Non-Neurological Consciousness

[The Judge]

Cheers guys

Lol, it is a constant source of amazement and intrigue to me just how many nurses and doctors claim some sort of religious affiliation. I suspect medical education may have become less scientific

[hertz vanrental]

SEG wrote

Appropriate use of quotation marks, Hertz. I saw him getting his arse kicked on his website by The Judge. He should stay away from this stuff and stick to being a registered nurse and taking care of people in hospital. WAIT! What am I saying?!!!

The Judge is far more polite than I am. He also gets down and dirty at the 'atomic' level as it were when commenting on egor's 'theories'.

Me, I'm sick and tired of christardology, christards and their bull shit. I've heard it a million times before. I stay at the high level, see their big picture and attack that. I really can't be bothered to spend the time going low-level.

Personally, I find it insulting that egor thinks that we'll swallow his bull but, there ya go.

Take care y'hear.

[Egor]

The Judge wrote

Of course, this is bullshit. For one Hitch would never have said such an absurd thing. He'd have lost a lot of credibility if he had.

How the hell do you know? No...I want to know. How do you know the operation of "Hitch's" mind? No, you could have taken it as the absurd hyperbole it was, but you didn't. Instead, you spout something less rational than the most religious person would ever spout. And you chide me for jumping to huge leaps. But you presume to know what a dead person would or would not have done if they had been alive.

Whether it did or didn't the growth of unaffiliated / non-spiritual / atheists / "Nones" has grown certainly in the UK and in the US in recent years. Did this play a part? Possibly but there are arguably many other factors at play to effect such a shift in tides.

Spirituality has grown. Church affiliation has declined. People will never change. The amount of theists and atheists is probably the same as it was in the 1500's. But there is more communication and freedom of expression now.

[Egor]

SEG wrote

Appropriate use of quotation marks, Hertz. I saw him getting his arse kicked on his website by The Judge. He should stay away from this stuff and stick to being a registered nurse and taking care of people in hospital. WAIT! What am I saying?!!!

The Judge wrote

Cheers guys

Lol, it is a constant source of amazement and intrigue to me just how many nurses and doctors claim some sort of religious affiliation. I suspect medical education may have become less scientific

Or maybe it's observation. I think some people are less equipped to understand other people in an empathic way. There is something about understanding and empathy that creates a sense of oneness with whatever the object of that empathy and understanding is. That experience tends to cause one to sense the Divine and to sense a transcendence of consciousness.

Some people are less equipped to experience that for whatever reason. Apparently, God needs lower humans to work the material world.

Both the religious and the atheists are the same in many respects. The last big battle I had over at Christian Forums was with a Christian who has never once heard the voice of God except what he reads in the bible. He follows the Church; that's it. The atheist, if they are educated, follows academia; that's it. Both are the same creature.

I call it--and you'll like this--refractory atheism. It's in the religious and the atheist. And the only reason people like you are in groups like this is for the hope that someone like me will come along and spiritually defibrilate you. And I'll be honest: I don't know if I can.

But the least you could do is not disparage your colleagues and the majority of nurses in the world. It could be that they have "parts" that are simply missing in you.

[hertz vanrental]

Egor wrote

How the hell do you know? No...I want to know. How do you know the operation of "Hitch's" mind? No, you could have taken it as the absurd hyperbole it was, but you didn't. Instead, you spout something less rational than the most religious person would ever spout. And you chide me for jumping to huge leaps. But you presume to know what a dead person would or would not have done if they had been alive.



Spirituality has grown. Church affiliation has declined. People will never change. The amount of theists and atheists is probably the same as it was in the 1500's. But there is more communication and freedom of expression now.

I strongly suggest that you look up the terms 'science' and go do some and 'insane behaviour' and stop.

Now, do run along little boy. Perhaps you'd like to play with your younds and your chemistry set.

[The Judge]

Egor wrote

How the hell do you know? No...I want to know. How do you know the operation of "Hitch's" mind? No, you could have taken it as the absurd hyperbole it was, but you didn't. Instead, you spout something less rational than the most religious person would ever spout. And you chide me for jumping to huge leaps. But you presume to know what a dead person would or would not have done if they had been alive.

Because I've read him; numerous books in fact. Nothing in them suggests he ever or was ever likely to have made such a comment.
If you had read him you would say the same thing.

Judging from this and our discussion going on over at your forum, I don't think you understand what a leap is to be honest Egor.

When everything about a subject suggests one thing and you conclude something completely different; this is a leap.

Egor wrote

Spirituality has grown. Church affiliation has declined. People will never change.

Re-worded this effectively reads: "People change. People will never change. I don't know what I'm talking about."

Egor wrote

The amount of theists and atheists is probably the same as it was in the 1500's. But there is more communication and freedom of expression now.

Bold assertion made with no references to back it up and an arbitrary date thrown in for good measure (maybe because that way it's safely un-knowable. I mean it'd be impossible to get those numbers right because whoever didn't want to get burned at the stake by christers back in the 16th century bloody well toed the party line).

Egor, come on now, you're slipping now

[The Judge]

Egor wrote

Or maybe it's observation. I think some people are less equipped to understand other people in an empathic way. There is something about understanding and empathy that creates a sense of oneness with whatever the object of that empathy and understanding is. That experience tends to cause one to sense the Divine and to sense a transcendence of consciousness.

Some people are less equipped to experience that for whatever reason. Apparently, God needs lower humans to work the material world.

Both the religious and the atheists are the same in many respects. The last big battle I had over at Christian Forums was with a Christian who has never once heard the voice of God except what he reads in the bible. He follows the Church; that's it. The atheist, if they are educated, follows academia; that's it. Both are the same creature.

I call it--and you'll like this--refractory atheism. It's in the religious and the atheist. And the only reason people like you are in groups like this is for the hope that someone like me will come along and spiritually defibrilate you. And I'll be honest: I don't know if I can.

But the least you could do is not disparage your colleagues and the majority of nurses in the world. It could be that they have "parts" that are simply missing in you.

I feel a well deserved fuck you is order here and not only for the sickeningly magnanimous and self-aggrandizing tone you affect but also because I happen to empathize very well with my patients and their families as it goes. I am not missing anything in that regard. And yes I am basing this on evidence and not just colleagues and mentors who have said as much to me face-to-face at work but also in regular routine anonymised multi-source feedback that we are obliged to send out periodically as part of our on-going training.

I submit that I merely have the ability to not only empathise but also be a critical scientist and much else besides depending on what is being required of me.

My amazement at these people who have had some science training amongst other things comes from the obstinate clinging to out-dated, out-moded and out-classed religiosity when science in many ways should challenge this. I think that most of them are just adept at compartmentalizing and never the twain shall meet when it comes to religion and science which is a shame.

[Egor]

The Judge wrote

Judging from this and our discussion going on over at your forum, I don't think you understand what a leap is to be honest Egor.

When everything about a subject suggests one thing and you conclude something completely different; this is a leap.

You quote one unproven hypothesis to counter my argument, and you call that "everything about a subject suggests one thing"? That's ridiculous. Actually, I'm starting to think you're a liar about the whole MD thing. When I think back, you didn't write anything particularly scientific--you just cut and pasted something you found on the web. I'm the one who digested it and commented on it.

I think I've been a bit duped here. I suspect it anyway.

Tell me, what might you give someone with a dx of CAD and a current AMI esp. r/t HTN? The first medication upon arrival?

Bold assertion made with no references to back it up and an arbitrary date thrown in for good measure (maybe because that way it's safely un-knowable. I mean it'd be impossible to get those numbers right because whoever didn't want to get burned at the stake by christers back in the 16th century bloody well toed the party line).

Egor, come on now, you're slipping now

I'm not slipping. I want to know who I'm talking to.

[Davin]

Egor wrote

I'm not slipping. I want to know who I'm talking to.

Egor is prone to committing all kinds of ad hominen fallacies, looks like it can't even have discussion without committing one which is why it wants to know who it's talking to.

[The Judge]

Egor wrote

You quote one unproven hypothesis to counter my argument, and you call that "everything about a subject suggests one thing"? That's ridiculous. Actually, I'm starting to think you're a liar about the whole MD thing. When I think back, you didn't write anything particularly scientific--you just cut and pasted something you found on the web. I'm the one who digested it and commented on it.

I think I've been a bit duped here. I suspect it anyway.

Tell me, what might you give someone with a dx of CAD and a current AMI esp. r/t HTN? The first medication upon arrival?




I'm not slipping. I want to know who I'm talking to.

First off I discussed numerous aspects of the scientific method at length. It is not my fault that you did not read them and only glanced over the excerpt I quoted (as I mentioned in that thread on your forum, you clearly didn't actually read it anyway).

Furthermore, your pathetic little game is lacking in certain key bits of information but don't worry I'll play it, only I'll fill in the gaps for you (like I've done elsewhere).

Before we start a little "FYI" The use of acronyms in medicine is troublesome and largely discouraged. For instance the difference between an ERPC (Evacuation of Retained Products of Conception) and ERCP Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Panreatography) is huge and MRCP (Membership of the Royal College of Physicians) and an MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography) is also huge. Context is everything...but you know this I'm sure.

Tha being said, let's go...

Assuming the following abbreviations are what you mean:
CAD = Coronary Artery Disease
AMI = Acute Myocardial Infarction
HTN - Hypertension
I'll be honest I'm not sure what you mean by "esp. r/t HTN" - Are you trying to say that they also have a background of pulmonary hypertension?

Anyway, my initial approach would be a standard ABCDE approach:
Airway: Assuming there is no airway compromise I would most likely give oxygen if required for...
Breathing: Aiming for SpO2 of 94-98% unless they had COPD in which case I'd aim for SpO2 of 88-92%. Any difficulty in breathing/hypoxia I would get a chest x-ray to assess for pulmonary oedema / intercurrent infection/pneumothorax and an ABG to assess gas exchange, acid/base status, electrolytes, Hb, glucose, and lactate. Whilst there I'd also take blood to send for U&Es to test for routine kidney function, and a random/un-timed troponin to assess for degree of myocyte breakdown, an FBC to get a lab defined Hb and overall white cell and platelet counts. If routinely anti-coagulated for any reason I'd take a clotting screen and ensure this had an INR unless they were on a NOAC (novel anti-coagulant) in which case the APTT / PT would be more useful.
Then on to...
Circulation: I'd assess their cardiovascular system (pulse, jugular venous pulsation height at a 45 degree angle, heart rate, blood pressure and an ECG...EKG for you yanks). The latter would most likely show new S-T elevation in two contiguous leads of >0.1 mV also likely (but not necessarily, depending on acuity) with reciprocal S-T depression.
Unless they were in cardiogenic shock / florid pulmonary oedema / in extremis then I'd immediately follow the ACS (Acute Coronary Syndrome) protocol:
300mg aspirin (often given by paramedics prehospital so I'd check if this is the case, if not then I'd give it)...Plus 300mg clopidogrel (some places I've worked use ticagrelor 180mg instead of clopidogrel)
Then ensure the patient was anti-coagulated with an appropriate dose of heparin (we use enoxaparin with an initial dose of 30mg) unless their kidney function was so poor (creatinine clearance as calculated by the Cockroft-Gault equation of 15-30ml/min in which case I'd use an unfractionated heparin).
Disability / Pain relief: Quick assessment of conscious level using the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS score out of 15, range 3-15). For symptomatic relief and if their systolic BP was >90mmHg (and they weren't on something like a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor for their ?pulmonary hypertension), I would give them sub-lingual glyceryl trinitrate and iv morphine titrated to effect (again renal function permitting for morphine).
Exposure: Checking legs for oedema and a rudimentary examination of abdomen skin as this is likely not the most pressing problem but good for completeness.
...DEFG: Don't Ever Forget glucose!: I would want to know this too but would most likely have already obtained this from the blood gas sample (arterial if airway/breathing compromise but I'd settle for venous if A and B were OK).

This patient needs definitive treatment in the form of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) so I'd refer to an appropriate specialist for this and would hand this patient over using an "SBAR" format:

Situation: Acute myocardial infarction in a male/female (age) year old.
Background: Coronary artery disease (+/-any stents / angios) and hypertension (?r/t HTN / pulmonary hypertension) (and any other relevant cardiac history such as previous MIs / stents, exercise tolerance, last echo if appropriate, family cardiac history, smoking history, and any current meds.
Assessment: I'd comment on their cardiovascular stability and the ECG and any chest x-ray findings as well as the random troponin result if known.
Reccommendation: Treatment given so far and any responses to that and that the patient requires PCI for acute MI and (PDE5 inhibitor notwithstanding, otherwise omit or reduce the dose of any beta-blocker considered) would need standard post-MI treatment thereafter with cardiology follow up.


Any other medical questions you'd like some help with, Egor?

[Smellyoldgit]

Whilst trawling the interwebs this fine morn, I came across Karl Pribram's Rethinking Neural Networks.
Page 320 talks about Single Cell Intelligence, Adaptive behavior in paramecium. Whilst not in any way in my area of expertise, the explanation seems far more acceptable that any of Ego-Bores drool.
Have at it Herr Judge.

[Egor]

You're full of shit. That's all cut and paste. Because, if it's not, the alternative is downright bizarre. That is that a real MD would have the time or the inclination to type that in a ridiculous atheist forum in response to a question from a nurse that only required: nitroglycerin sublingual 0.4 mg.

You are no MD. You're a pretender. And I say that, because I cannot--I just can't--imagine the alternative. It would be too sad.

Me? I'm waiting on a job, so I currently have time to sit here and do this BS. No MD would. Nor would they lower themselves to it.

So, you're full of shit.

[Egor]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Whilst trawling the interwebs this fine morn, I came across Karl Pribram's Rethinking Neural Networks.
Page 320 talks about Single Cell Intelligence, Adaptive behavior in paramecium. Whilst not in any way in my area of expertise, the explanation seems far more acceptable that any of Ego-Bores drool.
Have at it Herr Judge.

Already reviewed it.

It's all conjecture. And even at that, it's all conjecture on unproven structures within the cell that even if they do exist and function as speculated, does not explain how the cell behaves like a conscious animal in the wild. No more so, in fact than neuron anatomy or CNS structure explains consciousness in human beings.

Repeat after me: True-sounding pseudo-scientific speculative gibberish.

[Smellyoldgit]

Egor wrote

It's all conjecture.

Against your spectacular, peer-reviewed theory.

I thought you were leaving the building?

[hertz vanrental]

Egor wrote

You quote one unproven hypothesis to counter my argument, and you call that "everything about a subject suggests one thing"? That's ridiculous. Actually, I'm starting to think you're a liar about the whole MD thing. When I think back, you didn't write anything particularly scientific--you just cut and pasted something you found on the web. I'm the one who digested it and commented on it.

I think I've been a bit duped here. I suspect it anyway.

Tell me, what might you give someone with a dx of CAD and a current AMI esp. r/t HTN? The first medication upon arrival?




I'm not slipping. I want to know who I'm talking to.

Egor

Just a few questions if I might:

1. You claim that I have been a member of this forum for years. This is in spite of me proving otherwise and you having the ability to verify my claim. Are you still of this opinion? If so, what is your proof? If not, do you think an apology is in order?

2. You claim that there is consciousness without a brain and use the behaviour of paramecium, which has no brain, as proof. If a person's brain dies, does that person retain consciousness? If not, why is this? If so, how is this?

3. Where, in your opinion, does this consciousness in an entity reside?

4. What is the nature of consciousness?

5. Does consciousness refer to 'information' current and/or past?

6. If 'information' is referred to, how is the information stored and accessed or is information just transient?

7. If 'information' is referred to, what type of information is it?

8. Have you ever thought that ESP may be involved? My apologies for using a TLA here.

9. Is consciousness absolute and fixed or are there degrees of consciousness? For example, does a human have a higher level of consciousness than say Hydra, for example?

10. If so, what determines the level of consciousness in any given entity?

11. Does the level of consciousness vary between individual members of a species?

12. What is the purpose of consciousness?

13. Is consciousness a single 'entity' or does it consist of components?

14. If so what are the components and what are the natures of those components?

I think that this will do for the moment. I look forward to reading the answers.