@@Dion_Mustard Possibly, but I doubt it because when researchers monitoring sleeping subjects awaken them and ask if they were dreaming, the subjects always say yes when certain patterns of neural behavior are present and always say no when those patterns are absent. I think we forget our dreams because evolution has designed us to avoid accumulating meaningless debris that comes into being as a side effect of the process in which all the thoughts in our memory are adjusted to accommodate the day's experience. I wouldn't be surprised if that process, which involves an immense amount of comparison and evaluation, discards most short term memory that is mundane, of little or no significance. And I suspect that if the process detects something that, for example, bears strongly on survival or seems of great significance, then the process might trigger creation of a memory that will persist until the sleeper again becomes conscious to then perceive that memory as a dream. Kekulé's discovery of the structure of benzene came from pondering his dream of a snake looking like a ring because it was eating its tail . (Google Kekulé to get the story).
@@williamburts5495 Nobody says they are not real. In fact they are so real we can stimulate the temporoparietal junction of the brain in order to reproduce them.
ok, so what is it that you really understood from the doctor? Does the soul exist? Is consciousness a product of the soul? The anchor of this show seems not to accept that concept, if it can not be proved by science, law of physics or whatever he will not accept that concept. I guess he will have to wait until someone invent a scanning machine capable of recording the soul.
@@Lalakis That's actually not true. When people talk about "reproducing NDEs," what they really mean is that they can stimulate the brain in such a way as to reproduce certain aspects that people report in an NDE, but not the experience itself. The *really* deep and profound NDEs, the ones that people report taking them to an entirely different plane of reality (or however you wish to interpret it) are in a class all their own. So that we can reproduce certain aspects of the NDE isn't actually all that strange at all. If the brain's acting as a receiver for a consciousness that exists *outside* the physical brain, then toying around w/ it to reproduce certain extraordinary experiences is no more fantastical than using psychedelics.
Very interesting topics and questions on this channel. Fine with a skilled researcher, Sam Parnia, who has results, so there is something to relate to. From NDE, cardiac arrest, we know that people see and hear what is going on during the operation, but it is not possible for the patient to communicate with those who operate while they are clinically dead. Another factor several patients report, during clinical death, is that they also record what the surgical team thinks. Consciousness, during clinical death, is in a way both limited, but also very extended to something we cannot explain.
I find it weak. A TV may be damaged but not the shows it presents, else they would appear damaged on other TV sets. A damaged brain however entails a damaged mind, which for each mind has only one outlet (if the analogy holds at all) and that is the brain it is otherwise associated with.
We all would love that solution. Im inclined to think that essential parts of brain/counciousness work some minutes after heart stops beating. Dolphins are sentient yet I dont think they fear the end as much as we do.
This question has baffled the most brilliant of minds for thousands of years, yet every person who leaves a comment on a CTT video somehow has the answer!
Consciousness is a materialistic dualism of the quantum cortex, therefore we postulate that it is an ambiguously inept emergence of self. The preceding sentence clearly defines consciousness...I GOTS NO IDEA MANNNNN🤷♀️😂😜🤷♂️. Brilliant!😎
@@l.ronhubbard5445 You're the one who seems to be concerned with being misconstrued. Maybe you and xenu should come up with another handle if it makes you that uncomfortable.
Consciousness is fundamental. Every thing is an appearance in consciousness. That's ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta stated. Subject can't appear from object.
I love how humble and open minded the people that are exploring this area are. Most materialist reductionists are so full of pomp and arrogance it’s hard to listen to them.
they arent rovolutionizing anything, they are just in youtube, the real people revolutionizing are in the labs, just check who wins Nobel Prizes and you will have an idea of the difference between scientists and celebrities giving interviews.
@@ivanleon6164 They are absolutely revolutionizing. They give answers to things like consciousness. Those lab rats only reduce the question without any answer and dismiss it. Doctors like Sam Parnia will be viewed as heroes like Galileo in the future
Yes, perfect analogy. We are beginning to lift the curtain. I am already there. That’s where I live. It’s why I don’t fit in anywhere currently. I am here to make a world where I fit in. Who am I? I am the future. ❤️🔥♾
Consciousness existing after someone is brain dead is only a complete contradiction if you think consciousness emerges from the brain. Which is quite an assumption to make. I hope they do prove this, so that we can move on into a time where we fully realize that the brain is a conveyor of consciousness and not the producer of consciousness.
@@TheBookofBeasts Patricia smith churchland, a neuro scientist , is extremely negative and dismissive theoretical physicist ,brian green and even some philosophers the enduro scientist susan greenfeild however very respectful and open minded and a real breath of fresh air against the arrogance she has been doing some wonderful cutting edge research and has yielded some really interesting insights thanks for your reply
I love how hard Sam is working to find the answer only if their was more people like him and I believe we would find the answer much sooner or get really close to it one question I have we all want to meet our loved ones specially our parents so if their is life after death obviously we will want to meet our parents and our parents meet their parents and their parents their parents and so on and they all would want us to meet each other and it will probably go all the way down to the first 2 people on earth so how would that work that's one thing I'm wondering alot
I think we will have enough time to meet every loved ones since time doesn't perform in the beyond in the same way it does in our dimension. So our parents have already met their parents before we get there and when we join them they will have already spent "time" with their parents and will then be able to spend time with us. Or the law of physics is different in beyond. Each of our souls can be surrounded by people/souls they love most. You with your parents and your children. Your parents with you and their patents and so on. I think meet our loved ones as you explained would not be an issue in beyond. Maybe when we see our loved ones we dont have the desire to spend a long time with them as we would in this world. Maybe we will just meet them enough to ease our pain and sorrow and then they move on to another stage of their soulful development
There is only one universal mind, and it is all of us. Consider your ego and everyone's else just a passing wind, a momentary reflection on the water, a dream. So, you and your parents and their parents are the same incomprensible eternal being. You'll meet them when you meet yourself
The cells in the brain don't die immediately because of cardiac arrest. We are a colony of cellular life that has a momentum of its own. Perhaps they need to take a look at their definition of "death".
@@tpog1 One other thing that comes to mind is the fact that the brain regains functioning at some point during the revival process. There is no conceivable way for an individual to know exactly when it was that he was conscious during the interim between his "death" and revival. It could easily be the same as regaining waking consciousness from deep sleep. Who knows when, during the process, all this sense of conscious activity was really happening...?
He said that people recorded memories when the brain flatlined meaning no cerebral activity. We also don't know which or if cells create consciousness... People's heart stop beating but cells don't die there immediately that doesn't mean your blood keeps flowing.
@@EnedXhindole Cells don't die immediately just because you cut off their food supply. So how do you know they recorded memories when their brain was "flatlining" as opposed to when it started up again? It had to have restarted at some point or no one would be talking about this. The individual would have to have been the one to report experiencing something memorable. Also, I might add that if memory is functioning the brain is not "flatlined".
@@wthomas7955 Again this all comes to whether consciousness is created from the brain or not. Their brain might've flatline but that doesn't mean consciousness ceases to exist. We don't know. Yes the cells inside brains don't immediately die but we don't know what role they play in consciousness.
Mankind has created many religions over the centuries trying to understand conciousness, as an atheist pantheist i would say that there is a big possibility that conciousness is fundamental and primordial and the brains similar to tv sets are channeling conciousness
When the questioner says “I don’t believe that” in reference to an NDE happening during flatlining then he is already biased as a materialist. So, are you really looking for THE truth or just confirmation of YOUR truth. Ask former materialist-now believer in unified consciousness neurologist Eben Alexander. Tell him is there is no consciousness after death.
He is wrong either way, if the brain doesn't function, it can't perform any of those actions he suggested. Even of brains could be some sort of receiver, monitoring function was obviously not damaged by brain death. The most important question is what do we mean by death, cells are not like switches, can't simply turn on or off, they're living molecular organisms. They can't just all die at the same time, because flow of fluids has stopped. Cells depend on chemical potentials of molecules, once they're exhausted, molecular structure begins to fall apart. Nothing in this universe can make molecules come together again and rebuild decayed structures. But if cells get reanimated in time, they would probably establish similar chemical connections with other cells as before, so biological functions and consciousness also gets restored. And brains probably devise some sort of authentic impression of events during coma, trying to make some sense of what has happened with the body in the meanwhile. Those after life experiences sounds much like nightmares, people describe them as dreams. They have s strong sensation their mind experienced something special, so they reinforce those delusions and come up with pretty stories, except they were not really dead yet. It's interesting to know how resilient organs brains are, neurons are probably the most durable cells we have in our body, consciousness is obviously not so fragile and subtle as we might think.
I thought similar to you Also cardiac arrest and resuscitation are commonly within a very short time interval so I am having a very hard time with certainty that brain cells/ neurons would be completely 'dead'
@@mudmonkeymagic I'm really not a medical expert, but i think hearth cells are not that durable, at least not all. Some organs grow much slower than others, meaning cell molecules doesn't change so often. Does this mean molecular bonds stay in place most of the time, that's a tricky question. Probably not, since brains need oxygen to release chemical potentials delivered to cells with food, to do the thinking. Except if brain cells are somehow more robust, meant to burn calories inside their structure, but maintain their envelope mostly intact. Parnia mentioned something interesting, if they tried reanimation after some period of time, brains got swollen, and it took longer for the patient to regain consciousness. This inflammation of a brain tissues could be an indicator of cell durability, if compared with cells from other organs. When the body dies, cells can't push fluids around, some melt away and other stay connected with stronger molecular bonds. Those can be kick-started, probably because their structure is still solid enough. Obviously all cells are not equal, bones decay much slower than complicated and subtle structure in internal organs, for example. Anyway, can't revive only brains, entire body must still be functional, or brains doesn't receive appropriate materials and more importantly, vital signals from the rest of organs. He did mention they tempered with patient functions, it seems sensation of a very painful shock is an important part of reanimation.
@@t-5004 Don't understand what you meant to say with your comment, but what you described is a nonsense, of course all chemical processes end with decay of the entire system.
@@mudmonkeymagic even if brain cells were not completely dead, this does not explain how people have ultra lucid awareness (NDE) during a cardiac arrest . you need a fully functioning brain in order to have lucid awareness.
@@DaP84 he basically said that when you plug out parts of the tv you lose that function from what the tv is doing. for example if you removed the sound connection. So if someone loses the part of their brain that controls sound it’s not that their brain produced that conscious ability it’s just that mechanism Is gone.
Interesting video. Personally I like the idea that the brain channels consciousness. It’s like the wind in the trees. We may study the movement of the leaves, but that tells us nothing about the wind itself.
@@thedudegrowsfood284 thanks, it was my realisation after studying for a psychology degree, trying to learn more about consciousness. In addition, the problem is the scientific empirical method isn’t suitable for studying consciousness because we can’t observe it with our senses, similar to that invisible wind in the trees but even less visible. Scientists make elaborate models to measure the movement of the leaves but cannot measure the wind itself.
@@david.thomas.108 they can measure the wind with instruments thats easy ,in terms of empirical evidence they can observe and measure brain function but they carts see the objective experience
Still desperately clinging to the old materialistic explanation. He’s afraid of being punished in some capacity by the establishment. He also avoided telling of things people see, hear, and witness out of body which directly contradict any materialistic conclusion. I prefer physicians that have the courage to follow the data and/or admit they don’t know. He has ZERO evidence for his final claim yet sticks to the “safe route” to protect his professional standing.
Interesting analogy of electromagnetic waves and TV suggesting we humans are unique receivers of consciousness. I wonder if we are more like a mobile phone that is both receiving and transmitting consciousness at the same time. Extending that analogy, may be other living beings are also transreceivers of consciousness but working at a different levels or frequencies.
Yeah, might as well add a transmitter and some entity or other that is originating all the content to the equation. Makes a lot of sense. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA! Ridiculous.
I suppose this is possible but it just seems to kick the consciousness can down the road. If the matter in our crania is just a receiver of consciousness from some outside source, what is generating the consciousness in this outside source? Or is that source just serving as an intermediate (analogous to ham radio repeater)? Is there some hypothesis for the origin of this signal or is it turtles all the way down?
@@wthomas7955 Well, a lot of things are possible. But that doesn't mean that I give all possibilities the same credence. Some are just more plausible, or have more compelling explanations, than others. Personally I find this proposal to be more woo woo than reason; but I suppose it _is_ possible. As a biochemist by training and trade, I don't find it overly astounding that consciousness is an emergent property of biochemical and biophysical processes. At a simple level, one might consider the motility of a bacterium towards a glucose gradient as consciousness. This can be understood from the cascade of signals initiated by glucose receptor in the cell surface.
Swami Sarvapriyananda has a lot of talks about consciousness and Sam Parnias research is supporting the vedantic point of view, that consciousness is fundamental, not produced by brain.
I agree but he isnt in belief that there is some afterlife on the other side either. The tests he did in the hospital with the images would have confirmed if people were seeing real time.
Consciousness is not the self. That is the "personality". Consciousness is the phenomena that allows a self to experience the self, to experience the visual experience. To experience.
6:00 "if that was true - I don't believe that"... As a scientist, you don't have to "believe" or "disbelieve" anything. You have to be open-minded enough to contemplate and investigate all possibilities. Such is supposed to be the mentality of a scientist, not the mentality that comes out of a belief system. If you start by believing something, you started already from a huge mistake, for you're starting already biased.
It's one thing for a scientist to posit that she believes something, it's a very different thing to say that she doesn't believe something; the difference is in the burden of proof. When scientists indicate that they don't believe something, they're usually suggesting that there is insufficient evidence for the positive claim, which should be the default position.
@@PrateekLala you didn’t get my core point: beliefs have to be out of the equation as much as possible, especially when we can test the hypothesis and gather data. Parnia is an excellent example of that as he says: “I’m not interested in my own opinion”. Aside that, it looks like you’re romanticizing scientists. Usually what happens is the opposite of what you say, I mean, they usually (usually, but not always...) don’t dismiss a hypothesis because of the lack of evidence. They do it because of their strong beliefs and resistance to change their paradigm. Their beliefs lead them to bypass the strong body of evidence or dismiss it as bs, even without reading or trying to replicate the experiments (crisis of lack of replication is a big issue in science). There are innumerable examples of all that in the history of science. Refusal of the scientific community to accept Darwin’s huge work, refusal of Einstein to accept the evidence of quantum mechanics (“god doesn’t play dice”) etc. Unfortunately, the scientists’ ego play a large role in the evolvement of science and that’s why we move slowly forward.
Sam Parnia always keeps such a level head during interviews, even when the person interviewing is sighing and acting really unprofessional. I appreciate him so much.
I noticed that also. I thought Kuhn was trying to belittle Parnia by calling it hypothesis and beliefs rather than the solid documented instances of NDE's. Parnia was just relaying fact and Kuhn kept trying to portray it as beliefs. I thought Kuhn was borderline disrespectful to Parnia and find it disturbing!
Great interview.. I've certainly said this before, but if we change the verbiage from consciousness to awareness, much of the mystery tends to vanish.. all animals have varying degrees of awareness, and awareness is critical to survival hence it's selection by the natural pressures of evolution...Peace.
You 're totally right, that awareness is key to survival and higher awareness has evolutionary benefits. However it still doesn't answer the question of the video: did brains evolve to produce higher awarness or did brains evolve to better utilize the awarness, that is out there.
Yup. Humans developed this higher awareness to compensate for the fact that we have vulnerable bodies compared to other animals. It gave us an evolutionary edge to stop our species from going extinct. There's really nothing "mysterious" about it.
@@gergelyszekely9778 Thanks for the reply.. In my humble opinion, Brains evolved for DECODING information (I can expand there) from the environment in the effort to FIND food, and avoid becoming food.. Whether it's the simplest worm with only 300 neurons and very LITTLE awareness of it's environment, or higher primates like ourselves, the brain is all about situational awareness.. The current social meme of the so-called hard problem of consciousness, MAY predominantly apply to philosophers..
@@dancharles6009 I'll expand a LITTLE on the decoding thing anyway.. ALL information is solely carried on either particles or waves..No other way..Brains evolved to decode that existant information, nothing more .
Australia is fake, made up by the dark bringers fish folks of Tegstasias. So we believe in a sphere earth. Only when you taste the red thought, you will be free.
Where is an experience even being recorded if the brain isn't firing any synapses. Gtfoh lol Why are all you people acting as if that makes any sense at all
Philosophically I think anything that processes information processes it for the sake of something apart from itself . The eyes process light for the sake of the brain . The brain made up of the same material (flesh ) as the eyes processes information most likely for the sake of something else behind it , unless we are to believe that all the information in the universe terminates into the cerebellum or that the brain is the living embodiment of all information. I also think there’s a difference between consciousness, and the conscious link With others
@TheDirtyDeDerShow neural plasticity shows that the brain physically changes as a result of abstract learning and ideas. Whether thinking about the past or the future, the brain physically changes as a reaction to something that doesn’t even exist at the moment. What this shows us is that the physical material of the brain is reactive to immaterial abstractions beyond space and time, - the stuff which consciousness is made of. As far as instinct, awareness is the highest order of consciousness. What “we “ call consciousness is simply processing already learned concepts. But at the level of awareness we know the truth of everything, and that which is left over from conceptual awareness is what we call “ gut instinct”
@TheDirtyDeDerShow i’m an undergrad studying psychology and I must say I’ve always thought about this but never really heard anyone talking about it I agree with you, the information is stored in DNA, genetics, the brain comes after, first the information comes from DNA, but at the same time the brain can change due to outside information and that can also affect future generations, so in a way the genes and the brain go back and fourth, so one might say that awareness is everywhere on the body, not just on the brain
@TheDirtyDeDerShow I stand corrected, even consulted a professor, some language barriers and misunderstandings from my part have made me jump to a wrong conclusion. what’s coded in DNA is simply instructions on how to make specific proteins. instincts seems to be an emergent property, not fundamental, and also currently psychology avoids using the term “instincts” on humans, seeing more appropriate for animal behavior
I don’t agree with Sam at all. What makes me me and Sam Sam are our different attributes, opinions, fear, desires, etc.. Consciousness is common to both of us and exactly the same in everyone. However, he makes a great point about the fact that brain and consciousness which while they usually appear to be intimately connected are not necessarily so. In fact, I think that the brain might be intimately connected with the differences which make us different rather than the one thing which makes us all the same.
Parnia 9:53 "We don't have the tools..." No direct detection of Consciousness but its effects are discernible. Global Consciousness PROJECT Roger Nelson Princeton PEAR lab, IONS, Dean Radin, William Tiller, et al. IONS/Radin 6- Σ results. Z-Score.
@@francesco5581 Death is an arbitrary definition in medicine. In fact Parnia believes that death is a process rather than an event ( that takes more than 8 hours). So there is no such thing as a person alive at 20:01 and dead at 20:02. The whole death definition is an arbitrary definition by physicians that keeps changing according to our current knowledge. The whole "the brain flatlined" thing is just speculation. Parnia is using EEG electrodes during the intervals of resuscitation when they check for pulse ( because there are artifacts during chest resuscitation) that just check for basic cortical activity. We cannot put a patient in cardiac arrest in the fMRI scanner and see if there are areas of activity . So resuscitation and death are misnomers that we use to make our job easier.
@@Lalakis On that i totally agree and the process is well known if one believes that there isnt anything "after". But since we are talking at the possibility of an "after" then this process is unknown in many parts and so the "death" sentence assume totally different meanings and a totally different timing process. But in any case is a return from a process that would have lead to a "not return point"... But where that point is and where will be in 500 years is hard to say.
@@lamidom sleep and waking kinda go hand in hand. If you don’t wake,: you’re dead. Sleep and death are no where near the same thing. Are you really asking this?
Aatmiya DIVINITY Be Blessed HARE KRSNA Experience amazing Contentment hearing this talk and able to share personal views about the Brain/ Heart/Consequences/Cardiac Arrest... 1) Brain is a material energy structure having affinity for Consciousness. 2) Heart shutting or recovering to functioning is relating to the absence or presence of Consciousness 3) Consciousness facilitating material structures like brain, heart to perform their functions, no way brain, heart enable Consciousness 4) Thinking about the Consciousness existing indipendently is absolutely WRONG because it is omnipresent, omnscient, omnipotent, Irreducible, invisible, permanent and is occurring the entire universe space, time, matter, energy. We one and all are the creations of Universal Consciousness and matter. We are OF the Universe and We are IN the Universe 😊😊. Delightful to say, our entire loop relationship at this time, space and energy level is because we all are Conscious plus science/technology of communicating is functioning properly. Very respectfully Loving 💕🙏 ING You One and All DIVINE 💟
Cont. From previous post. Consciousness is a Combination and Coordination of the Resources for the Organisational/personal goals. RESOURCES are: - s) Spiritual Entity b) Material Energy I Am OK NO Matter What 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Per Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, I am That, you are That, the whole universe is That Pure Consciousness. The perception that objects are separate from each other is only a superficial appearance, AS Consciousness (the seamless Ocean of Sat-Chit-Ananda).
Is the brain the producer of consciousness or simply just the conveyor? … stay tuned to find out more after these brief messages. 👋HI! Are you _insert blank_ , tired of all the hassle? 😂ha
Perhaps if I publish the following a million times, these silly woo woo debates on consciousness might end: Kidneys filter. Brains think and process stimuli. Damage a kidney, see what happens, damage a brain, see what happens.
Consciousness becomes easy to understand when you realize that Consciousness is the Origin of everything. It is there in the Source, and in its rediscovery in the evolution.
Science predicts. If you know nothing about someone who has survived cardiac arrest except whether or not he/she had NDE, you can make an educated guess about survival within 30 days - confidence: p
''or is the brain simply a conveyor'' (that quote at the end of the video) ties into the last point, I'm going to fail badly at trying to make, but I'll try none the less, Your Spirit Mind, kicks in, the moment your Earthly Mind stops functioning due to physical death (even if only temporary due to Cardiac Arrest for example) but here is the more amazing realization, it's never non active, your spirit mind houses naturally your eternal identity, which comprises, your identity, your experiences, your memory's, etc..and it's always ''backing up'' your earthly brain/mind experiences, If this is hard to grasp for some of you, ask yourself this: Do Angels have body's? Do Angels have the ability to make decisions? Do Angles require a brain made largely of organic matter like a human being in order to ''think'' ? Consciousness at a minimum when properly put into context confirms as at a minimum the reality of a ''spirit body''
Parnia is very open and clear-minded. I like what he says, that consciousness “is a scientific entity and it most likely has some type of materiality, some sort of physicality except that it’s so subtle that we don’t yet have the tools to be able to measure it.” This is such a fine point that not many will consider it. But even neutrinos wouldn’t explain other NDE details. What if there is no physical, material explanation for consciousness? How would science come to that conclusion?
The Soul Q/ What is Consciousness? A/ The Soul Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled scientists and philosophers. I'm studying a RUclips video series on consciousness. Produced and narrated by Closer To The Truth, by some of the world's most intelligent scientists and philosophers in the world. They are trying to explain their view and their understanding of consciousness. Some think they know what they're talking about. I believe most of these philosophers and scientists are baffled by consciousness. It's simple. It's not consciousness. It's called the Soul. This is why they can't understand consciousness (the Soul). Many years ago when you died, you were pronounced dead. The patient's Soul leaves the body because the patient is pronounced dead. Today sometimes, a doctor can resuscitate a patient. The patient is brought back to life. And now, patience is talking about their experiences when they were dead. These patients are educated, people. Christians and atheists alike. If you are an atheist, you will call it consciousness. If you are a person of faith, you will call it the Soul. A person of faith has no trouble explaining the soul (consciousness.) ~ Norman Bliss
I don't consider NDE to be a conscious experience. I don't think there's any argument that consciousness is brought about by brain functions and that its neural area is crucial to the thought process. The only thing that anyone should be discussing is the feeling of being conscious - the qualia, the awareness of the color red, etc, what it's like to be a bat. NDEs are just memories - you can't say for sure that it is actually experienced because the dead person is unable to speak.
In revealed Vedic texts, consciousness is considered as the symptom of one's non-material soul. The non-material or spiritual spark of life is said to reside in the region of the heart, is microscopic in size, although undetectable by mundane instrumentation . The size in area, of the spiritual spark which animates the physical body from the heart, is said to be the size of 1/10,00th of the tip of a hair. It is a spark of spiritual energy emanated from source/spirit energy, like an individual photon radiated from the sun. The soul is said to be untouched by gross and subtle matter, although located in the region of the heart. The body is the field of activity for the soul, and the soul is the know-er of that field, but different from it - like the driver of a car is different from the car itself. Just as a car doesn't move independently, without the touch of the driver (unless the driver programs an automatic system - for all you Tesla owners), so the material body cannot move without the presence of it's spiritual energy source. Being non-material the soul is the energy source for the body's systems - located within the body but not of the body. Without the local presence of the soul, the body ceases to function; at that time the soul moves on. The subtle mental body and gross physical body are like a shirt and jacket covering the actual person, or soul As for Robert's question, yes, the soul does exist outside of the brain actually always, not just during a nde. This is because it is non-material, inherently, and not produced by the brain. The soul is the know-er of the body as it's field of activity, and when circumstances dictate, the soul leaves the region of the heart and body, at which time bodily functions cease fairly quickly. The soul, and it's partner consciousness can have awareness at various stages of the death process, or even re-enter a viable body even if the soul had moved out from the body for a short time. This is all possible because there is a second "knower" in each body, accompanying each soul in each heart; an expansion of Godhead known as the Supersoul or Paramatma, that travels as the guide, friend and witness of each soul's journey through matter and the greater universe. Please note: I'm here to present rather than debate, what is outlined in the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita - an ancient Sanskrit text which overall describes the topics of Godhead, the individual soul, material nature, time and actions (karma). If you are looking for proof, it will be found in your own heart, through sincere inquiry and even an ounce of faith that a benevolent Godhead exists, who can reveal Himself from within anyone's heart. If your faith is in only limited mundane science, surely you will get only get limited mundane science as your result.
I think whatever consciousness might actually be, needs to be viewed within the context of whatever the ''truest model of mankind's anatomy actually is'' I know that's a mouthful, and unfortunately that statement if true won't necessarily make things more clear for the vast majority of you, but be that as it may, the best philosophical and scientific evidence about what mankind's anatomy is, hinted at in various passages of the Bible, most specifically : Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints ... In other words, the role and basis for consciousness itself lies in cooperation with the ''soul and spirit'', (for many theologians and scholars even, the exact differences of soul and spirit in the human condition, are not universally agreed upon, ) but one thing for certain in my opinion and in the opinion of the most informed, is that , it's more reasonable to conclude, the Bible is teaching mankind, both a unique soul and spirit, and in this context and from this perspective, the mystery of consciousness is unraveled, (In other words if mankind is really a spiritual being, there is going to be a limit in explanation, from material science in the first place, on the origin and role of consciousness.
I think that there's a problem with the definition of death. Apparently, by this doctor's testimony, the heart stopping and the machines that measure brain activity flat-lining is not a sufficient condition to declare death and that there is a problem with our measurement devices and our definitions of death. I'm not a medical doctor or a neuroscientist, but my definition of death includes not being able to be revived. I don't believe that any living person has ever been dead. I'm not arguing anyone's religious beliefs. Those are a separate issue.
It is only a mystery if you insist the brain has "shut down"...when it has not actually not shut down. Occam's razor is unavoidable: "brain is flatlined" is not an accurate assessment...you just don't have the technology to measure its activity accurately. So Don't jump to metaphysical conclusions...just accept that the brain has NOT shut down when you say it has and get a more realistic understanding of what that temporary, transitional state of function, is.
I don't think the brain is dead during a (prolonged) cardiac arrest: It is deprived of oxygen and perhaps the EEG is flat, but invasive electrophysiological recordings show (pathological) brain activity for a long time after a cardiac arrest (or decapitation as is done with laboratory mice). If the brain were really dead, it couldn't recover.
Before Greeks, Indians had already answered this question. West never acknowledge this. We Indians always believed that this body is just a wrapper for the atma or soul or consciousness which never dies and is eternal but only changes its clothing every birth.
Scientists are hilarious.. so how would patients recall in theatre detail.. if they clinically dead? This Neuroscientist still stubbornly refusing to accept that as evidence 😂
At minute 5 of conversation, it would have been more helpful for the audience for the anecdotal and yes even clinical testimonials to be shared concerning, ''supernatural awareness of clinically dead individuals'' For example, there is no scientific explanation to explain, how minutes can go by when someone is clinically dead, and that individual upon being revived back to ''earthly life'' returns with memory's not just of what's occurring in there immediate location, but also knowledge of what was happenning simultaneous as there moment of death, in other rooms at the hospital, or outside the hospital at great distances, as they're non earthly identity travels to far off location's and even hears and remember's conversation's at these distant locations. (Everything I'm saying or trying to say is well documented , but buried in the scientific literature of the Near Death Experience testimony's of thousands of people at this point) (but you have dig a little to find these ''over the top truly rare and unexplainable Near Death Experiences'' (but they are there if you have the courage and make time to look for yourself)
Does the brain produce consciousness, or is it simply the conveyer of it? I liken Consciousness to WiFi, and the Router which receives it, the mechanism which processes it in the mind/brain, giving one the illusion the brain creates the concsiousness.
CIA and monroe institute have studied about conciousness for a while with a project known as gateway process. It explains consciousness that the world around you is all nothing mire than frequencies and we are all apart of the phenomenon known as the absolute. The brain is just a biological device to experience 3rd density when reality is conciousness is apart of a force known as the absolute. We are all god experiencing life from different views. Best way to put it, God is rediscovering who he is while in actuality this is actually done unconsciously until we all rediscover who we actually are and find our way back to the source.
I have a friend, a "water baby", he has an extremely small brain but he has a very high IQ. How does science explain something like this with their narrow materialistic bias .
Another medical doctor proving my prejudice that they are rarely good scientists; something about the memorizing and belief in group think that limits their critical thinking. 2:06 "there is no difference in cardiac arrest and death from a biological viewpoint" is belief in medical mantra. The heart can stop and the brain lives until its lack of oxygen destroys brain cells.
Consciousness is not what makes me me. Consciousness is the condition by which I can become me through my own particular experiences. Everyone has consciousness, and a science would give a story about consciousness by describing aspects that we all share as conscious people.
The guy says he's not making claims, but then goes on to say he's got anecdotal evidence and even found it occuring in his own tests @6.48 So he is making a claim, right? Why is he on the fence about it and at the same time saying he has seen it. I'm with the host, I don't believe there is evidence and while the guy talks well he's ambiguous on the fundamental issue.
I have read that there is a hypothesis that our consciousness may be generated at the subatomic level, as a result of quantum physics. To test this hypothesis out, technology needs to advance quite a bit further. Right now, the LHC can not measure the quantum reactions in the brain. Maybe, an advance technology of the NeuraLink type, might start to answer this question.
Or it could me that YOU are NOT your body and there is in fact an immaterial aspect to, at least, human life. What could be an eternal soul. But if one has an a priori commitment to what amounts to materialistic naturalism, then you've ruled out such a conclusion before you start investigating. Which could be an assumption that leads you away from Truth, rather than closer to it. Just a thought...
Be very very skeptical. Most of the comments show a belief in consiousness apart from the brain/body without any proof. Some want this so bad they see it as proof they will meet their love ones who are long dead. The mind is what the brain does and when you are dead dead you are really dead forever, get over it and live the only life you will ever have.
I think it's the latter...that like a t.v. set, our brains r conveyors of consciousness. As a very young child, I used to ask my parents all these mind boggling questions. I believe these thoughts came from outside of my cognition. From another place & time!
You're critique is brilliant! No counterargument, no alternative explanations, just ad hominem attack. Scientists will be studying this comment for centuries to come
L Ron H / Wouldn't you want from me the correct solution in creating the full artificial consciuosness? I am very sure that you also want my dog's name and my shoes size. Is this the way you do it in scientology?🤣 / ............................... Don't worry! I will soon give for free to the whole world the correct information on how to create the full artificial consciuosness. I'm not joking. When I'll do it, you will understand why I make this kind of comments. It is because I know exactly what I'm talking about; more precisely said, I know where the thinking errors are made by these lousy "talkers and thinkers".
What does he mean by the brain has "shut down"? how does he know it has shut down completely? There is probably some neural activity going on after the heart has stopped.
This premise is logically wrong, we carry no memories from before birth, so how can consciousness exist post mortem.? I would love to believe, but logic is logic .
Only problem with Sam's outlook that I can see is the definition of death. He goes by the traditional view of what death is and assumes that we can't carry over any information from a flatlined brain. It just be that death needs to be refined to the point where cells in the brain are so badly damaged that they can no longer be repaired and that even in the currently defined state of death we might need to accept that the body is still capable of consciousness. By pushing death back a little further materialists can keep their belief that consciousness is generated by body.
Two different TVs can tune into the same channel at the sane time, but each brain only plays back it’s own unique “channel”. Researchers can record the brain patterns when a rat run a maze, and see the same pattern again when the rat dreams. Thought and brain seem to be an integrated system to me, emergent from millions of years of evolution.
Fascinating topic. Love the discussion.
There needs to be discussion on ‘blackout drunk’ somewhere in here.
Blackout drunk is like when you interfere with a radio so that the music can't be heard.
That might be a memory thing, but still worth discussion.
Is there any difference between ‘blackout drunk’ and dreamless sleeping
except the nature of the before and after?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL i think everyone dreams at all times, but forgets the experience upon awakening.
@@Dion_Mustard Possibly, but I doubt it because
when researchers monitoring sleeping subjects awaken them
and ask if they were dreaming,
the subjects always say yes
when certain patterns of neural behavior are present
and always say no
when those patterns are absent.
I think we forget our dreams because evolution has designed us
to avoid accumulating meaningless debris that comes into being
as a side effect of the process in which all the thoughts in our memory
are adjusted to accommodate the day's experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if that process, which involves an immense amount of comparison and evaluation, discards most short term memory that is mundane, of little or no significance.
And I suspect that if the process detects something that, for example, bears strongly on survival or seems of great significance, then the process might trigger creation of a memory that will persist until the sleeper again becomes conscious to then perceive that memory as a dream.
Kekulé's discovery of the structure of benzene came from pondering his dream of a snake looking like a ring because it was eating its tail . (Google Kekulé to get the story).
thank you for the work you are doing Sam Parnia!
This man is so straight to the point... Wow. Makes us understand what he clearly meant.
NDE'S are real
@@williamburts5495 yes
@@williamburts5495 Nobody says they are not real. In fact they are so real we can stimulate the temporoparietal junction of the brain in order to reproduce them.
ok, so what is it that you really understood from the doctor? Does the soul exist? Is consciousness a product of the soul? The anchor of this show seems not to accept that concept, if it can not be proved by science, law of physics or whatever he will not accept that concept. I guess he will have to wait until someone invent a scanning machine capable of recording the soul.
@@Lalakis That's actually not true. When people talk about "reproducing NDEs," what they really mean is that they can stimulate the brain in such a way as to reproduce certain aspects that people report in an NDE, but not the experience itself.
The *really* deep and profound NDEs, the ones that people report taking them to an entirely different plane of reality (or however you wish to interpret it) are in a class all their own.
So that we can reproduce certain aspects of the NDE isn't actually all that strange at all. If the brain's acting as a receiver for a consciousness that exists *outside* the physical brain, then toying around w/ it to reproduce certain extraordinary experiences is no more fantastical than using psychedelics.
Very interesting topics and questions on this channel.
Fine with a skilled researcher, Sam Parnia, who has results, so there is something to relate to.
From NDE, cardiac arrest, we know that people see and hear what is going on during the operation, but it is not possible for the patient to communicate with those who operate while they are clinically dead.
Another factor several patients report, during clinical death, is that they also record what the surgical team thinks. Consciousness, during clinical death, is in a way both limited, but also very extended to something we cannot explain.
The tv analogy was perfect
I find it weak. A TV may be damaged but not the shows it presents, else they would appear damaged on other TV sets. A damaged brain however entails a damaged mind, which for each mind has only one outlet (if the analogy holds at all) and that is the brain it is otherwise associated with.
Indeed .. good analogy
For kids sure...For anyone knowing neuroanatomy and neurophysiology nope. And he is a cardiologist/icu doctor not a neuroscientist.
@@Lalakis yep; everyone can be part of the dialectic but not everyone who is, contributes.
We all would love that solution. Im inclined to think that essential parts of brain/counciousness work some minutes after heart stops beating. Dolphins are sentient yet I dont think they fear the end as much as we do.
This question has baffled the most brilliant of minds for thousands of years, yet every person who leaves a comment on a CTT video somehow has the answer!
"Brilliant minds"? Like old l. ron hubbard?
Consciousness is a materialistic dualism of the quantum cortex, therefore we postulate that it is an ambiguously inept emergence of self. The preceding sentence clearly defines consciousness...I GOTS NO IDEA MANNNNN🤷♀️😂😜🤷♂️. Brilliant!😎
@@wthomas7955 it's a joke, not a dick. Don't take it so hard
@@l.ronhubbard5445 You're the one who seems to be concerned with being misconstrued. Maybe you and xenu should come up with another handle if it makes you that uncomfortable.
@@wthomas7955 no u
Consciousness is fundamental. Every thing is an appearance in consciousness. That's ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta stated. Subject can't appear from object.
I'd love to see Sam and Donald Hoffman have a conversation or be on the same panel, they are revolutionizing how we perceive consciousness.
I love how humble and open minded the people that are exploring this area are. Most materialist reductionists are so full of pomp and arrogance it’s hard to listen to them.
@@nahbro5369 that's just your cognitive bias. Most people really want to believe that their "heart will go on" long after their body dies.
@Boris M. Emearia "larping"? Haha. Wishful thinking. That's all it is.
they arent rovolutionizing anything, they are just in youtube, the real people revolutionizing are in the labs, just check who wins Nobel Prizes and you will have an idea of the difference between scientists and celebrities giving interviews.
@@ivanleon6164
They are absolutely revolutionizing. They give answers to things like consciousness. Those lab rats only reduce the question without any answer and dismiss it. Doctors like Sam Parnia will be viewed as heroes like Galileo in the future
A REAL scientist. He follows the evidence not the dogma of the day.
Yes, perfect analogy. We are beginning to lift the curtain. I am already there. That’s where I live. It’s why I don’t fit in anywhere currently. I am here to make a world where I fit in. Who am I? I am the future. ❤️🔥♾
Consciousness existing after someone is brain dead is only a complete contradiction if you think consciousness emerges from the brain. Which is quite an assumption to make.
I hope they do prove this, so that we can move on into a time where we fully realize that the brain is a conveyor of consciousness and not the producer of consciousness.
Yes, it is the means to experience conciousness not the producer of it. A reciever that filters it through our own experiences.
their be alot in the scientific community opposing acceptance of that
@@chrisbennett6260 There are scientists for and against this idea and scientists can’t prove it or disprove it in anyway.
@@TheBookofBeasts Patricia smith churchland, a neuro scientist , is extremely negative and dismissive theoretical physicist ,brian green and even some philosophers
the enduro scientist
susan greenfeild however very respectful and open minded and a real breath of fresh air against the arrogance
she has been doing some wonderful cutting edge research and has yielded some really interesting insights
thanks for your reply
@@chrisbennett6260 I will look her up.
I love how hard Sam is working to find the answer only if their was more people like him and I believe we would find the answer much sooner or get really close to it one question I have we all want to meet our loved ones specially our parents so if their is life after death obviously we will want to meet our parents and our parents meet their parents and their parents their parents and so on and they all would want us to meet each other and it will probably go all the way down to the first 2 people on earth so how would that work that's one thing I'm wondering alot
I think we will have enough time to meet every loved ones since time doesn't perform in the beyond in the same way it does in our dimension. So our parents have already met their parents before we get there and when we join them they will have already spent "time" with their parents and will then be able to spend time with us. Or the law of physics is different in beyond. Each of our souls can be surrounded by people/souls they love most. You with your parents and your children. Your parents with you and their patents and so on. I think meet our loved ones as you explained would not be an issue in beyond. Maybe when we see our loved ones we dont have the desire to spend a long time with them as we would in this world. Maybe we will just meet them enough to ease our pain and sorrow and then they move on to another stage of their soulful development
There is only one universal mind, and it is all of us. Consider your ego and everyone's else just a passing wind, a momentary reflection on the water, a dream. So, you and your parents and their parents are the same incomprensible eternal being. You'll meet them when you meet yourself
The cells in the brain don't die immediately because of cardiac arrest. We are a colony of cellular life that has a momentum of its own. Perhaps they need to take a look at their definition of "death".
Exactly my thoughts.
@@tpog1 One other thing that comes to mind is the fact that the brain regains functioning at some point during the revival process. There is no conceivable way for an individual to know exactly when it was that he was conscious during the interim between his "death" and revival. It could easily be the same as regaining waking consciousness from deep sleep. Who knows when, during the process, all this sense of conscious activity was really happening...?
He said that people recorded memories when the brain flatlined meaning no cerebral activity. We also don't know which or if cells create consciousness... People's heart stop beating but cells don't die there immediately that doesn't mean your blood keeps flowing.
@@EnedXhindole Cells don't die immediately just because you cut off their food supply. So how do you know they recorded memories when their brain was "flatlining" as opposed to when it started up again? It had to have restarted at some point or no one would be talking about this. The individual would have to have been the one to report experiencing something memorable. Also, I might add that if memory is functioning the brain is not "flatlined".
@@wthomas7955 Again this all comes to whether consciousness is created from the brain or not. Their brain might've flatline but that doesn't mean consciousness ceases to exist. We don't know. Yes the cells inside brains don't immediately die but we don't know what role they play in consciousness.
Consciousness is in not killing innocent animals for our sensory pleasure.
Or killing and torturing innocent animals to conduct “science” because as materialists we are so deathly afraid of our own mortality.
Tell that to taliban,isis poslems and their stone age cult.
@@shadowoffire4307 not clear what your point is.
Mankind has created many religions over the centuries trying to understand conciousness, as an atheist pantheist i would say that there is a big possibility that conciousness is fundamental and primordial and the brains similar to tv sets are channeling conciousness
I really love this intellectually honest discussions. It's very rare among all this crap on YT. Bravo!
Either dualism or our brain is so damn sophisticated that it can contain consciousness in it. Both end are the reason to be grateful to be who are.
When the questioner says “I don’t believe that” in reference to an NDE happening during flatlining then he is already biased as a materialist. So, are you really looking for THE truth or just confirmation of YOUR truth. Ask former materialist-now believer in unified consciousness neurologist Eben Alexander. Tell him is there is no consciousness after death.
He is wrong either way, if the brain doesn't function, it can't perform any of those actions he suggested. Even of brains could be some sort of receiver, monitoring function was obviously not damaged by brain death.
The most important question is what do we mean by death, cells are not like switches, can't simply turn on or off, they're living molecular organisms. They can't just all die at the same time, because flow of fluids has stopped. Cells depend on chemical potentials of molecules, once they're exhausted, molecular structure begins to fall apart. Nothing in this universe can make molecules come together again and rebuild decayed structures.
But if cells get reanimated in time, they would probably establish similar chemical connections with other cells as before, so biological functions and consciousness also gets restored. And brains probably devise some sort of authentic impression of events during coma, trying to make some sense of what has happened with the body in the meanwhile.
Those after life experiences sounds much like nightmares, people describe them as dreams. They have s strong sensation their mind experienced something special, so they reinforce those delusions and come up with pretty stories, except they were not really dead yet. It's interesting to know how resilient organs brains are, neurons are probably the most durable cells we have in our body, consciousness is obviously not so fragile and subtle as we might think.
I thought similar to you Also cardiac arrest and resuscitation are commonly within a very short time interval so I am having a very hard time with certainty that brain cells/ neurons would be completely 'dead'
@@mudmonkeymagic I'm really not a medical expert, but i think hearth cells are not that durable, at least not all. Some organs grow much slower than others, meaning cell molecules doesn't change so often. Does this mean molecular bonds stay in place most of the time, that's a tricky question. Probably not, since brains need oxygen to release chemical potentials delivered to cells with food, to do the thinking. Except if brain cells are somehow more robust, meant to burn calories inside their structure, but maintain their envelope mostly intact.
Parnia mentioned something interesting, if they tried reanimation after some period of time, brains got swollen, and it took longer for the patient to regain consciousness. This inflammation of a brain tissues could be an indicator of cell durability, if compared with cells from other organs. When the body dies, cells can't push fluids around, some melt away and other stay connected with stronger molecular bonds. Those can be kick-started, probably because their structure is still solid enough. Obviously all cells are not equal, bones decay much slower than complicated and subtle structure in internal organs, for example.
Anyway, can't revive only brains, entire body must still be functional, or brains doesn't receive appropriate materials and more importantly, vital signals from the rest of organs. He did mention they tempered with patient functions, it seems sensation of a very painful shock is an important part of reanimation.
@@t-5004 Don't understand what you meant to say with your comment, but what you described is a nonsense, of course all chemical processes end with decay of the entire system.
@@mudmonkeymagic even if brain cells were not completely dead, this does not explain how people have ultra lucid awareness (NDE) during a cardiac arrest . you need a fully functioning brain in order to have lucid awareness.
I agree with you Xspot box, my understanding is that consciousness can exist for up to 30 seconds after blood flow to the brain has ceased.
Awesome (plugging out the sound jacks on a tv analogy was perfect) that has always been my issue with the out of the brain model for consciousness.
Didn't catch that, could you elaborate further on the problem and your conclusion? Thanks
@@DaP84 he basically said that when you plug out parts of the tv you lose that function from what the tv is doing. for example if you removed the sound connection. So if someone loses the part of their brain that controls sound it’s not that their brain produced that conscious ability it’s just that mechanism
Is gone.
@@dueldab2117 ah, okay an analogy! Could mean either-or
Even if, Dr. Parnia said the brain can still be a conveyor as opposed to the producer of consciousness.
A great guest! Please bring him back for more conversation.
Interesting video. Personally I like the idea that the brain channels consciousness. It’s like the wind in the trees. We may study the movement of the leaves, but that tells us nothing about the wind itself.
I like that.
@@thedudegrowsfood284 thanks, it was my realisation after studying for a psychology degree, trying to learn more about consciousness.
In addition, the problem is the scientific empirical method isn’t suitable for studying consciousness because we can’t observe it with our senses, similar to that invisible wind in the trees but even less visible.
Scientists make elaborate models to measure the movement of the leaves but cannot measure the wind itself.
@@david.thomas.108 so much hubris in science
@@david.thomas.108 they can measure the wind with instruments thats easy ,in terms of empirical evidence they can observe and measure brain function but they carts see the objective experience
Still desperately clinging to the old materialistic explanation.
He’s afraid of being punished in some capacity by the establishment.
He also avoided telling of things people see, hear, and witness out of body which directly contradict any materialistic conclusion.
I prefer physicians that have the courage to follow the data and/or admit they don’t know.
He has ZERO evidence for his final claim yet sticks to the “safe route” to protect his professional standing.
Interesting analogy of electromagnetic waves and TV suggesting we humans are unique receivers of consciousness. I wonder if we are more like a mobile phone that is both receiving and transmitting consciousness at the same time. Extending that analogy, may be other living beings are also transreceivers of consciousness but working at a different levels or frequencies.
Absolutely correct
Yeah, might as well add a transmitter and some entity or other that is originating all the content to the equation. Makes a lot of sense. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA! Ridiculous.
I suppose this is possible but it just seems to kick the consciousness can down the road. If the matter in our crania is just a receiver of consciousness from some outside source, what is generating the consciousness in this outside source? Or is that source just serving as an intermediate (analogous to ham radio repeater)? Is there some hypothesis for the origin of this signal or is it turtles all the way down?
@@mikel5582 Do you really suppose this guy's theory is possible? Somehow I'm not convinced of that, heh, heh.
@@wthomas7955 Well, a lot of things are possible. But that doesn't mean that I give all possibilities the same credence. Some are just more plausible, or have more compelling explanations, than others. Personally I find this proposal to be more woo woo than reason; but I suppose it _is_ possible.
As a biochemist by training and trade, I don't find it overly astounding that consciousness is an emergent property of biochemical and biophysical processes. At a simple level, one might consider the motility of a bacterium towards a glucose gradient as consciousness. This can be understood from the cascade of signals initiated by glucose receptor in the cell surface.
Its not only when death occurs there is one more way it can occur. In very deep meditation the body shutsdown. Only consciousness can be felt.
Swami Sarvapriyananda has a lot of talks about consciousness and Sam Parnias research is supporting the vedantic point of view, that consciousness is fundamental, not produced by brain.
Whenever I read a 20 syllable hindu name of a "guru" I feel the urge to throw up. I wonder why is that.
@@Lalakis That's your problem. If you don't actually have an interest in metaphysics then why pretend that you do? Rhetorical question.
I agree but he isnt in belief that there is some afterlife on the other side either. The tests he did in the hospital with the images would have confirmed if people were seeing real time.
Do people always remember their dreams ? No. Why then, should everybody remember experiences when «dead».
The brain is the voice of your soul/consciousness
So brain is just complex biological machine.. Right?
Consciousness is not the self. That is the "personality". Consciousness is the phenomena that allows a self to experience the self, to experience the visual experience. To experience.
Isn't that really splitting unnecessary hairs. There is no personality without consciousness
I have read Dr Parnia's books and highly recommend them.
I also read them and they were meh at best.
6:00 "if that was true - I don't believe that"...
As a scientist, you don't have to "believe" or "disbelieve" anything. You have to be open-minded enough to contemplate and investigate all possibilities. Such is supposed to be the mentality of a scientist, not the mentality that comes out of a belief system. If you start by believing something, you started already from a huge mistake, for you're starting already biased.
It's one thing for a scientist to posit that she believes something, it's a very different thing to say that she doesn't believe something; the difference is in the burden of proof. When scientists indicate that they don't believe something, they're usually suggesting that there is insufficient evidence for the positive claim, which should be the default position.
@@PrateekLala you didn’t get my core point: beliefs have to be out of the equation as much as possible, especially when we can test the hypothesis and gather data. Parnia is an excellent example of that as he says: “I’m not interested in my own opinion”.
Aside that, it looks like you’re romanticizing scientists. Usually what happens is the opposite of what you say, I mean, they usually (usually, but not always...) don’t dismiss a hypothesis because of the lack of evidence. They do it because of their strong beliefs and resistance to change their paradigm. Their beliefs lead them to bypass the strong body of evidence or dismiss it as bs, even without reading or trying to replicate the experiments (crisis of lack of replication is a big issue in science).
There are innumerable examples of all that in the history of science. Refusal of the scientific community to accept Darwin’s huge work, refusal of Einstein to accept the evidence of quantum mechanics (“god doesn’t play dice”) etc. Unfortunately, the scientists’ ego play a large role in the evolvement of science and that’s why we move slowly forward.
Sam Parnia always keeps such a level head during interviews, even when the person interviewing is sighing and acting really unprofessional. I appreciate him so much.
I noticed that also. I thought Kuhn was trying to belittle Parnia by calling it hypothesis and beliefs rather than the solid documented instances of NDE's. Parnia was just relaying fact and Kuhn kept trying to portray it as beliefs. I thought Kuhn was borderline disrespectful to Parnia and find it disturbing!
@@jimbo33 yep but he has to play detective and put the other side ,hes a materialist also by his own words a good 96 percent of them probabley are
Great interview.. I've certainly said this before, but if we change the verbiage from consciousness to awareness, much of the mystery tends to vanish.. all animals have varying degrees of awareness, and awareness is critical to survival hence it's selection by the natural pressures of evolution...Peace.
You 're totally right, that awareness is key to survival and higher awareness has evolutionary benefits. However it still doesn't answer the question of the video: did brains evolve to produce higher awarness or did brains evolve to better utilize the awarness, that is out there.
Yup. Humans developed this higher awareness to compensate for the fact that we have vulnerable bodies compared to other animals. It gave us an evolutionary edge to stop our species from going extinct. There's really nothing "mysterious" about it.
@@gergelyszekely9778 Thanks for the reply.. In my humble opinion, Brains evolved for DECODING information (I can expand there) from the environment in the effort to FIND food, and avoid becoming food.. Whether it's the simplest worm with only 300 neurons and very LITTLE awareness of it's environment, or higher primates like ourselves, the brain is all about situational awareness.. The current social meme of the so-called hard problem of consciousness, MAY predominantly apply to philosophers..
@@dancharles6009 A definite factor friend .
@@dancharles6009 I'll expand a LITTLE on the decoding thing anyway.. ALL information is solely carried on either particles or waves..No other way..Brains evolved to decode that existant information, nothing more .
TODAY (dez 2022) WE KNOW IT BETTER !!!
Consciousness is not describable
Consciousness is the one that describes everything
Everything is an illusion except consciousness
Shreek chinchilla / Are you...sure?😏😂
@@mikel4879 😆 damn fr*"n SURE
Read about Ramana Maharshi
Everything he’s said up to the 10:40 mark was great word salad!🤣🤣😎😎
Consciousness is Australia.
Australia is fake, made up by the dark bringers fish folks of Tegstasias. So we believe in a sphere earth.
Only when you taste the red thought, you will be free.
@@ShutUpWesley ruclips.net/video/06aktT8wGjk/видео.html
7:20 is my favourite segment. The way he breaks down what the resuscination process does to the brain is on point, and explains so much.
Maybe the best description I've heard yet
Where is an experience even being recorded if the brain isn't firing any synapses. Gtfoh lol
Why are all you people acting as if that makes any sense at all
That's the whole point of his argument
Philosophically I think anything that processes information processes it for the sake of something apart from itself . The eyes process light for the sake of the brain . The brain made up of the same material (flesh ) as the eyes processes information most likely for the sake of something else behind it , unless we are to believe that all the information in the universe terminates into the cerebellum or that the brain is the living embodiment of all information.
I also think there’s a difference between consciousness, and the conscious link With others
@TheDirtyDeDerShow neural plasticity shows that the brain physically changes as a result of abstract learning and ideas. Whether thinking about the past or the future, the brain physically changes as a reaction to something that doesn’t even exist at the moment. What this shows us is that the physical material of the brain is reactive to immaterial abstractions beyond space and time, - the stuff which consciousness is made of. As far as instinct, awareness is the highest order of consciousness. What “we “ call consciousness is simply processing already learned concepts. But at the level of awareness we know the truth of everything, and that which is left over from conceptual awareness is what we call “ gut instinct”
@TheDirtyDeDerShow is it that outlandish to believe inherited instincts stored in the DNA influencing the brain?
@TheDirtyDeDerShow i’m an undergrad studying psychology and I must say I’ve always thought about this but never really heard anyone talking about it
I agree with you, the information is stored in DNA, genetics, the brain comes after, first the information comes from DNA, but at the same time the brain can change due to outside information and that can also affect future generations, so in a way the genes and the brain go back and fourth, so one might say that awareness is everywhere on the body, not just on the brain
@TheDirtyDeDerShow It is widely accepted that instinct comes from information stored in DNA. There are countless scientific papers that back this up
@TheDirtyDeDerShow I stand corrected, even consulted a professor, some language barriers and misunderstandings from my part have made me jump to a wrong conclusion.
what’s coded in DNA is simply instructions on how to make specific proteins. instincts seems to be an emergent property, not fundamental, and also currently psychology avoids using the term “instincts” on humans, seeing more appropriate for animal behavior
Not only the content of the videos aré remarcable, every location Is aswell
Sam parnia...great admiration💫
Part of me wants to move to NYC and become friends with Sam, just in case I decide to die one day. This man might actually bring me back.
I don’t agree with Sam at all. What makes me me and Sam Sam are our different attributes, opinions, fear, desires, etc.. Consciousness is common to both of us and exactly the same in everyone.
However, he makes a great point about the fact that brain and consciousness which while they usually appear to be intimately connected are not necessarily so. In fact, I think that the brain might be intimately connected with the differences which make us different rather than the one thing which makes us all the same.
Producer or Conveyer?
This has cheered me up!
Parnia 9:53 "We don't have the tools..."
No direct detection of Consciousness but its effects are discernible. Global Consciousness PROJECT Roger Nelson Princeton PEAR lab, IONS, Dean Radin, William Tiller, et al.
IONS/Radin 6- Σ results. Z-Score.
If they are alive, they were never dead.
CPR = Cardiopulmonary RESUSCITATION. that name was give by medics.
@@francesco5581 Death is an arbitrary definition in medicine. In fact Parnia believes that death is a process rather than an event ( that takes more than 8 hours). So there is no such thing as a person alive at 20:01 and dead at 20:02. The whole death definition is an arbitrary definition by physicians that keeps changing according to our current knowledge.
The whole "the brain flatlined" thing is just speculation. Parnia is using EEG electrodes during the intervals of resuscitation when they check for pulse ( because there are artifacts during chest resuscitation) that just check for basic cortical activity. We cannot put a patient in cardiac arrest in the fMRI scanner and see if there are areas of activity .
So resuscitation and death are misnomers that we use to make our job easier.
@@Lalakis On that i totally agree and the process is well known if one believes that there isnt anything "after". But since we are talking at the possibility of an "after" then this process is unknown in many parts and so the "death" sentence assume totally different meanings and a totally different timing process. But in any case is a return from a process that would have lead to a "not return point"... But where that point is and where will be in 500 years is hard to say.
If you woke up this morning, you were never asleep? 🤔🙄
@@lamidom sleep and waking kinda go hand in hand. If you don’t wake,: you’re dead. Sleep and death are no where near the same thing. Are you really asking this?
I like the idea of tools capable of reading souls/ghosts/the afterlife being invented and used routinely by health professionals. Call me a romantic.
we receive our reality signals, but from where?
How silly.
Quantum Physics shows that matter is an illusion.
Consciousness creates reality.
We are the dreams that stuff is made of.
4 sentences. 4 mistakes. 100% failure rate.
Someone here has failed his/her quantum mechanics course lemme give you a hint his name starts with a J
Woo-woo with crystals in the background!
Who needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation when we have crystals?
Aatmiya DIVINITY
Be Blessed
HARE KRSNA
Experience amazing Contentment hearing this talk and able to share personal views about the Brain/ Heart/Consequences/Cardiac Arrest...
1) Brain is a material energy structure having affinity for Consciousness.
2) Heart shutting or recovering to functioning is relating to the absence or presence of Consciousness
3) Consciousness facilitating material structures like brain, heart to perform their functions, no way brain, heart enable Consciousness
4) Thinking about the Consciousness existing indipendently is absolutely WRONG because it is omnipresent, omnscient, omnipotent, Irreducible, invisible, permanent and is occurring the entire universe space, time, matter, energy. We one and all are the creations of Universal Consciousness and matter. We are OF the Universe and We are IN the Universe 😊😊.
Delightful to say, our entire loop relationship at this time, space and energy level is because we all are Conscious plus science/technology of communicating is functioning properly.
Very respectfully Loving 💕🙏 ING You One and All DIVINE 💟
Cont. From previous post.
Consciousness is a Combination and Coordination of the Resources for the Organisational/personal goals.
RESOURCES are: -
s) Spiritual Entity
b) Material Energy
I Am OK NO Matter What 😊😊😊❤❤❤
Per Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, I am That, you are That, the whole universe is That Pure Consciousness. The perception that objects are separate from each other is only a superficial appearance, AS Consciousness (the seamless Ocean of Sat-Chit-Ananda).
Is the brain the producer of consciousness or simply just the conveyor? … stay tuned to find out more after these brief messages. 👋HI! Are you _insert blank_ , tired of all the hassle?
😂ha
Perhaps if I publish the following a million times, these silly woo woo debates on consciousness might end:
Kidneys filter. Brains think and process stimuli. Damage a kidney, see what happens, damage a brain, see what happens.
Possibly the most thought provoking and level headed guest yet - and I've never missed an episode. Beautifully articulated.
Consciousness becomes easy to understand when you realize that Consciousness is the Origin of everything. It is there in the Source, and in its rediscovery in the evolution.
how can you realize consciousness is the origin of everything in the first place
@@zumaxex perhaps because everything that exists is consciousness. Actually the only thing that really exists is consciousness.
@@Lucmercurius well, that is currently just a theory
Science predicts. If you know nothing about someone who has survived cardiac arrest except whether or not he/she had NDE, you can make an educated guess about survival within 30 days - confidence: p
''or is the brain simply a conveyor'' (that quote at the end of the video) ties into the last point, I'm going to fail badly at trying to make, but I'll try none the less,
Your Spirit Mind, kicks in, the moment your Earthly Mind stops functioning due to physical death (even if only temporary due to Cardiac Arrest for example)
but here is the more amazing realization, it's never non active, your spirit mind houses naturally your eternal identity, which comprises, your identity, your experiences,
your memory's, etc..and it's always ''backing up'' your earthly brain/mind experiences,
If this is hard to grasp for some of you, ask yourself this: Do Angels have body's? Do Angels have the ability to make decisions? Do Angles require a brain made largely of
organic matter like a human being in order to ''think'' ?
Consciousness at a minimum when properly put into context confirms as at a minimum the reality of a ''spirit body''
Parnia is very open and clear-minded. I like what he says, that consciousness “is a scientific entity and it most likely has some type of materiality, some sort of physicality except that it’s so subtle that we don’t yet have the tools to be able to measure it.” This is such a fine point that not many will consider it. But even neutrinos wouldn’t explain other NDE details. What if there is no physical, material explanation for consciousness? How would science come to that conclusion?
The Soul
Q/ What is Consciousness? A/ The Soul
Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled scientists and philosophers.
I'm studying a RUclips video series on consciousness. Produced and narrated by Closer To The Truth, by some of the world's most intelligent scientists and philosophers in the world. They are trying to explain their view and their understanding of consciousness. Some think they know what they're talking about. I believe most of these philosophers and scientists are baffled by consciousness.
It's simple. It's not consciousness. It's called the Soul. This is why they can't understand consciousness (the Soul).
Many years ago when you died, you were pronounced dead. The patient's Soul leaves the body because the patient is pronounced dead. Today sometimes, a doctor can resuscitate a patient. The patient is brought back to life. And now, patience is talking about their experiences when they were dead. These patients are educated, people. Christians and atheists alike.
If you are an atheist, you will call it consciousness. If you are a person of faith, you will call it the Soul. A person of faith has no trouble explaining the soul (consciousness.) ~ Norman Bliss
I don't consider NDE to be a conscious experience. I don't think there's any argument that consciousness is brought about by brain functions and that its neural area is crucial to the thought process. The only thing that anyone should be discussing is the feeling of being conscious - the qualia, the awareness of the color red, etc, what it's like to be a bat.
NDEs are just memories - you can't say for sure that it is actually experienced because the dead person is unable to speak.
Most likely has 'some form of physicality' Why!, I would suggest that it does not have 'some form of physicality'
In revealed Vedic texts, consciousness is considered as the symptom of one's non-material soul. The non-material or spiritual spark of life is said to reside in the region of the heart, is microscopic in size, although undetectable by mundane instrumentation . The size in area, of the spiritual spark which animates the physical body from the heart, is said to be the size of 1/10,00th of the tip of a hair. It is a spark of spiritual energy emanated from source/spirit energy, like an individual photon radiated from the sun.
The soul is said to be untouched by gross and subtle matter, although located in the region of the heart. The body is the field of activity for the soul, and the soul is the know-er of that field, but different from it - like the driver of a car is different from the car itself. Just as a car doesn't move independently, without the touch of the driver (unless the driver programs an automatic system - for all you Tesla owners), so the material body cannot move without the presence of it's spiritual energy source.
Being non-material the soul is the energy source for the body's systems - located within the body but not of the body. Without the local presence of the soul, the body ceases to function; at that time the soul moves on.
The subtle mental body and gross physical body are like a shirt and jacket covering the actual person, or soul
As for Robert's question, yes, the soul does exist outside of the brain actually always, not just during a nde. This is because it is non-material, inherently, and not produced by the brain. The soul is the know-er of the body as it's field of activity, and when circumstances dictate, the soul leaves the region of the heart and body, at which time bodily functions cease fairly quickly.
The soul, and it's partner consciousness can have awareness at various stages of the death process, or even re-enter a viable body even if the soul had moved out from the body for a short time. This is all possible because there is a second "knower" in each body, accompanying each soul in each heart; an expansion of Godhead known as the Supersoul or Paramatma, that travels as the guide, friend and witness of each soul's journey through matter and the greater universe.
Please note: I'm here to present rather than debate, what is outlined in the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita - an ancient Sanskrit text which overall describes the topics of Godhead, the individual soul, material nature, time and actions (karma). If you are looking for proof, it will be found in your own heart, through sincere inquiry and even an ounce of faith that a benevolent Godhead exists, who can reveal Himself from within anyone's heart. If your faith is in only limited mundane science, surely you will get only get limited mundane science as your result.
I think whatever consciousness might actually be, needs to be viewed within the context of whatever the ''truest model of mankind's anatomy actually is'' I know that's a mouthful,
and unfortunately that statement if true won't necessarily make things more clear for the vast majority of you, but be that as it may, the best philosophical and scientific evidence
about what mankind's anatomy is, hinted at in various passages of the Bible, most specifically : Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints ...
In other words, the role and basis for consciousness itself lies in cooperation with the ''soul and spirit'', (for many theologians and scholars even, the exact differences of soul and spirit in the human condition, are not universally agreed upon, ) but one thing for certain in my opinion and in the opinion of the most informed, is that , it's more reasonable to conclude, the Bible is teaching mankind, both a unique soul and spirit, and in this context and from this perspective, the mystery of consciousness is unraveled, (In other words if mankind is really a spiritual being, there is going to be a limit in explanation, from material science in the first place, on the origin and role of consciousness.
I think that there's a problem with the definition of death. Apparently, by this doctor's testimony, the heart stopping and the machines that measure brain activity flat-lining is not a sufficient condition to declare death and that there is a problem with our measurement devices and our definitions of death. I'm not a medical doctor or a neuroscientist, but my definition of death includes not being able to be revived. I don't believe that any living person has ever been dead. I'm not arguing anyone's religious beliefs. Those are a separate issue.
It is only a mystery if you insist the brain has "shut down"...when it has not actually not shut down. Occam's razor is unavoidable: "brain is flatlined" is not an accurate assessment...you just don't have the technology to measure its activity accurately. So Don't jump to metaphysical conclusions...just accept that the brain has NOT shut down when you say it has and get a more realistic understanding of what that temporary, transitional state of function, is.
I don't think the brain is dead during a (prolonged) cardiac arrest: It is deprived of oxygen and perhaps the EEG is flat, but invasive electrophysiological recordings show (pathological) brain activity for a long time after a cardiac arrest (or decapitation as is done with laboratory mice). If the brain were really dead, it couldn't recover.
Before Greeks, Indians had already answered this question. West never acknowledge this. We Indians always believed that this body is just a wrapper for the atma or soul or consciousness which never dies and is eternal but only changes its clothing every birth.
Scientists are hilarious.. so how would patients recall in theatre detail.. if they clinically dead? This Neuroscientist still stubbornly refusing to accept that as evidence 😂
During convulsions and desaue , the debarkation of consciousness is very clear and mark able .
At minute 5 of conversation, it would have been more helpful for the audience for the anecdotal and yes even clinical testimonials to be shared concerning, ''supernatural awareness
of clinically dead individuals'' For example, there is no scientific explanation to explain, how minutes can go by when someone is clinically dead, and that individual upon being revived
back to ''earthly life'' returns with memory's not just of what's occurring in there immediate location, but also knowledge of what was happenning simultaneous as there moment of
death, in other rooms at the hospital, or outside the hospital at great distances, as they're non earthly identity travels to far off location's and even hears and remember's conversation's
at these distant locations. (Everything I'm saying or trying to say is well documented , but buried in the scientific literature of the Near Death Experience testimony's of thousands of people at this point) (but you have dig a little to find these ''over the top truly rare and unexplainable Near Death Experiences'' (but they are there if you have the courage and make time to look for yourself)
Does the brain produce consciousness, or is it simply the conveyer of it? I liken Consciousness to WiFi, and the Router which receives it, the mechanism which processes it in the mind/brain, giving one the illusion the brain creates the concsiousness.
CIA and monroe institute have studied about conciousness for a while with a project known as gateway process. It explains consciousness that the world around you is all nothing mire than frequencies and we are all apart of the phenomenon known as the absolute. The brain is just a biological device to experience 3rd density when reality is conciousness is apart of a force known as the absolute. We are all god experiencing life from different views. Best way to put it, God is rediscovering who he is while in actuality this is actually done unconsciously until we all rediscover who we actually are and find our way back to the source.
Thought is immaterial. Even matter is not solid at atomic scale, just probability waves
I have a friend, a "water baby", he has an extremely small brain but he has a very high IQ. How does science explain something like this with their narrow materialistic bias .
Another medical doctor proving my prejudice that they are rarely good scientists; something about the memorizing and belief in group think that limits their critical thinking. 2:06 "there is no difference in cardiac arrest and death from a biological viewpoint" is belief in medical mantra. The heart can stop and the brain lives until its lack of oxygen destroys brain cells.
Sam is open minded scientist,but the guy who ask the question is narrow ed minded, he is
categoric by saying( i dont believe that)
Consciousness is not what makes me me. Consciousness is the condition by which I can become me through my own particular experiences. Everyone has consciousness, and a science would give a story about consciousness by describing aspects that we all share as conscious people.
The guy says he's not making claims, but then goes on to say he's got anecdotal evidence and even found it occuring in his own tests @6.48 So he is making a claim, right? Why is he on the fence about it and at the same time saying he has seen it. I'm with the host, I don't believe there is evidence and while the guy talks well he's ambiguous on the fundamental issue.
I have read that there is a hypothesis that our consciousness may be generated at the subatomic level, as a result of quantum physics. To test this hypothesis out, technology needs to advance quite a bit further. Right now, the LHC can not measure the quantum reactions in the brain. Maybe, an advance technology of the NeuraLink type, might start to answer this question.
Or it could me that YOU are NOT your body and there is in fact an immaterial aspect to, at least, human life. What could be an eternal soul. But if one has an a priori commitment to what amounts to materialistic naturalism, then you've ruled out such a conclusion before you start investigating. Which could be an assumption that leads you away from Truth, rather than closer to it. Just a thought...
does anyone buy this idea now in 2021? It feels all too real that this is a function of the brain to me...
As recently as 20 years ago like UFOs, a subject such as this might have been treated as nonsense. How times are changing.
Be very very skeptical. Most of the comments show a belief in consiousness apart from the brain/body without any proof. Some want this so bad they see it as proof they will meet their love ones who are long dead. The mind is what the brain does and when you are dead dead you are really dead forever, get over it and live the only life you will ever have.
I think it's the latter...that like a t.v. set, our brains r conveyors of consciousness. As a very young child, I used to ask my parents all these mind boggling questions. I believe these thoughts came from outside of my cognition. From another place & time!
What Sam says is completely useless.
His last conclusion with examples like electromagnetic waves, TV set, conveyor, etc is pure stupidity.
You're critique is brilliant! No counterargument, no alternative explanations, just ad hominem attack. Scientists will be studying this comment for centuries to come
L Ron H / Wouldn't you want from me the correct solution in creating the full artificial consciuosness?
I am very sure that you also want my dog's name and my shoes size.
Is this the way you do it in scientology?🤣 /
...............................
Don't worry!
I will soon give for free to the whole world the correct information on how to create the full artificial consciuosness.
I'm not joking.
When I'll do it, you will understand why I make this kind of comments.
It is because I know exactly what I'm talking about; more precisely said, I know where the thinking errors are made by these lousy "talkers and thinkers".
What does he mean by the brain has "shut down"? how does he know it has shut down completely? There is probably some neural activity going on after the heart has stopped.
This premise is logically wrong, we carry no memories from before birth, so how can consciousness exist post mortem.? I would love to believe, but logic is logic .
If consciousness is separate from the brain, why does a boxer lose it when he is KO'd?
Clear and honest talk
Only problem with Sam's outlook that I can see is the definition of death. He goes by the traditional view of what death is and assumes that we can't carry over any information from a flatlined brain. It just be that death needs to be refined to the point where cells in the brain are so badly damaged that they can no longer be repaired and that even in the currently defined state of death we might need to accept that the body is still capable of consciousness. By pushing death back a little further materialists can keep their belief that consciousness is generated by body.
This might be colloquially referred to as the Dr. Manhattan hypothesis.
Two different TVs can tune into the same channel at the sane time, but each brain only plays back it’s own unique “channel”. Researchers can record the brain patterns when a rat run a maze, and see the same pattern again when the rat dreams. Thought and brain seem to be an integrated system to me, emergent from millions of years of evolution.
The Trillion Dollar question, may be worth more :D Thanks for taking us...Closer to Truth!
5Me0 DMT should give you some insight.
Yeah bro. That's what I'm talking about.
We have a THEORY that the brain creates DMT. We haven't proved that at all. Research should give you some insight
@@StanSmith69 Have the balls not to outsource your thinking. Try 5Me0.
@@superconscious. Would you please be so kind as to tell us about your insight with the 5me0 DMT?
@@Vlad-wl3fw You are god its all just an illusion.