's selfhood? I'm not saying it's magic or religion, but at the very least it's interesting to think about.
    - themgt 13y ago
      If your liver starts filtering toxins on the other end of a two-hour period of clinical death with no metabolic activity, then are simple liver cells really what comprises a liver's function?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jnbiche 13y ago
  It is considerably ironic that after 4 years on HN, the first comment I've ever made that been voted down past -1 (it was at -5) is one that I don't even have any strong feelings or opinions on. Also, I'm not even insinuating there's some kind of religious or spiritual connection here (I'm not religious). Indeed, I'm only quoting a renown expert in this field, who has been responsible for many of the developments in using cold saline flushes for cardiopulmonary arrest resuscitation. Clearly, there's a group of people here on HN who have unusually strong emotions in response to any suggestion of phenomena that go beyond current scientific understanding. Not sure why that is, since this is where the most interesting science will take place over the coming centuries. I had no idea this was a flamewar topic and will assiduously avoid commenting on the issue in the future. It's too bad, since I enjoy thinking about the implications here, and have long had an amateur interest in the brain sciences. Edit: OK, my post above was upvoted from -5 back to 0. My faith in HN's commitment to fairness and rational discussion is restored. Thank you.
- benched 13y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but if I had, it would have been because "neuronal activity" seems like a strawman here, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I would have started with synaptic connections myself.
jaggederest 13y ago
The same 'consciousness gap' problem already exists in lesser forms: sleep, anesthesia, coma, also, brief periods of 'clinically dead' time as mentioned in the article during massive blood loss or other extreme situation.
- Someone 13y ago
  I am not sure we even know that normal consciousness is continuous. We experience it that way, but that says nothing. We think our vision is continuous, too, but it isn't (http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo. More info at http://goo.gl/A3jWV http://goo.gl/A3jWV (had to use a shortener because the URL gives information away for those who don't know this experiment))

jnbiche 13y ago

Actually, this type of procedure done succesfully would strongly imply that there is something beyond simple neuronal activity that comprises a person's "selfhood". Dr.Sam Parnia, the resuscitationist mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has some thoughts on this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/06/sam-parnia-resurrection-lazarus-effect http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/06/sam-parnia-re...

throwaway5752 13y ago
There's nothing in this article or the one you linked to that suggests consciousness is anything but the product of biochemical activity in the brain. I'm sincerely curious how you think that's the case. edit: i use 'neuronal' and 'biochemical' interchangeably in this context, because I don't see a sharp distinction. I read the whole article, but I missed the quote you excerpted. I am boggled by it. Systemic death means nothing if neurons don't die (apoptosis) and the brain remains structurally intact - it's structural and chemical properties of neurons that determine self, and if those are preserved then it's fairly shallow notion of death. I mean, what does he say about people that suffer strokes or TBI and are completely changed by it, even though they never were clinically dead? Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but you utilized the passive voice in a way that made it seem like you were strongly implying it. edit: you may be unaware of the enormous structural complexity of the brain (see purkinje cells) and the fact that sensitivity to input can result in structural changes (synaptic plasticity). It's the graph structure of the billions of neurons and hundreds of trillions of connections combined with the structural changes at those connections that effect their sensitivity to neurotrasmitters - not the series of impulses at any point in time - that encodes self.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  >There's nothing in this article or the one you linked to that suggests consciousness is anything but the product of biochemical activity in the brain. First, both the article and I mentioned "neuronal activity" not "biochemical activity". Second, did you even read the article? Money quote from Dr. Parnia: "All I can say is what I have observed from my work. It seems that when consciousness shuts down in death, psyche, or soul – by which I don't mean ghosts, I mean your individual self – persists for a least those hours before you are resuscitated. From which we might justifiably begin to conclude that the brain is acting as an intermediary to manifest your idea of soul or self but it may not be the source or originator of it… I think that the evidence is beginning to suggest that we should keep open our minds to the possibility that memory, while obviously a scientific entity of some kind – I'm not saying it is magic or anything like that – is not neuronal."" >I'm sincerely curious how you think that's the case. Did I even say I did? I said "if..." and "would strongly suggest". First a conditional and then a qualifier. I personally have no strong opinion on the matter. Clearly you do.
  - khafra 13y ago
    What do you mean by "neuronal activity"? If you're saying it's not just the electrical activity of the brain that constitutes the self, that seems to be true; electrical activity can come to a complete halt and be restarted without apparent loss of selfhood. If you're saying the self is something more than whatever the entire brain does--including neurons, glial cells, and all the rest--that's off in woo-woo-ville.
vidarh 13y ago
That's a huge stretch. For starters, we know that the brain is extraordinarily good at inventing detail to fill in gaps. A lot of what you think are memories are pure fiction propped up by sufficient real information to pass. There are many much more likely scenarios to rule out long before there's any reason to consider those ideas, and in most cases there is no reliable way of ruling them out, because there's been insufficient controls in place (unsurprisingly, given that it's not why they are there) - just like a cold reader can extract vast amounts of information from people without them realising, so can normal people with a fascinating story that gets people involved. Anyone that have talked to anyone present in the operating theatre afterwards, for example, can not be considered a reliable source, because lots of information might have been filled in (and such information can easily get recalled as memories by the patient later, without any intent to deceive).
- jnbiche 13y ago
  I think both you and the other commenter are assuming I was referring to something religious. I most assuredly was not, nor is Dr. Parnia. Read the article. The quote from Dr. Parnia that sums up his thoughts: "All I can say is what I have observed from my work. It seems that when consciousness shuts down in death, psyche, or soul – by which I don't mean ghosts, I mean your individual self – persists for a least those hours before you are resuscitated. From which we might justifiably begin to conclude that the brain is acting as an intermediary to manifest your idea of soul or self but it may not be the source or originator of it… I think that the evidence is beginning to suggest that we should keep open our minds to the possibility that memory, while obviously a scientific entity of some kind – I'm not saying it is magic or anything like that – is not neuronal." Really, this should be obvious. If a human being emerges alive on the other end of a two-hour period with no neuronal activity, then is simple neuronal activity really what comprises a human's selfhood? I'm not saying it's magic or religion, but at the very least it's interesting to think about.
  - themgt 13y ago
    If your liver starts filtering toxins on the other end of a two-hour period of clinical death with no metabolic activity, then are simple liver cells really what comprises a liver's function?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jnbiche 13y ago
It is considerably ironic that after 4 years on HN, the first comment I've ever made that been voted down past -1 (it was at -5) is one that I don't even have any strong feelings or opinions on. Also, I'm not even insinuating there's some kind of religious or spiritual connection here (I'm not religious). Indeed, I'm only quoting a renown expert in this field, who has been responsible for many of the developments in using cold saline flushes for cardiopulmonary arrest resuscitation. Clearly, there's a group of people here on HN who have unusually strong emotions in response to any suggestion of phenomena that go beyond current scientific understanding. Not sure why that is, since this is where the most interesting science will take place over the coming centuries. I had no idea this was a flamewar topic and will assiduously avoid commenting on the issue in the future. It's too bad, since I enjoy thinking about the implications here, and have long had an amateur interest in the brain sciences. Edit: OK, my post above was upvoted from -5 back to 0. My faith in HN's commitment to fairness and rational discussion is restored. Thank you.
benched 13y ago
I didn't downvote you, but if I had, it would have been because "neuronal activity" seems like a strawman here, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I would have started with synaptic connections myself.

jaggederest 13y ago

The same 'consciousness gap' problem already exists in lesser forms: sleep, anesthesia, coma, also, brief periods of 'clinically dead' time as mentioned in the article during massive blood loss or other extreme situation.

Someone 13y ago
I am not sure we even know that normal consciousness is continuous. We experience it that way, but that says nothing. We think our vision is continuous, too, but it isn't (http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo. More info at http://goo.gl/A3jWV http://goo.gl/A3jWV (had to use a shortener because the URL gives information away for those who don't know this experiment))