Sunday 1 June 2008

coma state

I was wondering whether the state of being in a coma can be understood from an ITLADian perspective.


Karl Le Marcs said...

Woodsprite: Well, I'd say that being in a coma is an illustration of unconsciousness; and if unconscious then neither the Daemon nor Eidolon have subjectivity (or such is severely diminished owing to the reduction in empirical sentience for the duration of the comatose state)

"Consider me an object
Put me in a vacuum
Free of all conditions
Free of air and friction

- Pearl Jam "Comatose"

Anonymous said...

So it's a bit like being on pause.

Hmmm... so what happens at the point of death? Would there be an inevitable momentary consciousness?
(Not that it's empirically possible to check I suppose) Would there be the glutamate flooding effect?

johar said...

Hi Woodsprite: When we sleep we are in a state of reduced consciousness so a coma state would be a deeper version of sleep. However, if this coma state continues for any length of time, I wonder what would be going on subjectively and objectively?
Would it be similar to a NDE, would the eidolon begin to detach from it’s perception of itself as a body to be met by the daemon? The problem I have with this is that in an NDE the experience occurs when bodily functions have cease and the person is ‘dead’, if only for a short time.
Would the daemon begin a past life review so as we observe the person in a coma they are actually experiencing a new run? There are reports of people in a coma having memory flashbacks and life events being relived. Again, the past life review only happens when there is ‘death’ so the daemon wouldn’t be starting a new run in a live person.
As the person is still technically alive, would the eidolon be ‘hanging around’ observing family and friends around them for example? This is closer to what I believe happens. A deep coma places the eidolon within objective consciousness in as much as it is separate from the actual body. However I feel that there would be a subjective awareness as the person is still alive and therefore still ‘attached’ subjectively.

Karl Le Marcs said...

Woodsprite: Yes, I suppose it would be like being on pause.
In ITLAD at the point of death we enter a Bohmian IMAX recurrence of our past life review, so it would indeed be empirically impossible to ascertain if what we are experiencing is reality of a playback.

Hurlyburly said...

I think as we are gods in our own universe, it would be very similar to the situation in Kevin Smith's film Dogma. God takes human form to play some ski-ball and is put in a coma, he is therefor incapacitated and cannot help himself, he requires help from the rest of the world.

This however brings up the question of whether the world is still out there while we are incapacitated.

It's a great question that raises a lot of other questions!

Karl Le Marcs said...

Johar and Woodsprite:
Synchrondipitously we are entering an area that I only emailed Tony about earlier today, so as I feel it is pertinent to this discussion I shall place some of the email here:

In dreams we cannot die. Our subconscious (or Daemon perhaps) awakens us before the point of death in the dreamlike state, much the same way that CTF suggests we do not subjectively reach the point of death. So in dreams, as within the phaneron of our qualia, we have an eternal element within our subconscious that is fundamentally omniscient. Thus, within ITLAD, as in dreams, so is the case in our existential universe: we do NOT reach the point of death. In dreams we awaken, and in life we recur through the Bohmian IMAX. Our dream state is merely us, in an altered state of lower empiricism, surfing the wave of objective consciousness. Within CtCw this is evidence of our subjective connection to the objective wave, as of course, only those who awaken from dreams tell of NDDE (Near Death Dream Experience) whereas those that DO die in dreams would probably also die in reality as they reach the end of the finite recurrences (as Cantor and my Quantum of Time argument suggests) in their Ultimate Life. Thus empirical sentience ends and our failure to no longer be the observer means our subjectively collapsed particle of consciousness becomes unobserved and thus resides once again within the wave of universal consciousness, mixing with all Akashic Records, waiting to be collapsed once again by a new sentience on birth, thus recurring (now eternally) in the evolution of consciousness throughout all time!

johar said...

At the point of death, it could be said we awaken in a dream that is the Bohmian IMAX.

"There is no such thing as death.
Life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves"

Bill Hicks

Karl Le Marcs said...

"Here's Tom with the weather....."

Johar: That is basically what ITLAD is all about, except in CTF we do NOT actually reach the point of death within our own phaneron.

johar said...

Karl, I concur entirely.

Hurly: Whilst incapacitated, wouldn't we still have subjective awareness albeit reduced because of diminished sentience, as Karl pointed out initially. So within our own phaneron and within Karl's CtCW Theory the world would still be 'out there'?

Karl Le Marcs said...

Johar: A small alteration to your question to Hurly is required in that the question of the world being still 'out there' in my CtCw theory (including ITLAD), would require existence outside of our own phaneron, not within it.

But well formulated JoJo, it's enormously flattering to see you using so many of my and Tony's terms.

johar said...

Oh I see, I was looking at it from your theory that decoherence enables several subjective consciousnesses to observe the same outcome to an event. And that we can interact, affect, effect, synchronise and influence other subjective consciousnesses via quantum entanglement.
Doesn't this allow for existence within and outside our phaneron, effectively solving the solipsism issue ?

Karl Le Marcs said...

Johar: If a subjective particle of consciousness makes a Quantum observation then it immediately decoherese and is observable by others. If another person had made the initial observaion the result would have been different but would then still have decohered so all others viewed the same.

The Quantum Entanglements I assert we form in my theory between us to work with each other mentally.

And your last point is what I was banging on about a few weeks ago when you couldn't understand my words. What exists within our phaneron is our subjective particle of consciousness, outside of our phaneron would be someone in Guatalahara who is experiencing their own phaneron. SO yes, CtCW takes ITLAD away from Solipcism (its most frequently used argument against it) as I first begain to explain in my Mother Paradox of Cheating The Ferryman

SM Kovalinsky said...

KLLM: Your remarks are essays, really fine essays in themselves, and flow beautifully. . .
I think Johar is really doing a wonderful job with her remarks, but it seems the terms are getting mixed up again, which in turn alters the meaning of the question, and the ensuing answer. KLLM: I think your theory is wonderfully coherent, yet the terms must be fully understood or all goes astray, so we must be very cautious when using them. Please moderate? (with RE to terms)

SM Kovalinsky said...

ADDENDUM: Obviously, KLLM, you have your own terms, as well as those of CTF and ITLAD, all wonderfully clear. I think perhaps you could help Johar with keeping them straight with glossary ( I am certain I myself can not always be sure of keeping them straight just yet) as her writing is lovely and her attempts are truly good efforts, which hit the mark and only go wrong on the terms.

johar said...

Karl, Apologies that you have had to 'bang on' again on the same point.

Karl Le Marcs said...

Susan Marie: I agree, terms are used to simplify ideas, but if terms are used wrongly or even slightly wrongly they throw the original intention of the question out of the window and replace with a confusing one.

I DO spend a lot of time with Jo helping her where I can as she has some wonderful ideas that sometimes just get written down not quite right.

But given the nature of what we are talking about it's not unlikely.

Johar, your ideas are FABO, and I'm sorry if I struggle sometimes with the way your phrase the question, I think I know what you meant often, but one or two terms or words made me confused.


Karl Le Marcs said...

Johar: Thank you JoJo.
It's just hard when I've spent so long writing on this and shared some of my writing with you all on here when I see a term that I wrote used in the wrong context or not being in the right way asked. Obviously I know what it means as I wrote it, but you use my terms a lot Jo, and if one is used erroneously I feel I wouldn't be doing my role here if I let it pass as it may confuse others as well. I'm happy to help JoJo, you know that.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I ask a simple question and end up with a challenge to work through for the rest of the day!

This is what I love about this site - a guaranteed work out for the brain!

Karl could you recommend what I need to have read to fully grasp all the concepts with a glossary of the acronyms. A common language enables sharing complex concepts but I'm not a fluent speaker yet and I could do with a dictionary! *smiles*

Anthony Peake said...

WOODSPRITE: Thanks for stimulating a fascinating series of responses. The intellectual level of this blog never ceases to amaze me.

For what it is worth I would like to add another observation that may at least add a little light to this issue.

If we accept the idea that we all exist within our own phaneron then what we observe within this Bohmian IMAX is one of trillions of potential and actual universes that 'exist' out there in the multiverse. Now whether these are 'Many Worlds' or 'Many Minds' is a debate we can have at another time but suffice to say you (the person reading these words) exist within our own unique universe (assuming that you are not a Virgin Lifer). As such your universe, in order to 'exist' needs you as a sentient observer to collapse its wave function and bring it into 'solidity'. (or collapse the consciousness wave function as suggested by Karl)Therefore in your universe you 'observe' somebody in a comma but this is only in your universe. In the universe/phaneron of the coma victim they cannot be in such a state because being in a coma implies non-sentience and therefore non-observation - a contradiction in terms.

You may recall that in ITLAD I discuss the impications of Professor Max Tegmark's "Quantum Suicide" thought experiment (pages 30 to 34). As Tegmark rightly observes, the experimenter can never die in their universe but will do so in the universe of an observer to the event. So it is with somebody in a coma.

Of course, as with everything else itladian this is simply a theory, and as such I put it up for debate - but it does explain what may take place in a coma situation.

johar said...

Tony, The clarification you give is exactly the point I was getting mixed up about regarding the Virgin Life post I made a couple of weeks ago. It was one comment that confused me re: many worlds, many minds and you have cleared it up for me, thank you.

johar said...

Just out of curiosity, if we observe the coma patient in our own phaneron, what is happening to them in theirs? Within their own phaneron, they can't be in a coma state so what might they be experiencing? And if they awake from their coma will their experience whilst in a coma be perceived as a dream?

Karl Le Marcs said...

["Karl could you recommend what I need to have read to fully grasp all the concepts with a glossary of the acronyms."]

Funnily enough Di, here you go!
(click the link)

ITLAD Glossary

Anonymous said...

Thank you everybody. Another step forward in my understanding.

In the words of the Pythons so long ago "My brain hurts!"

Karl Le Marcs said...

Woodsprite: *hee hee*
Nobody expects the ITLADic Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and....... etc etc.

ITLAD headache tablets available in all good (and a few somewhat dodgy) Pharmacists now!!