Η απώλεια συνείδησης κατά την νάρκωση ως μορφή θανάτου (στα αγγλικά)

## Do we die when we sleep? Does our conscious timeline become fragmented during some sleep stages?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

neurocoherence/neurocohesion (consciousness): For high consciousness most of the cerebellum has to work. Neurocoherent/neurocohesive (conscious) individuals have belief in self-agency (see: sense of agency in the human brain). We have the sense of agency; we do not have a magical/unprocedural/supernatural pre-existing personhood which shapes itself outside the natural laws (does randomness prevail/dictates the brain how to work? If so still we don't have self-agency. / Does God, a divine force, or the supernatural self itself dictate the brain how to act; Without procedural rules there is no cause and effect. In the case God defines our actions, we have no free will and God consciously committed all the crimes being doubly unethical to promote himself as the saviour. Roger Penrose wants to destroy neuroscience with the utterly childish double fallacy of quantum processing in microtubules; a double fallacy because: 1. no data supports the claim, 2. Roger Penrose indirectly suggests either that 2a. a supernatural personhood pre-exists and by unprocedurally violating nature, [the magical personhood] dictates how the erroneously presented microtubules shape brain activity patterns, 2b. (Roger Penrose is a tacit supernaturalist if one reads his texts; and an explicit one if we read his texts better. Being a supernaturalist he tacitly rejects the option 2b) the fallaciously presented microtubules, do not operate according to the beloved supernatural pre-existing personhood Roger Penrose doesn't want to openly admit he supports, but they obey John Stewart Bell's quantum statistics [a form of noise generator compatible to quantum mechanics]. [but the only purpose of the Penrosean microtubular fallacy, is to provide personocratic/personhood-biased purpose to everything; because Roger Penrose doesn't want to die, but he tries to kill reason itself.]). One's belief in self-agency doesn't mean s/he is a magical/uncorporeal bearer of personhood who dominates the violation of natural laws within his/her brain.).

People with frontal lobe damage experience consciousness (they can control themselves and their actions; but they don't behave properly and the cannot control their emotions or perform complex tasks which require patience). We should adopt the gradient theory of personhood, because different individuals and species, experience different degrees of it. Mary Anne Warren's criteria of personhood should be kept as the core prerequisites for personhood, but other prerequisites should be included (even when contributing less to the overall personhood; a cumulative phenomenon). Thus an individual with some degree if frontal lobe damage (see: Phineas Gage) usually remains personhooded/personhood-bearing, but to a lesser degree if we include important attributes for higher consciousness which aren't prerequisites for rudimentary consciousness (basic excitation and simple cohesive movements but without higher intellect, emotional control and difficult task management).

Can we separate higher consciousness from intelligence and the thinking ability? These terms are not identical, but they overlap; that's why we have to introduce gradient version of older theories.

We cannot define if we die at some stage of sleep some of the times (it depends on the specific brain activities at the moment of the "death of consciousness"/decoherence of the activity of the brain in a manner it cannot yield personhood and selfhood; we cannot use generic categories without to examine each patient case one by one).

When someone is very tired or has abused drugs, experiences partial consciousness in some cases, but usually maintains some degree of sentience. But it's impossible to generalise partial consciousness. Specific corporeal (bodily functions and most importantly brain activity data) data per each case are necessary.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

This is a neuroscientific question. Not a philosophical one (if we root our reasoning in opinion; not facts and without describing what happens, then our focus becomes our oratorical talent to trick and not the subject; the best philosophical stance is to totally avoid philosophy when possible; when there are enough facts; also interpretational and personocratic/anthropocentric terms should be avoided if they merely represent our bias and not how things are (How to philosophise [think philosophically], and why trying to avoid it makes one a better philosopher = wisdom lover and not bias lover.).

Not all stages of sleep yield incoherent/incohesive brain activity.
Also the ones which yield incoherent/incohesive brain activity do change the neural connectome and its biochemistry, but that change isn't experienced neurocoherently/neurocohesively (consciously as mainly used in the philosophy of neuroscience [it has other meanings]) during the incoherent/incohesive brain activation states.

Dreams are typically yielded during REM sleep; thus neurocoherence/neurocohesion (consciousness) isn't (usually; not all REM activity coincides with sleep; each REM session is a unique experience; we can statistically describe what usually happens, but not only one experience is yielded by the brain during REM) lost.

During some stages of sleep, the individual loses neurocoherence/neurocohesion (consciousness); but that phenomenon varies (for example in the case of partial neurocoherence/neurocohesion [consciousness]).

Testimony of experience has no value without scientific preparations (brain activity recording techniques; brain-imaging video) in order the conditions of the memorised (some experiences consolidate during memory retrieval) experience become known (state misattribution is possible, and different conditions are not strictly generalisable because each individual reacts differently through time). Some people claim they listened to sounds under anesthesia, but without the timeline of their corporeal data (bodily functions: heart rate, amount of drugs in their blood, brain patterns, etc.) we cannot jump to conclusions.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ask for more...