Where is our seat of consciousness located?

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=3" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Mentat
Think about it, where do you locate yourself? You locate yourself as being in your head. The reason you locate yourself there is that that's where your eyes, ears, and nose are and those things are some of the main ways that you become aware of your surroundings. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the brain (which resides within the head, where you locate yourself) is the "center of your existence", even from a purely metaphysical standpoint (as shown here). Also, I've known a couple of people who's hearts had stopped, and yet they are still alive today. But if someone's brain were to stop, they would be dead.

Although my consciousness is located around my head, particularly in front of my face (my eyes), the funniest thing is that it doesn't "feel" anything. Whereas my feelings are located more so in chest, around my solar plexis (including both heart and lungs), and it's our feelings that allow us to validate and give definition to what we percieve. This is equally important. Besides, if your eyeballs were to extend out your feet, your sense of perception would probably arise from there. Ha ha!

So wherein do you think our seat of consciousness lies? Or, through what faculty is it best perceived?

 

[kyle_soule]

I agree with Mentat.

If a person could not see, hear, taste, or smell I would think that they would feel that their "Seat of Consciousness" was in their head, because that is where their thoughts would originate. Then again, they might feel it is in their hands, as that is where they would get all their information [reading etc]. I believe our most used way of percieving the world is where we feel our "seat of consciousness" is.

I also see your point, you actually FEEL feelings.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Then again, they might feel it is in their hands, as that is where they would get all their information [reading etc].

Well, actually, if I could feel the book, but not see it, it wouldn't do me much good. Besides, the nerve endings go to the brain, so this is obviously the center of control for the body. Isn't it reasonable to assume that this is where the "seat of consciousness" should be?

I believe our most used way of percieving the world is where we feel our "seat of consciousness" is.

I also see your point, you actually FEEL feelings.

Yes, you actually FEEL feelings, but where does the impulse to "FEEL" go to? The brain. In fact, even our emotions are due (mainly) to impulses in the brain (the limbic lobe, to be more specific).

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I agree with Mentat.

If a person could not see, hear, taste, or smell I would think that they would feel that their "Seat of Consciousness" was in their head, because that is where their thoughts would originate. Then again, they might feel it is in their hands, as that is where they would get all their information [reading etc]. I believe our most used way of percieving the world is where we feel our "seat of consciousness" is.

I also see your point, you actually FEEL feelings.

Significantly, people cannot survive without at least possessing a sense of touch, a sense of feeling that extends from the mind to the world around them. Infants who are not touched will first exhibit a failure to thrive and eventually die no matter how well they are taken care of otherwise or how good their other senses are.

Likewise, a few people have been discovered who because of head injuries have a significantly limited emotional capacity. These people cannot hide their condition for any length of time from anyone. Mr. Spock represents for many people an idea of what a wholly rational person would be like, but the reality is more extreme. Such people simply cannot place anything in a context they have not already acquired before the accident.

Notably again, no one has ever been discovered to be born with such a condition and survive. We can surmise then that feeling, in every sense of the word, is critical to survival and to giving rise to the seat of consciousness. In fact, the more intelligent the animal the more critical touch becomes and the more complex their emotional lives. Humans are the only animals, for example, that possesses an elaborate sense of humor. Also, all mammals are roughed up a little, tossed around, and then maticulously groomed by their mothers when born or they will die.

From an Asian point of view, the seat of consciousness lies within the calm accepting center of a storm of conflicting emotions and thoughts. This is a more organic view than that of traditional dialectical western logic. Instead of completely distinguishing between mind and body, logic and the irrational, it unifies them from the ground up so to speak.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Significantly, people cannot survive without at least possessing a sense of touch, a sense of feeling that extends from the mind to the world around them. Infants who are not touched will first exhibit a failure to thrive and eventually die no matter how well they are taken care of otherwise or how good their other senses are.

This is the very reason I excluded touch from the list of senses.

Likewise, a few people have been discovered who because of head injuries have a significantly limited emotional capacity. These people cannot hide their condition for any length of time from anyone. Mr. Spock represents for many people an idea of what a wholly rational person would be like, but the reality is more extreme. Such people simply cannot place anything in a context they have not already acquired before the accident.

Notably again, no one has ever been discovered to be born with such a condition and survive. We can surmise then that feeling, in every sense of the word, is critical to survival and to giving rise to the seat of consciousness. In fact, the more intelligent the animal the more critical touch becomes and the more complex their emotional lives. Humans are the only animals, for example, that possesses an elaborate sense of humor. Also, all mammals are roughed up a little, tossed around, and then maticulously groomed by their mothers when born or they will die.

I agree with this, but I do not agree with the center of consciousness being feelings (emotions), all this really demonstrates to me is a bond between the mind development and emotions, and how they inertwine.

 

[Dissident Dan]

When I think, I always feel like the thinking goes on in my head. However, one of those famous Greeks (I forget which one--possibly Plato) postulated that the heart is the center of thought and that the brain cooled the blood. Funny.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by kyle_soule

I agree with this, but I do not agree with the center of consciousness being feelings (emotions), all this really demonstrates to me is a bond between the mind development and emotions, and how they inertwine.

It is the simplest explanation, but certainly not the only possible one.

Feelings and affects such as depression, anger, and joy are thought by many to have evolved for survival purposes. A wounded animals will become depressed, go quietly hide somewhere, rest and lick their wounds. An angry animal will do things which otherwise might be self-destructive and contrary to survival for its compatriots as well. A content animal has a better chance of reproducing, getting along with others, and a more functional immune system. This is a bit of an over simplification, but you get the idea.

An amoeba has no use for such a complex system. Instead it can get by quite nicely using just stimulous and response. It's nerves are simple switches, flip one and it jumps. Higher order animals possesses similar switches, but regulate their function with their internal emotional lives. Consciousness then can most simply be viewed as the next step which abstracts this internal emotional life in the context of the future, past, and ego.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, you actually FEEL feelings, but where does the impulse to "FEEL" go to? The brain. In fact, even our emotions are due (mainly) to impulses in the brain (the limbic lobe, to be more specific).

Does the brain feel anything? Or does it just process the sensations derived from the senses? If we were somehow able to detach our brain from our bodies and run it twenty feet down the hallway and into the other room, while still leaving everything "hooked up," would we still perceive everything the same? ... aside from the fact that we might feel a bit "light headed" of course.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, the nerve endings go to the brain,
so this is obviously the center of control
for the body. Isn't it reasonable to assume
that this is where the "seat of
consciousness" should be?

What if you were never told that the
nerve endings go to the brain or indeed
had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dr. Deepak Chopra – Former director of the Scripps Institute of Medicine – suggests that the immune system displays all of the characteristics of thought…I think is the proper way to say it. He describes it as a circulating intelligence. When we consider this and similar notions, and some of the suggestions already made in this thread, and the notions of emergent phenomena, and then consider modern ideas like superpositional states [is that word legal?], not to mention the arguments for Quantum Consciousness, perhaps the very point is that consciousness has no “seat”. Perhaps that is the sum of what have learned. I think it is likely a superposition of all of these things that has no precise location.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Dr. Deepak Chopra – Former director of the Scripps Institute of Medicine – suggests that the immune system displays all of the characteristics of thought…I think is the proper way to say it. He describes it as a circulating intelligence. When we consider this and similar notions, and some of the suggestions already made in this thread, and the notions of emergent phenomena, and then consider modern ideas like superpositional states [is that word legal?], not to mention the arguments for Quantum Consciousness, perhaps the very point is that consciousness has no “seat”. Perhaps that is the sum of what have learned. I think it is likely a superposition of all of these things that has no precise location.

Intelligence is not the issue, consciousness is the issue. Do a frontal lobotomy on someone and their degree of consciousness fades. Take out a similar part of their occipital area, and they might loose some sight but not any significant amount of consciousness or awareness. Take out part of their brainstem, and they die, split their corpus colosum and they display two seats of consciousness, two distinct personalities with significant awareness inhabiting separate hemispheres.

It may be that the proverbial seat of consciousness is an illusion and each of us is composed of multiple personalities, but there are distinct locations within the brain that effect them more than others. To some extent, the phenomenon is localized while to other respects it may be global. Because the brain obviously has such a huge impact on consciousness, the nervous system in general is the obvious place to begin research on the issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Intelligence is not the issue, consciousness is the issue. Do a frontal lobotomy on someone and their degree of consciousness fades. Take out a similar part of their occipital area, and they might loose some sight but not any significant amount of consciousness or awareness. Take out part of their brainstem, and they die, split their corpus colosum and they display two seats of consciousness, two distinct personalities with significant awareness inhabiting separate hemispheres.

You make some good points but I object to a few. I consider sight a part of my consciousness. It you take it away, I clearly perceive a large impact on my total awareness. So although clearly not of the rank of the brainstem, sight is superimposed on my overall consciousness. But your point of rank is obviously valid. Of course, when we consider the impact from a frontal lobotomy, we can't measure the effect from the inside out. Another way to say this is that I don't think you could ever measure my consciousness in quite the way that I do. Nor can I ever convey my own sense of self to you as I perceive it. A person could be comatose and completely conscious from their point of view, even if they don't remember this upon waking to reality. Also, I don't think I can separate my intelligence from consciousness. It is a part of who I am. Dr. Chopra claims that I have other intelligences about which I am not conscious, but that are still a part of my overall consciousness. I meant to link these ideas in this way. Finally, you assume [or at least imply] but cannot prove that when you cut someone’s brain stem their consciousness stops. If we disagree on this fundamental point then the rest is moot.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Finally, you assume [or at least imply] but cannot prove that when you cut someone’s brain stem their consciousness stops. If we disagree on this fundamental point then the rest is moot. [/B]

No, that is exactly what I meant. Consciousness does have global aspects as you point out, and the brainstem is about as critical a conduit for this as you'll find. No body or feelings, no mind. All of these things are largely regulated within the primitive brainstem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
No, that is exactly what I meant. Consciousness does have global aspects as you point out, and the brainstem is about as critical a conduit for this as you'll find. No body or feelings, no mind. All of these things are largely regulated within the primitive brainstem.

To argue that consciousness ends with classical death is a faith arguement. All that we can really say scientifically is that we don't know.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
To argue that consciousness ends with classical death is a faith arguement. All that we can really say scientifically is that we don't know.

Well, yeah, no body--no mind that we know of. By your argument, however, I could just as easily argue everyone does their best thinking using a sea slug somewhere off the coast of Burma. Asserting that my consciousness dies along with my body is not a statement of faith, but rather, a statement of observation. Faith involves what cannot be observed or proven, such as my sea slug hypothesis.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does the brain feel anything? Or does it just process the sensations derived from the senses? If we were somehow able to detach our brain from our bodies and run it twenty feet down the hallway and into the other room, while still leaving everything "hooked up," would we still perceive everything the same? ... aside from the fact that we might feel a bit "light headed" of course.

No, we wouldn't percieve anything the same. In fact, we wouldn't percieve anything. Period.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
What if you were never told that the
nerve endings go to the brain or indeed
had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever ?

Live long and prosper.

Even if I was never told, it would still be true.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Well, yeah, no body--no mind that we know of. By your argument, however, I could just as easily argue everyone does their best thinking using a sea slug somewhere off the coast of Burma. Asserting that my consciousness dies along with my body is not a statement of faith, but rather, a statement of observation. Faith involves what cannot be observed or proven, such as my sea slug hypothesis.

This is one rare example of an interesting discussion about which science has not completely abandoned us. First I wish to re-state the idea that only I can measure my consciousness, you can only draw inferences based on observations and assumptions. I will quote the most significant part of what some science has to say about this from the following link:



"Cardiac arrest patients are a subgroup of people who come closest to death. In such a situation an individual initially develops two out of three criteria (the absence of spontaneous breathing and heartbeat) of clinical death. Shortly afterwards (within seconds) these are followed by the third, which occurs due to the loss of activity of the areas of the brain responsible for sustaining life (brainstem) and thought processes (cerebral cortex). Brain monitoring using EEG in animals and humans has also demonstrated that the brain ceases to function at that time. During a cardiac arrest, the blood pressure drops almost immediately to unrecordable levels and at the same time, due to a lack of blood flow, the brain stops functioning as seen by flat brain waves (isoelectric line) on the monitor within around 10 seconds. This then remains the case throughout the time when the heart is given 'electric shock' therapy or when drugs such as adrenaline are given until the heartbeat is finally restored and the patient is resuscitated. Due to the lack of brain function in these circumstances, therefore, one would not expect there to be any lucid, well-structured thought processes, with reasoning and memory formation, which are characteristic of NDEs.
Nevertheless, and contrary to what we would expect scientifically, studies have shown that 'near death experiences' do occur in such situations. This therefore raises a question of how such lucid and well-structured thought processes, together with such clear and vivid memories, occur in individuals who have little or no brain function. In other words, it would appear that the mind is seen to continue in a clinical setting in which there is little or no brain function. In particular, there have been reports of people being able to 'see' details from the events that occurred during their cardiac arrest, such as their dentures being removed."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

This is one rare example of an interesting discussion about which science has not completely abandoned us. First I wish to re-state the idea that only I can measure my consciousness, you can only draw inferences based on observations and assumptions.

This is a nice article, but it ignores certain hard to ignore facts. Indian Guru's have managed to sit on the bottom of swimming pools for hour, slowing their heart beat down to a few beats per minute. They've had twenty thousand volts passed across their chest with little or no harm done. And they've been able to fool experts into believing they are dead. None of these things can be explained by conventional medicine.

Just because science cannot explain every supposidly supernatural event does not mean the supernatural exists. Nor for that matter does it mean the supernatural does not exist. What it does mean is that in just about every case investigated thus far by modern science a natural explanation has been found eventually. What it means for each of us as individuals is a personal issue as far as I am concerned and all I can say is, "No Comment."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does the brain feel anything?

What about a "headache"?

Or does it just process the sensations derived from the senses? If we were somehow able to detach our brain from our bodies and run it twenty feet down the hallway and into the other room, while still leaving everything "hooked up," would we still perceive everything the same? ... aside from the fact that we might feel a bit "light headed" of course.

I think the feeling of being "absent" would then be a physical interpretation of the situation.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
To argue that consciousness ends with classical death is a faith arguement. All that we can really say scientifically is that we don't know.

All we can know is that it can be know as long as we are still alive.
Dead people don't know anything anymore.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What about a "headache"?

Isn't that usually caused by tension in the muscles and the scalp or, swelling of the sinuses?

I think the feeling of being "absent" would then be a physical interpretation of the situation.

If you become aware of yourself sitting in your chair at the computer and say, What is it about my being conscious here? You'll begin to notice what you see, you'll noitce the rising and falling of your chest as you breath, your head as it turns and the contraction of your facial muscles, you'll notice the air rushing in through your nostrils with your tongue resting in your mouth as you swallow, you'll notice yourself sitting in the chair, and possibly the whirring of your computer in the background, along with any other background noises.

And yet, where so much of this seems to be centered around your head, giving you the impression that it might have something to do with the brain, these are all "external sensations" which become part of your "conscious awareness." And, because so much of it is centered around your head, this is where we're going "feel" the strongest sense of consciousness. In which case I don't think it would matter whether your brain was located inside or outside of your head, so long as it was "hooked up."

Which leads me to ask another question. If by chance we were able shut down the awareness of our senses, wouldn't that be akin to falling asleep? Meaning, is our thinking dependent upon being aware of them? ... Would we still be able to think?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you become aware of yourself sitting in your chair at the computer and say, What is it about my being conscious here? You'll begin to notice what you see, you'll noitce the rising and falling of your chest as you breath, your head as it turns and the contraction of your facial muscles, you'll notice the air rushing in through your nostrils with your tongue resting in your mouth as you swallow, you'll notice yourself sitting in the chair, and possibly the whirring of your computer in the background, along with any other background noises.

And yet, where so much of this seems to be centered around your head, giving you the impression that it might have something to do with the brain, these are all "external sensations" which become part of your "conscious awareness." And, because so much of it is centered around your head, this is where we're going "feel" the strongest sense of consciousness. In which case I don't think it would matter whether your brain was located inside or outside of your head, so long as it was "hooked up."

Which leads me to ask another question. If by chance we were able shut down the awareness of our senses, wouldn't that be akin to falling asleep? Meaning, is our thinking dependent upon being aware of them? ... would we still be able to think?

I think the fact that your brain is not located but hooked up to some other physical place, is a noticable difference.
First because all things delay. It takes time for the nerves to reach their destiny, but especially the blood circulation is now different.
We know that substances in the blood cause some sensational awareness. Not the changes in the substances in the blood are of course only noticed with substantial delay.

I think the feeling would be rather absurd...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
All we can know is that it can be know as long as we are still alive.
Dead people don't know anything anymore.

Do you give any credence to out of the body experiences? Wouldn't that suggest that at the very least we have a soul?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Isn't that usually caused by tension in the muscles and the scalp or, swelling of the sinuses?

That's been theory of headaches for ages, supported by the apparent lack of sensation conscious brain surgery patients have during operations. However other evidence seems to contradict the idea our brains have absolutely no sensation at all. Epileptics, for example, sometimes complain they can feel pain exactly where their brains misfire.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Indian Guru's have managed to sit on the bottom of swimming pools for hour, slowing their heart beat down to a few beats per minute. They've had twenty thousand volts passed across their chest with little or no harm done. And they've been able to fool experts into believing they are dead.

Do you know of any site where I can find information about this? Long ago, a friend of mine used to talk about this as if he had seen the thing first hand (I mean, with that kind of confidence) but, upon further questioning, it always turned out that his information was coming from very biased sources, or word-of-mouth (i.e., from nowhere ("everybody in Tibet knows about it!")).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you give any credence to out of the body experiences? Wouldn't that suggest that at the very least we have a soul?

People have an identity, as far as we know, everyone is a unique individual. "Out of body experience" are just imaginary experiences, not necessary "real" experiences.

What would suggest that the mind can continue to live when our body has become dead?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
...Indian Guru's have managed to sit on the bottom of swimming pools for hour, slowing their heart beat down to a few beats per minute. They've had twenty thousand volts passed across their chest with little or no harm done. And they've been able to fool experts into believing they are dead. None of these things can be explained by conventional medicine.

The key comparison would be a lack of brain function. However, I agree that we may, in a very down-to-earth way underestimate our physical potential. Still, many quickly point to these as example of evidence for the supernatural. Also on a related note, apparently [supposedly] I had a great-great-aunt who at 120 Lbs and 50+ years of age carried her most prized possession - her refrigerator - out of her burning house! [Circa 1940].

Originally posted by wuliheron
Just because science cannot explain every supposedly supernatural event does not mean the supernatural exists. Nor for that matter does it mean the supernatural does not exist. What it does mean is that in just about every case investigated thus far by modern science a natural explanation has been found eventually. What it means for each of us as individuals is a personal issue as far as I am concerned and all I can say is, "No Comment."

I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I always have another comment.

EDIT: and I couldn't resist so here it is:
We have scientific evidence that we are not yet able to measure what constitutes an active consciousness. I think this is a reasonable take on the article cited. Anyone disagree?

http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm [/URL]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by heusdens
What would suggest that the mind can continue to live when our body has become dead?

My wife claims that I'm living proof!


We have no way to measure the consciousness of a dead person. In fact, referring to my previous post, this may be true of live people. If we can't measure it, then science can't say anything about it. We don't know what consciousness is, so, to argue that it ends with physical death is a faith argument; just as arguing to the contrary is a faith argument. Of course this is not really true because faith would mean no evidence. It may not be scientific, but we do have subjective evidence for an afterlife. That may not be proof to science, but it is for many enough for belief. Besides, the argument FOR consciousness after death could someday be proven...so I side with this group. The counter-argument has no hope of proof.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
My wife claims that I'm living proof!


We have no way to measure the consciousness of a dead person. In fact, referring to my previous post, this may be true of live people. If we can't measure it, then science can't say anything about it. We don't know what consciousness is, so, to argue that it ends with physical death is a faith argument; just as arguing to the contrary is a faith argument. Of course this is not really true because faith would mean no evidence. It may not be scientific, but we do have subjective evidence for an afterlife. That may not be proof to science, but it is for many enough for belief. Besides, the argument FOR consciousness after death could someday be proven...so I side with this group. The counter-argument has no hope of proof.

This is weird conclusion. You say that there is a possibility science could proof life after death, but science would be unable to proof the contrary. Now to proof something does not exist, is and can be very hard. But that itself contains no proof for the assume existence of something.

Even when we don't have complete knowledge about consciousness, this doesn't mean there is any evidence that consciousness would not be located in the brain, or that consciousness would not be closely linked up to the way brain cells function. Science can determine if brain cells are alive or dead. So there is absolutely no hope for explenations that claim that consciousness could still exist after the brain cells have died.

There isn't any more proof needed then that.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Do you know of any site where I can find information about this? Long ago, a friend of mine used to talk about this as if he had seen the thing first hand (I mean, with that kind of confidence) but, upon further questioning, it always turned out that his information was coming from very biased sources, or word-of-mouth (i.e., from nowhere ("everybody in Tibet knows about it!")).

Interesting question. I did a search to look for one, but all the crazy TM meditation sites and other junk made it difficult. Fortunately I did find one eventually:

http://www.noetic.org/ions/medbiblio/ch1.htm

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
I always have another comment.

EDIT: and I couldn't resist so here it is:
We have scientific evidence that we are not yet able to measure what constitutes an active consciousness. I think this is a reasonable take on the article cited. Anyone disagree?

Not me, I think its pretty obvious medical science is only beginning to gain a firm grasp of how the mind and brain work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is weird conclusion. You say that there is a possibility science could proof life after death, but science would be unable to proof the contrary. Now to proof something does not exist, is and can be very hard. But that itself contains no proof for the assume existence of something.

It is a fundamental truth that science can never prove that there is no post-life existence. At most, all that we can say is that no evidence exists, or that nothing known about consciousness suggests that there is an afterlife, or that the known measurable properties of consciousness are completely consistent with all observed properties of C. On the other hand, we might eventually develop a framework to actually address this question somehow...I have no idea how but it could be possible. Then something might be provable here. Or for that matter, God might come riding down on his fiery chariot. I am not saying this will happen, only that it could. This is why only the after lifer’s have any hope of ever winning this argument with proof.

Science can determine if brain cells are alive or dead. So there is absolutely no hope for explanations that claim that consciousness could still exist after the brain cells have died.
There isn't any more proof needed then that.

This statement is not consistent. You are using your assumption as proof.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Not me, I think its pretty obvious medical science is only beginning to gain a firm grasp of how the mind and brain work.

Yes we are only beginning...in all likelihood. But this seems to contradict your lack of agreement about the article on coronary patients. I only assert that according to the evidence, we may not be able to measure what constitutes an active consciousness. How exactly is this assertion in conflict or not supported by the article?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes we are only beginning...in all likelihood. But this seems to contradict your lack of agreement about the article on coronary patients. I only assert that according to the evidence, we may not be able to measure what constitutes an active consciousness. How exactly is this assertion in conflict or not supported by the article?

Oh, it doesn't contradict our uncertainty over cognitive processes. It does bring the premise of near death experiences back into the realm of unsolved mysteries. What is emerging from study after study is that cognition research is steadily evolving and even how the cognitive and physical are related is still a mystery in profound ways.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is a fundamental truth that science can never prove that there is no post-life existence.

And that is not what science even has to proof. The duty of proof lies on the other side, namely those that claim that there is a post-mortum life. They have to provide solid proof for such ridiculous nonsense statements, and not just provide arguments for the mere 'possibility'.
It is because of that kind of proof has never been given, these claims must be rejected.

This statement is not consistent. You are using your assumption as proof.

What assumption? Every or most part of consciousness have been brought back to material phenomena happening in the brain.
It is solid proof that out consciousness is seated there, and that consciousness is entirely and ultimately dependend on the functioning of living brain material. That is not an assumption, it is scientific evidence.