• * contact
  • About
  • Awards
    • Inspiration awards bouquet
    • Kindness awards bouquet
  • Hunt 4 Truth
  • Peace
  • Prayers, Love and Positive Energy

the Hunt for Truth

~ Hunt4Truth.wordpress.com

the Hunt for Truth

Tag Archives: Stuart Hameroff

How close is science to understanding consciousness?

29 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by Hunt 4 Truth in Consciousness, Lecture, Philosophy, Universe

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

A. H. Almaas, Cellular.Eric, Chris Fields, consciousness, Consciousness Studies, David Chalmers, Donald Hoffman, Hameed Ali, Henry Stapp, Julia Mossbridge, Roger Penrose consciousness, SAND 2015, science and nonduality, Stuart Hameroff, The hard problem of consciousness, what is consciousness, Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious

This is a summary of a panel conversation with scientists that have varying experiences and approaches to what is consciousness, or, mind and awareness. The two hour program is facilitated by A. H. Almaas (the pen name of Hameed Ali) featuring panelists Chris Fields, Henry Stapp, Julia Mossbridge, Stuart Hameroff, and Donald Hoffman (right to left).

How Close Is Science To Understanding Consciousness?

I was asked to comment on this program at Facebook and as I watched it, I made some notes and I gave the program content some serious thought. This is not deeply steeped in scientific jargon. It isn’t an easy conversation for the average person either though. I do my best here to break it down. Here is the video program first, and my notes follow.

.

.

Notes:

First off, as Descartes said, “I think, therefore, I am” means to me that I cannot doubt that I have consciousness and awareness. Each of us may agree or not that what Descartes said is true or not. What I mean is that I cannot deny or doubt that consciousness is fundamental and essential to and for advancing human life. We may know little about how to advance awareness, and we may even doubt that our own past awareness is valid or reasonable, but we cannot doubt that there is awareness and that we are conscious. Consciousness is fundamental and essential for normal living; we must agree. Yet, our own experiences demonstrate that there are limits of conscious awareness. 

So, I’d expect that if we are attempting to define consciousness that we’d agree to contemplate the present moment and what awareness we can attain in a moment so as to progress. Working together for evolving collaborative science requires expanding this awareness, realizing of course that we each have a different realty. We’ll each benefit if we pay attention to the sensations of breathing; notice the feeling in our feet when walking; and whenever finding that the mind wandered simply call our awareness back to sensations. We begin this way to discover contemplative science; evolving science and our own awareness. 

Science, according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary simply is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.” Science can move us forward into studies of consciousness by focusing on experiences of life, with increasingly good questions about consciousness and how consciousness is evolving in us as we attain awareness that we are connected in consciousness. Pause… we may not agree presently on that this occurs within consciousness. However, that we may explore, scientifically.

We all will agree that our awareness may expand to include more of what we had previously been unaware. Thus, as humans evolve awareness consciously, science may progress, and we might evolve further in truth toward global peace, human integrity, personal freedom, and social harmony. Or is that right? Do we care about those ideals?

My disappointment is that this discussion panel program is not really science, yet. I was surprised, these scientists stop short of agreement on a purpose. Consciousness science is necessary even though we do initially not understand that the varying experiences and limitations of a collective awareness. For example, the program did not advance a better question even as to what to look at…. such as, “How did absolute consciousness—indivisible, still, and unchanging—become this world of multiplicity and change?”

The purpose of science is to advance our understanding of reality. A purpose for advancing scientific studies of consciousness may include any hypotheses (scientific guesses) as to the outcome of experimentation. We’ll need a process that will be inclusive and still produce the best explanations for what we observe about consciousness. However, if consciousness is also evolving individually, indwelling, and cosmic, then reality is evolving and we may advance in progress to evolve language. 

I hope that my comments are worth something, so, I did my best to live up to the commitment that I made and to give this program an honest look, to provide some notes for readers, and to give some useful feedback about it.

The panel conversation presents contributions, individual working experiences and views related to consciousness, exploring scientific theories, consensus about anything relating to consciousness, and attempts at an operating definition of consciousness with an eye on a non-dual view of consciousness… looking deeper into assumptions and conclusions of perceptions.

They present a program that discusses consciousness, yes. However, as the program moves along, we discover that the distinguished participants do not each have a solution for making progress that is agreeable.

Panel Questions (paraphrased and just briefly summarized with my notes):

Q-1) As we explore the hard question of science – what is consciousness… What is your working definition for consciousness (in your scientific work)?
Youtube Fast-Forward Question 1

Chris Fields begins the field focusing upon RAW (phenomenal) awareness… touch, taste, auditory, visual … giving emphasis to how people experience memories as distinguishing them from now experiences. I wondered as I listened if many even have an awareness of self or that some experiences occur in the present (moment) more so than others.

Henry Stapp recalls William James declares that ‘States of mind’ succeed each other. According to James: (1) Every ‘state’ tends to be part of a personal consciousness. (2) Within each personal consciousness states are always changing. (3) Each personal consciousness is sensibly continuous. (4) It is interested in some parts of its object to the exclusion of others, and welcomes or rejects — chooses from among them, in a word — all the while. I am not sure from the initial description what is causing joining of mind into matter.

Julia Mossbridge says that there is great importance in that our conscious experience and unconscious experience differ. Here she focuses initially on that our personal experiences of consciousness differ and that this is greatly important and reminds us that there is an importance to our experiences of “me, not me.” Stapp and then Almaas pipe in regarding states of consciousness “waking, sleeping, dreaming, enlightenment.”

Stuart Hameroff, not at all addressing the question, asserts that there are collapses (by the uncertainty principle) due to separation in underlying of space-time geometry instabilities that will self-collapse randomly entangling with the quantum ‘environment’ and without ‘history’ or ‘memory’ of occurring in whatever state, one or another, they manifest into these cease in time. In living systems he says, shielding from random environment occurs. He then describes a bit about this as an evolution process. He says in defining consciousness, “it’s kind of like pornography, you know it when you see it.” So, as it seems from Hameroff, consciousness with memory, meaning and causal behavior is ‘tied’ to living being and platonic (space-time) values orchestrate consciousness with wisdom. He qualifies that the source entity of consciousness space-time geometry (matter not being fundamental). I’m not sure but how matter and mind are being joined in the initial statements that Hameroff is making at around 21 minutes in the program. Stapp points out that personal values seem to be entering into the evolution (rather? from platonic values). Hameroff describes how he and Sir Roger Penrose determined that platonic values govern choices as predominant influences. He eventually explains that there is structure at the Planck scale to develop space-time fractal geometry. Hameroff finishes up his introduction saying that consciousness is driving the evolution of the universe.

Donald Hoffman begins in agreement that consciousness experiences are important and summarizes many of the previous points of the definition. He adds that for moving forward, the assumption that consciousness has a structure that can be mathematically described. He summarizes that space-time is a representation of some consciousness and that space and time are not at all fundamental. Essentially, he’s saying that space and time are useful for experiences and to reproduce – a species specific solution for living situations.

So, there are functions of consciousness that the panel describe. However, as Almaas points out, a fundamental universal definition for consciousness is not defined. A common understanding, so far, is that consciousness is active; doing… feeling for example, perceiving, experiencing, and thinking. However, that consciousness is a fundamental and underlying unifying spiritual medium of living is not agreed upon with scientists. Yet, apparently, there is agreement that consciousness may be a fundamental necessity for human life. [I’ll note here, none of the scientists specifically address consciousness that interests me; that is the consciousness that is me.] Julia Mossbridge indicates that using the term, here, consciousness is confusing. She says spiritual teachers are referring to something different from what the scientists are discussing. The scientists are talking about consciousness is the fundamental ingredient for experiencing – anything. The spiritual teachers are saying consciousness is the fundamental essence of life; one mind. Chris Fields points out that the core concept of physics is energy and that energy is an undefined term similar here to the way this discussion is going about what is consciousness. He says it may be that it must be left undefined.

[Note: The hard problem of consciousness (David Chalmers 1995) is of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, experience, and qualia (phenomenal qualities). [Chalmers on the “hard problem” of consciousness and Chalmers, “Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious?”]

Q-2) How is your research/work addressing “the hard problem of consciousness” to contribute toward understanding that?
Youtube Fast-Forward Question 2

Stuart Hameroff leads off this time. Mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia are accessed via human experiences and these are organized into full rich conscious experiences. He relates this to an orchestra warming up. Each musician has been piping in random notes and then in concert, we hear them produce a whole beautiful symphony. He adds that an orchestra has a conductor but with consciousness that the brain must self-organize the rich experiences [I somewhat disagree]. Hameroff says, “You can have consciousness even without biology” [I didn’t expect that]. He said, “I believe that consciousness is a process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds.” He mentions that molecular geometry may be involved in the process of giving rise to consciousness.

Henry Stapp introduced a complex function of change into this saying, “we are left with a fundamentally idea-like universe” as he describes how matter forms according to mathematical rules and this is well defined and predictable but when we get knowledge about the structure, changes occur based upon the findings and the new form is compatible with the information and yet evolved. This, he indicates, is similar to how an idea leads to changes based on the findings of how useful the idea turns out to be. He says “matter really behaved like an idea, and so, we are left with a fundamentally idea-like universe.” Stapp indicates later that it must be taken to be a fundamental fact that consciousness is there… as the essential fact, we must become accepting that the hard problem takes us further from materialist views.

Chris Fields says, “If we understand the hard problem as why is there any awareness at all and if the question is have we come any closer to explaining why there is any awareness at all, I would say the answer is no. I don’t think we have a theory, at all, as to why there is awareness anywhere in the universe [I agree].” He points out that scientific work is contributing towards what awareness does, why awareness is useful, under what conditions a system will be aware of a particular phenomenon (mathematics allow prediction) but not why there is awareness. He thinks that pushing ahead, that science will recognize that awareness must be a fundamental assumption. “We really do have to drop this business of awareness being generated by a particular organization of neurons, which is the standard view in neuroscience, or a particular of something else [material]. It became very clear in the early twentieth century that there aren’t any material objects. We all agree that there are objective boundaries around things. We believe that there is an objective boundary around me and around the lectern and so on and so forth. If you look at the formulas… those boundaries cannot be objective.” Modern physics and science of particles demonstrate that boundaries do not really nicely divide realities that we perceive via our physical senses. Physical reality is not really so much what Newton taught.

Julia Mossbridge: “I don’t know that I agree that out individual consciousness does anything….” She acknowledges that to her understanding that the questions put to science as “the hard problem” originating from David Chalmers is the wrong sort of tact for questioning for scientists to answer and that she didn’t think that science might ever get answers that are fully philosophical or theologically satisfying. There can be correlations of the brain to consciousness. She explains that since experimentation indicates that the past can occur after the future, this makes investigating consciousness not the most interesting question for a neural scientist. For a neural scientist, ordering things occurs in time in one direction. [I didn’t understand what she’d think is unattractive. The next part made sense to me.] She makes a distinction between that she has private observer awareness but that everything else of which she does not have conscious awareness is so much more… that consciousness for her is the awareness that she has as ‘the observer’ and everything else is part of her unconscious. [Interestingly, Almaas asks, “…but they are happening? Where are they happening?” Now, here is what is interesting to me… I don’t agree that what is unconscious for me is happening. That is in my opinion a delusion. I cannot agree that we are one if I cannot know you consciously. I cannot agree that I am part of this body if I do not know it consciously.] Julia’s point is well taken, I think to agree that I am not conscious of most of what is perceived as reality. [Thus, perhaps this brain that I am linked to by some awareness is making up reality mostly unconsciously because reality is not something that I can comprehend. This seems consistent with what we know about how the unconscious works. It makes a cohesive experience from what is in the awareness and then it fills in the gaps.] Now, Stuart pipes in making an example that consciousness can occur in the brain before a dilemma that gets solved by the brain and that we can respond correctly, yet unconscious of what has occurred as processed in the brain then as we respond correctly. [I’ll add here that I have read many stories about people saying that time slowed or even stopped while they acted to save themselves or a loved one or a pet. I agree that consciousness must therefore be able to place in the brain the correct information that the brain then can use and thus, it may seem as though time slows or even stops as the person acts on that was stored by consciousness in the brain even though the person actually records the event differently, as though time slowed down or even stopped for several seconds.]

Donald Hoffman wants a mathematical model of consciousness and to work from that to solve the hard problem. So, from there, with consciousness assumed, a given, science must demonstrate how we get useful consciousness laws out of our physical reality. What I do find in published works is more in line with what Julia Mossbridge suggests… for example, a paper entitled “Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem” PDF seeks to explore relationship between biology and consciousness.

I mention (earlier, above) that this ‘hard problem’ is not well-stated as a question. 

Almaas points out that spiritual teachings indicate that we must ‘know’ consciousness and that in the knowing, there is release from suffering—of human suffering—occurring; that happiness depends upon this. 

Q-3) How is science going to address the human need to discover consciousness is essential for progress in successful living that eliminates suffering?
Youtube Fast-Forward Question 3  

Julia Mossbridge suggests the question for science ought not to be the hard question of consciousness, saying: “How do I bridge the gap between this fundamental duality of individual consciousness and everything of which I am [we—individually—are] not conscious?” Julia says that Almaas is speaking about a different consciousness. So, here we have the division. This being a conference of exploring non-duality, bringing into conference scientists is in dialog discovering that individual experience is something that we hold to dearly. Julia makes reference to ‘the one mind state’ as the unconscious. 

A successful science of consciousness must address aspects of ending suffering. A successful non-duality that begins with idea that the universe and all its multiplicity are ultimately expressions or appearances of one essential reality must guide science. Where we are exploring the brain, our experience of consciousness, science is reducing its focus onto mechanisms. Where we are exploring the mind and consciousness, non-duality is advancing non-physical awareness.

Donald Hoffman says that a mathematical theory that describes consciousness will include in it surprises of the greater, as yet, unknown reality.

Stuart Hameroff pipes in that spiritualists tend to classify his works as materialist and scientists complain that it is mystical but that there are advancements in medicine occurring because his science is undertaking to include contemplation on the hard problem of consciousness. Microtubules have quantum resonant vibrations in megahertz and kilohertz frequencies and from qualia form by quantum microtubule vibrations inside brain neurons 1) conscious experience, and 2) regulate neuronal firings and synaptic plasticity. As synapses are formed, these are maintained and regulated by microtubules and the associated proteins. Hameroff gives examples of medical breakthroughs.

Where Hameroff considers the qualia primitive, Donald Hoffman pipes in to assert that neurons do not exist, at all, when they are not perceived; nor do microtubules or space and time. These are forms of perception. 

Who is who?
A.H. Almaas is the pen name of A. Hameed Ali, an author and spiritual teacher who writes about and teaches an approach to spiritual development informed by modern psychology and therapy which he calls the Diamond Approach. 

Chris Fields is an independent scientist interested in both the physics and the cognitive neuroscience underlying the human perception of objects.

Henry Stapp is a mathematical physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics and the place of free will in quantum mechanics.

Julia Mossbridge teaches courses in consciousness, cognition, perception and the influence of music on the brain. She is the CEO and Research Director of Mossbridge Institute, LLC. 

Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness.

Donald Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine. 

So, it is a diverse panel and they are operating with a variety of definitions about consciousness. I didn’t take much time to accurately record the opening statements and some closing statements and their views are not mine, so, please listen carefully and make your own interpretations. I am not a fast typist so I left out much of what was said so I could keep on moving through this presentation. I may inadvertently have changed the meaning of what was intended… not on purpose, I surely didn’t do that. I’ll appreciate any comments on how I might improve this article… thanks in advance.

Additional video and other resources are found in the comments following this post.

Thanks for visiting.

New post Eric Continue reading →

Advertisement

signs of the Soul (reblog)

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by Hunt 4 Truth in Afterlife, Consciousness, Near-death experiences, Science, Spirituality

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

bispectral index, Deepak Chopra, disruption of cytoskeletal microtubules, end-of-life brain activity, entangled fluctuations in quantum spacetime geometry, excess extracellular potassium, Gamma Frequency Synchrony, generalized neuronal depolarization, ketamine experience, NDE. Death, Near-death experience, OBE, Out of Body Experience, Palliative Medicine, Soul, Stuart Hameroff, The Afterlife Investigation, upert Sheldrake

By Stuart Hameroff, MD and Deepak Chopra, MD

The idea that conscious awareness can exist after death, generally referred to as the ‘soul’, has been inherent in Eastern and Western religions for thousands of years. In addition to spiritual accounts, innumerable subjective reports of conscious awareness seemingly separated from the subject’s brain and physical body occur in conjunction with so-called near death experiences (NDEs) in patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest (1,2). Such patients describe remarkably consistent phenomenology including a white light, being in a tunnel, serenity, deceased loved ones, life review and, in some cases, floating out of the body (out-of-body experiences – OBEs). Comparable experiences have been reported in various types of meditative and altered states, traumatic psychological events, or seemingly without cause. A Gallup poll estimated some 10 million Americans have reported NDEs/OBEs (3). The drug ketamine, used as a ‘dissociative’ anesthetic, can produce subjective reports of conscious awareness outside the body (4), as can various other psychoactive drugs.

OBEModern science is unable to explain NDEs/OBEs, and ignores and derides such reports as unscientific folly or hallucination. But modern science can’t explain normal, in-the-brain consciousness. Despite detailed understanding of neuronal firings and synaptic transmissions mediating non-conscious cognitive functions, there is no accounting for conscious awareness, free will or ‘qualia’- the essence of experienced perceptions, like the redness, texture and fragrance of a rose. Philosopher David Chalmers refers to this as the ‘hard problem’ – explaining qualia and the subjective nature of feelings, awareness, and phenomenal experience – our ‘inner life’. Unable to explain consciousness in the brain, it is easy to see why conventional science ignores out-of-body, or after-death consciousness, rejecting even the possibility of their occurrence.

.

.

Science can measure brain electrical activity known to correlate with consciousness, for example high frequency synchronized electroencephalography (EEG) in the gamma range (‘gamma synchrony’). Monitors able to measure and process EEG and detect gamma synchrony and other correlates of consciousness have been developed for use during anesthesia to provide an indicator of depth of anesthesia and prevent intra-operative awareness, i.e. to avoid patients being conscious when they are supposed to be anesthetized and unconscious. The ‘BIS’ monitor (Aspect Medical Systems, Newton MA) records and processes frontal electroencephalography (EEG) to produce a digital ‘bispectral index’, or BIS number on a scale of 0 to 100. A BIS number of 0 equals EEG silence, and 100 is the expected value in a fully awake, conscious adult. Between 40 and 60 is recommended by the manufacturer for a level of general anesthesia. The ‘SEDline’ monitor (Hospira, Lake Forest, IL) also records frontal EEG and produces a comparable 0 to 100 index.

In recent years these monitors have been applied outside of anesthesiology, e.g. to dying patients at or near the moment of death, revealing startling end-of-life brain activity.

In a study reported in the Journal of Palliative Medicine, Chawla et al. (5) reported on 7 critically ill patients from whom life support (medications, machine ventilation) was being withdrawn, allowing them to die peacefully. As per protocol, they were monitored with a BIS or SEDline brain monitor. While on life support the patients were neurologically intact but heavily sedated, with BIS or SEDline numbers near 40 or higher. Following withdrawal, the BIS/SEDline generally decreased below 20 after several minutes, at about the time cardiac death occurred. This was marked by lack of measurable arterial blood pressure or functional heartbeat. Then, in all 7 patients’ post-cardiac death, there was a burst of activity as indicated by abrupt rise of the BIS or SEDline to between 60 and (in most cases) 80 or higher. After a period of such activity ranging from one minute to 20 minutes, the activity dropped abruptly to near zero.

In one patient, analysis of raw SEDline data revealed the burst of post-cardiac death brain activity to be apparent gamma synchrony, an indicator of conscious awareness. Chawla et al. raise the possibility that the measured post-cardiac death brain activity might correlate with NDEs/OBEs. Of course the patients died, so we have no confirmation that such experiences occurred.

In another study published in the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia, Auyong et al. (6) describe three brain-injured patients from whom medical and ventilatory support were withdrawn prior to ‘post-cardiac death’ organ donation. These patients were hopelessly brain-damaged, but technically not brain dead. Their families consented to withdrawal of support and organ donation. Such patients are allowed to die ‘naturally’ after withdrawal of support, then quickly taken to surgery for organ donation.

The three patients in the Auyong et al. study prior to withdrawal of support had BIS numbers of 40 or lower, with one near zero. Soon after withdrawal, near the time of cardiac death, the BIS number spiked to approximately 80 in all three cases, and remained there for 30 to 90 seconds. The number then abruptly returned to near zero, followed thereafter by declaration of death and organ donation. Various sources of artifact for the end-of-life brain activity were considered and excluded.

Auyong et al. did not consider the possibility of NDEs correlating with the observed end-of-life brain activity, nor did an extensive editorial accompanying their article (7).

Obviously we can’t say whether end-of-life brain activity is indeed related to NDEs/OBEs, or even possibly the soul leaving the body. Nor do we know how commonly it occurs (10 out of 10 in the two studies cited). Those issues aside, the mystery remains as to how end-of-life activity occurs in brain tissue which is metabolically dead, receiving no blood flow nor oxygen. The BIS and SEDline numbers, indicators of level of awareness, are near zero. Then, a burst of synchronized, coherent bi-frontal brain activity occurs, seemingly gamma synchrony EEG (an indicator of consciousness). As marked by BIS and SEDline numbers near 80, the activity persists for a minute or more. Then it abruptly ceases.

Deepak Chopra Stuart Hameroff

There are proposed explanations for the end-of-life brain activity as non-functional, generalized neuronal depolarization. Chawla et al. suggested excess extracellular potassium causes last gasp neuronal spasms throughout the brain. But that couldn’t account for the global coherence – synchronized, organized. Another suggested cause is calcium-induced neuronal death which could implicate disruption of cytoskeletal microtubules inside neurons as the precipitating factor. But again, how and why the bifrontal coherent synchrony?

Perhaps the end-of-life brain activity IS related to conscious NDEs or even OBEs, but without the ‘Near’, i.e. the patients have the experience and are not revived. White light, tunnel, serenity, deceased loved ones, floating life review. What would that imply?

Some see NDEs/OBEs as metaphysical or spiritual events, manifestations of consciousness, or the soul, leaving the body (8). Skeptics suggest NDEs/OBEs are hallucinations or illusions, manifestations of an ischemic/hypoxic brain (9). But hypoxic/ischemic patients, if conscious, are confused, agitated and don’t form memory.

If end-of-life brain activity does correlate with conscious NDE/OBE phenomenology, we still face the question of how/why conscious activity of any sort is occurring in the nearly dead brain. But here we at least have some logical possibilities based on disparities between energy requirements for consciousness and other brain functions. Neuronal hypoxia and acidosis would disable sodium-potassium ATPase pumps, preventing axonal action potentials, but temporarily sparing lower energy dendritic activity which may correlate more directly with consciousness (10), Another possibility is that consciousness is a low energy quantum process (11), in which case reduced molecular dynamics may limit thermal decoherence, providing a temporal window for enhanced quantum coherent states and a burst of enhanced consciousness. A quantum basis for consciousness also raises the scientific possibility of an afterlife, of an actual soul leaving the body and persisting as entangled fluctuations in quantum spacetime geometry (12).

We can’t as yet say for sure, but end-of-life brain activity could very well represent NDEs/OBEs phenomenology which is remarkably consistent among subjects, generally pleasant and often described as life-changing and helpful. Even skeptics of NDEs as metaphysical, soul-related events contend they convey beneficial effects to survivors (9). They should be valued.

Anesthesiologists or other physicians taking care of such patients face several ethical dilemmas. Following withdrawal of support such patients may exhibit the ‘appearance of suffering’: labored breathing, sweating, grimacing. Whether the patient is actually suffering depends on whether they have any conscious awareness. Given that the BIS and SEDline numbers are low, they probably are not conscious. But we don’t know for sure. Physicians would normally treat such signs with sedative and/or pain-killing drugs. However without ventilatory or medical support, such intervention could be seen as ‘hastening demise’, pushing the patient toward death. The American Society of Anesthesiologists prohibits such interventions, as do hospital protocols for post-cardiac death organ donation. We do not actively push patients toward death.

Now, end-of-life brain activity and the possibility of NDE/OBE phenomenology present another dilemma – how to avoid actions which could conceivably prevent end-of-life brain activity, as that could be seen as also preventing NDEs/OBEs, and perhaps even the soul from leaving the body.

We think the optimal management in end-of-life patients with apparent suffering is to give ketamine which alleviates suffering without hastening demise (ketamine does not generally depress breathing nor cardiovascular function). Moreover ketamine by itself has been suggested to induce NDE-like phenomenology (4), elevate BIS numbers during anesthesia(13), and could preserve or possibly enhance end-of-life brain activity, whatever it actually is.

Based on the possibility that end-of-life brain activity could correspond with NDE/OBE phenomenology, or even the soul leaving the body, end-of-life patients deserve to have it. We want it. Patients and their families should be aware of this when making agonizing decisions about withdrawal of support and organ donation.

End-of-life brain activity just may be a sign of the soul.

References:
1. Parnia S, Spearpoint K, Fenwick PB. Near death experiences, cognitive function and psychological outcomes of surviving cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2007;74(2):215-21
2. van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I. Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Lancet 2001;358(9298):2039-45
3. Chopra D. 2006 Life After Death – The Burden of Proof. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press
4. Jansen KL. A review of the nonmedical use of ketamine: use, users and consequences. J Psychoactive Drugs 2000;32(4):419-33
5. Chawla LS, Akst S, Junker C, Jacobes B, Seneff MG. Surges of electroencephalogram activity at the time of death: A case study. J Palliative Med 2009;12(12):1095-1100
6. Auyong DB, Klein SM, Gan TJ, Roche, AM, Olson DW, Habib AS. Processed electroencephalogram during donation after cardiac death. Anesth Analg 2010;110(5):1428-32
7. Csete M. Donation after cardiac death and the anesthesiologist. Anesth Analg 2010;(5):1253-54
8. Greyson B. Varieties of near-death experience. Psychiatry 1993;56(4):390-399
9. Blackmore S. Dying to Live: Near-Death Experiences. London: Grafton, 1993
10. Hameroff S. The “conscious pilot”- dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness. J Biol Physics 2010;36(1):71-93
11. Hameroff S, Quantum computation in brain microtubules – The Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” model of consciousness. Phil Trans Royal Society London (A) 1998;356:1869-96
12. Hameroff S, Chopra D (2010) Can science explain the soul? http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-09/news/22212482_1_quantum-physics-consciousness-science
13. Hans P, Dewandre PY, Brichant JF, Bonhomme V. Comparative effects of ketamine on Bispectral Index and spectral entropy of the electroencephalogram under sevoflurane anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2005;94(3):336-40

Stuart Hameroff, MD
Diplomate, American Board of Anesthesiology
Professor, Anesthesiology and Psychology
Director, Center for Consciousness Studies
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
quantumconsciousness.org

Deepak Chopra, MD
Endocrinologist
Co-Director of Chopra Center for Well Being
Carlsbad, CA
Author of over 56 books
deepakchopra.com

.

source article: End-of-Life Brain Activity – A Sign of the Soul?

.

Thanks for visiting.

 Eric

 

Related

A Moment in Heaven
afterlife — part two: Dr. Eben Alexander
afterlife — part one: Colton Burpo

 

.

.

Inner Peace

Inner Peace Award - I would have a no-awards blog but this award changed me. Thanks Suz. I'm glad I changed.

November 2013

Top Posts (LIkes)

  • Looking at yourself honestly - Mental Strength
  • Only one Word was on my mind
  • A Virus Called Fear
  • Five steps to mindfulness
  • Scientist debunks Hawking's 'no God needed' theory
  • Happiness: Self-acceptance
  • How is feeling upset my problem?
  • 7 Spiritual Laws of Success by Deepak Chopra
  • 10 Principles for Success and Inner Peace
  • How Meditation Changes Our Brains

Recent Posts

  • Psychic Ability, Remote Viewing and A Course in Miracle with Russell Targ
  • America’s Great Divide
  • ACIM Zoom
  • Christ & Christianity { Alan Watts }
  • A Course In Miracles (training and discussions)
  • Awareness
  • Imagination creates reality
  • The World As Emptiness, and Being Let Go
  • Man cannot stand a meaningless life
  • Empath Support
  • Don’t take consciousness for granted
  • The World is Only Reflecting Back to You What You Are
  • Living Happily
  • we are holographic
  • How close is science to understanding consciousness?
  • Mapping the “War on Christmas”
  • The Fountain (95 minute Full Feature Film)
  • laugh… evolve…
  • be still and contemplate
  • Year 3 in WordPress time
  • mind is everywhere
  • Three Hermits – the simplicity of joyful worship
  • Love one another
  • Do Your Best
  • within these reflections…
  • signs of the Soul (reblog)
  • Verbal and Emotional Abuse… is More Than Just Words Said
  • How are you stepping outside of your childhood programming and recovering your power of creation?
  • Dreamwalker’s Hearts Beat as One!
  • Humble (reblog)
  • 2015 – resolutions
  • Artists 4 Peace
  • irrational ideas – quality of life (reblog)
  • dreams fly free (reblog)
  • A Virus Called Fear
  • The sky is not the limit (reblog)
  • Thanksgiving – Why?
  • Science and Prayer
  • Veterans Day Thanks
  • What If Heaven Is Here And Now?

Categories

Archive

Discovering

Awards & Mmemberships
Hunt 4 Truth

Hunt 4 Truth

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." https://hunt4truth.wordpress.com/ Absolute Truth is whole, complete and perfect. Absolute Truth is just beyond words, mental concepts, and form; Non-being, yet in everything and yet beyond thought forms. Prayer and meditation fashion in our hearts further honesty, openness, and willingness and thus, we may glimpse guidance and truth to rightly think and act. Any glimpse of truth is not Absolute Truth. It may be sufficient until we renew our commitment to serve God. Life is thus best navigated during mindfulness of prayer and meditation by an inner peace. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

View Full Profile →

Member of The Internet Defense League

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • the Hunt for Truth
    • Join 990 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • the Hunt for Truth
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...