The biophilosophic justification for the idea that “brain death” is death needs to support two claims: that what dies in human death is a human organism, not merely a psychological entity distinct from it; that total brain failure signifies the end of the human organism as a whole. Defenders of brain death typically assume without argument that the first claim is true and argue for the second by defending the “integrative unity” rationale. Yet (...) the integrative unity rationale has fallen on hard times. In this article, I give reasons for why we should think of ourselves as organisms, and why the “fundamental work” rationale put forward by the 2008 President’s Council is better than the integrative unity rationale, despite persistent objections to it. (shrink)

The Japanese Transplantation Law is unique among others in that it allows us to choose between "brain death" and "traditional death" as our death. In every country 20 to 40 % of the popularion doubts the idea of brain death. This paper reconsiders the concept, and reports the ongoing rivision process of the current law. Published in Hastings Center Report, 2001.

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve (...) when it was introduced. Here I plead for a different approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the philosophy of science approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as “irreversibility” and “functions”. (shrink)

In 1959 two French neurologists, Pierre Mollaret and Maurice Goullon, coined the term coma dépassé to designate a state beyond coma. In this state, patients are not only permanently unconscious; they lack the endogenous drive to breathe, as well as brainstem reflexes, indicating that most of their brain has ceased to function. Although legally recognized in many countries as a criterion for death, brain death has not been universally accepted by bioethicists, by the medical community, or (...) by the public. I this paper, I defend brain death as a biological concept. I challenge two assumptions in the brain death literature that have shaped the debate and have stood in the way of an argument for brain death as biological. First, I challenge the dualism established in the debate between the body and the brain. Second, I contest the emphasis on consciousness, which prevents the inclusion of psychological phenomena into a biological criterion of death. I propose that the term organism should apply both to the functioning of the body and the brain. I argue that the cessation of the organism as a whole should take into account three elements of integrated function. Those three elements are: 1) the loss of integrated bodily function; 2) the loss of psychophysical integration required for processing of external stimuli and those required for behavior; and, 3) the loss of integrated psychological function, such as memory, learning, attention, and so forth. The loss of those three elements of integrated function is death. (shrink)

Authors: Joseph M. Eble, John A. Di Camillo, Peter J. Colosi. --- NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release February 27, 2024 Contact: Joseph M. Eble, MD Corresponding author 919-667-5206 -/- The statement, Catholics United on Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action (HTML), was published on February 27, 2024. It was prepared by Joseph Eble, a physician and President of the Tulsa Guild of the Catholic Medical Association; John Di Camillo, an ethicist of The National Catholic Bioethics (...) Center; and Peter Colosi, a philosophy professor at Salve Regina University. -/- Catholic United explains that the criteria for brain death establish only partial loss of brain function. This is now abundantly clear based on scientific studies, a recent effort to lower the legal standard for death, and updated brain death guidelines issued in October 2023. -/- Catholics United bridges a divide among faithful Catholics about whether the concept of brain death aligns with Church teaching. Some Catholics hold that brain death represents true death when there is complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, often called whole brain death. Others hold that brain death does not represent true death. Since the existing criteria establish only partial loss of brain function, all the endorsers—whether they accept or reject whole brain death as true death—agree that “the current brain death criteria in widespread use do not provide moral (prudential) certainty of death.” -/- Catholics United calls on health care professionals and institutions to cease organ harvesting that relies on the inadequate criteria, noting that 70% of all donors are declared dead using brain death criteria. “Given the lack of moral certainty of death whenever the current brain death criteria are used,” the statement affirms, “a clear majority of vital organ donors can be presumed alive at the time of organ harvesting.” Since the Catholic Church forbids removing vital organs when this would kill the patient, “it is therefore wrong to remove organs from patients declared dead using these inadequate criteria.” . (shrink)

Since 1968, the irreversible loss of functioning of the whole brain, called brain death, is assimilated to individual’s death. The almost universal acceptance of this neurological criterion of death had decisive consequences for the contemporary medicine, such as the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in these patients and organ retrieval for transplantation. The new criterion was successfully accepted in part because the assimilation of brain death state to death was presented by medicine --and (...) acritically assumed by most of societies-- as a scientific and objective fact. Nevertheless, many people do not think that the patients suffering brain death are actually dead. We show here that those people are not necessarily wrong. It can be argued that, in fact, the justification of the neurological criterion is not scientific but moral. We outline the thesis that the problem surrounding the vital status of brain dead patients is due to a confusion between factual and normative questions. Furthermore, we claim that the donation of organs and the withdrawal of life-support could be ethically acceptable even if the patients suffering brain death are considered as alive. As an alternative to the dead donor rule, we propose a justification for organ donation of brain-dead patients based on the (moral) concepts of harm and consent : what truly justifies the procurement of organs on those patients is not that they are dead, but that they wish to donate their organs and that, since they have irreversibly lost their brain, they cannot be harmed. (shrink)

In modern hospitals in developed countries, deaths are determined usually after a prearranged schedule of resuscitative efforts. By default, death is diagnosed and determined after “full code” or after the failure of intensive resuscitation. In end-of-life contexts, however, various degrees of less-than-full resuscitation and sometimes no resuscitation are allowed after the consent and shared decision-making of the patient and/or surrogates. The determination of brain death is a unique exception in these contexts because such an end-of-life care plan (...) is usually not offered until after brain death is declared. This essay analyzes and critiques three arguments for denying the family and/or surrogate a chance to consent to or forego the diagnostic protocol of brain death and choose an alternative end-of-life plan. First, opponents of consent for the determination of brain death argue that presenting it as a selectable end-of-life plan undermines the integrity of death determination. The second argument is that it is inconsistent to allow foregoing the determination of brain death when the determination of circulatory death is non-negotiable. The third argument is that allowing the patient/surrogate to forego the determination of brain death would jeopardize the fair and appropriate utilization of intensive care resources and potentially reduce organ donor pools. After closer conceptual examinations of these three arguments, this essay concludes that these arguments are conceptually and morally problematic. It defends an alternative patient-centered end-of-life care plan based on consent and shared decision-making. (shrink)

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase “cessation of functions.” By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by (...) artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency. (shrink)

A brain death case is presented and reinterpreted using the narrative approach. In the case, two Japanese parents face a dilemma about whether to respect their daughter’s desire to donate organs even though, for them, it would mean literally killing their daughter. We argue that the ethical dilemma occurred because the parents were confronted with two conflicting narratives to which they felt a “narrative responsibility,” namely, the responsibility that drives us to tell, retell, and coauthor the (often unfinished) (...) narratives of loved ones. We suggest that moral dilemmas arise not only from conflicts between moral justifications but also from conflicts between narratives and human relationships. (shrink)

In this issue of the Report, James L. Bernat proposes an innovative and sophisticated distinction to justify the introduction of permanent cessation as a valid substitute standard for irreversible cessation in death determination. He differentiates two approaches to conceptualizing and determining death: the biological concept and the prevailing medical practice standard. While irreversibility is required by the biological concept, the weaker criterion of permanence, he claims, has always sufficed in the accepted standard medical practice to declare death. (...) Bernat argues that the medical practice standard may be acceptable on the ground that proving circulatory or brain permanence is sufficient to assure complete accuracy for death diagnosis. -/- The topic requires public deliberation: processes to survey people's opinions and mechanisms to channel their opinions into policy-making. What is at stake is the nature of our society. Do we want an expertocracy, in which an enlightened few design policies for the greater good of the majority and exploit the lack of public knowledge to achieve compliance? (shrink)

This paper addresses five questions: First, what is trajectory of Western liberal ethics and politics in defining life, rights and citizenship? Second, how will neuro-remediation and other technologies change the definition of death for the brain injured and the cryonically suspended? Third, will people always have to be dead to be cryonically suspended? Fourth, how will changing technologies and definitions of identity affect the status of people revived from brain injury and cryonic suspension? I propose that Western (...) liberal thought is working towards a natural end, a “telos.” In response to a variety of biotechnologies, law and public opinion in liberal democracies will be forced to make explicit that the rights of a living thing are determined by its level of consciousness. I discuss the way that technology will force three clarifications about the value of consciousness, at the beginning, the end and boundaries of human life. Sentience and personhood will become the basis of moral concern, regardless of its media. Just as human rights have become independent of race, gender and property, rights will become independent of being a breathing human being. But even as we make this transition, the cryonically preserved are still likely to be considered dead for pragmatic reasons, albeit with gradually increasing rights as technology makes their reanimation increasingly probable. I suggest that it could be acceptable to cryonicists that the frozen continue to be defined as dead if assisted suicide can be legalized. Under a liberal assisted suicide policy cryonicists might be allowed to carry out suspension before a declaration of death, preserving the maximum amount of neural information. The gradual redefinition of life and personal identity in terms of psychological continuity will also have consequences for the legal status of the reanimated. If, due to information loss, the reanimated do not meet a threshold of psychological continuity, they may be considered new persons. Cryonicists may therefore wish to specify ahead of time whether they are still interested in being reanimated if pre-animation assessment suggests that the result will not meet the necessary threshold of continuity. Finally, I touch on the way that neural technology will fundamentally problematize the separate, autonomous self on which liberal democratic values are based, leading to a legal and political Singularity. It is this looming neural Singularity that makes the proposed liberal democratic telos a final stage in humanistic thought, before it is superceded by something radically different. (shrink)

This chapter reviews fundamental ethical controversy surrounding the ongoing effort to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act in the United States. Instead of focusing on the process of the revision itself, the chapter explores the underlying ethical debate over brain death that has been ongoing for many decades and finally culminated in this revision. Three issues are focused: the requirement for consent and personal exemptions before applying brain death for the diagnosis of death; (...) redefining the areas of the brain that have ceased to function in the definition of brain death; and codifying the American Academy of Neurology as the authority to issue the standards of the diagnosis of brain death. The chapter concludes that allowing the personal choice of death determination gives a pragmatic compromise to the disputed definition and practice of diagnosing brain death. So long as all risks and imperfections of the diagnosis are accepted through the consenting process, there is nothing ethically objectionable to continuing the current practice of diagnosing brain death as a successful tool to facilitate heart-beating organ donation without violating the dead-donor rule. By contrast, precluding personal choice and imposing legal restrictions to consent and exemptions would further erode public trust. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:Organismal superposition holds that the same individual both is and is not an organism, as a consequence of organismal pluralism. When coupled with the assumption that death is the cessation of an organism, this entails that there is no unique answer as to whether brain death is biological death. This essay argues that concerns about organismal pluralism and superposition do not undermine a theory of biological death, nor entail any metaphysical indeterminacy about the biological vital (...) status of a brain-dead individual. (shrink)

This paper reconceptualizes death as an ontologically primary state that precedes and precipitates physiological collapse, thereby challenging the traditional linear model of “life → dying → death.” Rather than treating death as a clinical endpoint marked by the cessation of respiration, circulation, or brain activity, the paper argues that these physiological events are sequelae of an irreversible metaphysical transition—designated as τ_d—that initiates the dying process. Through interdisciplinary analysis spanning metaphysics, medical ethics, systems theory, and cellular biology, (...) the study proposes that death occurs prior to its observable markers and should be redefined as an epistemically inaccessible but ontologically generative rupture in systemic coherence. The model introduces two major theoretical frameworks: (1) the Ontological Priority Thesis, which posits that metaphysical death causes rather than follows biological failure, and (2) the Magnetism of Death Hypothesis, which theorizes that death may propagate across individuals in mass-fatality events through inductive metaphysical fields—much like magnetic alignment or neural firing. This field-based framework explains phenomena such as synchronized death in aviation disasters and proposes equations modeling vitality potential and metaphysical influence. The paper also extends the theory to “post-vital ontologies,” accounting for structures such as wood, keratinized skin, pus, and blood cells that function within or beyond living systems despite localized biological death. These anomalies reveal that metaphysical vitality is distributed and system-dependent rather than tissue-bound. The implications are far-reaching: redefining death in ontological terms invites revisions to clinical protocols, ethical standards, and philosophical perspectives on consciousness, personhood, and mortality. By integrating biological science with existential realism, this study offers a novel and coherent model for understanding death not as an end, but as a structural pivot in the architecture of life. (shrink)

What happens to the inner light of consciousness with the death of the individual body and brain? Reductive materialism assumes it simply fades to black. Others think of consciousness as indicating a continuation of self, a transformation, an awakening or even alternatives based on the quality of life experience. In this issue, speculation drawn from theoretic research are presented. -/- Table of Contents Epigraph: From “The Immortal”, Jorge Luis Borges iii Editor’s Introduction: I Killed a Squirrel the Other (...) Day, Gregory M. Nixon iv-xi Research Essays The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument Teed Rockwell 862-881 Death, Consciousness, and Phenomenology, Steve Bindeman 882-899 The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death, Bernardo Kastrup 900-909 Consciousness, a Cosmic Phenomenon—A Hypothesis, Eva Déli 910-930 The Theory of a Natural Afterlife: A Newfound, Real Possibility for What Awaits Us at Death, Bryon K. Ehlmann 931-950 Near-Death Cases Desegregating Non-Locality/Disembodiment via Quantum Mediated Consciousness: An Extended Version of the Cell-Soul Pathway, Contzen Pereira & J Shashi Kiran Reddy 951-968 On the Possible Existence of Quantum Consciousness After Brain Death, Massimo Pregnolato & Alfredo Pereira Jr. 969-991 Science and Postmortem Survival, Edward F. Kelly 992-1011 Explorations ISS Theory: Cosmic Consciousness, Self, and Life Beyond Death in a Hyperdimensional Physics, Chris H. Hardy 1012-1035 Does the Consciousness End, Remain Awake, or Transform After Death? Radivoj Stankovich (with Micho Durdevich) 1036-1050 Big Bang Spirituality, Life, and Death, Ken Bausch 1051-1063 Death, Consciousness and the Quantum Paradigm, Ronald Peter Glasberg 1064-1077 Living With Limits: The Continuum of Consciousness, Donald Brackett 1078-1098 Mysticism, Consciousness, Death, Mike Sosteric 1099-1118 What Dies? Eternalism and the Afterlife in William James, Jonathan Bricklin 1119-1140 Theories of Consciousness and Death: Does Consciousness End, Continue, Awaken, or Transform When the Body Dies? Roger Cook 1141-1153 It’s the Other Way Around: Matter is a Form of Consciousness and Death is the End of the Illusion of Life in the World, James P. Kowall & Pradeep B. Deshpande 1154-1208 Statements A Feminine Vision for the World Consciousness, & a New Outrageous Ontology, Lorna Green 1209-1217 The Mask of Eternity: The Quest for Immortality and the Afterlife, Iona Miller 1218-1228 Are We Really “such stuff as dreams are made on”? Chris Nunn 1229-1225 Is the Afterlife a Non-Question? (Let's Hope Not), Deepak Chopra 1226-1230 Life After Death? An Improbable Essay, Stuart Kauffman 1231-1236. (shrink)

This paper advances the Ontological Priority of Death Theory by introducing and formalizing the concept of metaphysical field collapse as a precursor and potential catalyst to biological death, particularly in the context of collective fatal events. We propose that metaphysical death (τ_d) constitutes a system-wide loss of ontological coherence, which occurs prior to observable biological sequelae such as cardiac arrest or brain death. Two models— Simultaneity and Inductive Cascade—are contrasted to explain how death may (...) propagate across individuals in high-fatality scenarios. Favoring the inductive model, we argue that metaphysical death spreads through ontological field interactions similar to magnetism or neural entrainment, leading to synchronized collapse in tightly coupled environments. A formalized vitality function and threshold equation are introduced to mathematically model this induction process. Expanding the ontological priority of death theory, we examine post- vital ontologies such as wood, bone, and keratinized skin, revealing that biological death does not necessarily imply metaphysical death, and vice versa. We further analyze uncoupling phenomena—where metaphysical and biological states diverge—and propose conditions under which metaphysical recovery may be possible, such as ontological distance, internal reassertion of coherence, or temporal decay. Special consideration is given tochildren, fetuses, and pregnant individuals, whose developmental and dual-field structures grant unique metaphysical resilience and stabilizing capacity in death-saturated environments. We develop the concept of metaphysical hygiene and propose architectural, ecological, and ontological field-lattice solutions to preserve coherence in vulnerable populations. Lastly, the paper explores the metaphysical implications of artificial entities, gametes, developmental stages, and ethical thresholds—culminating in a call for a new field of onto-physics: the formal study of non-material, life-derived coherence fields and their causal structures. (shrink)

Near-death experiences (NDEs), reported by individuals who nearly died but survived, are vivid conscious experiences occurring in near-death states, such as cardiac arrest, when the brain is expected to cease functioning. This paper examines recent developments in neuroimaging research aimed at characterising neural activity in the dying human brain to identify neural correlates of consciousness and NDEs. By combining historical epistemology and media studies, I situate this research within its historical context that I trace to the (...) mid-20th-century technological changes in identifying NDEs and determining death. I then analyse several pioneering studies that utilised clinical EEG recordings from deceased patients to investigate if neural activity in the dying human brain indicates conscious processing. Drawing on Hans- Jörg Rheinberger, I argue that these studies have established a new experimental system capable of formulating new questions and generating novel empirical findings about its object of inquiry. Finally, using Ludwig Jäger’s concept of transcriptivity, I discuss why the complex patterns of synchronised brain activity in dying individuals identified by these studies elude clear interpretation and stabilisation as neural markers of disconnected consciousnesses and NDEs. Apart from tracing how this emerging neuroimaging research introduces epistemic shifts in the medical investigation of neural underpinnings of NDEs, this paper also contrib- utes to broader discussions in the philosophy of science about the processes of knowledge production within exploratory experimental research. It does so by drawing attention to how such processes are configured in an emerging experimental system that is not yet capable of articulating its object of inquiry and by discussing why such a system can, despite its limitations, be regarded as epistemically productive. (shrink)

It has long been known that brain damage has important negative effects on one’s mental life and even eliminates one’s ability to have certain conscious experiences. It thus stands to reason that when all of one’s brain activity ceases upon death, consciousness is no longer possible and so neither is an afterlife. It seems clear that human consciousness is dependent upon functioning brains. This essay reviews some of the overall neurological evidence from brain damage studies and (...) concludes that our argument from brain damage has been vindicated by such overwhelming evidence. It also puts forth a more mature philosophical rationale against an afterlife and counters several replies to the argument. -/- 1. Philosophical Background -- 2. The Dependence of Consciousness on the Brain: Some Preliminary Evidence -- 3. Brain Damage, Lesion Studies, and the Localization of Mental Function - 3.1 Perception - 3.2 Awareness, Comprehension, and Recognition - 3.3 Memory - 3.4 Personality - 3.5 Language - 3.6 Emotion - 3.7 Decision-Making - 3.8 Social Cognition and Theory of Mind - 3.9 Moral Judgment and Empathy - 3.10 Neurological Disorders and Disease - 3.11 The Unity of Consciousness -- 4. Objections and Replies - 4.1 Souls, Minds, and Energy Fields - 4.2 The Instrument Theory - 4.3 The Embodied Soul Alone is Affected -- 5. Conclusion. (shrink)

This discussion note aims to address the two points which Lizza raises regarding my critique of his paper “Defining Death: Beyond Biology,” namely that I mistakenly attribute a Lockean view to his ‘higher brain death’ position and that, with respect to the ‘brain death’ controversy, both the notions of the organism as a whole and somatic integration are unclear and vague. First, it is known from the writings of constitutionalist scholars that the constitution view of (...) human persons, a theory which Lizza also holds, has its roots in John Locke’s thought. Second, contrary to Lizza’s claims, the notions of the organism as a whole and somatic integration are both more than adequately described in the biomedical and biophilosophical literature. (shrink)

In this paper, I would like to argue that brain-dead small children have a natural right not to be invaded by other people even if their organs can save the lives of other suffering patients. My basic idea is that growing human beings have the right to grow in the form of wholeness, and dying human beings also have the right to die in the form of wholeness; in other words, they have the right to be protected from outside (...) invasion, unless they have declared their wish to abandon that right beforehand. I call this the principle of wholeness. Natural rights, which were discussed by Hobbes and Locke in the 17th century, have to be extended to include the right to grow and die in the form of wholeness in the age of scientific civilization, where peripheral human lives are being threatened by aggressive biomedicine and other advanced technologies. (shrink)

The questions concerning “who we are”, “where we go to”, and “where we come from”, preoccupied the humanity from immemorial times. During the last few decades, with the accelerated improvement of the investigation methods and of the advanced successful interventions allowing the life salvation, there have been reported some attempts to correlate the psychic phenomena with the body status by the recuperation, analysis and explanation of the symptoms recorded during the near-death experiences. Such special situations, in which the heart (...) and the brain, the support of mental activities, cease their activity, has become a fundamental tool to investigate the consciousness associated phenomena during the arrest status of the fundamental processes of the life. The fundamental question actually is whether consciousness really continues to exist even if the body has ceased its function by stopping the heartbeat and brain support activities [1,2]. An answer to such a question goes toward even further questions: can there be “life” beyond the death [3]? This exciting question includes also several aspects: what is consciousness and which is its nature [4]? Could consciousness exist as a disembodied entity? To answer these fundamental questions of existence, the collaboration of several disciplines such as neurology, psychology, medicine, biology, pharmacology and also physics, to call only the most important of them, is necessary, the geriatrics finding suitable responses within the multidisciplinary researches to its various questions related to the life prolongation and the improvement of the life quality. Within such a context, it was recently developed an informational model of consciousness, which can offer response to the above questions, based on the last discoveries of the quantum physics and cosmology [4,5]. (shrink)

The only processes that could correlate to awareness thatgo on after brain-death are quantum processes. These processes contain information. But in quantum mechanics information is never lost. Therefore this information goes on after death and the awareness will still be correlated to it. Therefore awareness goes on after death.

A broad pattern of correlations between mechanisms of brain function impairment and self-transcendence is shown. The pattern includes such mechanisms as cerebral hypoxia, physiological stress, transcranial magnetic stimulation, trance-induced physiological effects, the action of psychoactive substances and even physical trauma to the brain. In all these cases, subjects report self-transcending experiences o en described as ‘mystical’ and ‘awareness-expanding,’ as well as self-transcending skills o en described as ‘savant.’ The idea that these correlations could be rather trivially accounted for (...) on the basis of disruptions to inhibitory neural processes is reviewed and shown to be implausible. Instead, this paper suggests that an as-of-yet unrecognized causal principle underlying the entire pattern might be at work, whose further elucidation through systematic research could hold great promise. (shrink)

Introduction: the objective of the investigation is to analyse the informational operating-mode of the brain and to extract conclusions on the structure of the informational system of the human body and consciousness. Analysis: the mechanisms and processes of the transmission of information in the body both by electrical and non-electrical ways are analysed in order to unify the informational concepts and to identify the specific essential requirements supporting the life. It is shown that the electrical transmission can be described (...) by typical YES/NO (all or nothing) binary units as defined by the information science, while the inter and intra cell communication, including within the synaptic junction, by mechanisms of embodiment/disembodiment of information. The virtual received or operated information can be integrated in the cells as matter-related information, with a maximum level of integration as genetically codified info. Therefore, in terms of information, the human appears as a reactive system changing information with the environment and between inner informational subsystems which are: the centre of acquisition and storing of information (acquired data), the centre of decision and command (decision), the info-emotional system (emotions), the maintenance informational system (matter absorption/desorption/distribution), the genetic transmission system (reproduction) and info-genetic generator (genetically assisted body evolution). The dedicated areas and components of the brain are correlated with such systems and their functions are specified. Result: the corresponding cognitive centres projected into consciousness are defined and described according to their specific functions. The cognitive centres, suggestively named to appropriately include their main characteristics are detected at the conscious level respectively as: memory, decisional operation (attitude), emotional state, power/energy status and health, associativity and offspring formation, inherited predispositions, skills and mentality. The near-death and religious experiences can be explained by an Info-Connection pole. Conclusion: consciousness could be fully described and understood in informational terms. (shrink)

The dead donor rule justifies current practice in organ procurement for transplantation and states that organ donors must be dead prior to donation. The majority of organ donors are diagnosed as having suffered brain death and hence are declared dead by neurological criteria. However, a significant amount of unrest in both the philosophical and the medical literature has surfaced since this practice began forty years ago. I argue that, first, declaring death by neurological criteria is both unreliable (...) and unjustified but further, the ethical principles which themselves justify the dead donor rule are better served by abandoning that rule and instead allowing individuals who have suffered severe and irreversible brain damage to become organ donors, even though they are not yet dead and even though the removal of their organs would be the proximal cause of death. (shrink)

Laura Specker Sullivan (2022) makes a fairly compelling case for the value of the perspectives of Buddhist practitioners in neuroethics. In this study, Tibetan Buddhist monks have been asked, among other things, whether consciousness, in brain-injured patients in a minimally conscious state, entails a duty to preserve life. In our view, some of the participants’ responses could be used to inform the bioethical debate on death determination.

Enhancement technologies may someday grant us capacities far beyond what we now consider humanly possible. Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg suggest that we might survive the deaths of our physical bodies by living as computer emulations.­­ In 2008, they issued a report, or “roadmap,” from a conference where experts in all relevant fields collaborated to determine the path to “whole brain emulation.” Advancing this technology could also aid philosophical research. Their “roadmap” defends certain philosophical assumptions required for this technology’s (...) success, so by determining the reasons why it succeeds or fails, we can obtain empirical data for philosophical debates regarding our mind and selfhood. The scope ranges widely, so I merely survey some possibilities, namely, I argue that this technology could help us determine (1) if the mind is an emergent phenomenon, (2) if analog technology is necessary for brain emulation, and (3) if neural randomness is so wild that a complete emulation is impossible. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is an area of computer science that emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines or software that work and reacts like humans, some of the computer activities with artificial intelligence are designed to include speech, recognition, learning, planning and problem solving. Deep learning is a collection of algorithms used in machine learning, it is part of a broad family of methods used for machine learning that are based on learning representations of data. Deep learning is used as a (...) technique to produce brain tumor detection and classification models using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) imaging for rapid and easy detection and identification of brain tumor. In this thesis, some ways and mechanisms will be reviewed to use deep learning techniques to produce a model for brain tumor detection. The goal is to find a good and effective way to detect brain tumor based on MRI to help the brain doctor in making decisions easily, accurately and rapidly. A recent report by the World Health Organization in February 2018 showed that the death rate from brain cancer or central nervous system (CNS) is the highest in the Asian continent. It is important to detect cancer early so that many of these lives can be saved. The model has been designed and implemented, including a dataset which consist of 10,000 images for brain tumor detection through the use of Deep learning algorithms based on neural networks. For testing, we have used our model, Inception, VGG16, MobileNet and ResNet models. The f-score accuracy we got for each model was as follows: Our model was 98.28, VGG16 was 99.86%, ResNet50 was 98.14%, MobileNet was 88,98%, and InceptionV3 was 99.88%. (shrink)

A novel method of organ donation after circulatory death called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) could mitigate the organ shortage crisis and lead to superior outcomes for organ recipients. In NRP, following a pronouncement of death by circulatory criteria, arteries leading to the brain are occluded and abdominal circulation is reinitiated in situ. A prominent objection to NRP maintains that it kills the donor since the arterial occlusion prevents blood from reaching the brain after circulation is reinitiated. (...) Proponents of this objection recommend that transplant surgeons use normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) instead of NRP. In NMP, organs are removed from the donor’s body and perfused by machines using nutrient-enriched donor blood following the circulatory determination of death. Here I argue that if NRP kills the donor, then so does NMP. But I argue that features of NMP that clear the practice of the charge of impermissible homicide are also present in NRP. Like NMP, NRP at most preemptively causes the donor to die at the same time he would have died otherwise. It does not hasten death. (shrink)

To make educated guesses about what happens to consciousness upon bodily death, one has to have some understanding of the relationship between body and consciousness during life. This relationship, of course, reflects an ontology. In this brief essay, the tenability of both the physicalist and dualist ontologies will be assessed in view of recent experimental results in physics. The alternative ontology of idealism will then be discussed, which not only can be reconciled with the available empirical evidence, but also (...) overcomes the lack of parsimony and limited explanatory power of physicalism and dualism. Idealism elegantly explains the basic facts of reality, such as (a) the fact that brain activity correlates with experience, (b) the fact that we all seem to share the same world, and (c) the fact that we can’t change the laws of nature at will. If idealism is correct, the implication is that, instead of disappearing, conscious inner life expands upon bodily death, a prediction that finds circumstantial but significant confirmation in reports of near-death experiences and psychedelic trances, both of which can be construed as glimpses into the early stages of the death process. (shrink)

This thesis attempts to address the philosophical implications of the N, N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) research of Dr. Rick Strassman. Strassman concludes that the psychedelic properties of DMT represent a proper biological starting point for discussing spiritual and near-death experiences. My research attempts to incorporate philosophical elements from the philosophy of mind and philosophy of religion/mysticism to give an accurate account of some of the philosophical issues worth exploring for future research. One of the essential patterns in this thesis is to (...) trace the research and conclusions of Strassman, compare them with the philosophical issues in the contemporary philosophy of mind and to address the problems of spiritual qualia and mystical experience. Part of the issue stems from understanding a theoneurological (brain mediated prophetic/spiritual communication) account for spiritual experiences within the framework of naturalism/supernaturalism philosophy. Here, I decipher the problems of qualitative distinctions amongst spiritual and nonspiritual experiences and how consciousness plays an essential role in this process. (shrink)

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, including the mind. One argument against physicalism appeals to neardeath experiences, conscious experiences during episodes, such as cardiac arrest, when one's normal brain functions are severely impaired. The core contention is that NDEs cannot be physically explained, and so we have reason to appeal to the non-physical in explaining them. In this paper, we consider in detail a recent article by Pim van Lommel in which he appeals to NDEs in arguing (...) against physicalism and in favour of an alternative conception of the mind as non-localized and immaterial. Our main contentions are, first, that it is not clear that physicalism cannot accommodate the phenomena of NDEs and, second, that it is not obvious how the conception of the mind as non-localized and immaterial is supposed to help. (shrink)

This paper challenges the conventional view that consciousness is solely a product of the brain. Instead, it proposes that consciousness originates from an intrinsic property of the soul, which interacts with the brain as a processing mechanism. By integrating perspectives from neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind, the paper explores the limitations of brain-based consciousness models and offers a novel perspective on the role of awareness. Various studies on near-death experiences (NDEs), neural correlates of consciousness (...) (NCCs), and philosophical theories such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Cartesian dualism are examined to support this hypothesis. The implications of this perspective for understanding self-awareness, memory, and higher cognitive functions are also discussed. (shrink)

Looking to Scripture through the eyes of contemporary medical experience, I analyze the meaning of the criteria used for determining death, specifically in the light of Jesus’ final moments and the resurrection of the Shunammite’s son in 2 Kings, chapter 4. I argue that four theses are consistent with, and informed by, these passages that can help guide Christian belief and decision-making about how death is determined in the clinical context: (1) death is neither permanent nor irreversible; (...) (2) something like the “brain dead” state is, at best, a confounding state that requires one to “pace and pray” or let go; (3) that the case for determining death by neurologic criteria depends on the “working togetherness” of the body's parts for the sake of impacting its environment; and (4) that the practice of neurologically-based death determination is a response to the problem of disaggregation of the human form into its organ systems that modern critical care medicine makes possible. I end with advice about how Christians might approach the debates over the law and practice even if they cannot come to a consensus. (shrink)

Traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death in children. Children with severe TBI are in need of neurointensive care where the goal is to prevent secondary brain injury by avoiding secondary insults. Monitoring of cerebral blood flow (CBF) and autoregulation in the injured brain is crucial. However, there are limited studies performed in children to investigate this. Current studies report on age dependent increase in CBF with narrow age range. Low initial CBF following TBI (...) has been correlated to poor outcome and may be more prevalent than hyperemia as previously suggested. Impaired cerebral pressure autoregulation is also detected and correlated with poor outcome but it remains to be elucidated if there is a causal relationship. Current studies are few and mainly based on small number of patients between the age of 0–18 years. Considering the changes of CBF and cerebral pressure autoregulation with increasing age, larger studies with more narrow age ranges and multimodality monitoring are required in order to generate data that can optimize the therapy and clinical management of children suffering TBI. (shrink)

What remains of us when we die? Are we just the sum of our neurons, or is there a deeper part of ourselves that holds the essence of who we are? This essay explores the Soul-Essence Memory Theory, proposing that human experience exists in two intertwined forms: the brain records facts and sensory details, while the soul preserves the emotional and moral essence of life. When we die, the brain’s detailed record fades, but the soul carries forward the (...) ethical and emotional imprint of our choices, feelings, and relationships. This perspective reimagines identity, memory, and the meaning of life, emphasizing compassion, integrity, and inner growth as the true legacy of human existence. Reflections on philosophical and spiritual traditions illuminate the universality of these ideas and invite a fresh understanding of life, death, and the continuity of the self. (shrink)

Scientific Perspectives on Life After Death, Heaven, and Hell -/- Introduction -/- The concepts of life after death, heaven, and hell have been central to human thought for thousands of years, often tied to religious and spiritual traditions. However, modern science seeks to understand these ideas through neuroscience, quantum physics, and cosmology. While traditional scientific views suggest that consciousness ceases at death, emerging theories propose that it may persist in ways not yet fully understood. This essay explores (...) the scientific explanations for life after death, the potential existence of heaven and hell, and how they may fit into our understanding of the universe. -/- 1. The Science of Life After Death -/- The question of what happens after death is deeply connected to the nature of consciousness. Is it purely a product of the brain, or does it exist independently? -/- Neuroscientific Perspective: The Brain as the Seat of Consciousness -/- Neuroscience generally holds that consciousness arises from neuronal activity in the brain. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases. -/- Near-Death Experiences (NDEs)—where people report floating above their bodies, seeing a tunnel of light, or meeting deceased loved ones—are often attributed to oxygen deprivation, neurotransmitter surges, or altered brain states. -/- Quantum Consciousness: Does Awareness Continue Beyond Death? -/- Physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff propose that consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules within brain cells. -/- If consciousness is quantum-based, it may not be limited to the body and could persist in the quantum field after death, providing a possible explanation for an afterlife. -/- Simulation Hypothesis & Digital Immortality -/- Some physicists suggest that the universe might be a simulation, meaning consciousness could be transferred or stored after death like data in a computer. -/- Advanced civilizations (Type III–V on the Kardashev scale) could potentially upload minds into artificial environments, creating an afterlife experience similar to religious beliefs. -/- 2. Scientific Explanations for Heaven and Hell -/- The traditional view of heaven and hell describes them as places of eternal reward or punishment. Science offers alternative explanations based on psychology, physics, and cosmic phenomena. -/- Heaven and Hell as Psychological States -/- Neuroscience suggests that heaven and hell might not be places but mental states. -/- Psychedelic substances like DMT (dimethyltryptamine) and psilocybin can induce extreme euphoria (heaven-like states) or terrifying hallucinations (hell-like experiences). -/- This suggests that the brain can generate experiences resembling religious descriptions of the afterlife. -/- Multiverse Theory: Heaven and Hell as Parallel Realities -/- Some physicists propose that we live in a multiverse—a reality where multiple dimensions or parallel universes exist. -/- If consciousness can transition between dimensions, then what some interpret as “heaven” or “hell” could be another level of existence rather than mere mythology. -/- Cosmological Perspective: Black Holes and the Afterlife -/- A black hole could be viewed as a “hellish” state, where time slows to infinity as one is stretched and crushed by gravity. -/- Conversely, a sufficiently advanced civilization (Type V) could create a simulated paradise, a form of engineered “heaven.” -/- 3. Can Science Ever Prove Life After Death? -/- Although science has not confirmed an afterlife, future discoveries might change our understanding: -/- 1. Neuroscience Advances: Brain scans and AI models may one day replicate consciousness, proving whether it can exist beyond death. -/- 2. Quantum Research: If consciousness is linked to quantum mechanics, experiments may detect its persistence after bodily death. -/- 3. Artificial Afterlives: Advanced civilizations may design digital heavens or hells, controlling consciousness beyond biological limits. -/- Conclusion -/- While traditional science suggests that life ends with death, emerging theories from quantum physics, information theory, and cosmology offer intriguing possibilities for an afterlife. Whether through quantum consciousness, multiverse theories, or digital immortality, science continues to explore questions once left to religion. If a Type V civilization exists, it might have the ability to finally answer the mystery of life after death and the existence of heaven and hell. Until then, these remain open questions at the intersection of science, philosophy, and faith. -/- . (shrink)

Introduction: The objective of this investigation is to analyse the informational circuits of the brain connections with the body from neurologic and neuroscience point of view, on the basis of the concepts of information promoted by the Informational Model of Consciousness. Analysis: Distinguishing between the virtual and matter-related information promoted by the Informational Model of Consciousness, the main specific features of consciousness are analyzed from the informational perspective, showing that the informational architecture of consciousness consists in seven groups of (...) specific activities, defined as cognitive centres, each of them with specific distinct tasks, but correlated each other: centre of acquisition and storing of information (memory), centre of decision and command (decision), centre of the emotional states (emotions), centre of the body maintenance (power and health), centre of the genetic elaboration/transmission (reproduction) and the info-genetic generator, inherited from the parents (predispositions, talents and skills). A special centre, dedicated to the connectivity with some extra-power properties of the mind is also introduced, assuring an intimate supra-sensitive detection of the world to explain the associated phenomena of the near-death experiences. Result: The activity of all these centres should be supported neurologically by the brain neuro-connectivity to the body and to external and internal info-signals. On the basis of the informational analysis, the neuro-connections of the brain regions associated to the main characteristics of the cognitive centres are highlighted, showing the anatomic and neuro-functional relation between the distinct components of the brain and the specific operating body regions. These connections describe in terms of information the brain-body neuro-activities as informational specific circuits, composed by the info-operational subsystems managed by the brain, and sensors, transducer and execution elements. Conclusion: The components and connections mind-body stipulated by the Informational Model of Consciousness are supported by the neurologic/neuroscience evidence. (shrink)

The Nature of Memory and Its Fate After Death 1. Biological Truth – Memory Ends with the Brain Memories are stored in the brain through neural connections made by electrical and chemical signals. When the brain dies—due to aging, trauma, or lack of oxygen—these neural networks break down. From a scientific and biological standpoint, personal memories, including even the most profound life experiences like traveling the world, cease to exist when the brain stops functioning. Conclusion: (...) In a physical sense, all memories are lost at death unless they have been shared or preserved externally. 2. Legacy View – Memory Lives On Indirectly While the brain no longer holds memory after death, experiences can still influence the world if they were expressed or shared during life. Memories can continue through: - Storytelling – Sharing personal experiences with others. - Tangible records – Writing, photos, videos, blogs, etc. - Influence on others – The impact made on people’s lives. Legacy is memory transferred into the minds and hearts of others. 3. Philosophical and Spiritual View – Does Memory Survive Death? Different spiritual and philosophical traditions offer alternative perspectives: -/- - Buddhism/Hinduism believe in karmic memory across lifetimes. - Christianity/Islam speak of an afterlife where a person’s actions and perhaps memories are judged or remembered. - Some theories of consciousness question whether memory is fully dependent on the physical brain or part of a broader universal field. There is no scientific proof that memory continues after death—but no absolute disproof either. Final Reflection While your personal memories, including even extraordinary achievements like visiting every country on Earth, may fade with the brain’s death, the meaning and impact of those memories can live on in the world. “Memory is impermanent—but meaning can be eternal if shared wisely.” Poem: When Memory Fades I’ve wandered far on distant lands, With oceans vast and desert sands, Each border crossed, each stranger's face, Now held in mind’s deep, quiet place. -/- The stories told, the skies I knew, The cultures rich, the morning dew, Are footprints in a fragile brain, Soon washed away by death’s own rain. -/- For when the mind no longer wakes, The path I walked, the roads, the lakes, Shall fade like stars in morning’s light, Extinguished in the endless night. -/- But if my words found other ears, And if my dreams outlived the years, Then in one heart, or maybe two, A piece of me may journey through. -/- Though neurons die and flesh decays, The meaning held in life’s brief days, May echo softly, ripple wide, As seeds of truth the winds may guide. -/- So let me live, and love, and tell, Before I reach the final bell. For though my memory shall be gone, My message still may carry on. -/- . (shrink)

The Concept of Human Spirit After Death in a Type III Civilization -/- Introduction -/- The idea of life after death has long been a central concern of philosophy, religion, and science. In today’s world, discussions about the human spirit often remain in the realm of faith and speculation. However, in a Type III civilization—one that has harnessed the energy of an entire galaxy—such questions might no longer be mysterious. With access to advanced technology, deep understanding of consciousness, (...) and mastery over the laws of physics, a Type III civilization could fundamentally transform our understanding of the human spirit after death. Would death still exist in such a civilization, or would it become a choice? Could consciousness continue beyond physical existence? This essay explores how a hyper-advanced society might handle the concept of the human spirit in ways that align with both scientific progress and the universal law of balance in nature. -/- The Scientific Resurrection of Consciousness -/- A Type III civilization would likely possess a complete understanding of consciousness, allowing them to preserve, reconstruct, or even transfer human awareness beyond physical death. If consciousness is a pattern of information, then it could be digitally stored, uploaded, or reinserted into new biological or artificial forms. This would mean that death, as we know it, could be overcome through advanced neuroscience, computation, and physics. -/- For example, through brain scanning and neural mapping, a civilization of this level might extract and preserve an individual’s entire consciousness, including memories, thoughts, and personality. This preserved consciousness could then be placed into a synthetic body, a digital simulation, or even a fully biological clone, allowing individuals to continue their existence indefinitely. This would make the afterlife a technological reality rather than a spiritual mystery. -/- However, if the universal law of balance in nature dictates that all systems must have limits to maintain stability, then a Type III civilization may choose not to completely eliminate death. Instead, they may regulate immortality, ensuring that consciousness does not infinitely persist without purpose. -/- Quantum Consciousness and Energy-Based Spirits -/- Some modern theories, such as quantum consciousness, suggest that the human mind is not simply a product of brain activity but also interacts with quantum fields. If this is true, then a Type III civilization could manipulate these fields, allowing consciousness to exist beyond the body as an energy-based form. -/- In this model, the “spirit” would not be a supernatural entity but a complex quantum state that continues to exist in a higher-dimensional structure of the universe. The civilization could develop methods to interact with and even re-integrate these energy-based consciousnesses into new physical forms or other dimensions of existence. -/- This idea aligns with the principle that all systems must follow natural balance—even if consciousness exists after death, it would not violate the fundamental laws of physics but instead be an integrated part of the universal structure. -/- Multiverse and Simulation Theories: Death as a Transition -/- A Type III civilization might discover that reality itself is a simulation or part of a multiverse. If true, death could be nothing more than a transfer of consciousness to another layer of reality. Rather than an end, death could be a shift to an alternative existence. -/- In this case, the civilization might have the ability to manipulate these transitions, offering individuals the choice of: -/- 1. Returning to a new life in a simulated or real universe -/- 2. Existing as a digital being within an advanced AI system -/- 3. Transcending to a higher-dimensional existence that aligns with natural laws -/- If the universe is a vast, interconnected system, then death could be seen as a necessary cycle that maintains balance, preventing stagnation and allowing renewal at cosmic scales. A Type III civilization might control and regulate these cycles to ensure harmony. -/- Spiritual Evolution and Cosmic Integration -/- Beyond scientific solutions, a Type III civilization may evolve to understand that consciousness naturally integrates with the cosmos after death. If the universal law of balance applies at all levels, then consciousness would follow this principle, transitioning in a way that contributes to the greater equilibrium of the galaxy. -/- Instead of preventing death entirely, such a civilization might develop a controlled process of spiritual evolution, where individuals choose their next phase of existence in alignment with universal balance. This could include: -/- Becoming part of the galactic consciousness, merging with a larger intelligence. -/- Returning to physical existence in another form to maintain equilibrium. -/- Moving into higher-dimensional realities where new experiences unfold. -/- This approach ensures that consciousness does not simply persist indefinitely in a stagnant form but contributes to the evolution of the universe itself. -/- Would a Type III Civilization Eliminate Death? -/- One of the most profound questions is whether a Type III civilization would abolish death entirely. While they could likely eliminate involuntary death, natural balance may still require cycles of renewal and transformation. -/- If death serves a functional role in maintaining cosmic order, then a highly advanced society would respect this law rather than override it. They might create controlled transitions where beings evolve beyond their previous states without disrupting universal harmony. -/- A civilization that aligns with your universal formula—where decision-making follows the natural law of balance—would recognize that immortality without purpose leads to instability. Instead of avoiding death altogether, they might ensure that life, death, and transformation exist as part of a greater cosmic design. -/- Conclusion -/- In a Type III civilization, the concept of the human spirit after death would no longer be a mystery. Whether through scientific resurrection, quantum consciousness, multiversal transitions, or spiritual evolution, such a society would fundamentally reshape how death is experienced. However, if the universal law of balance is truly fundamental, then death might still serve a necessary role in maintaining cosmic equilibrium. Rather than erasing death, a Type III civilization may redefine it as a transition into new forms of existence, ensuring that consciousness remains in harmony with the universe. -/- . (shrink)

Bioethics, neuroscience, medicine are contributing to a debate on the definition and criteria of death. This topic is very controversial, and it demonstrates clashing views on the meaning of human life and death. Official medical and legal positions agree upon a biological definition of death as irreversible cessation of integrated functioning of the organism as a whole, and whole-brain criterion to ascertain death. These positions have to face many criticisms: some scholars speak of logical and (...) practical inconsistency, some others of invalid scientific theory about the supreme integrator. In this paper some criticisms are exposed and discussed in order to reconstruct the state of the art in bioethical debate. (shrink)

Attempts to reproduce animateness using appliances generates a paradox that provides a new view to life and death, that differs from both religious and atheistic visions.

Feminist bioethicists of a variety of persuasions discuss the 2013 case of Marlise Munoz, a pregnant woman whose medical care was in dispute after she became brain dead.

Philosophers of technology have identified various mechanisms through which technology can change moral norms, values, beliefs and practices. Danaher and Sætra ( 2023 ) offer a useful systematization of these mechanisms, with no claim to being exhaustive. We contribute to their work by analyzing how the mediating role of moral concepts fits into this scheme. First, we point out that concepts mediate the moral effects of technological changes, a process we call conceptual mediation. We illustrate this with the concepts of (...) ‘brain death’ and ‘reproductive autonomy’, whose moral implications crystallized in the interplay with new medical technologies. Subsequently, we argue that conceptual mediation is best understood as a type of second-order mediation, which channels the moral implications of the first-order technological mediations identified by Danaher and Sætra (decisional, relational, perceptual). We conclude that second-order mediation plays a central and underappreciated role in processes of technomoral change. (shrink)

The classification of preserved hypothalamic activity in brain death and brainstem death as functional or non-functional has become a subject of debate. While proponents of the neurological criterion claim that these activities lack functional significance (Shemie et al. 2014), Nair-Collins and Joffe (2023) argue for their functional physiological role. However, the interpretation of the term "function" within the medico-legal framework, where death is characterized by the irreversible cessation of all brain functions, remains unclear. -/- My (...) intention here is not to engage in a debate over the validity of different viewpoints regarding the functional significance of preserved activities in the hypothalamus or the heart. Rather, I aim to highlight the critical importance of exploring and defining the concept of function in medicine, which currently lacks clarity. My point is that, whatever our position in the brain death debate, reaching a consensus on this conceptual matter would minimize misunderstandings and establish a robust foundation for further insightful analysis. (shrink)

I criteri neurologici per accertare il decesso, da impiegare in alternativa a quelli cardiorespiratori se il paziente ha subìto lesioni cerebrali e si trova collegato alle apparecchiature per la ventilazione artificiale, sono entrati nell’uso comune della pratica medica occidentale da circa quarant’anni ed il consenso di cui essi godono nella comunità scientifica sembra, a prima vista, essere ancora oggi molto solido. Si diceva a prima vista, perché se si esamina con attenzione la letteratura dal 1992 ad oggi, si possono scoprire (...) i crescenti numeri del dissenso: ripensamenti e critiche provengono soprattutto da esperti di area medico-biologica, che associano le loro voci a quelle di filosofi, teologi, studiosi di etica. I motivi del dissenso sono molteplici, e l’ampia letteratura che li documenta riguarda la teoria scientifica posta a fondamento dei criteri neurologici, ed evidenzia le contraddizioni, teoriche ed applicative, derivanti dall’uso di quei criteri. (shrink)

Will I die? As a hypothesis, in my natural scientific understanding, the psyche, is nothing more than, and exclusively just some states of my living brain – I will die as a result of his death. -/- In presented answer, psyche – itself own immediate reality itself, that is – undoubted. -/- This work was performed in reality “in the first person” (“subjective reality”, “phenomenal consciousness”). To realize, how, what it is the reality of the “in the first (...) person” let’s imagine ourselves as an experimenter, who does not replace reality with reasoning about it. – Now for us, as experimenters, how (what it is) psychic is an immediate and undoubted reality. And the awareness of “I am” is a direct reality, and not knowledge about it, which is always doubtful. That is, in psychic reality, nothing prevents us from answering undoubtedly and definitively the question, asked by this psychic reality itself about itself. The author acts from the position of “being in reality – not going beyond its limits, for example, into philosophy” (philosophy, including methodology, is the replacement of reality itself with always dubious reasoning about reality) – explores phenomenal consciousness (“psychic”) directly and as an immediate reality. That is, this work is the mastery of psychic reality through subjective-psychical experimentation – don’t philosophize, but experiment! -/- For example, Descartes, introspectively experimenting in his own psyche reality with his own psyche, informed us about the immutability of the “mind” and proposed to understand this immutability as our own immortality: “the mind does not represent any combination of accidents, it is a pure substance, and although all its accidents are subject to change, it understands some things, it desires others or feels others, etc. – nevertheless, in itself it does not change; and as for the human body, it changes, if only because they are subject to a change in the shape of some of its parts. It follows from this that the body perishes very easily, while the mind, by its very nature, is immortal” (Декарт Р., p. 13). Note that, Descartes did not realize that he was immortal, but logically deduced his own immortality from the immutability of the mind. However, Descartes’ unchanging “mind” itself is such that there is something to die. And in my natural scientific understanding, the immutability of the mind does not imply its immortality – it will die without changing in its subjective self-perception, while instantly fading away as a result of brain death. Psyche (psychical) – a designation of the fact that this is one’s own immediate reality (that is, undoubtedly) – how (what) I myself am immediately, undoubtedly, and that immediate reality of mine, how and through which I myself and everything in general for me there is, and which is exclusively the only one for me. It should be noted that while I am unconscious (brain injury or dreamless sleep), there is nothing at all. -/- But this does not mean that “I”, having completely gone into oblivion, I'll die. This does not exclude that, I will disappear completely into oblivion and does not exist, but (at the same time) “I” – am. So, let’s define immortality as the impossibility of dying because there is nothing to die (psychic, but is such that there is nothing to die – is immortal) and will make a conclusion important for this work: if I am, as psyche, exclusively only is such that there is something to die and nothing else, then, therefore, my death is not excluded. But am I like that? The idea of this work is that I, as a psyche can to manifest (reveal) and realize myself as such (I such), that there is nothing to die, but (at the same time) I – am. I will realize of myself as immortal – such that to die (to decease) nothing. In other words, if I will approach with a bias and, acting purposefully, will reveal the subjective reality “I (psyche) such is that to die (to decease) nothing, but I – am”, that is – I am immortal, that the hypothesis “I will die” will falsified and excluded. -/- To realize this in the work, it is proposed to use the subject-object model, shift the boundary of “I” to the pole of the subject and become objectless, manifesting (revealing) oneself as such that there is nothing to die. Therefore, the aim (goal) of the work – to realize: I – am, but such that there is to die (decease) nothing. To become objectless and wondering about the possibility to dying, as a result, or I will exclude the immortality of the manifested state, or I will manifest (will reveal) immortal undoubtedly and definitively. -/- At the same time, I, as a subject, am “a necessary pole of subject-object relations. … An object is what the activity of … a subject is directed at. … In fact, everything that exists can become an object. … it is important to keep in mind the fundamental fact that the object is always outside the subject, does not merge with it. This externality also takes place when the subject deals with the states of his own consciousness, his Self ... it is important to emphasize that the relation of the subject and the object is not the relation of two different worlds, but only two poles as part of some unity” (Лекторский В.А., p. 6-7). That is, everything that I find existing in myself, this (such) is as an object. “The subject always refers to all “objects”, but it can never become an object for itself” (Титлин Л.И., p. 23). “… you will not be able to see the seeing vision ...” (Титлин Л.И., p. 40), and in this model this implies the “limit” of the subject. As the limit of the subject, I am “objectless”. And, therefore, in its own pole the subject is “ideal” – in its (own) limit (as its own limit, its own limit), I do not exist for myself (non-existent). -/- Using the “fact of the mobility of the boundaries of the subject” (for example, Тхостов А.Ш., p. 16), I have the opportunity to “pull” the boundary of the “I” into myself and become my own limit. At the same time, it is necessary to realize and accept that “inside” the limit of the subject and behind – “beyond of the subject”, and in general the very “inside” and “behind” in this version – unreality. In such a subject limit, the required paradoxical subjective state is assumed – I exist and see, but at the same time I am such that I do not exist for myself, that is, I am, but (subjectively such that) there is nothing to die (“immortality”). -/- Accordingly, the following tasks are indicated in the experiment: 1. In the object-subject sphere of visual perception, shift (and shift) the boundary of “I” into oneself –» to run into one’s own limit and become one’s own limit (without thickness: without depth, without “from within” and without reverse side) –» 2. Having become your own limit, which in its own limit is, but for myself I do not exist (non-existent), realize: • Myself – I am and this is real; • Will I die? – or there is nothing to die, which of the options is to me, as a psyche (as itself the psychic “I”), is applicable: • or I am such that it is not impossible that I will die, and the realized state is not immortal; • or “I” am such that “I” – am (is reality), but such that myself “I” to die nothing, that is, my own immortality – I am immortal; • Is this real? -/- Instruction for reproducing the target result: sequence of actions and results in a subjective-psychic experiment (hereinafter referred to as SPE) -/- At a distance of 25-40 cm from the wall (so that the wall occupies the entire field of view or its overwhelming part), • Here and now, focus on your face: “I am” – reality (and not is the knowing about it). • In yourself step back and look out of yourself at this wall. • Without moving your head, cover the field of vision with your attention as wide as possible and at the same time perceive everything at once (all this) as a single whole. • Perceive a high and wide wall (option: look up at an angle of 135-150 degrees in front of you) in such a way that the space (volume) surveyed by you without turning your head is a closed asymmetrical “lens” • limited in a circle in the periphery of the field of view, • convex in you; You – the beholder, rearwards concave in self (“subject”) – which one of you are watching? • Without moving your head, perceive the field of view as a single whole –» • Into yourself “draw in” –» “backing away” –» step back from everything –» • lean back into yourself –» up to dead-end limit –» • become a dead end itself – a concave (reflector-like) limit-plane. • You – into yourself – backward concave – a perceiving visual screen (limit-dead end), plane –» • lean back and press –» • something in general somehow inside the dead-end plane and behind the dead-end plane, as well as “inside” and “behind”, “behind the dead-end plane” – unreality; • myself – a dead-end plane without thickness (depth), without “inside”, without a reverse side for oneself. • –» That is, as a psychic reality (what is it psychically) will I die? –» or • Something there is, and that is I will die (it is possible); or • I am such that there is nothing to die, but I – am. or • Subjective-psychic experiment is incomplete… • –» Realize that this is reality (realize the reality of it) and emphasize (answer). -/- As a result, “I” am, but there is nothing to die/not to die, that is, the hypothesis “I will die” is unrealistic. -/- Remarks -/- • Each completed SPE is completed with the target result: “I am such that there is nothing to die, but I – am”. And the that what I will die (not excluded) does not correspond to this, that is unreality and is excluded by this. • But I am not such that I will not die. The concepts “I will die/ I will not die” to me, as a psyche are not applicable. That is, I, as a psyche, is immortal, but I am not eternal (not eternal – endlessly lasting, such that there is something to last) – to last, to be eternal and to end there is nothing. This is “immortality”. • In the target result of this work, I – am, but such that there is nothing to die/not die (“immortality”). And such a “I” is not the Atman of the Hindu schools of Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Purva Mimamsa, which E.A. Torchinov. Since the “I” – psychic, and not a substance with the psyche as an attributes. • According to illusionism, what I am as a result of the experiment given in the work is an illusion. And the impression of immortality is a product of the brain. But in reality I am such that I will die (it is not excluded). However, it is necessary to realize that illusionism is a detached reasoning about the “I”, but not is the self itself. And to what I am (as psiche), reasoning and questions about the reality of the “I” (for example, question: am I really like this, what am I like as psyche?) and other expressing illusionism do not correspond. That is, subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), the illusionism of the “I” is unreality. Subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), this is undeniable and final. • Reasoning about what such a “I” is in this (mine) or not in this brain, as well as (for example, holding a real skull in my hands), questions like “how (or, but now where is it here) such “I” – how is it after brain death?” – To the fact that is such an “I” these questions do not correspond and is falsified by this. • After being unconscious, the impression remains that I'm is not and that there is nothing at all. That is, my “unconsciousness” is psychic indistinguishable from my non-existence. However, science has not shown, but and it is not excluded that before and after I exist physically (there is something to die), I still or I no longer exist, there is still or nothing to die as a soul, substance, or otherwise. But what I am in the target result of this work is what I – am, and not “died and already now or still unreality” and I am such that there is nothing to die, this is – reality. That is, I will die? – there is nothing (to die), but I – am (reality), even if I am not (don’t exist). Or I do not exist as something. • I am such that there is nothing to be and die, but I am. And subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), this immortality is – reality. But this reality eludes my rational explanation. -/- Conclusion -/- Will I die? – In the target result the I am, but at the same time I am such that there is nothing to die. That is, I am immortal, but at the same time, I am not eternal (“I” not something eternal (endlessly continuing)) – I am such that to be eternal there is nothing. And, if we accept the subjective (psychic, “first person”, in first person perspective) reality without trying to understand it rationally, then I am exactly like that – I realize that this is my undoubted nature. That is, “I will die / I will not die” is an unreality. Subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), it is undoubted and final. Despite the unscientific nature, this work is a way of mastering reality. The author would be grateful for the identified and shown unreality of the fact that the “I” – am, but such that there is nothing to die, and ideally, the awareness: “I will die (not excluded).” -/- Bibliography -/- Декарт Р., Размышления о первой философии //Декарт Р. Соч.: В 2 т. Т. 2. М., 1994. Лекторский В.А. Субъект в истории философии: проблемы и достижения // Методология и история психологии. 2010. Том 5. Выпуск 1. С. 5-18. Титлин Л.И. Проблема субъекта в индийской философии («Пудгалавинишчая» Васубандху) [Текст] / [Л. И. Титлин]; Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт философии Российской академии наук. – Москва: ОнтоПринт: Сделано-Сказано, 2018. – 361, [1] с. Тхостов A. Ш. Культурно-историческая патопсихология: монография, – М.: Канон+ РООИ «Реабилитация», 2020. – 320 с. Торчинов Е.А. «Словарик индуизма» (Дата написания: 2003; дата файла: 15.06.2007). Торчинов Е.А. Пути философии Востока и Запада: познание запредельного — СПб.: «Азбука-классика», «Петербургское Востоковедение», 2005. — 480 с. ISBN 5-352-01371-5 (Азбука-классика) ISBN 5-85803-258-3 (Петербургское Востоковедение). -/- Скончаюсь? – я бессмертен (как осознать бессмертие «от первого лица») -/- Скончаюсь? В качестве гипотезы в моем естественно-научном понимании психическое (каково психически), это не более чем, и исключительно только всего лишь некоторые состояния моего живого мозга – скончаюсь в результате его смерти. -/- В представленном ответе психическое – сама собственная непосредственная реальность, то есть, то, каково психически, это – несомненно. -/- Данная работа выполнена в реальности «первого лица» («субъективная реальность», «феноменальное сознание»). Чтобы осознать то, как, каково это, представим себя экспериментатором, который не подменяет реальность рассуждениями о ней. – Теперь для нас, как экспериментаторов, то, как (каково) психически, это непосредственная и несомненная реальность. И осознание «я есть», это непосредственная реальность, а не знание об этом, которое всегда сомнительно. То есть, в психической реальности, на вопрос, заданный самой этой психической реальностью самой себе о себе самой, нам ничто не запрещает ответить несомненно и окончательно. Автор действует с позиции «быть в реальности – не выходить за ее пределы, например, в философию» (философия, включая методологию, это подмена самой реальности всегда сомнительными рассуждениями о реальности) – исследует феноменальное сознание («психическое») непосредственно и в качестве непосредственной реальности. То есть, данная работа, это овладение психической реальностью посредством субъективно-психического экспериментирования – не философствуй, а экспериментируй! -/- Например Декарт, интроспективно экспериментируя в собственной психической реальности с собственным психическим, сообщил нам о неизменности «ума» и предложил эту неизменность понять в качестве нашего собственного бессмертия: «ум не представляет какого-то соединения акциденций, являет собой чистую субстанцию и, хотя все его акциденции подвержены изменению — он то понимает какие-то вещи, то желает другие или чувствует третьи и т.д.,— тем не менее сам по себе он не изменяется; а что касается тела человека, то оно изменяется хотя бы уже потому, что подвержены изменению формы некоторых его частей. Из этого следует, что тело весьма легко погибает, ум же по самой природе своей бессмертен» /Декарт Р., стр. 13. Заметим, Декарт не осознавал себя бессмертным, а логически вывел собственное бессмертие из неизменности ума. Однако, неизменный «ум» Декарта таков, что скончаться есть чему. А в моем естественно-научном понимании из неизменности ума не следует его бессмертие – он, не изменяясь в своем субъективном само-восприятии, при этом мгновенно угаснув в результате смерти мозга, скончается. Психически (психическое) – обозначение того, что это сама собственная непосредственная реальность (то есть – несомненно) – то, как (каково) я сам непосредственно, несомненно, и та моя непосредственная реальность, как и посредством чего я сам и всё вообще для меня есть, и которое для меня исключительно единственное. Следует заметить, что пока бываю без сознания (травма мозга или сон без сновидений), ничего и никак нет вообще. -/- Но это не значит, что «я» ушедши в небытие окончательно – скончаюсь. Этим не исключено, что таковой ушедший в небытие «я» не существую, но (при этом) есть. Итак, определим бессмертие, как невозможность скончаться потому, что скончаться нечему (например, если «умерший» психически есть, но уже таков, что скончаться больше нечему, то теперь он бессмертен) и сделаем важный для данной работы вывод: если психически я исключительно только таков, что скончаться есть чему и ни каков иначе, то, следовательно, то, что скончаюсь, это не исключено. Но таков ли я? Идея данной работы в том, что мне удастся проявить (выявить) и осознать себя таковым (я таков), что скончаться нечему, но (при этом) я есть. Иначе выражаясь, если я подойду предвзято и действуя целеустремленно, выявлю субъективную реальность «я есть, но таков, что скончаться нечему» – то смерть мне, как психическому несвойственна, то есть, я бессмертен – гипотеза возможности субъективно скончаться («я скончаюсь») будет фальсифицирована и исключена. -/- Чтобы это реализовать в работе предлагается воспользоваться субъект-объектной моделью, сдвинуть границу «я» в полюс субъекта и стать безобъектным, проявившись (выявившись) собой таковым, что скончаться нечему. Следовательно, цель работы – осознать: я таков, что есть, но скончаться нечему. Стать безобъектным и задаваясь вопросом о возможности скончаться, или исключу бессмертие проявленного состояния, или проявлюсь (выявлюсь) бессмертным несомненно и окончательно. -/- При этом, я, как субъект, являюсь «необходимым полюсом субъектно-объектных отношений. … Объект – то, на что направлена активность … субъекта. … В действительности объектом может стать все, что существует. … важно иметь в виду тот принципиальный факт, что объект всегда внеположен субъекту, не сливается с ним. Эта внеположность имеет место и тогда, когда субъект имеет дело с состояниями собственного сознания, своим Я … важно подчеркнуть, что отношение субъекта и объекта – это не отношение двух разных миров, а лишь двух полюсов в составе некоторого единства» /Лекторский В.А., стр. 6-7. То есть, всё, что нахожу в себе существующим, это (таковое) есть в качестве объекта. «Субъект – всегда относится ко всем «объектам», но он никогда не может стать объектом для самого себя» /Титлин Л.И., стр. 23. Иначе это выражая – «ты не сможешь увидеть видящего видение…» /Титлин Л.И., стр. 40, и в данной модели таковое предполагает «предел» субъекта. Как предел субъекта я «безобъектен». То есть, «идеален» – своим (собственным) пределом (в качестве собственного предела) самим для себя не существую (несуществующий). -/- Используя «факт подвижности границ субъекта» /например, Тхостов А.Ш., стр. 16, я имею возможность границу «я» в себя-назад «втянуть» и стать собственным пределом. При этом необходимо осознать и принять, что внутри предела субъекта и сзади – «за пределом субъекта», и вообще само «внутри» и «сзади» в этой модели – нереальность. Таким субъектным пределом предполагается требуемое парадоксальное субъективное состояние – я есть и вижу, но при этом я таков, что для себя не существую, то есть, я есть, но (психически таков, что) умереть нечему («бессмертие»). -/- Соответственно, в эксперименте обозначаются следующие задачи: 1. В объект-субъектной сфере зрительного восприятия сдвинуть (и сдвинув) границу «я» в себя-назад –» упереться в собственный предел и стать самим собственным пределом (без толщены: без глубины, без «внутри» и без обратной стороны) –» 2. Став собственным пределом, которым есть, но для себя не существую (несуществующий), осознать: • Себя – я есть и это реально; • Скончаюсь? – есть ли чему скончаться или скончаться нечему, какой из вариантов мне (как психическому «я») свойственен: • или я таков, что то, что скончаюсь не исключено, и реализованное состояние не бессмертно; • или я есть, но таков, что скончаться нечему, то есть, собственное бессмертие – я бессмертен; • Реальность ли это. -/- Инструкция воспроизведения целевого результата: последовательность действий и результатов в субъективно-психическом эксперименте (далее СПЭ) -/- На расстоянии 25-40 см от стены (так, чтобы стена занимала всё поле зрения или его подавляющую часть), • Здесь и сейчас сосредоточьтесь на своём лице: «я есть» – реальность (а не знание об этом). • В себе отстранитесь назад и смотрите из себя на эту стену. • Не двигая головой, охватите поле зрения вниманием предельно широко и одновременно всё сразу (всё это) воспримите единым целым. • Высокую и широкую стену (вариант: смотрите вверх под углом 135-150 градусов перед собой) воспримите так, что обозреваемое вами без поворота головы пространство (объем), это – ограниченная по окружности в периферии поля зрения замкнутая несимметричная «линза» • плоская с противоположной вам стороны • и выпуклая в вас; Вы – вогнутый в себя-назад смотрящий («субъект») – каков? – кто из вас сейчас на всё это смотрит? • Не двигая головой, поле зрения воспримите единым целым –» • В себя-назад «втянитесь» –» и «пятьтесь» –» «за мысли» и за всё вообще –» из этого всего назад вытесняясь –» от всего вообще взад отстранитесь –» • собой в себя-назад подайтесь и упершись в собственный (себя) задний к объектному обращённый (развернутый) тупиковый предел –» • станьте самим пределом-тупиком – в себя-назад вогнутой (рефлектор-подобной) пределом-плоскостью смотрящей – воспринимающим зрительным экраном –» станьте плоскостью-тупиком –» • «проскользните» по себе – плоскости-тупику и охватите вниманием целиком –» • собой – самим плоскостью-тупиком назад надавить, нажать –» • осознать: что-то как-то внутри плоскости-тупика и сзади за плоскостью-тупиком, и там вообще «что-то как-то», а также само «внутри» и «сзади», «за плоскостью-тупиком» и вообще «там» – нереальность; • самого себя – плоскости-тупика без толщины (глубины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны для себя нет. • –» То есть – в качестве психической реальности (каково психически) я скончаюсь? –» или • скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено). или • я таков, что скончаться нечему, но я есть. или • субъективно-психический эксперимент не завершён. • –» Осознайте, что это – реальность (осознать реальность этого) и подчеркните (ответ). -/- В результате я есть, но скончаться/не скончаться нечему, то есть гипотеза «скончаюсь» – нереальность. -/- Замечания -/- • Каждый завершённый СПЭ завершён целевым результатом: «я таков, что скончаться нечему, но я есть». И тому, каков я в результате СПЭ, то, что скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено) не соответствует, то есть нереальность и этим исключено. • То есть, я и не таков, что не скончаюсь. «Я скончаюсь/не скончаюсь» ко мне, как к психике, неприменимо. Иначе это выражая, тому, каков я, смерть несвойственна. То есть, я, как психика (психическое), бессмертен, но я не вечен (не вечный – бесконечно длящийся, таковой, что есть чему длиться) – длиться, быть вечным и не скончаться нечему. Таково «бессмертие». • В целевом результате данной работы я есть, но таков, что скончаться/не скончаться нечему («бессмертие»). И таковой «я» не Атман индуистских школ ньяя, вайшешика и пурва-миманса, о котором сообщает Е.А. Торчинов. Так как «я» психичен, а не субстанция с психическим в качестве атрибута. • Согласно иллюзионизму, то, каков я в результате данного в работе эксперимента, это иллюзия. И впечатление бессмертия, это порождение мозга. А реально я таков, что скончаюсь (не исключено). Однако, необходимо осознать, что иллюзионизм, это отстраненные рассуждения о «я», но не сам я непосредственно. И тому, каков я психически (каково психически), рассуждения и вопросы о реальности «я» (например, таков ли я реально, каков психически?) и другие выражающие иллюзионизм «я» не соответствуют. То есть, каково психически, иллюзионизм «я» – нереальность. Психически, это несомненно и окончательно. • Рассуждения о том, что таковой «я» в этом (моем) или не в этом мозге, а также (например, держа в руках реальный череп), вопросы, типа «а как же (или, но теперь где же здесь) таковой «я» – как это после смерти мозга?» тому, каков таковой «я» эти вопросы не соответствуют. • После пребывания без сознания остается впечатление, что без сознания меня нет и ничего никак нет вообще. То есть, моё «бессознание» психически неотличимо от моего несуществования (небытия). Однако, наукой не показано и не исключено то, что до и после того, как я есть физически (скончаться есть чему), меня ещё или уже нет, скончаться ещё или уже нечему в качестве души, субстанции или как-то иначе. Но, то, каков я в целевом результате данной работы, таковой я есть, а не «скончался и уже теперь или ещё нереальность» и я таков, что скончаться нечему – реален (реалия). То есть, скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но я есть, даже если меня нет (не существую). • Я таков, что быть и скончаться нечему, но я есть. И то, как (каково) психически, это бессмертие – реальность. Но эта реальность ускользает от моего рационального её объяснения. -/- Заключение -/- Скончаюсь? – в целевом результате я есть и вижу, но при этом я таков, что умереть (скончаться) нечему. То есть, я бессмертен, но при этом я не вечен (не нечто вечное (бесконечно длящееся)) – быть вечным нечему. И, если принять психическое реальностью не пытаясь понять это рационально, то я именно таков – осознаю, что такова моя несомненная для меня природа. То есть, «скончаюсь/не скончаюсь» – нереальность. Психически, это несомненно и окончательно. Несмотря на ненаучность, данная работа – способ овладения реальностью. Автор был бы признателен за выявленную и показанную нереальность целевого результата данной работы, а в идеале, за осознание: «скончаюсь (не исключено)». -/- Annex 2. The key essence of this work (only in Russian to convey the nuances without distortion) -/- Performed, expressed and transmitted initially by means of Russian, the native language of the author, and, in order to avoid distortions in the correspondence of the linguistic nuances of the reproduced subjective reality, it assumes an independent translation into the language of the experimenter by the experimenter himself in the process of reproducing the target result of this work. -/- «Я» скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но «Я» есть. Will “I” die (decease)? – to die (decease) nothing, but “I” am. -/- Заметить: • Выполнено, выражено и передано изначально посредством русского – родного для автора языка и, чтобы избежать искажений соответствия языковых нюансов воспроизводимой психической реальности, предполагается самостоятельный перевод на язык экспериментатора самим экспериментатором в процессе воспроизведения целевого результата данной работы. • В «кавычки» взяты слова и выражения, требующие «субъективного» приведения в соответствие психическому содержанию. Подготовка: • Вам потребуется уединённое место (там, где вас не отвлекут). • На первоначальном этапе понадобится некоторое (возможно длительное) время для того, чтобы усвоить предложенный алгоритм действий в психической реальности в процессе реализации и воспроизвести целевой результат впервые. • Возможно, результату поспособствует отклонение от предложенного алгоритма «психических действий», импровизация в направлении целевого результата. • В процессе эксперимента количество попыток не ограничено и затраченное на это время не имеет значения. Необходим исключительно только именно целевой результат. Реализация: • В уединении встать перед плоской широкой и высокой (достаточно большой, чтобы её границы были на периферии вашего поля зрения) стеной, например, покрытой однородной светлой (но не белой) керамической, не глянцевой (не отражающей на вас свет или отвлекающих внимание изображений, не дающей бликов) плиткой с лёгким текстурным рисунком (позволяющим глазам «зацепиться» за стену и отчётливо воспринимать перед собой поверхность, а не «утонуть» в однородном (монотонном) пространстве), на расстоянии 25-40 см от неё (так, чтобы стена занимала всё поле зрения или его подавляющую часть) –» • Скончаюсь (1)? – каково психически (психическое), в моем естественно-научном понимании – это (я) не более чем и исключительно только некоторые состояния функционирующего (живого) мозга – скончаюсь, как и уже скончался каждый умерший мозг – того каждого, кто скончался, как реальности (реального, реалии) (2) уже теперь нет окончательно. Теоретически, если психически я исключительно только таков, что скончаться есть чему и ни каков иначе, то, следовательно, что (я) скончаюсь, это не исключено. • Глядя на стену, здесь и сейчас сосредоточиться на своём лице (и осознать): «я есть» – реальность (а не знание об этом) –» • В себе «отстраниться» назад – смотрю из себя на эту стену –» • Не двигая головой, охватить поле зрения вниманием предельно широко (поднять (вздернуть) брови, если это расширит поле зрения) и одновременно всё сразу (всё это) воспринять единым целым –» • Высокую и широкую стену (вариант: смотреть вверх под углом 135-150 градусов перед собой) воспринять так, что обозреваемое без поворота головы пространство (объем), это – ограниченная по окружности в периферии поля зрения замкнутая несимметричная «линза» • плоская (ограниченная стеной) с противоположной мне стороны • и «выпуклая в меня» –» • Я – «вогнутый» в «себя-назад» смотрящий, каков? – кто из меня сейчас на всё это смотрит? –» • Не двигая головой, поле зрения воспринять единым целым –» • в себя-назад «втянуться» –» и «пятиться» –» «за мысли» и за всё вообще –» из этого всего назад «вытесняясь» –» от всего вообще «взад отстраниться» –» • «собой» в себя-назад «податься» и «упершись» в «собственный (себя) задний к объектному обращённый (развернутый)» «предел тупиковый» («тупо-уперто») –» • «стать» самим «пределом-тупиком» – «в себя-назад вогнутой (рефлектор-подобной)» «пределом-плоскостью» смотрящей – воспринимающим «зрительным экраном» –» стать «плоскостью-тупиком» –» • «проскользнуть» по себе – плоскости-тупику и охватить вниманием целиком –» • собой — самим плоскостью-тупиком «назад надавить, нажать»: • осознать: «что-то как-то внутри плоскости-тупика» и «сзади – за плоскостью-тупиком», и «там вообще» «что-то как-то», а также само «внутри» и «сзади», «за плоскостью-тупиком» и вообще «там» – нереальность; • самого себя – плоскости-тупика без толщины (глубины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны для себя нет –» Собой – плоскостью-тупиком: • без глубины (толщины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны таков, что скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено) –» • смотрю –» смотря –» «Непосредственно-психически» -/- Заметить: • Специфику используемых в данной работе слов (терминов), названий и выражений необходимо осознать в соответствии с (4.1.) (данный пункт смотрите ниже). • Необходимо от себя – (как) «смотрящего плоскости-тупика», такового, что скончаться есть чему, оттождествиться собой — «самим психическим» (каково психически) (3) –» • –» «отличить (4)» «Я» –» «Я-лик». • Отличив, и себя такового обозначая, но не имея в языке отличающего местоимения, именую «Я» (5). • «Соединённое-через-дефис-в-кавычках» реализовать и/или воспринять «одним-единым-целостным»; • Последовательность слов и знаков предполагает последовательность психических действий (алгоритм действий в собственном психическом); • Вопросительность слова, фразы или отдельной её, именно вопросительной части задаётся знаком «?» расположенным перед и после них. Требование к действию задаётся знаком «!» расположенным перед и после слова (фразы); • Субъективно-психический эксперимент завершён, если воспроизведен (4.1.), иначе субъективно-психический эксперимент не завершён. -/- Собой – плоскостью-тупиком … смотрю –» смотря –» -/- «Психически» (6) 1. ?кто? видит –» !отличить «Я»! –» 2. –» !«Я-видящий-лик»! –» 3. –» !«Я-лик»! –» 4. –» !«Я-ликом» всем «психически-назад-надавить(нажать)»: «Я» ?скончаюсь?! –» !«Я-ликом» всем «психически-назад-давить(жать)»: (4.1.) – нечему (7), но «Я» есть.! -/- Признательность: Согласно иллюзионизму, то, каков «Я» (как (каково) «скончаться нечему, но «Я» есть.»), реально, это не так (не таково). То есть, таковой «Я» нереален (нереальность), а реально – таков, что скончаюсь (не исключено). Однако, необходимо осознать, что это «отстраненные» от «Я» рассуждения о «Я», но не сам «Я» непосредственно. И тому, каков «Я» (как (каково) скончаться нечему, но «Я» есть.) таковое (рассуждения) не соответствует. То есть, эти рассуждения о «Я» – заблуждение. Это (как осознание) несомненно и окончательно. Не так? – за выявленную и показанную нереальность (того, что) «Скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но «Я» есть.», за показанную реальность того, что скончаться не исключено, а в идеале, за осознание: «скончаюсь (не исключено)» я был бы признателен. -/- (Сноски) (1) Именно «скончаюсь, скончался», то есть – как реальности (реального, реалии) нет окончательно. (2) Реалия, реально, реален, реальность, реальное – само то, что (каково это) непосредственно, как само таковое – само то, каково познаваемое и как-либо моделируемое вне его познания и иного (вообще) моделирования. То есть, само само-осознание себя реальностью, например, «я-реалия», «я есть» или «скончаться – нечему, но «Я» есть.» – реальность. То есть – нам ничто не запрещает ответить на вопрос «скончаюсь?» несомненно и окончательно. (3) Психически (психическое) – то, как (каково) я сам непосредственно, несомненно, и та моя непосредственная реальность, как и посредством чего я сам и всё вообще для меня есть, и которое для меня исключительно единственное. Следует заметить, что пока бываю без сознания (травма мозга или сон без сновидений), ничего и никак нет вообще. Также само обозначение того, что это сама собственная непосредственная реальность (то есть – несомненно). И чтобы её осознать, представьте себя экспериментатором, который не подменяет реальность рассуждениями о ней. – Теперь для вас, как экспериментатора, то, как (каково) психически, это – несомненно (непосредственная несомненная реальность). Не философствуй (не рассуждай, не моделируй её), а экспериментируй! (4) «Я-Лик» – специфическое выражение, соответствующее психическому в данный момент СПЭ. (5) «Я» – целевой (конечный, «предельный») и «ключевой» результат данной работы. «Я» в данной работе не склоняется, выделено полужирным подчеркнутым шрифтом и заключено в кавычки. (6) «Каково психически» – то, как (каково) «Я» сам непосредственно, несомненно – само «первое лицо» (субъект психического), а также обозначение принятия позиции «первого лица» и сообщения «от первого лица». (7) Пока я бываю без сознания («бессознание», например, сплю без сновидений), моего сознания нет (оно сведено на нет, угасло) – ничего и никак нет вообще (это моё абсолютное небытие) – (каково) психически, мне скончаться нечем. А в целевом результате данной работы, психически (то есть – непосредственно), «Я» таков, что скончаться не нечем, а именно нечему, но при этом «Я» есть. (shrink)

Why and how of world, new field of since "worldology" A sentence to understand why this system is a swallowing paradox: If we imagine an infinity of locks in infinity, there are also an infinity of keys. Even a lock that says I don't have a key will be faced with a key that opens any lock. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. (...) Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. Clarification on the Development and Evaluation of the Theory The core theoretical framework, concepts, and original metaphysical innovations presented in this work—including the foundational principles of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity), the 0=1=∞ root equivalence, the Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism, Worldology as a self-standing discipline, and the resolution of associated paradoxes—are entirely the product of the author’s independent philosophical reasoning and worldological inquiry. The author’s primary expertise resides in philosophy and worldology, not in the empirical natural or cognitive sciences. Scientific terminology and references (e.g., Default Mode Network, fMRI correlations, quantum field theory vacuum states) are employed exclusively to establish conceptual coherence and absence of contradiction with current empirical knowledge in those fields, serving an integrative rather than originary or empirically novel function. All quantitative coherence estimates (e.g., increases from 93.5% to 99.2%), evaluations of internal consistency, paradox dissolution assessments, and analyses of alignment with scientific findings have been independently conducted and estimated by various artificial intelligence models. These AI-derived metrics reflect objective analytical outputs based on the presented arguments and are not expressions of personal judgment or subjective opinion. This approach ensures methodological transparency, reinforces the non-dogmatic and self-improving character of the system, and maintains the theoretical claims at an experiential 50/50 level pending direct verification. Taha Givarian. (shrink)

Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) is a self-reinforcing metaphysical framework that absorbs critique, resolves paradoxes, and unifies all scales of reality under a single 0=1=∞ structure. It treats every scientific discipline as a local subsystem or probe into an underlying generative unity—physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, and others each describe limited aspects, while ∞–Unity provides a shared ontological background that integrates their insights without rigid absolutism -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various (...) artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. -/- Taha Givarian. (shrink)

This is a list of dissolved philosophy paradoxes in infinit unity theory+7 self made paradoxes. "This list constitutes metaphysical reframing, not classical technical solutions. Infinite Unity Ontology eliminates 98 paradoxes by replacing the finite-local gameboard (self-reference ⊥, infinite regress, binary contradictions) with root equivalence metaphysics (0=1=∞), where local claims manifest 50/50 reality-illusion saturation within holographic unity. Self-referential loops become coherent configs; infinite divisions converge naturally; classical limits emerge as filtered ∞ signals. No patches needed—paradoxes cease as problems within the new (...) ontological framework."Keywords: Infinite Unity, Root Equivalence, Holographic Ontology, Metaphysical Reframing, Paradigm Shift -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. -/- Taha Givarian. (shrink)