Art by smbc-comics

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

Pubmed Articles

Does Consciousness Disappear in Dreamless Sleep?

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

  • @duckington
    link
    English
    351 year ago

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

    • enkers
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      it’s just disconnected from motor control.

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

      • FaceDeer
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

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

    • pjhenry1216
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

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

      • @jarfil
        link
        11 year ago

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

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

        • pjhenry1216
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          it’s the irreversible stop of some activity.

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

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

          • @jarfil
            link
            11 year ago

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

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

            • pjhenry1216
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

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

              • @jarfil
                link
                11 year ago

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

                • pjhenry1216
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

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

                  • @jarfil
                    link
                    11 year ago

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

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

    • @nevemsenki
      link
      71 year ago

      Not even that sometimes. I’m told I can do some pretty mean kicks while I sleep.