https://cosmosmagazine.com/features/henri-laborit-feels-our-pain/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+M...

"In her new book Anaesthesia: The Gift of Oblivion and the Mystery of Consciousness, Australian journalist Kate Cole-Adams describes several episodes in which patients have been anaesthetised before undergoing surgery yet afterwards shown signs of having recalled parts of what happened to them during the operation, while they were supposedly unconscious.

"As the book’s title suggests, what may seem a simple matter of administering a cocktail of drugs to render a patient senseless before submitting them to an otherwise agonising surgery has complexities that stretch well beyond a medical procedure. Indeed, it goes right to the root of what it is that makes us alive: what is consciousness?

"'Reviewing the book in a recent edition of The New Yorker magazine, Joshua Rothman says, “The root of the problem is that no one understands why we are conscious. If you don’t know why the sun comes up, it’s hard to say why it goes down.'”

Comment: The article is a review of Laborit's life. But the saga about understanding consciousness goes on.

Thank you for the link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <

Quote: “The need to understand the states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC.”

Exactly. (And some people can and do investigate/study NDEs!)
The mystery of NDEs lies not in loss of consciousness but in retention and even enhancement of consciousness when the body and brain have been certified dead.

This website has much mysticism mixed in, i.e.,Edgar Cayce especially. Lots of hype, nothing valid. As a Houstonian, I&apos;ve been in the centrifuge room at NASA.

As for G-LOC, 12 seconds, vs. days in some famous cases, I find there is little to compare. No EEG studies as part of it? A piddling approach.

The references were all taken from your posts of the last few days. However, they were not contradictory – you simply came up with one different reason after another for your scepticism towards NDEs. Matt, we can only discuss what you write, and you’ve honestly admitted that your thinking can be hard to follow! I know David also had the impression that you were dismissing NDEs too lightly, and so we needed clarification. My last post was simply meant as a summing-up of a week’s to-ing and fro-ing, after we finally appeared to have reached agreement. I’m sorry if this has made you uncomfortable.

MATT: dhw must hate my ability to alter definitions: I speak in metaphors often in my own head, and for me to be able to &quot;take a subject seriously&quot; I HAVE to be ABLE to study it.

Study just means finding out as much as you can about a subject (look at the variety of subjects on offer at university). It doesn’t even entail reaching conclusions. So once again we’re back to subjective definitions. I suspect yours demands objective results of some kind. On the other hand, of course, you won’t bother to study a subject unless you take it seriously!

MATT: [...] my uncomfortableness with the topic stems from the two facts I will restate: 1. We lack a real knowledge of the human consciousness. 2. To understand NDE, we must understand consciousness.

Absolutely right, and that’s why this subject lies at the heart of our attempt to gauge whether or not there might be a form of energy beyond the material world as we know it (e.g. a “soul”, a UI). Your second point can be reversed: to understand consciousness, we must understand NDEs – along with any other authenticated psychic phenomena, and along with emotions, memory, imagination etc., and along with how the physical brain functions. All these things are intertwined. At present we can do no more than speculate, but that’s all we can do about many of the subjects that matter to us.

Thank you for the link: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <

Quote: “The need to understand the states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC.”

Exactly. (And some people can and do investigate/study NDEs!)

Quote: “Loss-of-consciousness episodes of all types appear to have an explainable physiologic basis.”

The mystery of NDEs lies not in loss of consciousness but in retention and even enhancement of consciousness when the body and brain have been certified dead. We know that drugs and diseases can also affect consciousness, and can also result in strange experiences, which may be evidence for materialism but, as you have acknowledged, that doesn’t solve the mystery of independently authenticated observations and information.

Jerry Gross’s out-of-body “astral realm” would be more impressive if he provided concrete examples of information verified by independent third parties, so I’d rather stick to the website we’ve been discussing. I’m sure you’ll agree!

I went as far back as 2009 and I simply can&apos;t find a set of about 3 different posts that back me up here.

I&apos;ve always been consistent, what happened here is yet another flub of my keyboard: I uttered the words &quot;taking it seriously&quot; in reference to NDE or OOB.

dhw must hate my ability to alter definitions: I speak in metaphors often in my own head, and for me to be able to &quot;take a subject seriously&quot; I have to be able to study it.

^^^I&apos;ve been very consistent about this. I remember posting something to these lines several times.

Not &quot;Taking something seriously&quot; has the connotation of writing it off as a joke or something to be ridiculed. It would be fair for dhw to say that I&apos;m trying to save face, and he has every right to do so. But if you think back to the few times I have mentioned NDE/OOB, compare what I said then to what I&apos;ve said in the past few days and I&apos;ll let you judge for yourself if I&apos;m on the level or not.

Have we forgotten that just a few short weeks ago I posted a link to a Buddhist story of NDE? How is that anything other than an &quot;open mind?&quot;

By the way: I have no problem with you provoking me to talk about a subject-->it&apos;s perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe I don&apos;t like talking about it because it threatens materialism, and I have no real issue doing it, but my un-comfortableness with the topic stems from the two facts I will restate:

1. We lack a real knowledge of the human consciousness.
2. To understand NDE, we must understand consciousness.

It is really difficult for me to think about or deal with a problem when the link to its primary domain is completely unestablished. I lack a way to think about it.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html <--here is another link to the OOB research I had discussed a long time ago.

MATT: I&apos;ve always recognized it [i.e. that NDEs present a puzzle]. Just, for some reason, dhw wanted to draw me into a discussion about them. Likely, he didn&apos;t (perhaps still doesn&apos;t) understand my reluctance or my responses. (Not that he&apos;s not capable, but I&apos;m not a stellar communicator.)

For me, the basic purpose and pleasure of these discussions is the exchange of ideas and information, but also the chance to clarify our own ideas. In this discussion, you keep emphasizing the impossibility of finding a solution, whereas all David and I have consistently asked you to do is recognize that these NDEs present us with a puzzle. You have at last done so, but you haven’t always done so, and perhaps that’s where your non-stellar communication has caused so many misunderstandings. Your posts are littered with references to your “extreme skepticism”, and I’ve repeatedly asked you what you’re sceptical about. You now say you don’t think the experiences listed are fraudulent. Then your scepticism and your allusion to “wild speculation” can only refer to proposed solutions. I’m not so sure about “wild” in relation to all possible solutions, but “speculation” they certainly are (both materialist and dualist) and will most likely continue to be. There has never been any dispute over that.

However, we do need to look at the reason for the discussion. Our subject is the possibility of an afterlife. For me, this is pretty meaningless unless my consciousness and identity survive (becoming worm-food is not my idea of an afterlife). This, then, raises the question of whether consciousness is or is not wholly dependent on the physical cells of the brain, i.e. materialism versus dualism. There’s plenty of scientific evidence for materialism: we know that our mental activities are accompanied by electrical activities in the brain, and drugs and diseases can have a profound effect on consciousness and identity. Is there any evidence for dualism? Perhaps, but it can’t be scientific because science can only handle known materials. The POSSIBLE evidence is personal experiences, throughout history, of unexplained so-called psychic phenomena. In recent times, doctors have recorded puzzling instances of events observed and information received by no identifiable means, but corroborated by independent witnesses. Any speculative conclusions about the nature of consciousness should not, in David’s view and mine, exclude consideration of these phenomena. Full stop.

You wrote: “From day one at this site I said that I lean materialist.” You did (though the breadth of your interests offers a far more colourful palette of philosophies). As long as you do not lean so far as to ignore this POSSIBLE evidence for dualism, or to express “extreme skepticism” about the authenticity of the experiences themselves, or to dismiss them as not worth taking seriously because you haven’t had any yourself or because they vary from culture to culture or because they might imply that your favoured materialistic explanations are wrong, we can all move happily on to other areas.

David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?

Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.

You are much more knowledgable in this area than I. I know that entanglement at 100 Kilometers in Switzerland was at Swiss temperatures in the space between the two cities.

You have a misconception about entanglement: the space betwen two locations is irrelevant. What matters is the two substances that are entangled in the two labs. Care must be taken that the atoms to be entangled have absolutely identical conditions, and currently this can only be done at superconductive temperatures---supercold. I know this because one of the biggest problems in quantum computing is how to deliver electricity (which creates heat and disturbs atoms) without breaking entangled states. At present we can only maintain entanglement (in a computer) for about a millionth of a second--enough to find all the primes under 16.

I haven&apos;t gotten to van Lommel&apos;s conjectures in the latter part of his book. I&apos;ll report back.

Please do... but don&apos;t hold your breath...

David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?

Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.

You are much more knowledgable in this area than I. I know that entanglement at 100 Kilometers in Switzerland was at Swiss temperatures in the space between the two cities.

I haven&apos;t gotten to van Lommel&apos;s conjectures in the latter part of his book. I&apos;ll report back.

I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as &quot;copping out&quot; on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I&apos;m being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation:

Where you see wild speculation, I don&apos;t. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have, I&apos;ve not offered an answer. I&apos;ve simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.
These are not hallucinations. I&apos;ve met lots of those in practice, but what they are I do not know. Are they significant? Yes. I have my opinion that conscousness which is an emergent property from the brain, can at a quantum level exist independent from the brain. Van Lommel feels the same way, if the early part of his book is any indication. Does this prove anything? Of course not. Is it worth discussing? Yes, because we should not avoid any alley, even if we think it may be blind.

David, it IS wild speculation when you have a disjoint like this. Quantum mechanics? Does Lommel discuss that these interactions are very rare in nature, and that for we humans to be able to induce large-scale entanglement, we have to operate in temperatures colder than liquid nitrogen?

Physics needs to be able to induce entanglement at temperatures of the human body before THAT road leads to any enlightenment.

I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as &quot;copping out&quot; on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I&apos;m being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation:

Where you see wild speculation, I don&apos;t. I see an unexplained phenomenon that begs for an answer we do not have, I&apos;ve not offered an answer. I&apos;ve simply wanted acceptance that an unexplained phenomenon exists and wants for an answer.
These are not hallucinations. I&apos;ve met lots of those in practice, but what they are I do not know. Are they significant? Yes. I have my opinion that conscousness which is an emergent property from the brain, can at a quantum level exist independent from the brain. Van Lommel feels the same way, if the early part of his book is any indication. Does this prove anything? Of course not. Is it worth discussing? Yes, because we should not avoid any alley, even if we think it may be blind.

Well... we don&apos;t really know how big a disjoint it is: To crack the NDE problem, we first have to crack the consciousness problem.

That said: The existence of a puzzle--is not a solution.

Amazing. finally on the same page.

But there exists no explanation about the means.

That is exactly the point. And I am not sure that we will find the means.

No, but I actually put more credit to the Hindus and Kabbalistic Rabbis: They explored the universe by exploring the inside. Many of their answers harmonize with you.

I can readily accept that.

I&apos;ve offered up what I&apos;ve found in regards to Buddhist interpretations. You just need to accept that this isn&apos;t a subject I take lightly, and have thought deeply about-->and came to the conclusion that I lack the information necessary to work a solution.

And I certainly accept your position here. I am not asking for a solution. Just a recognition that this NDE issue presents a puzzle, and I recognize that you see it that way also, but on your own terms.

I&apos;ve always recognized it. Just, for some reason, dhw wanted to draw me into a discussion about them. Likely, he didn&apos;t (perhaps still doesn&apos;t) understand my reluctance or my responses. (Not that he&apos;s not capable, but I&apos;m not a stellar communicator.)

I&apos;m a deeply systematic thinker. I recognize that. Compared to my classmates, it will often take me longer to arrive at a solution, simply because I can easily get lost checking my corner cases. (I write very reliable software, by the way, lol...)

What many people fail to respect, is that when things are outliers to my system, I still categorize them, but if I have no line whatsoever from A-Z, it exists as an outlier. (And truth is usually discovered in outliers!) But as I&apos;ve told you before, I feel no rush to answer these questions before I die. If its one thing that I had to get used to on every level, it&apos;s living with ambiguity.

I realize that both you and dhw probably view me as &quot;copping out&quot; on the NDE issue, but I really feel like I&apos;m being dishonest by engaging in an issue where all we have is wild speculation: and speculation is dangerous. If you reflect deeply, most of the horrible mistakes of history were perpetrated due to speculation and accepting immediate solutions when there was no need...

Contrary to what you think, I&apos;m not shutting my mind to anything. I&apos;m pointing out that I have no way to study the phenomenon in question. Sure, I can read stories that tantalize, but without tools, without an observational framework, without a means of reproduction--you have a disjoint between these experiences, and everything else in existence.

Yes, a huge disjoint, which is why it is so fascinating.

Well... we don&apos;t really know how big a disjoint it is: To crack the NDE problem, we first have to crack the consciousness problem.

That said: The existence of a puzzle--is not a solution.

This isn&apos;t the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)

It is my impression that the Book of the Dead was written to handle the problem NDE&apos;s presented.

Have you read it?

No, just a review of it.

It was compiled over several hundreds of years as Buddhist Priests attended the last rites of their dying. Much of it is compiled from people who experienced NDEs. It&apos;s a manual of what death is and more importantly--what to expect as you die. It is not an attempt at explaining NDEs.

That is how I understood it. Thanks for your explanation.

But there exists no explanation about the means.

That is exactly the point. And I am not sure that we will find the means.

No, but I actually put more credit to the Hindus and Kabbalistic Rabbis: They explored the universe by exploring the inside. Many of their answers harmonize with you.

I can readily accept that.

I&apos;ve offered up what I&apos;ve found in regards to Buddhist interpretations. You just need to accept that this isn&apos;t a subject I take lightly, and have thought deeply about-->and came to the conclusion that I lack the information necessary to work a solution.

And I certainly accept your position here. I am not asking for a solution. Just a recognition that this NDE issue presents a puzzle, and I recognize that you see it that way also, but on your own terms.

Contrary to what you think, I&apos;m not shutting my mind to anything. I&apos;m pointing out that I have no way to study the phenomenon in question. Sure, I can read stories that tantalize, but without tools, without an observational framework, without a means of reproduction--you have a disjoint between these experiences, and everything else in existence.

Yes, a huge disjoint, which is why it is so fascinating.

This isn&apos;t the work of Buddha, but some of the Tibetan mystics that wrote the Book of the Dead. Buddhism offers no ontology for the mind--one of its attractions is its implicit assertion that ontologies are dangerous. (They create illusion as opposed to helping us dissolve them.)

It is my impression that the Book of the Dead was written to handle the problem NDE&apos;s presented.

Have you read it? It was compiled over several hundreds of years as Buddhist Priests attended the last rites of their dying. Much of it is compiled from people who experienced NDEs. It&apos;s a manual of what death is and more importantly--what to expect as you die. It is not an attempt at explaining NDEs. Buddhism generally dislikes ontologies, it isn&apos;t likely to try and &quot;explain&quot; something it ultimately recognizes as unknowable. It&apos;s referred to as &quot;The Middle Way&quot; because on one side you have Vedic thought--the material world is unreal, only the spiritual world in Brahma is real--and materialism.