Birth by Sleep

[Dr. James Rustles]

The thesis for this topic is very simple but demonstrating the scenario is a little complex for me.

Note: This isn't something I genuinely believe, but I think it might generate some interest in the idea, so here it goes.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines death as the irreversible cessation of all vital functions. 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. 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).

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. So, as we transition into sleep, consciousness, at least as I understand it, ends, and I emphasize that it ends. 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. I say this because there clearly is not consciousness prior to waking.

If this is the case, then we have only been truly alive since the time we woke up. In the case of the author, many consciousnesses in the body would have come and gone. Our sense of self and longevity is an illusion created by the physical preservation of memories in the brain across many consciousnesses. 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.

Perhaps the major rebuttal for this notion would be in the form of memories, principally in the form of dreams. 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. 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.

So: When we sleep, do we die? And does the transition from sleeping to waking constitute our... Birth by Sleep?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What? You are very much still conscious when asleep.

Also, a person with an "Irreversible cessation of consciousness" couldn't have severe brain damage. They'd be dead.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

What? You are very much still conscious when asleep.

Also, a person with an "Irreversible cessation of consciousness" couldn't have severe brain damage. They'd be dead.

There is nowhere in that article that states that you are explicitly conscious while you are asleep. 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. Perhaps you are confused by the use of the phrase "state of consciousness". Consciousness is defined as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and it is in the state that one can say, "I think, therefore I am." This state clearly ends in the transition to sleep. Now, when one talks about a "state of consciousness", we are describing a specific pattern of brain activity, and that pattern may or may not evoke actual consciousness. Many people prefer to use the term altered state of mind, as the mind (which is what the brain does) is clearly distinct from consciousness.

It is in the specific mental state of consciousness that I am suggesting we are alive, and that this state is merely analog, evoked during a time of waking and dissipating during sleep as the brain transitions to a lower level of functionality. If we are going to define our mode of existence meaningfully, then we are going to define life by the presence of thought and sensation. If we developed a machine or computer that could produce its own consciousness, then we before we turn on the machine can we say that it is dead in the traditional sense? No, because it never really was a live. But this state is no different than if we had turned the machine or computer on, and then turned it off. In either case, the state is still the same as if the machine didn't exist: nonconsciousness, and more importantly illustrating that consciousness transitioning into nonexistence. It is fundamentally dead, and to say that "well, it can still come back to consciousness, as when we are asleep, so it is alive!" is being completely arbitrary about the notion of what /death/ truly is for us.

Once again, I also stress that that particular consciousness transitions into a state of nonexistence, regardless of the how the brain continues to function. Since the experience is analog, there is no indication that the same consciousness continues to exist past the transition into nonexistence (of course), so a new one must begin anew at a point in waking and Shakespeare may have been incorrect to say sleep is "death's counterfeit."

As for your second point, you can have an irreversible cessation of consciousness and still be biologically alive and preserved, as was likely in the case of Terri Schiavo. I brought it up to clarify my suggestion for a new definition of death. In this case, I believe the person who has irreversible cessation of consciousness to be genuinely dead.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Isn't this a Kingdom Hearts game.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Isn't this a Kingdom Hearts game.

That isn't even a question, and it definitely isn't relevant. If it was a question, it wouldn't even make sense. You have nothing to qualify what "this" is.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

That is quite clearly a question and it is certainly obvious what "this" is.

Also you have yet to show how sleep is an "irreversible cessation of consciousness." Your attempts to prove that this is "irreversible" boil down to "I think that we actually lose conscious when we go to sleep and wake up with a new state of consciousness." with nothing proof that this is true in any way.

The difference between a human and a computer is that when you shut down a computer, everything shuts down, similar to the definition of death. As I said before, humans are still functioning during sleep. Your idea of "Birth by sleep" only works if one were to accept your arbitrary definition of death.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

That is quite clearly a question and it is certainly obvious what "this" is.

No, Acrostic's statement is not a question. In writing, questions are punctuated with question marks. Regardless of how obvious it might be as to what a pronoun is referring to the writer or a reader, the writer is obligated to qualify the pronoun when there is a lot of context to consider.

Also you have yet to show how sleep is an "irreversible cessation of consciousness." Your attempts to prove that this is "irreversible" boil down to "I think that we actually lose conscious when we go to sleep and wake up with a new state of consciousness." with nothing proof that this is true in any way.

Once again you have demonstrated that you have a tenuous grasp on what consciousness is (you apparently did not even read the article you shared previously) and you certainly do not seem to understand that I am demonstrating the essence of death by isolating it as a state (nonconsciousness). Nonconsciousness is the common denominator between all the states of sleep, sufficient brain damage and nonexistence (this is the most important thing to realize). Brain activity does not strictly correlate with consciousness or life. For this reason that my definition of death is far from arbitrary.

Allow me to demonstrate further.

A. Before a human being with a healthy, functional neocortex existed, they had no consciousness on any level (being strict, there is no evidence that it exists.)
B. After a human being with a healthy, functional neocortex ceases to exist, they will have no consciousness on any a level (being strict, there is no evidence that it continues to exist.)

Key Point 1: Consciousness is limited to a human with a healthy, functional neocortex.

A. A person who is asleep is not conscious,
B. If a healthy, functional neocortex is the seat of higher level mental ability and consciousness, then a person who has had their neocortex severely damaged is not conscious (and therefore lost to us, as argued by Robert Veatch.)
C. A person who does not exist is not conscious.
D. A person who is asleep and someone who is severely brain damaged and someone who doesn't exist all have a common state: lack of consciousness (nonconsciousness).

Key Point 2: Nonconsciousness is not limited to a human with a healthy, functional neocortex.

A. Since a person who is dead in the traditional sense is not conscious
B. and a person with severe brain damage is not conscious
C. and a person who does not exist is not conscious
D. and the only common state between these three is there lack of consciousness, then

Key Point 3: Our notion of death truly can be refined to the lack of consciousness (or nonconsciousness.)

A. Given that sleep distinctly interrupts periods of consciousness in human beings, we can say that consciousness is an analog experience.
B. If consciousness is analog, then there are periods where consciousness does not exist in spite of a healthy, functional neocortex.

Key Point 4: Sleep is death, and waking is rebirth.

A. There is no genuine indication that consciousness continues beyond severe brain damage, traditional death, nonexistance, etc.
B. As a brain enters a state of sleep and consciousness dissipates, there is no genuine indication that consciousness continues to exist, either. There is an explicit transition into a state of nonconsciousness.
C. There is no genuine indication that the same consciousness existed before functional neocortex formation, existence, etc.
D. As a brain wakes, there is a transition into consciousness. Since there was no indication there was consciousness immediately prior to waking, and that the previous consciousness was preserved in any way, then a new consciousness is born.

Key Point 5: Sleep is death, and waking is not rebirth, but is likely more accurate to be described as a new birth in itself.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The problem with this is that sleep isn't any state of death, since even during sleep, there is obvious brain activity. Dreams are, for simplicity sake, a state of thinking or daydreaming while one is asleep. Actual death is far different; there's no brain activity whatsoever, and any sense of sentience is gone. Another major difference between death and sleep is that - unless a life after death is proven to exist - when we die, we expect to experience nothing in any sense; when we sleep, we expect to dream, even if 90% of it is forgotten within 10 minutes of waking. And what about lucid dreams, where we are completely aware that we're dreaming and can thus manipulate said dreams? Is that not a form of consciousness during sleep?

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

The problem with this is that sleep isn't any state of death, since even during sleep, there is obvious brain activity. Dreams are, for simplicity sake, a state of thinking or daydreaming while one is asleep.

I am trying to refine the notion of death. It is true that sleep is not death in the traditional or biological sense. However, brain activity doesn't strictly correlate with consciousness, and it certainly isn't the basis for a solid, meaningful notion of life. Can you meaningfully distinguish between someone who is, for whatever reason, eternally asleep in a non-lucid state and someone who is dead or doesn't even exist?

Another major difference between death and sleep is that - unless a life after death is proven to exist - when we die, we expect to experience nothing in any sense; when we sleep, we expect to dream, even if 90% of it is forgotten within 10 minutes of waking.

Expectations are not necessarily a basis for proving current state. There is some parallel with the abortion debate here, not to incite. Some may consider abortion murder because a human being is expected to develop while the subject (the unborn) is strictly in the state of a fetus, significantly biologically different from a conscious human being. Expectations hold a degree of acceptance when you consider the traditional notion of death and sleep, but the important thing here is that there is at least a state of nonconsciousness that is apart from any consideration of expectations.



[quote="Claire Diviner, post: 15682890, member: 179195"]And what about lucid dreams, where we are completely aware that we're dreaming and can thus manipulate said dreams? Is that not a form of consciousness during sleep?[/quote]

Lucid dreams can fall comfortably outside the refined notion of death. Lucid dreams are explicitly consciousness, so I am apt to agree they are not death, although the consciousness would be in an unusual mode.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I am trying to refine the notion of death. It is true that sleep is not death in the traditional or biological sense. However, brain activity doesn't strictly correlate with consciousness, and it certainly isn't the basis for a solid, meaningful notion of life. Can you meaningfully distinguish between someone who is, for whatever reason, eternally asleep in a non-lucid state and someone who is dead or doesn't even exist?

I think I can see a point you're driving at, but being brain dead would be far different than being asleep. Even if one isn't lucid dreaming, they still have dreams nonetheless, while those with severe enough brain damage have no sense of self (which is very depressing), including having the ability to dream, which in this case, I suppose they're no different than being dead. The only form of "rebirth" I see possible is if our memories are tampered with, or somehow completely wiped, turning us into completely different people. Otherwise, so as long as we remain who we are, there are no real rebirths to speak of.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Isn't this a thread on semantics.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Isn't this a thread on semantics.

In a manner of speaking... I am exploring what it truly means to be dead.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

In a manner of speaking... I am exploring what it truly means to be dead.

If you are then why are you ignoring a biological context to the phenomena.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

If you are then why are you ignoring a biological context to the phenomena.

I don't think you are making yourself clear but I will try to answer anyway. Also, if you are capable of capitalizing the initial letter of a sentence, you should also be able to punctuate your sentences appropriately.

You should try reading the first paragraph at some point. To suggest I am [completely] ignoring a biological context to the phenomena is too broad and inaccurate. When I say, "I am not thinking in terms of non-mental biological death when I frame this thesis," I am saying that I am defining death in terms of a mental biological death. Most of who we are is derived from a functional neocortex, which is the seat of our thoughts, language, memory and so forth (of course working with lower level structures like the hippocampus).

When the neocortex is destroyed, a person is effectively dead, regardless of non-mental biological capacities. Additionally (and this is important here), just because a neocortex is intact (or the rest of their body as well for that matter) does not mean the person person is alive, practically speaking. A person who is eternally asleep (for whatever reason) cannot be meaningfully distinguished from someone who is dead or doesn't exist. This leads me to conclude that we can only really think of life and death in terms of consciousness, which is a state of a particular brain activity (or any other mechanical mode), and to say that a person who is unconscious by sleep can still be alive by means of being able to return to consciousness is purely arbitrary.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So what part of the brain shuts down exactly to warrant the definition of "death" during sleep? Would it be similar a condition as, say, someone in a vegetative state (Terri Schiavo comes to mind).

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

So what part of the brain shuts down exactly to warrant the definition of "death" during sleep? Would it be similar a condition as, say, someone in a vegetative state (Terri Schiavo comes to mind).

As for sleep, I never implied a certain part of the brain shuts down to warrant the definition of death. It's the shift away in brain activity that evokes consciousness during sleep that warrants the definition of death. It would be essentially similar, for the sake of the definition of death, as someone in a vegetative state, in that they are not in a conscious state.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Isn't this a Kingdom Hearts game.

I opened this in a tab thinking it was a Kingdom Hearts discussion. Neither disappointed nor relived.

Back on-topic, if you put your ear against a sleeping person's chest (good luck with that), do you get a pulse?

If yes, their still alive.

 

[Sparklepower]

What I don't understand is why you want to redefine the notion of death. If all death meant was a state of unconsciousness, then yes... you would be right about this, but currently it doesn't.

What would be the purpose of considering any state of unconsciousness as death? Wouldn't that be a step backwards in terms of linguistics? Isn't it important that we can differentiate between someone asleep and someone dead with our language?

"Birth By Sleep" makes for a cool subtitle to a popular video game franchise, but I don't think it should be taken far beyond that.