The Stage 1 experiment clearly demonstrates a person who transitioned into a state of nonconsciousness because he stopped responding to the staff for ten minutes. Birth by Sleep?Ĭlick to expand.There is nowhere in that article that states that you are explicitly conscious while you are asleep. So: When we sleep, do we die? And does the transition from sleeping to waking constitute our. However, I don't think this is the case: Dreams are simply artifacts of a brain in a sort of biological frenzy, leaving behind memories that we could mistake for that fundamental preservation (and their intensity a result of their recentness) and therefore not product of consciousness. Dreams, one can argue, are evidence that the sense of self is fundamentally preserved during the sleeping process, forming a special part or state of consciousness itself. Perhaps the major rebuttal for this notion would be in the form of memories, principally in the form of dreams. If we were to construct a clone of a person atom-by-atom, the clone would genuinely feel that they have had the same experiences as the other person, when in truth, they have not. Our sense of self and longevity is an illusion created by the physical preservation of memories in the brain across many consciousnesses. In the case of the author, many consciousnesses in the body would have come and gone. If this is the case, then we have only been truly alive since the time we woke up. I say this because there clearly is not consciousness prior to waking. I feel that it is key to demonstrating what I mean by saying that consciousness ends instead of saying "we become unconscious." And when we transition from sleep into wakefulness, consciousness begins, but I think it may be more accurate to say it is born, as if our existence as we know it is born from waking.
So, as we transition into sleep, consciousness, at least as I understand it, ends, and I emphasize that it ends. Regardless of ability to return to consciousness, a person who is asleep and someone who is severely brain damaged and someone who doesn't exist are all in, essentially, the same state: nonconsciousness. Is this a correct and accurate way of thinking about death? Should we instead think of the absence of consciousness as death? In this scenario, I am instead going to be thinking of death in terms of a state-based behavior, and call it nonconsciousness to distinguish from unconsciousness (which can seemingly be reversed in the case of sleep). However, for more practical reasons, we usually define death less concretely as the irreversible cessation of consciousness, as in the case of people who have severe brain damage, so I am not thinking in terms of non-mental biological death when I frame this thesis. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines death as the irreversible cessation of all vital functions. Note: This isn't something I genuinely believe, but I think it might generate some interest in the idea, so here it goes. The thesis for this topic is very simple but demonstrating the scenario is a little complex for me.
0 kommentar(er)
