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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
This is a WP:POVFORK of Life after death ( Afterlife) and should be redirected there.— Machine Elf 1735 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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:
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) |
"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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
This is a WP:POVFORK of Life after death ( Afterlife) and should be redirected there.— Machine Elf 1735 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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:
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) |
"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)
"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)