Art by smbc-comics

Consciousness is often said to disappear in deep, dreamless sleep. We argue that this assumption is oversimplified. Unless dreamless sleep is defined as unconscious from the outset there are good empirical and theoretical reasons for saying that a range of different types of sleep experience, some of which are distinct from dreaming, can occur in all stages of sleep.

Pubmed Articles

Does Consciousness Disappear in Dreamless Sleep?

Sciencealert Article We Were Wrong About Consciousness Disappearing in Dreamless Sleep, Say Scientists

  • duckington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean to be honest I wouldn’t say that we “die” at all when you sleep… your mind is extremely active while sleeping, it’s just disconnected from motor control.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s just disconnected from motor control.

      It’s way more than just that, though. You’re also disconnected from your sensory inputs, and furthermore, your conscious experience is interrupted. It’s not like you’re just in a sensory deprivation tank, because there you’d still experience conscious thought, and the passage of time. It just seems to turn off for a while.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus there are periods of deep sleep when your brain does shut down quite thoroughly. People just don’t remember those, obviously, so they put a lot more weight on the dreaming bits that slip through sometimes.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, without defining what the self is and consciousness, it’s difficult to even define what death is from a consciousness point of view. A living meat bag doesn’t require brain activity either. There’s a whole range of things. So even assuming we have a good meaning of “death” is oversimplifying things.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have a good definition of “death”, it’s the irreversible stop of some activity. For a brain, that’s neuronal depolarization; for a body organ or cell, it’s destruction past its ability to regenerate.

        The self, is a snapshot of a brain state at a certain moment, which is technically irreversibly disappearing 30 times a second, but we like to think of it as just “changing” and forming a causal sequence we call “consciousness”.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s the irreversible stop of some activity.

          This threshold has changed over time. So I don’t think it’s a good definition of it hasn’t always been the same point.

          And the rest of your comment is just philosophy. You’re neither wrong nor right. Definition of self is not a concept there’s really any consensus over.

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Threshold has changed, the definition is still the same, we’re just getting better at reverting the stop of some activities, like breathing or heartbeat. If we someday could revert neuronal depolarization, that would be great, but it seems difficult to achieve.

            The other part is not just philosophy, it’s the best we can do to define a “self”. The philosophical part is only whether we can consider them a continuum, or whether we have to see them as usually similar but separate (there are reasons to support both versions).

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If the threshold changed, the actual definition changed. The same words to describe a different point. If the definition described two different things, its changed. That’s basic and simple reasoning. If a definition no longer describes the same thing, it’s because it’s actual meaning has changed.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “To the end of the road” doesn’t change meanings when the road gets extended another 10 miles. The point changes, the definition doesn’t.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  yes, the definition changes. it used to mean one point. now it means a point 10 miles away. come on. simple substitution. if you define it only with relative terms then its poorly defined as there’s no actual concrete meaning. so you either have a poorly defined term or you have a term that has changed meaning over time. which still makes it poorly defined. i don’t know how else to explain it. so i’m going to leave it here. this is going in circles.

                  • jarfil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think I know what you mean, but plenty of terms have relative definitions (“behind”, “bright”, “x+1”, “etc”… etc). If you’re looking for an absolute point, you won’t find one, because their meaning is the relationship itself.

                    Both “life” and “death” define a state relative to another. The definition of “life” is a particularly tricky one, because it includes multiple relative definitions like “growth”, “reaction”, “functioning”, and a “reproduction” that includes both cloning and “imperfect” cloning. Being “death” the opposite, it’s necessarily as relative and tricky too.