I've actually seen this Ted talk before, and I don't think it prove that consciousness die with the brain. If there's a part specifically that proves that, please share. Nope. But consider a counter question - can all living beings cease to exist in the universe? I'm not talking about specific points in time, because we know there was a time between the creation of the universe and the fist living being. I'm talking a universe without life across all of it's existence. We know only of one universe and it has life in it. Therefore we can't be sure that universe can exist without life (without consciousness, or spectator). Please share how do you imagine this nothingness? Since the universe continue to exist, where does this nothingness fit in? How can nothing exist in something? There can be either nothing, or something, not both. And we have already agreed that something continue to exist.
He explained that he became oblivious to reality, but obviously the doctors and nurse did not cease to exist in reality. They were the ones who restored him from being an object back to being a person.
You just answered your question it seems to me. So there had to be life at some point for the universe to exist - this is known as wild speculation. By that 'logic' I could say we know of only one universe and it has the planet Saturn in it. Therefore we can't be sure the universe can exist without Saturn.
Because reality ceases to exist only for you, but nor for other living beings or non-living objects either. Reality is a purely subjective experience unique to you only.
I don't think you meant what you wrote. I could go with your perception of reality is somewhat influenced by who you are. If it was purely subjective we would never agree on anything.
This what was explained by Anil Seth in Ted Talk https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality and if that is of interest, the next clip will go into more detail.
Didn't see it. If he said reality is purely subjective he is wrong. That only works for cartoon figures such as Wile E. Coyote; where he runs off a cliff and keeps going until he notices he is off the cliff and then falls.
Very subjective. It's not enough to draw objective conclusions from it. I agree, that statement was a mistake. Is it? We only have information of what has transpired in the universe before life. If we were in virtual reality, we also wouldn't be able to distinct what actually existed and what was just generated in a blink when we started to observe it (another big speculation, not for this topic though). Are you absolutely alright with the concept of subjective eternal "nothingness"? Doesn't it seems a bit strange? We can't even say "eternal" because there's no time for you. I'm not talking about fear of death, I'm just trying to explore hard-to-notice bases for further speculation (if there are).
Well, don't try to critique a lecture which you haven't watched. That would be a little premature, don't you think? Watch it, then comment on it, is the standard, I believe..
I don't need to watch, in my purely subjective reality what ever he said was wrong. Not in my purely subjective reality.
I believe science is pretty well in agreement that the universe started long before man can on the scene.
But it shouldn't stop philosophy from making and challenging theories not provable by scientific methods. When science knows, philosophy ask "What is knowing?" Does a falling tree in a forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? From scientific point, there's a definitive answer. But not from philosophical. And if asking that question is called "wild speculation", then I have nothing more to say...
In the first minute of the clip. Perhaps you mean that the information stored in his brain did not disappear while he was sedated. That's true and when he came back to consciousness all the information was still there. He just didn't know for how long he had been "under". HE was not conscious during that time. If he had died on the operating table the information stored in his brain would disappear the moment of his death.
That's all true from the scientific point of view. But however much I respect science, it is something made and defined by humans, it doesn't boast absolute understanding. What I'm trying to convey is a pretty wild thought, I know. But I don't think it's devoid of meaning like a completely wild speculation. Yes, we don't know from what point on a complex formation of particles starts to have consciousness, and how much they differ from each other (does the cat have self-identity even if it doesn't understand it? Does a cock-roach have it?) What we know is that there are many people (let's skip all the animals and insects and potential green lizards from Andromeda for the sake of simplicity), and each have their own sense of self. Like you and me. But what's creating this sense of self in the brain? How the universe "decided" that you should be you? We could easily eat and breed and even invent without it. We can have all the complex thoughts we are currently having without it. There seems to be no need for self-identity. I'm not saying it was created, it can be a random byproduct of the brain function. But that doesn't explain how and why it originates. Going back to the Ted talk - when he was unconscious, was it the same as being dead? And when he came back, was it the same as being born but with all the memories intact? If he's consciousness was REALLY non-existent when he was out, it seems that being awoken is just the same as a new human being born. But the new human is a white list, while this man have memories which he retract from the brain. But if memories are making us to be us, then imagine an experiment: You are being put under general anesthesia. You consciousness cease to exist. Then you are cloned complete with your memories. Then you and your clone both wake up at the same time. Which one will be you?
Thought. The sense of self is a thought. It might not even be innate, but a product of culture. Why does culture need it's members to have a sense of self? Perhaps in order enforce standards of behavior.
Yep. Anaesthesia is one of those things that interrupts consciousness in a very profound way. Unlike, normal sleep, you don't even experience the passage of time. There was a thread here many moons ago about teleportation, and about whether what arrives at the other end is still "you".
Well I can confirm his experience of ceasing to exist . I had a general anesthesia and ceased to exist for about an hour. When I came I became sentient again it seemed that no time had passed and it was the next moment and I asked "are you done already" Doctor told me that the procedure had taken about an hour. What I do find curious that while I was unconscious, my auto-system continued to work, except for the forced oxygen supply. And it has been shown that a heart separated from its body (and brain) continues to beat independently for a period of time. I find this remarkable.
True. Although all your memories remained intact, to be recalled just as before. That suggests you existed, but your consciousness was merely suppressed.
